I appreciate your analysis, but where are you getting all of your information from? I admit I don't know a lot about the tracks and costs, but I do know that the Acela goes much faster than 62 mph. The wikipedia page for Acela says that it goes at 86 mph. If you are correct in saying that limitations of the existing tracks would limit the speed to the speed of Acela, then that wouldn't be so bad in my opinion.

At points the Acela travels faster than 62, but those points are on upgraded tracks. Overall, from DC to Boston the Acela averages 62 MPH. (This takes the distance divided by the average time of travel...so it includes stops) In order for the Acela to travel faster it would have to upgrade from freight tracks.

I agree with other posters, the ROW with the turnpike would be fantastic. I think with the texas proposal one of the big cost of the plan was the funds needed to obtain the ROW, particularly with the East/West leg. So, just a guesstimate on my part, but I believe we could probably do true high speed on elevated tracks in the turnpike ROW for less than the 2.25B.

On another note, after speaking with a friend (over a few perfectly poured guiness) who is involved with the midwest city to downtown rail project, I am now convinced that commuter rail is a must for OKC (even if it must be tax subsidized for a decade or longer...and this is coming from an extreme capitalist). To me, the argument is simple...we know that competition for jobs and employment are fierce. In the future (ten years from now) most, if not all of the cities in our region (cities we compete against) will have light rail systems. As petroleum continues to rise (and it will) the existence of a successful commuter rail system will be an even greater incentive than what it is today, and will be 100% necessary in order to compete for new and existing jobs. We all know that cities live and die by the availability of employment. My only concern is that we do it right, top notch, first class, high speed, with 100% dependability (that way it has a chance to be successful without subsidies). BTW, I 100% agree with my friends analysis that if light rail is successful than the suburbs will be the slums 30 years from now. Suburbia is a way of life than cannot sustain itself in the decades to come (assuming an increased demand and limited supply of petroleum).

Okay. So no more federally funded roads. Oh, no more federally funded air transport system (ATC, Airports, etc). So I guess that only leaves a few seaports.

He's got a great point you just completely ignored. You don't PAY to get on a public road. You PAY to get on any and every train. If they can make money on a railroad, then someone private would have done it by now.

His point is that he doesn't like the idea of the government building something at a high price then having to continually support it with tax dollars. You can disagree with that, but don't act like he's an idiot for saying that.

He's got a great point you just completely ignored. You don't PAY to get on a public road. You PAY to get on any and every train. If they can make money on a railroad, then someone private would have done it by now.

His point is that he doesn't like the idea of the government building something at a high price then having to continually support it with tax dollars. You can disagree with that, but don't act like he's an idiot for saying that.

Well, he's got some point, but I think he's wrong.

The problem with railroads is that they require a huge monetary investment and only prove economically profitable after a very long lag time. The only way we were able to build the transcontinental railroad back in the 1800s was to create entirely new types of corporations (requiring changing the law), new types of loans, economic incentives, new bankruptcy laws, etc.

Railroads simply cost too much money for private companies to make a profit without some degree of government help. It's the same with other infrastructure. We see the same thing with roads, power plants, satellites, and similar structures.

I don't have a problem with federal funding of these items, because I want to live in a society where we have them. It might not be efficient, but it's the only way to get those things.

He's got a great point you just completely ignored. You don't PAY to get on a public road. You PAY to get on any and every train. If they can make money on a railroad, then someone private would have done it by now.

You don't pay to get on the road, you pay to put the fuel in your tank so that you CAN get on the road. You're paying in different places, but you're paying all the same.

His point is that he doesn't like the idea of the government building something at a high price then having to continually support it with tax dollars.

You mean like roads, for example?

He's got a great point you just completely ignored. You don't PAY to get on a public road. You PAY to get on any and every train. If they can make money on a railroad, then someone private would have done it by now.

His point is that he doesn't like the idea of the government building something at a high price then having to continually support it with tax dollars. You can disagree with that, but don't act like he's an idiot for saying that.

Everyone pretty much summed it up. You could argue you are paying to use the equipment and fuel of the train, airplane, etc to use those modes of transportation. Just like, as was stated, you pay for your car and fuel to get on the road.

So no, I didn't completely ignore the point. The problem with this county's rail network is that it is really inefficient. Growing up in the Great Lakes, the city I lived in had 4 trains through a day...2 to Chicago, 1 to Washington and 1 to New York. However, the time they rolled through? 3-5am. So scheduling needs to get fixed, and HSR will help a ton with that.

So if there is this feeling of not wanting the government building something at a high price and then having to support it - what about he national Air Traffic Control system? That is pretty much just a highway or railway in the sky...just no tracks or pavement. Sure we can probably privatize it, but are you going to be ready to pay a $50-100 service fee on every ticket to cover that cost? The airlines are out of money as is, that would kill them. However, in order for this economy and country to function, it would be nightmare to not have air service. Look at 9/11 with the air network shut down for a couple days. Tragedy and all yes was a huge hit, but the fact that there was no real fast way of travel across the country was a major hit. Trains were packed, but they don't really go anywhere that much faster than a car.

You can argue against having this project rolled out, and I'm sure people said the same thing to Eisenhower on his crazy over bloated huge massive spending on an Interstate System. However, if we want a real and viable network on high speed rail, and not some half-assed system, it is going to cost some big bucks. Though when that system does come online, even being a major aviaton buff, i'll be one of the first ones on it. Now just so it connects us back to the Midwest some how. : )

You can take the Heartland Flyer to Ft Worth and change to the Trinity Railway (commuter rail) to Dallas in the sames station. When you get to Union Station in downtown Dallas, change to Dart (again, in the same station), and get to a great deal of the city without much inconvenience.

The high-speed commuter rail works in synergy with the developing transit rail systems in their corresponding cities. The feed off each other.

I lived in a city with a variety of transit options all sharing stations. Streetcars, subways, commuter trains, buses, ferries, and even long-distance trains were all accesible from the same system. It almost made cars irrelevant.

Regarding the proposed high-speed rail map: My uneducated opinion is that medium-distance, heavily travelled routes would do really well. If the route is too short, people will opt for their cars. Too long, and they will opt for planes. I would propose routes such as:

New York-Boston
New York-Philadelphia
New York-Washington
Chicago-Detroit
Chicago-St Louis
Dallas-Houston
Dallas-San Antonio
Dallas-OKC (of course)
LA-Phoenix
LA-Las Vegas
LA-San Francisco
Seattle-Portland
Seattle-Vancouver

High-speed rail coming to Oklahoma?
by Janice Francis-Smith
The Journal Record
March 20, 2009


OKLAHOMA CITY – Only those who have been to Europe or Japan have seen what a real high-speed rail line can do, transportation officials told lawmakers on Thursday. But the federal government is putting up the money to make high-speed rail a reality in the U.S. – maybe even in Oklahoma.

Tulsa and Oklahoma City are the northernmost points on a proposed high-speed rail corridor extending down to Austin and San Antonio, Texas, which has already been approved by federal transportation officials. The U.S. Department of Transportation has approved about a dozen high-speed rail corridors around the country. But with costs of construction extending into the millions or billions for true high-speed rail, few of the projects have progressed beyond the beginning stages.

“No high-speed rail exists yet in the U.S.,” Gary Ridley, director of the Oklahoma Department of Transportation, told members of the House Transportation Committee on Thursday. “But there is potential.”
High-speed rail refers to passenger trains that operate at speeds exceeding 124 miles per hour. The closest thing to high-speed rail available in the U.S. today is Amtrak’s Acela service, running from Washington, D.C., to New York and north to Boston. The trip takes approximately two hours and 46 minutes at an average speed of 86 miles per hour – about half the speed of France’s TGV trains.

President Barack Obama has made a few public comments in support of high-speed rail for the U.S. as a means to ease travel congestion while reducing the nation’s dependence on oil, cutting pollution and creating jobs.
Included in the $787 billion stimulus plan Obama signed in February was $8 billion for high-speed rail projects across the country, available as grants to states issued on a competitive basis. By June, federal officials are expected to provide guidance to states on how to apply for the funds.

California is perceived to have an advantage in the competition, being the furthest along in the effort to build a high-speed rail line between San Francisco and Los Angeles. Voters in California have already agreed to commit millions in bond issues to the effort, building a rail line capable of handling speeds of more than 220 miles per hour.

The $8 billion could go quickly, given the high costs associated with building high-speed rail lines. The California project alone is estimated at $50 billion.
In Oklahoma, officials have often considered building passenger rail service to connect Oklahoma City and Tulsa. Consultant Jack Webb of Texas-based J. Webb and Associates said the Tulsa-Oklahoma City connection will one day be essential to a nationwide effort to connect major cities via rail lines. Other lines considered by both state and federal officials include links between Tulsa and Newton, Kan., and Oklahoma City through to Kansas City, Mo.

But before any lines can be seriously considered, four qualifiers must be met, said Ridley. The service in question must be convenient to users, dependable, affordable and subsidized.
A passenger rail line extending from Oklahoma City through Tulsa to Kansas City could be created relatively inexpensively by upgrading existing lines owned by the state, a process that would take five to seven years to complete, Ridley said. Trains would travel no more than 70 miles per hour, and with the delays of making stops and slowing for at-grade crossings, travel by train between Oklahoma City and Tulsa would be no faster than driving the distance along the Turner Turnpike.

A new, high-speed rail line could be constructed by extending the right of way for the turnpike, but the cost of such a project would require an investment of about $250 million, Ridley said.

i think it would be great for high speedfrom texas to okc area, to bad we cant get one that goes from okc directly to los angeles area

I'll believe it when I see it.

A train through the mountains would be an amazing trip from here. I always wanted to take that ride through Canada, some day. Either way, HSR would likely be much cheaper than air travel, and definitely a hot ticket for those of us that want to head down to Texas for the weekend or some other quick get away. Not to mention the increased attraction of business travel when you link some major business destinations. OKC to Dallas and on, would be huge. Yeah there is something like 12 flights a day right now between the two cities, but you add in the convenience of avoiding the TSA and having to get to the airport an hour early...not to mention you can continuously work on the train - no turning off electronics...the benefits are definitely there. Wow that was a nice run off sentence. LOL

We'll see what happens. I'll guess the coasts and the major pop centers will get it long before we do.

A train through the mountains would be an amazing trip from here. I always wanted to take that ride through Canada, some day. Either way, HSR would likely be much cheaper than air travel, and definitely a hot ticket for those of us that want to head down to Texas for the weekend or some other quick get away. Not to mention the increased attraction of business travel when you link some major business destinations. OKC to Dallas and on, would be huge. Yeah there is something like 12 flights a day right now between the two cities, but you add in the convenience of avoiding the TSA and having to get to the airport an hour early...not to mention you can continuously work on the train - no turning off electronics...the benefits are definitely there. Wow that was a nice run off sentence. LOL

We'll see what happens. I'll guess the coasts and the major pop centers will get it long before we do.

What makes you think it would "likely be much cheaper than air travel"?

one word: MAGLEV

I really like this idea:

www.masstramamerica.com (http://www.masstramamerica.com/)

Old Boeing planes for mass transit :: Alternative Transit (http://alternativetransit.com/?p=7)

http://alternativetransit.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/airtram.gif

What makes you think it would "likely be much cheaper than air travel"?

Most studies and articles I've read on how it compares overseas where this is real HSR, the cost difference is around 30-40% less than an airline ticket.

I call that pretty significant.

Cuatro, funny you post that. There is an old thread I started on the site talking about the feasibility of that "Boeing" train.

I really like this idea:

www.masstramamerica.com (http://www.masstramamerica.com/)

Old Boeing planes for mass transit :: Alternative Transit (http://alternativetransit.com/?p=7)

http://alternativetransit.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/airtram.gif

As much as I love the 727, I'm resigned to the fact I'll never get to fly/ride on one again. LOL Interesting idea though.

As much as I love the 727, I'm resigned to the fact I'll never get to fly/ride on one again. LOL Interesting idea though.

...unless Champion Air ever comes back from the dead and decides to pull some back out of the desert, clean them out, and fly a few more charters! ha ha...

Cuatro, funny you post that. There is an old thread I started on the site talking about the feasibility of that "Boeing" train.

:rollseyes:

Southwest along with the other Texas based airlines, (American & Continental) had the Texas Triangle TGV (http://www.trainweb.org/tgvpages/texastgv.html) killed off in the early 90's.

This is not correct. American had an agreement with Texas TGV to codeshare at DFW. Delta, which had a hub at DFW at the time, also had an agreement in principle to do the same.

Southwest did oppose it back then. One organization in Texas has been saying recently that Southwest in neutral now. Southwest did not oppose the 2008 California HSR bond issue.

High-speed rail coming to Oklahoma?
by Janice Francis-Smith
The Journal Record
March 20, 2009


OKLAHOMA CITY – Only those who have been to Europe or Japan have seen what a real high-speed rail line can do, transportation officials told lawmakers on Thursday. But the federal government is putting up the money to make high-speed rail a reality in the U.S. – maybe even in Oklahoma.

Tulsa and Oklahoma City are the northernmost points on a proposed high-speed rail corridor extending down to Austin and San Antonio, Texas, which has already been approved by federal transportation officials. The U.S. Department of Transportation has approved about a dozen high-speed rail corridors around the country. But with costs of construction extending into the millions or billions for true high-speed rail, few of the projects have progressed beyond the beginning stages.

“No high-speed rail exists yet in the U.S.,” Gary Ridley, director of the Oklahoma Department of Transportation, told members of the House Transportation Committee on Thursday. “But there is potential.”
High-speed rail refers to passenger trains that operate at speeds exceeding 124 miles per hour. The closest thing to high-speed rail available in the U.S. today is Amtrak’s Acela service, running from Washington, D.C., to New York and north to Boston. The trip takes approximately two hours and 46 minutes at an average speed of 86 miles per hour – about half the speed of France’s TGV trains.

President Barack Obama has made a few public comments in support of high-speed rail for the U.S. as a means to ease travel congestion while reducing the nation’s dependence on oil, cutting pollution and creating jobs.
Included in the $787 billion stimulus plan Obama signed in February was $8 billion for high-speed rail projects across the country, available as grants to states issued on a competitive basis. By June, federal officials are expected to provide guidance to states on how to apply for the funds.

California is perceived to have an advantage in the competition, being the furthest along in the effort to build a high-speed rail line between San Francisco and Los Angeles. Voters in California have already agreed to commit millions in bond issues to the effort, building a rail line capable of handling speeds of more than 220 miles per hour.

The $8 billion could go quickly, given the high costs associated with building high-speed rail lines. The California project alone is estimated at $50 billion.
In Oklahoma, officials have often considered building passenger rail service to connect Oklahoma City and Tulsa. Consultant Jack Webb of Texas-based J. Webb and Associates said the Tulsa-Oklahoma City connection will one day be essential to a nationwide effort to connect major cities via rail lines. Other lines considered by both state and federal officials include links between Tulsa and Newton, Kan., and Oklahoma City through to Kansas City, Mo.

But before any lines can be seriously considered, four qualifiers must be met, said Ridley. The service in question must be convenient to users, dependable, affordable and subsidized.
A passenger rail line extending from Oklahoma City through Tulsa to Kansas City could be created relatively inexpensively by upgrading existing lines owned by the state, a process that would take five to seven years to complete, Ridley said. Trains would travel no more than 70 miles per hour, and with the delays of making stops and slowing for at-grade crossings, travel by train between Oklahoma City and Tulsa would be no faster than driving the distance along the Turner Turnpike.

A new, high-speed rail line could be constructed by extending the right of way for the turnpike, but the cost of such a project would require an investment of about $250 million, Ridley said.

This article is more positive than what the Daily Oklahoman and Tulsa World ran. About the same "mood" as KOSU's version.

President Obama to announce rail plans Thursday

(We hear it will be at 8:00 a.m. CDT-I imagine C-SPAN will carry it live.)

This could be the equivalent of Eisenhower's plan for the interstate highway system.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The Obama administration is expected to unveil its plans on Thursday for accelerating development of high-speed rail, a concept that in the past has had mixed political support and little public funding.

"It will be broad and strategic," Karen Rae, acting head of the Federal Railroad Administration, told Reuters in an interview on Tuesday about the initiative described by officials as President Barack Obama's top transportation priority.

"It's going to talk about how we begin to create this new vision for high-speed and intercity rail," Rae said.

White House and transportation officials have spent the past several weeks weighing plans for developing at least six high-speed corridors.

High-speed rail initiatives are in various planning stages in California, Florida, Nevada, the Carolinas and the Northeast. States are already formulating how to use the large appropriation for high-speed rail projects in the economic stimulus act.

"Some of these plans are 20 years old," said Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood in an interview this week with Reuters Financial Television.

In February, Congress included $8 billion for rail development in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act and Obama has included another $5 billion for the efforts in the White House's proposed budget.

LaHood said the $8 billion in stimulus money will "jump-start" the process, but rail advocates and transportation officials agree that financing high-speed rail nationally will cost significantly more.

The plan to be released on Thursday is required by the stimulus act, but Rae said it will "reference the broader rail agenda that is out there."

Rae said she hopes her agency beats the next deadline set by the act on June 17 to provide guidance on how the competitive grants in the stimulus bill will be evaluated.

Government financing for passenger rail has been a contentious political issue for years although supporters have long touted its popularity in Europe and Asia. The U.S. government defines high-speed rail as "intercity passenger rail service that is reasonably expected to reach speeds of at least 110 miles per hour."

Supporters of Amtrak, the country's heavily subsidized and only long-haul passenger rail service, fought bitter political battles with the Bush administration to keep the network running nationally. Now, Amtrak and passenger rail advocates have powerful new allies in the Obama administration and Democratic lawmakers heading up key committees.

Midwestern governors recently wrote Secretary LaHood asking for $3.4 billion of the funding to build up high-speed rail corridors in Missouri, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio and Wisconsin.

"I believe Missouri and the other states in our region present a compelling and united case to the Obama Administration to fund these projects," Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon said in a statement on Tuesday.

"Our states have been working on this rail initiative for more than a decade, and we will aggressively compete for these Recovery Act funds specifically designated for high-speed rail projects," he added.

F-yeah!

http://www.c-span.org/Watch/watch.aspx?ProgramId=HP-A-41630 (http://http://www.c-span.org/Watch/watch.aspx?ProgramId=HP-A-41630)

http://www.fra.dot.gov/us/press-releases/226 (http://http://www.fra.dot.gov/us/press-releases/226)


This really is historic.

Yes the South Central Corridor to and through Oklahoma is mentioned.

President Obama, Vice President Biden, Secretary LaHood Call for U.S. High Speed Passenger Trains

Contact: Jill Zuckman
Telephone: (202) 366-4570

Thursday, April 16, 2009 (Washington, DC) President Obama, Vice President Biden, Secretary LaHood Call for U.S. High Speed Passenger Trains

Vision for a New Era in Rail Entails Clean, Energy-Efficient Option for Travelers
President Barack Obama, along with Vice President Biden and Secretary LaHood, announced a new U.S. push today to transform travel in America, creating high-speed rail lines from city to city, reducing dependence on cars and planes and spurring economic development.

The President released a strategic plan outlining his vision for high speed rail in America. The plan identifies $8 billion provided in the ARRA and $1 billion a year for five years requested in the federal budget as a down payment to jump-start a potential world-class passenger rail system and sets the direction of transportation policy for the future. The strategic plan will be followed by detailed guidance for state and local applicants. By late summer, the Federal Railroad Administration will begin awarding the first round of grants.

Additional funding for long-term planning and development is expected from legislation authorizing federal surface transportation programs.

The report formalizes the identification of ten high-speed rail corridors as potential recipients of federal funding. Those lines are: California, Pacific Northwest, South Central, Gulf Coast, Chicago Hub Network, Florida, Southeast, Keystone, Empire and Northern New England. Also, opportunities exist for the Northeast Corridor from Washington to Boston to compete for funds to improve the nation’s only existing high-speed rail service.

With a boost from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, the Obama administration launched a competitive process to drive local communities to develop their high-speed rail potential. The President, Vice President and Secretary of Transportation are urging states and local communities to put together plans for a network of 100 mile to 600 mile corridors, which will compete for the federal dollars. The merit-driven process will result in federal grants as soon as late summer 2009.


-- (more) --
DOT 51-09
Thursday, April 16, 2009


President Obama’s vision for high-speed rail mirrors that of President Eisenhower, the father of the Interstate highway system, which revolutionized the way Americans traveled. Now, high-speed rail has the potential to reduce U.S. dependence on foreign oil, lower harmful carbon emissions, foster new economic development and give travelers more choices when it comes to moving around the country.

“My high-speed rail proposal will lead to innovations that change the way we travel in America. We must start developing clean, energy-efficient transportation that will define our regions for centuries to come,” said President Obama. “A major new high-speed rail line will generate many thousands of construction jobs over several years, as well as permanent jobs for rail employees and increased economic activity in the destinations these trains serve. High-speed rail is long-overdue, and this plan lets American travelers know that they are not doomed to a future of long lines at the airports or jammed cars on the highways.”

“Today, we see clearly how Recovery Act funds and the Department of Transportation are building the platform for a brighter economic future - they’re creating jobs and making life better for communities everywhere,” said Vice President Biden. “Everyone knows railways are the best way to connect communities to each other, and as a daily rail commuter for over 35 years, this announcement is near and dear to my heart. Investing in a high-speed rail system will lower our dependence on foreign oil and the bill for a tank of gas; loosen the congestion suffocating our highways and skyways; and significantly reduce the damage we do to our planet.”

“President Obama's vision of robust, high-speed rail service offers Americans the kind of travel options that throughout our history have contributed to economic growth and enhanced quality of life,” said Secretary LaHood. “We simply can't build the economy of the future on the transportation networks of the past.”

The plan identifies two types of projects for funding. One would create new corridors for world-class high-speed rail like the kind found in Europe and Japan. Another would involve making train service along existing rail lines incrementally faster.

Under the plan, high-speed rail development will advance along three funding tracks:

• Individual Projects. Providing grants to complete individual projects that are “ready to go” with completed environmental and preliminary engineering work – with an emphasis on near term job creation. Eligible projects include acquisition, construction of or improvements to infrastructure, facilities and equipment.

• Corridor programs. Developing entire phases or geographic sections of high-speed rail corridors that have completed corridor plans, environmental documentation and have a prioritized list of projects to help meet the corridor objectives.

• Planning. Entering into cooperative agreements for planning activities (including development of corridor plans and State Rail Plans) using non-American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) appropriations funds. This third approach is intended to help establish a structured mechanism and funding stream for future corridor development activities.


###

A Vision for High-Speed Rail in America
Highlights of Strategic Plan
April 16, 2009

This plan outlines the President’s vision to build a network of high-speed rail corridors across America. It is the first high-speed rail requirement under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act 0f 2009 (ARRA).

o VISION—Proposal is to transform the nation’s transportation system, by rebuilding existing rail infrastructure while launching new high-speed passenger rail services in 100-600 mile corridors that connect U.S. communities. Similar to how interstate highways and U.S. aviation system were developed in 20th century: partnership between public sector and private industry, including strong Federal leadership that provided a national vision.

o OBAMA ADMINISTRATION IS MOVING AHEAD OF SCHEDULE TO STAND UP THIS NEW PROGRAM—Strategic rail plan issued just 58 days after passage of ARRA, before the Congressional deadline. Application procedures expected to be published also before Congressional deadline—this spring. First round grant awards expected to be announced before the end of this summer, up to three years ahead of the schedule required by law.

o COMMITMENT TO HIGH-SPEED RAIL—Unprecedented $8 billion investment in high-speed rail: $8 billion in ARRA considered a down payment on a national network of corridors, along with $1 billion per year for at least 5 years (proposed in FY 2010 budget). Completion of vision will require long-term commitment from both the Federal Government and States.

o BENEFITS OF HIGH-SPEED RAIL—Promotes economic expansion (including new manufacturing jobs), creates new choices for travelers in addition to flying or driving, reduces national dependence on oil, and fosters urban and rural community development.

o HIGH-SPEED RAIL IS GREEN— Today’s intercity passenger rail service consumes one-third less energy per passenger-mile than cars. It is estimated that if we built high-speed rail lines on all federally-designated corridors (on map), it could result in an annual reduction of 6 billion pounds of CO2.

o TRANSPARENT APPROACH—projects selected for funding based on merit/benefits of investment.

• First round of applications will focus on projects that can be completed quickly and yield measurable, near-term job creation and other public benefits.

• Next round to include proposals for comprehensive high-speed programs covering entire corridors or sections of corridors.

• Additional funds will be available for planning to help jump-start corridors not yet ready for construction.

o Ten major corridors are being identified for potential high-speed rail projects:

• California Corridor (Bay Area, Sacramento, Los Angeles, San Diego)
• Pacific Northwest Corridor (Eugene, Portland, Tacoma, Seattle, Vancouver BC)
• South Central Corridor (Tulsa, Oklahoma City, Dallas/Fort Worth, Austin, San Antonio, Little Rock)
• Gulf Coast Corridor (Houston, New Orleans, , Mobile, Birmingham, Atlanta)
• Chicago Hub Network (Chicago, Milwaukee, Twin Cities, St. Louis, Kansas City, Detroit, Toledo, Cleveland, Columbus, Cincinnati, Indianapolis, Louisville,)
• Florida Corridor( (Orlando, Tampa, Miami)
• Southeast Corridor ((Washington, Richmond, Raleigh, Charlotte, Atlanta, Macon, Columbia, , Savannah, Jacksonville)
• Keystone Corridor ((Philadelphia, Harrisburg, Pittsburgh)
• Empire Corridor ((New York City, Albany, Buffalo)
• Northern New England Corridor ((Boston, Montreal, Portland, Springfield, New Haven, Albany)


Also, opportunities exist for the Northeast Corridor (Washington, Baltimore, Wilmington, Philadelphia, Newark, New York City, New Haven, Providence, Boston) to compete for funds for improvements to the nation’s only existing high-speed rail service, and for establishment and upgrades to passenger rail services in other parts of the country.

o OUTREACH—Administration will take a collaborative approach to formulate program; will work with stakeholders to gather feedback on strategic plan and help shape the program.

The links posted don't work.

FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION :PRESS ROOM (http://www.fra.dot.gov/us/press-releases/226)

C-SPAN Video Player - Pres. Obama Press Briefing on High-Speed Rail (http://www.c-span.org/Watch/watch.aspx?ProgramId=HP-A-41630)

Can't believe this isn't being discussed more! April 16, 2009 will be remembered as a HUGE day for long overdue high-speed rail in the USA, OKC & Tulsa.
http://newsok.com/oklahoma-rail-plan-hits-fast-track/article/3362151?custom_click=lead_story_title

This would be transformational for our state. Just to be in the discussion as one of the targeted corridors is amazing. We need to do everything we can to support this.

TooT! TooT!

This would be transformational for our state. Just to be in the discussion as one of the targeted corridors is amazing. We need to do everything we can to support this.

I agree, but I'd like to see dirt moving first. Talk is cheap.

Oklahoma rail plan hits fast track
Obama unveils $8 billion high-speed proposal, and Oklahoma is ready to apply for the funds

BY CHRIS CASTEEL
Published: April 17, 2009

WASHINGTON — Oklahoma officials are ready to seek federal stimulus funds to push for making the state part of a high-speed passenger rail corridor.



"We’re totally positioned and ready to apply for that process,” said Terri Angier, spokeswoman for the Oklahoma Department of Transportation.

President Barack Obama announced Thursday that $8 billion is being made available from the $787 billion economic stimulus package for high-speed rail development in the country. States and localities will have to apply for funds, and Angier said the state has been anticipating the process and is prepared for it.

The south central corridor, which includes Oklahoma City, Tulsa, San Antonio, Dallas/Fort Worth, Austin and Little Rock, was one of 10 identified by the Federal Railroad Administration on Thursday for potential high-speed rail projects.

David Streb, engineering director at the Transportation Department, said, "We’re eyeballing this very clearly. We know there are some opportunities.”

Streb said he is optimistic the state’s designation as a high-speed corridor in 2000 and its preparation for the application process would pay off.

Obama said Thursday, "My high-speed rail proposal will lead to innovations that change the way we travel in America. We must start developing clean, energy-efficient transportation that will define our regions for centuries to come.

"A major new high-speed rail line will generate many thousands of construction jobs over several years, as well as permanent jobs for rail employees and increased economic activity in the destinations these trains serve. High-speed rail is long overdue, and this plan lets American travelers know that they are not doomed to a future of long lines at the airports or jammed cars on the highways.”

Matt Dowty, chairman of Oklahoma Rail, which promotes passenger rail service, said the group "is delighted that President Obama is prioritizing modern trains as a signature item in his transportation policy and we believe our state leaders ought to position the state to take advantage of that.”

He said trains can’t go faster today because "most of Oklahoma’s rail lines sit on 19th century alignments with excessive curvature and insufficient capacity. New federal funds could be used to modernize these routes in order to reduce travel times and increase reliability and service frequency.”

Streb said extensive studies would be needed about the condition of rail lines in the state and whether some would need to be replaced or shared with commercial freight companies that use them.

According to the Federal Railroad Administration, grants could be distributed by late this summer.

link (http://newsok.com/oklahoma-rail-plan-hits-fast-track/article/3362151?custom_click=lead_story_title)

I agree, but I'd like to see dirt moving first. Talk is cheap.

Talk is cheap, but at least there's money on the table.

Is there a plan? When would it be done? Too soon to predict?

Talk is cheap, but at least there's money on the table.

Money that hasn't even been printed yet.....

But this project should do some stimulating of the economy. Unlike so many other government projects. Money well spent if they do it right.

I would guess the bulk of the funding will go towards corridors that can be done quickly and will have the greatest need. This would tend to point to the Northeast, Chicago Hub, and probably West Coast areas.

I LOVE the idea, I just don't think we'll be seeing anything for awhile. I am glad we were included though, some states like Tennessee were left out completely. I would like to see someday Oklahoma being the link between the Midwest and Texas via high speed rail through OKC and Tulsa. It would be great for both cities.

As of June 17th, the U.S. Department of Transportation began accepting applications from the states for $13 billion worth of high speed and upgraded conventional rail competitive matching grants.

There are several different application "tracks" depending on how advanced a state or group of states are in readiness to implement projects with independant utility (like a rail siding, signal system, or locomotive) or "Service Development Plans", i.e. entire corridor upgrades or newly developed corridors.

Applications will also be accepted for planning funds.

Pre-applications are due by July 12th.

Oklahoma Rail Home (http://www.oklahomarail.org)

From the Houston Chronicle, it looks as though ODOT has taken a first step: Oklahoma begins high-speed rail effort | AP Texas News | Chron.com - Houston Chronicle (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/tx/6524951.html) ... maybe this or a similar article has been posted already, but I didn't see one like it.


Oklahoma begins high-speed rail effort
© 2009 The Associated Press
July 11, 2009, 5:16PM

TULSA, Okla. — Oklahoma transportation officials have taken an initial step to apply for high-speed rail funding that could return passenger service to Tulsa.

Terri Angier, spokeswoman for the Oklahoma Department of Transportation, told the Tulsa World's Washington bureau Friday that top speeds between Tulsa and Oklahoma City would be more than 150 mph, with an average speed of more than 110 mph.

Top speeds for the Heartland Flyer, which provides service between Oklahoma City and Fort Worth, Texas, would be 90 mph, with an average of more than 60 mph. The Heartland Flyer now can travel only up to 79 mph, but the speed is lower on much of that route.

A cost estimate for the project, which would include improvements from Tulsa to the Texas state line, has been put at just under $2 billion.

Angier said Oklahoma applied for the funding that does not require a state match. A formal application is not due until Aug. 24.

The Transportation Department's preliminary application was filed in response to President Barack Obama's push for high-speed train service. Tulsa and Oklahoma City are part of one of the high-speed rail corridors.

The South Central Corridor also includes Dallas-Fort Worth, Austin, Texas, San Antonio and Little Rock, Ark.

As part of a vision for world-class passenger rail service, the Obama administration identified $13 billion to get the process started, with $8 billion in the stimulus package and an additional $5 billion provided over the next five years.

Angier said the state's application will compare well with those from other states. However, the eventual outcome could depend on the feedback the state receives from federal officials and whether they put any restrictions on the funding.

Work could begin as early as 2010 and is expected to take at least six years to complete.

On Edit: I see that the story originated in the Tulsa World: http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=11&articleid=20090710_54_0_WSIGOh409233&allcom=1

Meanwhile, and since the above post ODOT did submit a preliminary offering, I don't think that the Oklahoman picked up on this one from Kansas City's bizjournals.com: KDOT explores grant for Kansas City-Oklahoma City Amtrak service - Kansas City Business Journal: (http://www.bizjournals.com/kansascity/stories/2009/07/13/daily10.html)


KDOT explores grant for Kansas City-Oklahoma City Amtrak service

The Kansas Department of Transportation is exploring the opportunity to get federal money for a study of rail service between Kansas City and Oklahoma City.

The state has submitted a grant pre-application to the Federal Railroad Administration for a $500,000 project to prepare a plan for implementing state-supported Amtrak service between the destinations. KDOT offered to contribute half the cost of the project.

The work would build on an Amtrak expansion feasibility study, expected to be completed by the end of the year. The state will need information from both studies if it is to apply for grants through the Federal Railroad Administration’s High-Speed/Intercity Passenger Rail program.

In a release, KDOT said funds won’t be awarded for pre-applications, calling them expressions of interest in applying for grants later in the year.
Also, see this Wichita article: KDOT explores grant for Kansas City-Oklahoma City Amtrak service - Wichita Business Journal: (http://www.bizjournals.com/wichita/stories/2009/07/13/daily14.html?q=%20oklahoma%20city)

A bit more detail is here: http://www.kansasliberty.com/liberty-update-archive/2009/20jul/kdot-applying-for-stimulus-funds-to-promote-passenger-rail/

Bah, leave it to our dumb city to not take risks... Light rail can get people places faster. I don't ever hear about them de-railing either, or not as often.

On the other hand, here we have the city wanting to stay behind the times yet again...

Bah, leave it to our dumb city to not take risks... Light rail can get people places faster. I don't ever hear about them de-railing either, or not as often.

On the other hand, here we have the city wanting to stay behind the times yet again...
That's quite a statement, given MAPS I, MAPS I Extension, Maps for Kids, Ford Center tax ... compare those votes with, say, Tulsa, or other cities. Light rail is not all that there is, imo.

I don't understand the rant. High speed rail is not std. rail travel. It is 180-250 mph and extremely smooth, comfortable travel. This is advanced travel and would position Oklahoma well to be on a High Speed Rail line. Great boost for OKC if it goes to Dallas and up to KC or StL.

But I bet plenty of Oklahomans think it's beneath their dignity to ride on any speed of rail. In other words, it makes look like they are poor or of low income.

But I bet plenty of Oklahomans think it's beneath their dignity to ride on any speed of rail. In other words, it makes look like they are poor or of low income.

Interesting point. Compare the current standard of travel on the Heartland Flyer to Amtrak's Acela and you'll see a major difference. People will need to be shown the difference.

People of Oklahoma need to see more of the world I guess. The way that we worry about looking like hicks make us seem like hicks when we don't even know what we are talking about. Trains and high speed trains are a way of life for most of the advanced world.

Bunty, I have had the priveledge of living in Dallas and Denver, both of which have wonderful light rail systems. Anyone who has ridden those systems will immediately lose any sense of taking a "low class" form of transportation. They are clean, safe and relatively efficient. People in both cities also quickly lost the assumption that light rail was something they didn't want to live near. The property values of those living near light rail stations has skyrocketed and those backing up to the systems hear nothing more than a hiss as the rail trains go by. If you haven't been around the modern systems you come away with a completely different viewpoint once you have seen them. I just don't think at this minute, OKC is congested enough or has a large enough population to support light rail but in the 20 years it will take to build such a system we will. Now is the time to start the base planning. As for high speed rail to Tulsa and Dallas, its the same thing. IF they build it correctly and it is convenient to the things we like to do in those cities, it will be a success. People will only have to take it once to lose the notion of "low class."

Can they de-rail as easily as regular trains can?

Bah, leave it to our dumb city to not take risks... Light rail can get people places faster. I don't ever hear about them de-railing either, or not as often.

On the other hand, here we have the city wanting to stay behind the times yet again...


Can they de-rail as easily as regular trains can?

What does LRT and derailing have to do with HSR?

Okay, forgive me for not knowing what all these acronyms stand for (HSR and whatnot.)

HSR I assume is regular trains right? Do light rail trains de-rail like regular trains do, and do they de-rail as often?

If HSR has nothing to do with regular trains, does it de-rail like regular trains, or are they just as good as light rail?

Okay, forgive me for not knowing what all these acronyms stand for (HSR and whatnot.)

HSR I assume is regular trains right? Do light rail trains de-rail like regular trains do, and do they de-rail as often?

If HSR has nothing to do with regular trains, does it de-rail like regular trains, or are they just as good as light rail?

Try:

Here (http://www.trainweb.org/kenrail/Rail_mode_defined.html)
Here (http://www.charmeck.org/Departments/CATS/Rapid+Transit+Planning/Transit+Modes.htm)
and Here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-speed_rail).

Thanks for the links.

Presentations On High-Speed Rail Planned In OKC And Tulsa

September 9, 2009 -- As part of an initial environmental process, the Oklahoma Department of Transportation (ODOT) invites the public to a presentation about preliminary plans for high-speed rail and some of the opportunities and challenges that lie ahead.

Transportation officials, joined by community planning organizations and city officials will present details of improvements planned between Tulsa, Oklahoma City and the Texas state line at the following meetings:

Oklahoma City
Monday, September 14
6 p.m.
Metro Technology Centers
BCC/Auditorium
1900 Springlake Drive

Tulsa
Tuesday, September 15
6 p.m.
Central Library
400 Civic Center

The competitive grant program which allows for these improvements is part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act and advances the Obama administration's vision for high speed intercity passenger rail throughout the nation.

In all, $8 billion in ARRA funds are available to states through this program, which is divided among the following funding tracks: Track One - Shovel-ready Projects; Track Two - Service Development Programs; Track Three - Service Planning Activities; and Track Four - Appropriations-Funded Projects.

ODOT's preliminary application filed on July 10, seeks approximately $2 billion in Track Two for service development programs. The Federal Railroad Administration anticipates announcing the final awards by the end of the year.

Following the public meeting, comments on Oklahoma's high speed rail plan will be accepted until September 25 by mail to ODOT Rail Division, 200 N.E. 21st St., Rm. 3-D6, Oklahoma City, OK 73105 or by e-mail to jbridgwater@odot.org. Citizen comments will be included in the final application packet.

Copies of ODOT's completed preliminary application and associated maps are available on the ODOT Web site Public Hearings, Events, Meetings, Assessments (http://www.okladot.state.ok.us/meetings/other.php).

Fast forward 20 years - we can get from downtown OKC to downtown Tulsa in 30 minutes. Who is going to ride it and what are they going to do once you get there? You don't build a high speed rail network for day tourist. In nearly all of the worlds high speed rail systems the primary rider is using it for it business travel. There just isn't that much business being conducted between OKC and Tulsa. Not now, not in 20 years, and probably not even in 50 years (at which point we will have even better forms of transportation anyhow).

I wouldn't waste a a single dollar on high speed rail between Tulsa and OKC. Instead spend that money of developing a really good local rail system for each city.

Fast forward 20 years - we can get from downtown OKC to downtown Tulsa in 30 minutes. Who is going to ride it and what are they going to do once you get there? You don't build a high speed rail network for day tourist. In nearly all of the worlds high speed rail systems the primary rider is using it for it business travel. There just isn't that much business being conducted between OKC and Tulsa. Not now, not in 20 years, and probably not even in 50 years (at which point we will have even better forms of transportation anyhow).

I wouldn't waste a a single dollar on high speed rail between Tulsa and OKC. Instead spend that money of developing a really good local rail system for each city.

I think you underestimate the amount of people who do business in the two. The amount of people who commute a few times a week seems to be quite large.

There just isn't that much business being conducted between OKC and Tulsa. Not now, not in 20 years, and probably not even in 50 years (at which point we will have even better forms of transportation anyhow).

You should seriously re-consider this part of your post. You would not believe the amount of business folks that I deal with in my industry alone (sales reps, etc) that are either based here or there and make a daily commute back and forth! An OKC-TUL line would be a great investment for Oklahoma just on business travel alone. What made you come to the conclusion that this was planned just for 'day tourists'?

How many people a day drive between downtown OKC and Tulsa (and I don't just mean people passing through)? If you work on Northwest Expressway and are going to Sapulpa it would take you longer to drive to downtown OKC, wait for the train, ride it to downtown Tulsa, get a cab, and ride in it to Sapulpa, then would be to just drive your own car.

You want to make the ultimate rail link between Tulsa and OKC, build an elevated highspeed rail system down the center of the turnpike but don't put passenger railcars on it. Put self-propelled flatbed rail cars on it. Then you can just drive your personal vehicle up on it, an attendant would secure your car to rail car, and then away you go in your own car at 180 MPH. When you get to Tulsa you drive your car off and go on your way.

Since each transporter would only hold one car at a time there wouldn't be any waiting or parking needed. You could make the trip in under 30 minutes in the comfort of your own car. Plus, people just passing through Oklahoma could use it. Heck, even semis could use it. Throw some electro magnets on it for the drive system and have it powered by windmills along the route and you could save a lot of gasoline.

they will build this high-speed rail and on its opening day the darn train will reach over 125mph and strike a stray dairy cow somewhere between OKC and Tulsa and then Oklahoma will make global headlines.

Kerry, you normally make good posts, but I'm going to have to agree with the other posters, perhaps your living in Atlanta skews your conception of how many people drive between OKC and Tulsa daily. I agree that each city does need MUCH BETTER mass transit, preferably light rail and streetcar or BRT mix, but I do think a high speed rail between the two cities would be beneficial to our state!

You want to make the ultimate rail link between Tulsa and OKC, build an elevated highspeed rail system down the center of the turnpike but don't put passenger railcars on it. Put self-propelled flatbed rail cars on it. Then you can just drive your personal vehicle up on it, an attendant would secure your car to rail car, and then away you go in your own car at 180 MPH. When you get to Tulsa you drive your car off and go on your way.

.

Ive seen many people drive close to that speed already on the Turner Turnpike. Your idea is a waste of tax dollars.