View Full Version : High-speed rail to link Tulsa\OKC\Dallas and more...



Pages : 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

Kerry
09-10-2009, 07:38 AM
Ive seen many people drive close to that speed already on the Turner Turnpike. Your idea is a waste of tax dollars.

You know you bring up a damn good point. Why do we need high-speed rail between OKC and Tulsa when I already have a car capable of 148 mph. Just give me a dedicated freeway where I can drive that fast. I’ll even pay for own gas and maintenance.

Kerry
09-10-2009, 08:02 AM
Here is what I am saying - the concept of a high-speed rail system seems to be the end all be all for many supporters. That simply isn't the case. High-speed rail can only be successful if it is part of a larger rail network. Below is a link to the Eurostar high-speed train between Paris and London. The thing that make is successful is its connections to other rail system in Europe.

We need to develop the 'other' rail systems first. Get people in OKC to work everyday using rail before you make the occasional journey to Tulsa via rail. Solve the big problem first because that makes high-speed rail practical. How many people in OKC commute to downtown OKC for work (30,000+) compared to the number of people that commute between OKC and Tulsa (maybe a few hundred per day).

BTW - Eurostar runs one per hour between London and Paris. How many trains a day do you expect between Tulsa and OKC? One or two.


Eurostar high-speed train from London to Paris | From £59 return |* Eurostar from London to Lille, Paris or Brussels through the Channel Tunnel (http://www.seat61.com/London-Paris-train.htm)

metro
09-10-2009, 08:11 AM
Kerry, more than 52,000 work in Downtown OKC, another few thousand work in the HSC area, then add the state capitol. You've got well over 65,000 in the core of the city. And I bet it's several thousand a day between OKC and Tulsa.

http://www.downtownokc.com/Default.aspx?tabid=72

EBAH
09-10-2009, 08:30 AM
I think Tulsa's benefit from being directly connected to DFW (as well as other large markets of Texas) via OKC is also being significantly undervalued. I'd imagine there are a lot of Tulsa business people that would absolutely love direct access to DFW, Austin, and San Antonio via rail. As far as there not being enough traffic between the two cities to justify the line, well thats just laughable. Just go down that afformentioned Turner Turnpike in the early morning on ANY weekday! Also, to think that the line from OKC to Tulsa would just be about the two cities is quite short sided. This leg would be part of an expandable system that could later be extended to cities in Missouri, Arkansas, etc. Once you start moving toward St Louis, you could in theory have high speed lines connecting to the upper midwest rail system to give us reasonably quick rail service to Chicago, Milwaukee, and on. I think that these proposed lines are almost exactly what you would want as a starter backbone to have a real cohesive national HSR network. I travel to Tulsa, Austin, and San Antonio quite frequently and would most definitely be a customer!

bombermwc
09-10-2009, 08:40 AM
Metro - that's a good point to the density of a CBD. But that doesn't mean that the traffic between downtowns would all come from those locations. If I'm going to commute between the cities, I'm probably going to avoid the CBD on one end...if not both. We have several reps that visit us from Dallas and Tulsa, but neither end point is anywhere near the CBD.

Kerry - I believe offers the best option for the near and really an extended future for us. Provide a rail car that has the ability to hold your vehicle on the trip so that you don't have to rely on the transporation on the other end. We know right now that there isn't any good option in either city to really EFFECTIVELY traverse the city. Heck, even if you emptied out in OKC's CBD, you would still need a bus to get over to the HSC. The bus systems just aren't reliable enough yet.

Now let's take another line of thought to imaginary land of rail fun. Say both CBD's have a light rail system in their CBS connecting to some of the ancillary areas nearby (for OKC, say connect to the HSC). We're not talking metro connections yet...like on airport connection or Edmond/Norman line. If we had that access, you really wouldn't be able to drop the vehicle transport car because of the number of people that travel outside of the CBD. Think about how many corporations have their offices OUTSIDE of the CBD. In OKC youve got the NW Exway, Memorial, 39th,etc. and Tulsa has some spread int he SE, as well as the south.

Just like airlines, rail really won't depend on the average joe visitor, but rather the daily business user. The real question is going to be, can we analyze the numbers enough for CBD to CBD to make it warrant the connection? I believe that the best way to start would be to add light rail in the CBD's of each city first. Give it about 10 years and see how it goes. Neither city is dense enough for metro-wide light rail yet. Remember you have to be able to deliver the passenger faster than they would be able to by car or most people will not use the system. Right now, we're not congested enough because you can get anywhere in "america's most driveable city" in 20-25 minutes.

Kerry
09-10-2009, 08:52 AM
I travel to Tulsa, Austin, and San Antonio quite frequently and would most definitely be a customer!

If you took a train to Tulsa, Austin, and San Antonio, how would you get around once you got there?

EBAH
09-10-2009, 08:52 AM
What about bringing in ZipCar or other hourly or short term car rental services to be readily accessible from the stations. A Business traveler could come in from Dallas, rent a car for 4 hours, go to a couple of meetings, drop off the car at the station and hop back on the train.

metro
09-10-2009, 08:53 AM
Kerry/bomber, yeah but have you ever seen/heard of a rail system that offers a "flat bed" style trailer that lets you drive your car on it and sit in it and go 180mph?

Kerry
09-10-2009, 09:01 AM
Kerry/bomber, yeah but have you ever seen/heard of a rail system that offers a "flat bed" style trailer that lets you drive your car on it and sit in it and go 180mph?

Yes - Eurostar. Although they don't let you sit in your own car you can take it with you. But just because it hasn't been done doesn't mean it can't be done.

The beauty of my system is that stations could be placed in multiple locations on sidings. If you aren't stopping at an intermediate station you would just by-pass it. It is kind of like the SkyTran system except instead of a two person pod, you could take a 7 passenger minivan (complete with rear seat DVD entertainment)

metro
09-10-2009, 09:02 AM
You won't see it done in this country due to safety standards. At the very best, you'd see it like Eurostar with some passenger cars.

Kerry
09-10-2009, 09:19 AM
You won't see it done in this country due to safety standards. At the very best, you'd see it like Eurostar with some passenger cars.

Where there is a will there is a way. Maybe the railcar could have a passenger compartment you ride in while your car is in storage on the same railcar. The ideal thing is that each railcar only transports one car at a time and allows stations to be by-passed. The bottom line is, without a local rail system in place at each end you need to be able to take your own car with you.

EBAH
09-10-2009, 09:30 AM
Again, Zipcars are $7 per hour. Park and ride in your home city, pick up an hourly rental upon arrival.

Mr Big
09-10-2009, 09:33 AM
I don't understand how this concept is lost on people. We have large sections of this country that successfully utilize light rail to connect cities. The inability to look to these cities, who are quite frankly far more successful than ours, and to understand some of the tools are they using, is quite surprising.

There's no question that will be plenty of business travelers utilizing it. Some will actually live in one city, while working in the other. Others will be people employed or owning businesses who operate in both. Much like Chicago, Philly, NYC, Baltimore, DC (etc....) connections, we should expect a social impact as well. I know with this in play, I'll start catching concerts at the BOK. The Thunder will see more Tulsa citizens, as will bricktown.

Some mentioned it earlier. The real kicker is when we have stations in the suburbs to get around city or to the speed train to Tulsa (like Chicago or St. Louis).

One last point, these trains are not, will not, nor should they be expected to be the end all, be all of transportation. They will not be the perfect answer to every situation. They are an alternative, and in becoming an alternative they reduce the stress of the current transportation models.

metro
09-10-2009, 09:36 AM
Where there is a will there is a way. Maybe the railcar could have a passenger compartment you ride in while your car is in storage on the same railcar. The ideal thing is that each railcar only transports one car at a time and allows stations to be by-passed. The bottom line is, without a local rail system in place at each end you need to be able to take your own car with you.

Seems MUCH more cost prohibitive and expensive, if that's the case, why not just DRIVE down the turnpike. The whole point of MASS transit, is carrying a mass of people.

Kerry
09-10-2009, 09:59 AM
Again, Zipcars are $7 per hour. Park and ride in your home city, pick up an hourly rental upon arrival.

That might work. I do have concerns about how many Zipcars will be needed and the parking that will be required for them. If a single train hold 300 people then you are talking maybe 150 Zipcars.

mugofbeer
09-10-2009, 10:00 AM
I don't understand how this concept is lost on people. We have large sections of this country that successfully utilize light rail to connect cities. The inability to look to these cities, who are quite frankly far more successful than ours, and to understand some of the tools are they using, is quite surprising.

There's no question that will be plenty of business travelers utilizing it. Some will actually live in one city, while working in the other. Others will be people employed or owning businesses who operate in both. Much like Chicago, Philly, NYC, Baltimore, DC (etc....) connections, we should expect a social impact as well. I know with this in play, I'll start catching concerts at the BOK. The Thunder will see more Tulsa citizens, as will bricktown.

Some mentioned it earlier. The real kicker is when we have stations in the suburbs to get around city or to the speed train to Tulsa (like Chicago or St. Louis).

One last point, these trains are not, will not, nor should they be expected to be the end all, be all of transportation. They will not be the perfect answer to every situation. They are an alternative, and in becoming an alternative they reduce the stress of the current transportation models.

I agree with what you say. These are an alternative to air travel. As that type of fuel becomes more expensive and air travel becomes much more expensive, this will be a fast alternative. When we suddenly find ourselves with $8 to $10/gal gas and no rail travel, it will be too late to quickly make a changeover. Planning now, buying rights of way now, and starting the construction process soon is what needs to take place. Its an investment and it takes a long time to build.

Kerry
09-10-2009, 10:05 AM
I don't understand how this concept is lost on people. We have large sections of this country that successfully utilize light rail to connect cities. The inability to look to these cities, who are quite frankly far more successful than ours, and to understand some of the tools are they using, is quite surprising.

There's no question that will be plenty of business travelers utilizing it. Some will actually live in one city, while working in the other. Others will be people employed or owning businesses who operate in both. Much like Chicago, Philly, NYC, Baltimore, DC (etc....) connections, we should expect a social impact as well. I know with this in play, I'll start catching concerts at the BOK. The Thunder will see more Tulsa citizens, as will bricktown.

Some mentioned it earlier. The real kicker is when we have stations in the suburbs to get around city or to the speed train to Tulsa (like Chicago or St. Louis).

One last point, these trains are not, will not, nor should they be expected to be the end all, be all of transportation. They will not be the perfect answer to every situation. They are an alternative, and in becoming an alternative they reduce the stress of the current transportation models.

I'm not missing the point - I am saying that building a highspeed rail connecting OKC and Tulsa before you build a local transit network is putting the cart before the horse. Build the local stuff first (or at least at the same time). Help the 50,000+ get to downtown OKC everyday before we spend billions to get 300 people to Tulsa everyday.

Mr Big
09-10-2009, 10:43 AM
I have to respectfully disagree with you Kerry. While both inner-city light rail and between cities light rail stand to de-stress traffic and transportation. Only one stands truly increase commerce for both cities, by bringing dollars from the other city into each city, promoting business growth and the entertainment industries. Inner-city travel simply can't do any of that.

Again, this is business model that is already proven to work, time and time again. When we know for fact how this succeeds, its tough to understand to changing the formula.

mugofbeer
09-10-2009, 10:49 AM
Local transit is a local issue to be dealt with locally. The high speed rail between large cities is something that must be done nationally, the way the interstate hiway network was built.

EBAH
09-10-2009, 11:25 AM
I agree MugOfBeer. I think if the fed is offering to help us build this, we'd be silly to pass it up. Once it is there, it will provide incentive for the city to provide more transit options for potential travelers and their money. It also provides a potential money making opportunity to local and national businesses selling transit services like hourly car rentals or shuttles. I hate to sound too, "if you build it they will come". But If we don't take them up on this there is no way we can do it alone. I'd hate to be 25-30 years down the line with gas prices back up to $4+/gal and wondering why we didn't put in that HSR line.

OKCMallen
09-10-2009, 11:56 AM
I don't understand how this concept is lost on people. We have large sections of this country that successfully utilize light rail to connect cities. The inability to look to these cities, who are quite frankly far more successful than ours, and to understand some of the tools are they using, is quite surprising.

There's no question that will be plenty of business travelers utilizing it. Some will actually live in one city, while working in the other. Others will be people employed or owning businesses who operate in both. Much like Chicago, Philly, NYC, Baltimore, DC (etc....) connections, we should expect a social impact as well. I know with this in play, I'll start catching concerts at the BOK. The Thunder will see more Tulsa citizens, as will bricktown.

Some mentioned it earlier. The real kicker is when we have stations in the suburbs to get around city or to the speed train to Tulsa (like Chicago or St. Louis).

One last point, these trains are not, will not, nor should they be expected to be the end all, be all of transportation. They will not be the perfect answer to every situation. They are an alternative, and in becoming an alternative they reduce the stress of the current transportation models.

So true, and I see more shows at Cain's.

onthestrip
09-10-2009, 12:01 PM
...I'd hate to be 25-30 years down the line with gas prices back up to $4+/gal and wondering why we didn't put in that HSR line.

I dont think it will take that long to for gas to be back to $4/gallon. I hate to think what it will cost in 25-30 years.

But I agree with you. The future of effecient and economical travel is rail based and we would be stupid to not take the Feds money and put in some of our own and build some rail lines.

Caboose
09-10-2009, 12:12 PM
I have to respectfully disagree with you Kerry. While both inner-city light rail and between cities light rail stand to de-stress traffic and transportation. Only one stands truly increase commerce for both cities, by bringing dollars from the other city into each city, promoting business growth and the entertainment industries. Inner-city travel simply can't do any of that.

Again, this is business model that is already proven to work, time and time again. When we know for fact how this succeeds, its tough to understand to changing the formula.

I am pretty pessimistic about this due to the lack of density in OKC and Tulsa. Even the large Texas cities have the same issue with everything being so spread out. I would love to take a high speed train from Tulsa to OKC or OKC to San Antonio... but what to do when I get there? Rent a car? Might as well drive my own.

Kerry
09-10-2009, 12:53 PM
How much would a one-way ticket from OKC to Tulsa cost per person?

Stop me when you reach what you are willing to pay.

A. $5

B. $10

C. $20

D. $25

E. $50

F. $75

G. $100

H. $125

I. $150

The cheapest ticket for a 2.5 hour trip aboard Eurostar from London to Disneyland-Paris is $186 + taxes. A full-flex leisure ticket is $415 + tax.

Boston to NYC is $75 to $100

Even if OKC to Tulsa was on the low end would you be willing to pay $25 each way ($50 round trip) for OKC to Tulsa? Would a family of 4 pay $200 to do that? How many people fom Tulsa would go to a Thunder game if the train ticket cost as much as the game ticket?

OKCHerbivore
09-10-2009, 01:03 PM
Kerry- I think you are right in needing to develop local transit in both cities in tandem with high speed connection, and those who make it either/or are seeing the rail link as a federal grab bag, when it is hardly guaranteed.

Getting AROUND our cities without cars is probably still prior to getting TO our cities without cars. The only bright spot is, the central portions of both cities could support pedestrian growth, and perhaps the limit of transit will further help us to infill downtowns, rather than spread them out like we seem to be doing still.

Yet I do think the link is about 30 years in the coming, which is about how behind in infrastructure we are in both cities, seeing as we still think it is the 1970's in oil windfall, despite having the 1980's to remind us how fragile that is.

Yet the point you also make about the cost being prohibitive is simply an economy of scale, and Tulsa-OKC are hardly London-Paris, thus making the value of the rail route much less than the already exchange-rate mauled one under the Channel.

So, unless the rail authorities are totally daft (and they might be), it will not cost anything like a trip on the Eurostar. Of course, once I get to Tulsa I also won't be able to go grab a beer in sight of St. Paul's or grab bread on Rue St. Dominique.

decepticobra
09-10-2009, 01:08 PM
. How many people in OKC commute to downtown OKC for work (30,000+) compared to the number of people that commute between OKC and Tulsa (maybe a few hundred per day).



the problem with high speed rail on an urban level is that a high speed train simply can not make frequent stops. It takes time for it to achieve a desired speed.

There was a proposition for high speed rail in California that would link many major CA cities together. The trouble was, is that the train wouldnt be feasible as it would make excessive stops along various cities and hubs between San Francisco and Los Angeles.

Is it possible for a high speed route to be made that only serves SF & LA? Yes. However, such a train/route would financially benefit more if it had more stops to service.

How does this apply to Oklahoma?

Even if the OK route excluded creating any stops between OKC and Tulsa, youre still left with the issue of how many trains stops to construct in both the OKC and Tulsa metro areas.

The only viable solution I see is to have a lower speed train collect all passengers at each metro area's respective train stops (i.e. OKC: Norman, Edmond, MWC, DT, Yukon/Mustang, etc) and then transport such passengers to the designated high-speed train stop that would be constructed somewhere in the vicinity of the Turner Turnpike terminus (the 100 mile stretch) allowing the high speed train to achieve maximum speeds in excess of 100 mph. The high speed train would then embark on its route and end at the Tulsa Turner Turnpike terminus and then a lower speed train would then disperse the passengers to their desired Tulsa area stops (Broken Bow, Sapulpa, Owasso, etc)

a high speed rail simply doesnt have enough time to slow down in congested metropolitan areas for various stops.

So its not so much a matter of where lay down the tracks for the high speed rail route, but rather, where to build each train stop in each metropolitan area. Thats the real ticket to its success.

mugofbeer
09-10-2009, 01:16 PM
Hey, if they are going to build a brand new train track, I can't see why it wouldn't be plenty feasible to build it with one Tulsa stop, Stroud, N OKC, Downtown, Norman, Ardmore, Gainsville, Denton, N Dallas and Central Dallas. Getting up to speed wouldn't be hard at all except w/in OKC and Urban Dallas. Even within the urban areas, trains can easily get to 60+ mph within a minute or 2.

kevinpate
09-10-2009, 02:56 PM
In truth, while I am interested in rail, just change the speed limit significantly. Do that and I'll gladly make the OKC to Tulsa & back run just fine on my own, and the extra expense of a rail system can go to something else. I doubt I am alone in that view.

PennyQuilts
09-10-2009, 05:12 PM
I'll pay 200.00 for a round trip between Quantico to NYC (about 4.5 hours each way) to avoid the traffic which can involve a trip anywhere from 6.5 hours to 12 hours (one way). In my situation, the Amtrak train station is only about 4 miles from the house and easy to get to, and there are subways in NYC.

But it makes no sense to pay that kind of money to go back and forth to Tulsa. By the time you get to the train station, park, arrange to drive in Tulsa and do the reverse on the way back, why bother? You'd be a third of the way to Tulsa by the time your train pulled out of the station, maybe further since I guarantee they wouldn't be running on the hour. And aren't there buses between OKC and Tulsa? People who can't drive or don't want to drive could take the bus. I just don't see people using a high speed rail between cities that close with no more traffic than we have in Oklahoma. As for Dallas, that is a different deal - it is further and more business people are liable to take advantage of it. Don't get me wrong, I love trains. I just don't see it giving the consumer enough of an advantage that they would prefer it or make it profitable.

sgray
09-10-2009, 09:32 PM
Reading today's posts gives one the impression that folks just can't see past the OKC-TUL portion of the greater picture. As clarified earlier by several posters, this is not simply an "OKC-TULSA EXPRESS"!!!

This is a new segment to the country's existing passenger rail infrastructure that would immediately offer Tulsa the opportunity to connect to DFW (and TX to TUL) as well as future service on to Springfield and on to St Louis where it would meet at an existing hub, giving access to even more destinations.

Again, this is not just a rail service for Oklahoma, but rather a new segment to the existing rail infrastructure that will move not only Oklahomans but also lots of outside traffic through our state!


Think Chicago->St Louis->OKC->Dallas! See where we fit in?

PS- of course we will still need local service in each area. OK has been s-l-o-w to embrace any local transit services. Hopefully seeing passengers passing through the state will inspire folks to make some noise and get the local leaders to do something about it.

Kerry
09-11-2009, 05:58 AM
sgray - you are right about being part of a national rail network but I think the US is too large for that. You can't compare us to Europe. The US is the size of the entire European continent. In Florida there was a proposed high speed rail system that was going to cost upwards of $20 billion. The line from Miami to Orlando alone was going to cost $9.1 billion after right-of-way acqusition was factored in. When the state constitution was amended to mandate high-speed rail we were told is only going to cost $4 billion. It passed and then the real numbers started popping up. Two years later the cost was up to $20 billion and we changed the constitution back.

Would a national high-speed rail network be cool to have. Sure it would. I wish we had it right now, but to build one from scratch is going to cost way more the $8 billion Congress has made available. The California plan linking San Diego, LA, San Francisco, and Sacramento is budgeted for $40 billion. Apply the knowledge that govern under-estimates the cost of everything and the cost is probably more like $60 billion.

So you see, we are pushing $100 billion and we only have two states done. I just don't see how we, as a nation, can afford it. It is shame that infrastructure is one of the responsibilities of a federal government and we can't afford to do it.

Heyuri
09-11-2009, 06:25 AM
sgray - you are right about being part of a national rail network but I think the US is too large for that. You can't compare us to Europe. The US is the size of the entire European continent.

I am not sure why you cannot compare the US to Europe, because we are the same size???? Pretty much the entire European continent is covered by rail, they are about the same size as the US... It seems like its an apples to apples comparison. The only difference is they have 20 governments running each of their rail systems, so theirs is more complicated to get done.

I mean, if people had compared the US to France, OK... That wouldn't be a fair comparison because the two are just different sizes. But the US to Europe, sure, why cant we compare them?

Kerry
09-11-2009, 07:33 AM
I am not sure why you cannot compare the US to Europe, because we are the same size???? Pretty much the entire European continent is covered by rail, they are about the same size as the US... It seems like its an apples to apples comparison. The only difference is they have 20 governments running each of their rail systems, so theirs is more complicated to get done.

I mean, if people had compared the US to France, OK... That wouldn't be a fair comparison because the two are just different sizes. But the US to Europe, sure, why cant we compare them?

But not all of Europe is not covered by high-speed rail. Only a few countries have it.

Heyuri
09-11-2009, 07:51 AM
But not all of Europe is not covered by high-speed rail. Only a few countries have it.

Pass | EuRail - Railway Maps (http://www.eurail.com/eurail-railway-map)

A huge amount of Europe is covered by rail.

Kerry
09-11-2009, 09:32 AM
Pass | EuRail - Railway Maps (http://www.eurail.com/eurail-railway-map)

A huge amount of Europe is covered by rail.

Rail yes, but not high-speed rail. Take out France, Spain, and Italy and Europe has very little high speed rail.

The UIC (International Union of Railways) defines high-speed rail as services which regularly operate at or above 250 km/h on new tracks, or 200 km/h on existing tracks. Those speeds can be seen on the following rail map.

File:High Speed Railroad Map Europe 2009.gif - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:High_Speed_Railroad_Map_Europe_2009.gif)

Heyuri
09-11-2009, 09:53 AM
Rail yes, but not high-speed rail. Take out France, Spain, and Italy and Europe has very little high speed rail.

The UIC (International Union of Railways) defines high-speed rail as services which regularly operate at or above 250 km/h on new tracks, or 200 km/h on existing tracks. Those speeds can be seen on the following rail map.

File:High Speed Railroad Map Europe 2009.gif - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:High_Speed_Railroad_Map_Europe_2009.gif)

OK, so? 250+ km/h rail doesn't blanket all of Europe. I guess I will quote myself...


I am not sure why you cannot compare the US to Europe, because we are the same size???? Pretty much the entire European continent is covered by rail, they are about the same size as the US... It seems like its an apples to apples comparison. The only difference is they have 20 governments running each of their rail systems, so theirs is more complicated to get done.

I mean, if people had compared the US to France, OK... That wouldn't be a fair comparison because the two are just different sizes. But the US to Europe, sure, why cant we compare them?

So, given my question, what about the US and Europe being close to the same size makes us not a good comparison?

johnnyincog
09-11-2009, 12:39 PM
So, given my question, what about the US and Europe being close to the same size makes us not a good comparison?

population density. in approx the same area, europe has 2.4x as many people (305 mil vs. 730 mil). population density is the most important aspect in the success of public transportation.

mugofbeer
09-11-2009, 12:47 PM
How about Tulsa/KC or Tulsa/St. Louis?

Heyuri
09-11-2009, 12:55 PM
population density. in approx the same area, europe has 2.4x as many people (305 mil vs. 730 mil). population density is the most important aspect in the success of public transportation.

That is a perfectly valid argument and concern that can be discussed. My problem was with the statement that the US is too large, you cant compare us with Europe they are the same size as us...

Population density, however, is certainly a valid point, and I am not 100% sure we can overcome the lack of population density.

Kerry
09-11-2009, 01:25 PM
Heyuri - I am going to change my mind on this after giving it some additional thought. As SGRAY pointed out, this is more than just a OKC to Tulsa route. After looking at the rail maps of Europe there are several cities along high-speed lines that are secondary or tertiary markets - just like OKC and Tulsa would be.

I think the number of people that only travel between Tulsa and OKC would be very small, to non-existant, and without local transit systems to move people around OKC and Tulsa, hardley anyone would get off the train to visit. However, St. Louis and Dallas have city wide rail systems so it is possible people will travel between St. Louis and Dallas. If the train has to go through somewhere, it might as well go through Tulsa and OKC.

Just keep this in mind: the 700 mile trip from St. Louis to Dallas is farther than Paris to Rome. The 1000 mile trip from Dallas to Chicago is 120 miles farther than London to Rome. 1000 miles and we are still in Americas heartland.

Kerry
09-11-2009, 01:33 PM
A co-worker of mine just brought up an interesting point. If you draw a line from Chicago to Dallas how long would it take before a tornado or hailstorm crossed that line, and would you want to be traveling at 5.8 miles per minute along that line when it does? At that speed, in 10 minutes you will be where weather is developing 58 miles away.

bombermwc
09-14-2009, 08:15 AM
Well airplanes deal witht he same stuff. Rail folks would/do monitor the weather just as air folks.

Kerry
09-14-2009, 08:48 AM
Well airplanes deal witht he same stuff. Rail folks would/do monitor the weather just as air folks.

Airplanes can fly around weather. All a train can do is slow down or stop. Since the major source of power is electrical lines how would that factor in during severe weather. What kind of bad weather does France have? How do they deal with it?

Urban Pioneer
09-14-2009, 10:02 AM
PUBLIC MEETING TODAY


DATE: September 14, 2009
TIME: 6:00 pm
LOCATION: Metro Tech Springlake Campus
Conference Center Auditorium
1900 Springlake Drive
Oklahoma City, OklahomaLocation Map
CONTACT: Johnson Bridgwater jbridgwater@odot.org
Rail Programs Division
SUBJECT:

As part of an initial environmental process, the Oklahoma Department of Transportation 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.

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.

Persons who would like to attend this meeting, but find it difficult due to disability, architectural barrier, or other special needs, or require a sign-language interpreter, should contact Craig Moody at (405) 522-1465.

Tier2City
09-14-2009, 12:31 PM
Does anybody know what kind of routes they are talking about?

transport_oklahoma
09-22-2009, 05:42 PM
Oklahoman embarrasses state as national rail conference meets in Oklahoma City

The Daily Oklahoman editorialized today that ODOT ought to “Focus on roads and bridges,” and disregarding substantive rail development even as a national rail conference met in downtown Oklahoma City.

The Standing Committee on Rail Transportation of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials is holding its 2009 national meeting at the Skirvin Hilton this week. The theme of the conference is “Rail Transportation: Partnering to achieve the vision.”

If Oklahoma were to adopt the Oklahomans way of the future of transportation, we will be more dependant on volatile foreign energy, those with disabilities will be less able to move about the state, and we will become less competitive as other regions of the country enjoy the productivity gains and urban development that has been shown to occur with the development of modern, fast trains.

LakeEffect
09-22-2009, 06:25 PM
Nice catch. Didn't know about either thing.

Urban Pioneer
09-22-2009, 06:42 PM
345

Kerry
09-25-2009, 11:40 AM
If Oklahoma were to adopt the Oklahomans way of the future of transportation, we will be more dependant on volatile foreign energy, those with disabilities will be less able to move about the state, and we will become less competitive as other regions of the country enjoy the productivity gains and urban development that has been shown to occur with the development of modern, fast trains.

I am a rail supporter (not 100% sold on highspeed rail) but lets not make up catch phrases to prove our point:


we will be more dependant on volatile foreign energy
We are dependent on forign oil because our government wants us to be. We could supply ourselves 100% if we really wanted to.


those with disabilities will be less able to move about the state
How does a handicapped person get to a high speed rail station, and couldn't that same mode of transportation be offered state-wide?


enjoy the productivity gains and urban development that has been shown to occur with the development of modern, fast trains
What country are you talking about? Prosperous countries didn't become prospoerous because of fast trains. If so, Spain would be an economic power house.

Let's keep it real.

kevinpate
09-25-2009, 05:50 PM
> Let's keep it real.

Perhaps he feels he's already chosen wisely and has decided this is the side he should pick, and that it was time to do so?

mugofbeer
09-25-2009, 09:53 PM
kevinpate,

I think the point was made that other lines were not included due to industry pressure from airlines. I'm not sure. Either way, there are many states and cities that aren't in these plans, but we are. In my view, that is a positive development.

If the projects are successful, you can bet your bottom dollar the map will fill in.

wsucougz
09-25-2009, 10:37 PM
We are dependent on forign oil because our government wants us to be. We could supply ourselves 100% if we really wanted to.


You've been reading too many chain e-mails.

RedDirt717
09-25-2009, 11:16 PM
I'd be interested to get an estimated price per person per trip.

One year I thought Id save some money traveling to Miami from Norman on Greyhound. It took me nearly 80 hours round trip, I spent more time on the effing bus then I did in Miami.

I only saved 150 dollars going by greyhound as opposed to plane, I can't imagine this would be any cheaper than greyhound.

bluedogok
02-27-2010, 12:48 PM
I ran across this article about importing the shinkansen trains to the US.

The Japan Times - AMERICAN SHINKANSEN: Joint effort on track to take shinkansen system to U.S. (http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/nn20100223i1.html)


Airplanes can fly around weather. All a train can do is slow down or stop. Since the major source of power is electrical lines how would that factor in during severe weather. What kind of bad weather does France have? How do they deal with it?
Most have their own power systems, if you are building a new base to support high-speed rail tracks then we are probably cutting a wide enough swath that you can bury the lines beside the tracks in the right-of-way.


I'd be interested to get an estimated price per person per trip.

One year I thought Id save some money traveling to Miami from Norman on Greyhound. It took me nearly 80 hours round trip, I spent more time on the effing bus then I did in Miami.

I only saved 150 dollars going by greyhound as opposed to plane, I can't imagine this would be any cheaper than greyhound.
Buses were a viable and cost effective alternative back in the days of the price controlled airline industry before it was deregulated in 1978. Since that happened you saw the rise of the short haul carriers like Southwest which took a large chunk of what the bus lines relied on for revenue, most people rarely flew from Midland to DFW, they drove or took a bus unless they were business travelers. So the buses (and Amtrak to a certain extent) were sacrificed for the airlines.

mmonroe
02-27-2010, 02:09 PM
AWESOME! I don't care who thinks what or opinons blah blah, I want this here and I want it now. Who wouldn't want to be on a bullet train?

warreng88
01-16-2011, 10:07 PM
Legislator eyes rail service from OKC to Tulsa
By D. Ray Tuttle
The Journal Record
Posted: 08:13 PM Friday, January 14, 2011

TULSA – There will be a push in the state Legislature this session to create passenger train service between Tulsa and Oklahoma City.

State Rep. Richard Morrissette, D-Oklahoma City, said Friday he will file a bill in the state House of Representatives on Thursday, creating a task force to study the issue and draw up a plan to create a public-private partnership that would operate the rail line.

“We all know as we enter the 21st century, connecting Tulsa to Oklahoma City via a passenger rail line is a no-brainer,” Morrissette said.

Morrissette spoke Friday during a meeting at the Tulsa City Hall between city and legislative leaders, led by Evan Stair, executive director of Passenger Rail Oklahoma.

The line would be an economic development tool for the state’s two largest cities and all the communities between them that would be able to take advantage of passenger rail service, Stair said.

It is estimated it would cost $26 million to upgrade the rail line for passenger service, Stair said. Once running, it is estimated the upkeep would be between $1 million to $2 million annually. The Heartland Flyer, which runs 200 miles from Oklahoma City to Fort Worth, costs $2 million annually to operate.

The line between Oklahoma City and Tulsa would be half that distance – about 100 miles.

“Whatever the cost, it is not that great,” said District 2 Tulsa City Councilor Rick Westcott. “Expanding I-44 through Tulsa costs $150 million per mile. What if we could put that kind of money into a passenger rail line?”

Morrissette said the issue has been studied ad nauseam.

“The problem is that we will run up against stiff resistance due to the lack of money,” Morrissette said. State agencies are looking to slash budgets by as much as 10 percent.

If Morrissette succeeds in creating the task force, he estimated it could begin work this fall and issue a report by June 2012.

“Everyone wants it to happen sooner rather than later,” Westcott said.

The rail line between Oklahoma City and Tulsa, much of which is already owned by the Oklahoma Department of Transportation, would run on a line roughly parallel to the Turner Turnpike. ODOT owns a rail line from Oklahoma City to Sapulpa. Burlington Northern Santa Fe owns the line from Sapulpa to Tulsa.

The pieces are coming into place, Westcott said.

A key piece fell into place last month, when ODOT received a $49.4 million grant to replace the Interstate 244 bridge over the Arkansas River in Tulsa. The I-244 bridge replacement project is considered critical to Tulsa’s proposed rail transit development plans, ODOT said.

The project will include a new section of the westbound highway, two dedicated future rail lines in a double-decker-style bridge. The reconstructed bridge will be Tulsa’s first “multimodal” crossing to accommodate highway, pedestrian and bicycle traffic as well as a high-speed commuter rail.

Design plans have been expedited. The rail line would travel at 80 mph to start, Stair said.

“With upgrades, the speed could be increased to 120 mph,” Stair said.

A round-trip ticket would cost $35, Stair said. Stair, who has been working on the issue for 10 years, suggested a public-private plan would ease the state’s cost.

The grant, awarded under the Recovery Act’s Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery program, is designed to promote innovative transportation projects that provide economic and environmental benefits to a metropolitan area, region or the nation, ODOT said.

metro
01-16-2011, 10:16 PM
Capcha: task force

betts
01-17-2011, 06:22 AM
Tulsa will need to be thinking about a streetcar too, were this to occur. One of the problems with traveling to both cities via something other than car is that once you get there, there's no great way to get around. It would take a lot of land to create car rental agencies around the rail hub, and they're not very attractive.

Rover
01-17-2011, 08:44 AM
Tulsa will need to be thinking about a streetcar too, were this to occur. One of the problems with traveling to both cities via something other than car is that once you get there, there's no great way to get around. It would take a lot of land to create car rental agencies around the rail hub, and they're not very attractive.

Great opportunity for a small Smart car rental business. Rates by the hr. or day.

BTW, cabs aren't that expensive in either OKC or Tulsa.

Kerry
01-17-2011, 09:19 AM
I just don't know if a Tulsa to OKC HSR is even feasable. It is only 90 miles and take just over an hour to drive. Even if HSR averaged 200 mph (not just top speed but average) it would only save 45 minutes and you would lose that by having to get to the train station early. Then there is the cost of a train ticket vs the cost of gasoline. A train ticket would cost about $100 round-trip so gas would have to go to $10 per gallon to make it cost effective, but if you have two people in the car gas would have to cost $20 per gallon. Now if they just want to expand the Hartland Flier to Tulsa (which is not HSR) then that is another story.

Rail works great in Europe and Asia because traffic congestion is the big problem and many people don't even own a car.