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

OKCisOK4me
12-21-2011, 04:41 PM
So when do we get one of these in OKC? I hear it's going to Dallas/Ft.Worth then on to Tulsa the other way with connections to KC & STL.

30+ years... That's my guesstimation. The U.S. government can barely, if at all, pay for Amtrak with out having it subsidized. If this country doesn't go broke first then this deal may go through.

MDot
12-21-2011, 07:25 PM
30+ years... That's my guesstimation. The U.S. government can barely, if at all, pay for Amtrak with out having it subsidized. If this country doesn't go broke first then this deal may go through.

You don't have to be so optimistic ya know. LOL

OKCisOK4me
12-21-2011, 09:37 PM
You don't have to be so optimistic ya know. LOL

Haha! I was hoping within my lifetime. Id be 63!

MDot
12-21-2011, 09:41 PM
Haha! I was hoping within my lifetime. Id be 63!

I'd only be 47 so I could enjoy it without getting stiff. LOL

OKCisOK4me
12-21-2011, 09:46 PM
They have medical drugs for that if that's what you'll need by then ;-)

MDot
12-21-2011, 10:35 PM
They have medical drugs for that if that's what you'll need by then ;-)

Haha, I pray I don't need them.

Just the facts
12-22-2011, 06:42 AM
Based on conversations I have with my fellow suburbanites I think the next 10 years are going to see the biggest shift in housing migration since the end of WWII. Even people who live in the most remote corners of suburbia are asking why they can't be connected to a rail system to avoid traffic. When I explain why to them they are ready to ditch their 1/5 acre lots.

LakeEffect
12-22-2011, 07:19 AM
Based on conversations I have with my fellow suburbanites I think the next 10 years are going to see the biggest shift in housing migration since the end of WWII. Even people who live in the most remote corners of suburbia are asking why they can't be connected to a rail system to avoid traffic. When I explain why to them they are ready to ditch their 1/5 acre lots.

But they don't need to ditch 1/5 acre lots specifically. I'm on about 1/6 acre in Mesta Park... It's about overall connectivity and the overall development pattern, not just about lot size.

Just the facts
12-22-2011, 09:03 AM
But they don't need to ditch 1/5 acre lots specifically. I'm on about 1/6 acre in Mesta Park... It's about overall connectivity and the overall development pattern, not just about lot size.

You're right. I meant that metaphorically. The typical subdivision use cul de sacs and collector streets to move people in and out of them - not through them. Subdivisions are then connected to each other via arterial streets. So it doesn't matter where the destination is, if everyone has to drive a car to get to it there will be congestion. You live in area with multiple thru streets that disperse traffic.

A coworker of mine parks in a 1000 space commuter rail lot. Guess where his worst congestion is? If you guessed right in front of the train station you would be correct. For mass transit to work effectivley all trips must start and end with walking, aka TND and TOD (traditional neighborhood development and transit oriented development).

MikeOKC
12-22-2011, 01:06 PM
Based on conversations I have with my fellow suburbanites I think the next 10 years are going to see the biggest shift in housing migration since the end of WWII. Even people who live in the most remote corners of suburbia are asking why they can't be connected to a rail system to avoid traffic. When I explain why to them they are ready to ditch their 1/5 acre lots.

I couldn't agree more. Love him or hate him, Obama is right about high-speed rail and rail infrastructure in general. It truly is a "build it and they will come" type thing. And for those who think our "car culture" would prevent this from being successful, I point to Dallas Area Rapid Transit. A huge success and Dallas is the epitome of "car culture."

chuck johnson
12-22-2011, 09:53 PM
Agreed. When they Bay Area Rapid Transit went up, it was largely empty and considered a boondoggle. Currently, over 300,000 people ride it every weekday. That's a lot of cars off the road. That's probably a million gallons of gas saved everyday. When your tires wear down, that residue ends up in the air and water. Imagine if OKC could take 10,000 cars off the road. Pretty soon that will be a necessity and then some.

The city may not quite be ready yet, but the plan and routes need to be in place now. The city needs to start buying up the necessary land now. This will also give developers and idea where to invest and concentrate development. The Portland transit plan has stops planned in areas with very little development knowing that it will come and it's best to set it up now.

Just the facts
12-22-2011, 10:07 PM
Let me also add that in addition to the "time" complaint, gas prices are really taking their toll on how much people want to drive. Even when I am at home in Jax biking is still an option but a lot of our friends live in subdivisions so remote their only option is to use the car everytime they leave the house.

Larry OKC
12-24-2011, 08:48 PM
ScissorTales: Leave this train in the station
Oklahoman Editorial (12/24/2011)

TULSA'S city council members are being encouraged to tell top legislative leaders to get off the dime and begin working toward a plan to get passenger rail service between Tulsa and Oklahoma City. Our advice to lawmakers: Leave that train in the station.
...
But the idea of a passenger train connecting the cities isn't feasible, not when the Turner Turnpike already allows folks to get from one city to the other in 90 minutes or less. Proponents of the train say economic development would follow the depots, and that it's misleading to cast the project as simply an excursion train. Yet the Heartland Flyer from Oklahoma City to Fort Worth is predominantly used in that way, and it hasn't transformed the cities where the train stops. ...

Read more: http://newsok.com/scissortales-leave-this-train-in-the-station/article/3634433#ixzz1hVygE6DI

ou48A
12-24-2011, 09:18 PM
Any train service between OKC to Tulsa needs to be able to make the trip in about an hour but first the Heartland flyer needs to be speed up by a lot.

I would like to see a much faster way to get to the DFW airport via the train

Just the facts
12-24-2011, 09:27 PM
Pauls Valley isn't transformed by once-a-day service to Ft. Worth so OKC and Tulsa shouldn't be connected by high speed rail? Using that logic we should be able to dig up an Oklahoman Editorial saying that the Turner Turnpike shouldn't be built because Route 66 also covers that route and besides, Route 66 didn't help Stroud. Not implementing a comprehensive rail network in 2011/12 is like not building a commercial airport in 1950.

Also - conspiracy alert. We can't be spending funds on rail when the new Convention Center is woefully under-funded.

ou48A
12-26-2011, 06:49 PM
The U.S. government can barely, if at all, pay for Amtrak with out having it subsidized. If this country doesn't go broke first then this deal may go through.

There are a lot of great ideas out there but very few ever post even good ideas about how we pay
for even the most viable Oklahoma projects.

Just the facts
12-29-2011, 10:12 AM
There are a lot of great ideas out there but very few ever post even good ideas about how we pay
for even the most viable Oklahoma projects.

The State spends $6 billion every year. The problem isn't funding, it is priorities.

demoman
12-31-2011, 09:07 PM
Coming from a city that has had light rail... And using it for several years. High speed Rail links are the BEST way to deal with long haul repeated Travel. The biggest log jam for them is securing Right of ways and then building the things before the latest round of BUNGLERS GO or STAY or CUT funding at the FEDERAL and STATE levels. The California project finally toss all government involvement and seems to have the CHINESE behind it now. Seeing Rail links from San Diego to San Francisco and LA to Vegas a profitable enough that they want in. Was latest word form the folks wife used to work for on that project.

ou48A
01-01-2012, 07:36 PM
Unless this new train service from Fort Worth to KC would be built to be significantly faster than driving I don’t think it’s worth the cost. Day time train service is the only train service that’s going to attract good numbers of riders.
It might be cheaper to subsidize additional airline flights.

The same money would be better put to use by speeding up the Heartland Flyer or to help build a high speed link from the Tulsa area to Edmond, OKC on to Norman.

http://normantranscript.com/headlines/x58542987/Officials-consider-expansion

Associated Press Sun Jan 01, 2012, 01:29 AM CST

KANSAS CITY, Mo. — Expanding passenger rail service through Missouri, Kansas, Oklahoma and Texas would cost the federal and state governments hundreds of millions of dollars, according to a recently released study that looked at several proposals for the region.

Just the facts
01-02-2012, 10:07 AM
Unless this new train service from Fort Worth to KC would be built to be significantly faster than driving I don’t think it’s worth the cost. Day time train service is the only train service that’s going to attract good numbers of riders.
It might be cheaper to subsidize additional airline flights.

The same money would be better put to use by speeding up the Heartland Flyer or to help build a high speed link from the Tulsa area to Edmond, OKC on to Norman.

http://normantranscript.com/headlines/x58542987/Officials-consider-expansion

Associated Press Sun Jan 01, 2012, 01:29 AM CST

KANSAS CITY, Mo. — Expanding passenger rail service through Missouri, Kansas, Oklahoma and Texas would cost the federal and state governments hundreds of millions of dollars, according to a recently released study that looked at several proposals for the region.

4 miles of new interstate in OKC also cost hundreds of millions of dollars. 4 miles of interstate or connecting 4 entire states with rail - hmm - which would be better? I am going to go with connecting 4 states. The beauty of rail is that can deliver people right to their doorstep with minimal negative qualities. They build airports in rural locations because people don't want to live near them and federal law restricts development around airports. In places where rail is available people try to live as close to the station as they can afford.

mugofbeer
01-02-2012, 05:07 PM
4 miles of new interstate in OKC also cost hundreds of millions of dollars

Excellent point. Also, most people's opinions are based on current dollar cost of a gallon of gas and current dollar cost of a car. If this system were built today, think about how happy we'd be to have it when gas is $10/gallon and cars are running $50K on average after a few years of inflation.

Just the facts
01-02-2012, 05:11 PM
Excellent point. Also, most people's opinions are based on current dollar cost of a gallon of gas and current dollar cost of a car. If this system were built today, think about how happy we'd be to have it when gas is $10/gallon and cars are running $50K on average after a few years of inflation.

We don't even need to get to $10/gallon. The whole country shut down at $4.00 gallon. Areas that rely 100% on automobiles to keep the economy going are in for some hard lean years ahead.

adaniel
01-05-2012, 01:21 PM
Interesting story in the Fort Worth Star Telegram about evenutally expanding the Hearltand Flyer to Kansas City.

http://www.star-telegram.com/2012/01/03/3632520/rail-advocates-want-to-get-fort.html#my-headlines-default#storylink=cpy

Just the facts
01-05-2012, 01:43 PM
The faster the States get Amtrak out of the loop the better.

BoulderSooner
01-06-2012, 06:33 AM
Excellent point. Also, most people's opinions are based on current dollar cost of a gallon of gas and current dollar cost of a car. If this system were built today, think about how happy we'd be to have it when gas is $10/gallon and cars are running $50K on average after a few years of inflation.

with the correct national energy policy .. gas will not get close to 10 a gallon in our lifetime ..

Just the facts
01-06-2012, 06:38 AM
with the correct national energy policy .. gas will not get close to 10 a gallon in our lifetime ..

So it is settled - $10/gal comming soon. However, 2 years ago the country shut down when gas hit $4/gal.

ou48A
01-06-2012, 12:51 PM
with the correct national energy policy .. gas will not get close to 10 a gallon in our lifetime ..

I agree. What many grossly fail to grasp is how much the domestic energy picture has changed in recent years. With the correct national energy policies the US now has the ability to eliminate all but Canadian energy imports and there are claims that we could drastically reduce or even stop Canadian imports.

North America is in the middle of a new oil & NG boom. The US is actually increasing crude oil production. The US is now actually exporting gasoline and other oil products. The US is in awash in extremely cheap natural gas and massive new amounts could be taped anytime demand warrants.

NG is increasingly being used as a transportation fuel, but the pace of conversion will pick up dramatically as would other alternatives if the price of gasoline and diesel goes up very much. This will hold transportation fuel prices much lower than some fear. Short of calamity like war or Weimar inflation it is completely ridiculous to think that gasoline prices could be sustained at $10 or above.

With the right national energy policies our future transportation fuel future actually looks very promising for decades to come.

Just the facts
01-06-2012, 01:09 PM
In case anyone was wondering, prices are not set by supply. They are set at auction by bidders. If there is demand for oil it matters not what the supply is because the tap can be turned off at any time. Gasoline will remain at prices where just enough people will still buy it, with the occasional venture into prices that curb demand. Supply and demand doesn't work for 'necessities' the way it does for 'wants' thanks to elasticity of demand.

If gasoline went to $8/gallon tomorrow what would you do about it? Most of you have to drive everywhere you want to go so you will have to pay whatever it cost. The only thing the oil speculaters fear is alternative forms of transportation.

ou48A
01-06-2012, 01:45 PM
One of the most basic and elementary rules of economics is the simple law of supply and demand
No smart trader of a commodity like gasoline or light sweet crude will ever be caught willingly on the wrong side of a supply and demand trade.

The US supply of transportation fuel is increasing and so much so that the US is now an exporter of transportation fuels and when combined with increased US crude production,,,, without a calamity, this makes giant price spikes EXTREMELY unlikely.

With the right energy policy’s the US supply of reasonably priced transportation fuels can be increased and by very large amounts.

ou48A
02-25-2012, 09:20 AM
A step toward passenger rail between OKC & Tulsa



Tulsans could be one step closer to seeing passenger rail service between Tulsa and Oklahoma.

For years the idea has been discussed. Now state and local leaders are sitting down together to talk about the feasibility of creating passenger rail service that would connect Tulsa and Oklahoma. It would be called the Eastern Flyer.

Members of Tulsa's advisory committee gathered at the state Capitol on Friday to meet for the first time with members of the statewide Eastern Flyer Task Force. It marks the first time everyone gathered together since the legislature voted to create the task force.

Rick Wescott is chairman of the Tulsa Advisory Committee to Eastern Flyer Task Force.
"There are so many possibilities for passenger rail," he told 2News. "They are really limitless."

He hopes to see a system that would not only benefit Tulsa and Oklahoma City, but other towns along the route as well.

"There would be stops in Chandler, Stroud and Bristow," Westcott said. "That brings economic development to those communities."

The latest estimates show it would cost around $120 million to upgrade the freight lines for handling passenger service.
Wescott points out that every mile of the I-44 expansion cost around $150 million per mile.

"It also promotes economic development. Would you spend two dollars to make eight? That is the economic development that the Heartland Flyer is bringing to communities South ok Oklahoma City," Wescott said.

The Heartland Flyer provides rail service from Oklahoma to Fort Worth.

"Oklahoma spends about $2 million a year to operate the Heartland Flyer," Wescott said. "Historically it brings about $8 million a year in economic development to the towns along that route. Passenger rail service brings economic development to cities it services, including Tulsa."

Tom Verdel is also a member of the Tulsa Advisory Committee.

"Let's get focused and see what we can get done," he said. "That is what we are trying to do."

Verdel says the Eastern Flyer would make multiple trips a day down what is now being used as a freight corridor.

He says one goal of these meetings is to find a way to allow the Eastern Flyer to move people without disrupting freight service.
"We need to find a balance between public investment and private commercial investment, as well as economic opportunity," he said.

ODOT has completed its long range plans for rail service in Oklahoma. Interested parties can view and leave comments on ODOT's website.

The plans can be viewed in person at the Central Library in downtown Tulsa at 400 Civic Center.

Following public input, ODOT will prepare a final plan to that will go before the Oklahoma Transportation Commission in the spring.
The statewide task force will meet again on March 29.

Read more: http://www.kjrh.com/dpp/news/a-step-toward-passenger-rail-between-okc--tulsa#ixzz1nPXosYTG

ou48A
02-25-2012, 09:26 AM
Any train needs to be faster than driving and by a decent amount or it’s not worth building, the money should be spent someplace else.

It would also be nice if the train extended to Oklahoma’s 3 largest city, Norman, a place with lots of events.

OKCisOK4me
02-25-2012, 12:17 PM
Yeah, they'd need CWR (Continuous Welded Rail) and elevated curves on this line to be able to push these trains no slower than 90mph, IMO. Any slower and its not worth it. Also, they'd need to update crossing gates at major roads. So their $120 million projection is a little low I'd say...

Snowman
02-25-2012, 01:36 PM
Yeah, they'd need CWR (Continuous Welded Rail) and elevated curves on this line to be able to push these trains no slower than 90mph, IMO. Any slower and its not worth it. Also, they'd need to update crossing gates at major roads. So their $120 million projection is a little low I'd say...

It depends on what market and volume you intend to serve, if I remember correctly around half of the Heartland Flier is leisure travel and the quality of the travel was more important than the length arriving or delays. However if we were looking at trying to get commuting trips then speed is more of a factor. In any case can be implemented much sooner with less funds, so can help as an intermediate step in building up usage of mass transit near OKC and Tulsa hubs before HSR. The plan for HSR takes a different route (the existing rail is a reminder companies were payed by the mile to construct lines), has the features you mention, at least one version did not have intermediate stops and costs in the billions.

catch22
02-25-2012, 02:39 PM
Love how the article says "between Tulsa and Oklahoma".... kind of goes with the same line of thinking as the Tulsa State Fair....

Do they realize we are in the same state and Oklahoma City is the capitol of that state?

Oil Capital
02-26-2012, 08:41 AM
Any train needs to be faster than driving and by a decent amount or it’s not worth building, the money should be spent someplace else.

It would also be nice if the train extended to Oklahoma’s 3 largest city, Norman, a place with lots of events.

The current Heartland Flyer already stops in Norman.

They need to ditch the "Eastern Flyer" name. That is just silly. I can't imagine any need for a separate name.

ou48A
02-26-2012, 09:05 AM
The current Heartland Flyer already stops in Norman.



Yes the Heartland flyer train stops in Norman. I have taken it several times.

But a train that starts in Tulsa should end in Norman. Along with others it would give students and the population of the state’s third largest city an important travel option.

From OKC south the tracks are already passenger ready. Extending the Eastern flyer to Norman would require very little additional expense.

There are many events in Norman and most of those are at OU. This is why I would eventually like to see a train / transit station built on OU’s campus.

But any train built needs to be faster than driving by a significant amount.

Oil Capital
02-27-2012, 10:41 AM
Yes the Heartland flyer train stops in Norman. I have taken it several times.

But a train that starts in Tulsa should end in Norman. Along with others it would give students and the population of the state’s third largest city an important travel option.

From OKC south the tracks are already passenger ready. Extending the Eastern flyer to Norman would require very little additional expense.

There are many events in Norman and most of those are at OU. This is why I would eventually like to see a train / transit station built on OU’s campus.

But any train built needs to be faster than driving by a significant amount.

Oh, I was presuming that the service between OKC and Tulsa would be a true extension of the Heartland Flyer, so that trains would start in Tulsa and go through to Fort Worth, with all of the intervening stops. If that is not the case, you are probably looking at changing trains in OKC to go from Tulsa to Norman.

Roadhawg
02-27-2012, 01:18 PM
Yeah, they'd need CWR (Continuous Welded Rail) and elevated curves on this line to be able to push these trains no slower than 90mph, IMO. Any slower and its not worth it. Also, they'd need to update crossing gates at major roads. So their $120 million projection is a little low I'd say...

Most people on 44 are already doing 90mph

kevinpate
02-27-2012, 01:46 PM
Most people on 44 are already doing 90mph

Yeah .. danged those ol' slowpokes.

I keed, I keed, well, these days anyway.

OKCisOK4me
02-27-2012, 03:28 PM
Oh, I was presuming that the service between OKC and Tulsa would be a true extension of the Heartland Flyer, so that trains would start in Tulsa and go through to Fort Worth, with all of the intervening stops. If that is not the case, you are probably looking at changing trains in OKC to go from Tulsa to Norman.

No, the article stated that the OKC/Tulsa corridor would have several trips a day back and forth as opposed to the current Heartland Flyer which goes down in the morning and comes back in the evening.

I think the overall goal is eventually to get this thing to Kansas City, via Wichita and other Kansas towns or through Tulsa, and if going through Tulsa, they may just extend the line up to St. Louis which would be outstanding in my opinion!


Most people on 44 are already doing 90mph

4mph over for me, tops. Love driving past those people when they're pulled over by OHP!

Snowman
02-27-2012, 05:02 PM
No, the article stated that the OKC/Tulsa corridor would have several trips a day back and forth as opposed to the current Heartland Flyer which goes down in the morning and comes back in the evening.

I think the overall goal is eventually to get this thing to Kansas City, via Wichita and other Kansas towns or through Tulsa, and if going through Tulsa, they may just extend the line up to St. Louis which would be outstanding in my opinion!!

All three plans that Kansas is considering do not go through Tulsa.

Oil Capital
02-27-2012, 07:24 PM
No, the article stated that the OKC/Tulsa corridor would have several trips a day back and forth as opposed to the current Heartland Flyer which goes down in the morning and comes back in the evening.


In reality, what is stated in the article is little more than speculation at this point.

OKCisOK4me
02-27-2012, 08:06 PM
All three plans that Kansas is considering do not go through Tulsa.

I am well aware of that...

CaptDave
03-10-2012, 07:46 AM
http://www.cfr.org/united-states/us-rail-infrastructure/p27585?cid=rss-analysisbriefbackgroundersexp-u.s._rail_infrastructure-030712

Very good article that shows how far behind the rest of the developed, and developing, world we are falling. It baffles me why more goverment leaders do not support shifting a significant portion of the government highway and airport subsidies to rebuilding our rail infrastructure. Enhanced rail freight capacity and regional high speed rail projects seem to be what Republicans woudl consider "good" government spending - reduced dependence on foreign energy sources thereby improving national security, thousands of jobs created, and the side benefit (to the R's) of being environmentally beneficial. I think there is a rather large money trail built by the highway, oil, and uto indistry lobbyists one would have to follow to get a real answer to this.

It simply seems to make the most sense if the federal government is going to invest in transportation infrastructure to support this.

jedicurt
03-10-2012, 08:55 AM
http://www.cfr.org/united-states/us-rail-infrastructure/p27585?cid=rss-analysisbriefbackgroundersexp-u.s._rail_infrastructure-030712

Very good article that shows how far behind the rest of the developed, and developing, world we are falling. It baffles me why more goverment leaders do not support shifting a significant portion of the government highway and airport subsidies to rebuilding our rail infrastructure. Enhanced rail freight capacity and regional high speed rail projects seem to be what Republicans woudl consider "good" government spending - reduced dependence on foreign energy sources thereby improving national security, thousands of jobs created, and the side benefit (to the R's) of being environmentally beneficial. I think there is a rather large money trail built by the highway, oil, and uto indistry lobbyists one would have to follow to get a real answer to this.

It simply seems to make the most sense if the federal government is going to invest in transportation infrastructure to support this.

Since about 1992, both parties quit doing what was in the best interests of the country and only do what is not supported by the other party.... The reason the high speed rail options were taken out of the last stimulus is that an Obama administration supported the idea... Much like if the bush administration had supported this idea when the dens controlled both houses they would have voted it down as well. partisanship has killed American growth, and bi-partisanship just gets us watered down legislation that doesn't really do anything

OKCisOK4me
03-26-2012, 01:17 PM
Do we have a better shot of Tulsa being our link to Kansas City OR St. Louis with the new multi-modal transit bridge being built over the Arkansas River? I just think it'd be better (if the national high speed network is ever put into actual use) for Tulsa not to be a dead end and for traffic to continue on.

NoOkie
03-26-2012, 03:57 PM
Do we have a better shot of Tulsa being our link to Kansas City OR St. Louis with the new multi-modal transit bridge being built over the Arkansas River? I just think it'd be better (if the national high speed network is ever put into actual use) for Tulsa not to be a dead end and for traffic to continue on.

Going through Tulsa to St. Lous would probably go through Springfield and that area. Short hop to Branson from there, seems like a better plan.

Besides, who ever wants to go to Wichita?

ou48A
03-26-2012, 04:30 PM
I would prefer to see HSR run east out of Tulsa to the Springdale AR area.

From this point the line would split with one line going to Joplin & KC. The other line would turn south to Fort Smith then turn east to Little Rock and Memphis.
Eventually when other HSR lines were built this would give better connections to a national network and major city’s such as Saint Louis, Chicago, Atlanta, Nashville as well as others.

Snowman
03-26-2012, 06:16 PM
It simply seems to make the most sense if the federal government is going to invest in transportation infrastructure to support this.

Federal policy making sense, that's crazy.

OKCisOK4me
06-26-2012, 04:39 PM
Now, my grandma is 90 years old, bless her heart, but she seems to think that this line is going to be running some kind of passenger service within the next couple of years. I told her I didn't think that that time frame was likely. Was there something I missed?

CaptDave
06-26-2012, 08:51 PM
Now, my grandma is 90 years old, bless her heart, but she seems to think that this line is going to be running some kind of passenger service within the next couple of years. I told her I didn't think that that time frame was likely. Was there something I missed?

Unfortunately there is less than a 1% chance of there being any sort of rail passenger service between Tulsa and OKC in the next 2 years much less HSR. It is likely at least 10 years out unless when suddenly get an influx of enlightened, forward thinking legislators..... and cleans house at ODOT.

BoulderSooner
06-27-2012, 07:29 AM
Unfortunately there is less than a 1% chance of there being any sort of rail passenger service between Tulsa and OKC in the next 2 years much less HSR. It is likely at least 10 years out unless when suddenly get an influx of enlightened, forward thinking legislators..... and cleans house at ODOT.

HSR is closer to 50 years out if ever than it is 10 years out

Buffalo Bill
06-27-2012, 07:34 AM
Unfortunately there is less than a 1% chance of there being any sort of rail passenger service between Tulsa and OKC in the next 2 years much less HSR. It is likely at least 10 years out unless when suddenly get an influx of enlightened, forward thinking legislators..... and cleans house at ODOT.

and...and..well, maybe a few billion dollars will help. That and massive subsidies similar to the Heartland Flyer.

Buffalo Bill
06-27-2012, 08:12 AM
and...and..well, maybe a few billion dollars will help. That and massive subsidies similar to the Heartland Flyer.

Not to say that Highways, Air, Water, et al aren't the recipients of massive subsidies, too.

CaptDave
06-27-2012, 08:53 PM
Not to say that Highways, Air, Water, et al aren't the recipients of massive subsidies, too.

Glad you acknowledged that. I look at rail transportation as more than just a "cool" thing to have. I have personally gone to war three times in no small part due to our dependence on oil from the Middle East, so more efficient transportation is a national security issue to me. I simply do not want my sons to go to war over a resource like oil when we can actually do something to reduce or eliminate our dependence on it.

Therefore, a transit system that can efficiently move large numbers of people now, and accommodate future expansion, is a MUCH better investment of that subsidy than expanding the highway system any further. By all means MAINTAIN the highways we have now, but agencies such as ODOT have got to start looking outside their comfort zone and knowledge base. Just because "it has always been done that way" in the past does not make it the best use of our resources now and in the future. (I do not have a vendetta against roadways - I think HSR could (should?) replace air for medium range travel of around 500 - 750 miles.

CaptDave
06-27-2012, 08:58 PM
HSR is closer to 50 years out if ever than it is 10 years out

I was referring to a regional passenger rail link between Tulsa and OKC, not HSR. WE COULD do HSR as a nation if we chose to do so. The blueprint exists today - several regional systems replacing short to medium range air travel and reduced expenditures on highway construction. The United States once led the world in forward thinking and innovation, but today we lag behind nearly all of Europe and Asia when it come to developing our transportation system and infrastructure. I am watching to see how California proceeds with their HSR network with great interest.

BoulderSooner
06-28-2012, 06:14 AM
I was referring to a regional passenger rail link between Tulsa and OKC, not HSR. WE COULD do HSR as a nation if we chose to do so. The blueprint exists today - several regional systems replacing short to medium range air travel and reduced expenditures on highway construction. The United States once led the world in forward thinking and innovation, but today we lag behind nearly all of Europe and Asia when it come to developing our transportation system and infrastructure. I am watching to see how California proceeds with their HSR network with great interest.

by the way we lag behind NO ONE when it comes to a nation wide transportation system ... we can move more people over huge distances than any country on earth ..

Just the facts
06-28-2012, 08:31 AM
by the way we lag behind NO ONE when it comes to a nation wide transportation system ... we can move more people over huge distances than any country on earth ..

Maybe historically - but not today. When it cost 1/2 billion dollars to rebuild 4 miles of interstate... well, you get the point. Our interstate system is plagued with choke points.

BoulderSooner
06-28-2012, 10:30 AM
Maybe historically - but not today. When it cost 1/2 billion dollars to rebuild 4 miles of interstate... well, you get the point. Our interstate system is plagued with choke points.

didn't say ours was the best use of funds ...... but our public highways and roads are much much better than anywhere on earth ..

Just the facts
06-28-2012, 10:32 AM
didn't say ours was the best use of funds ...... but our public highways and roads are much much better than anywhere on earth ..

We just can't afford to keep them in an operable condition.