How much will it cost to signal the track and straighten out some curves? When I worked on trains on that line in 1980, there were 110 curves in 114 miles to Tulsa.



Upon further inspection of this line while traveling Route 66 between Bristow and Sapulpa, I discovered that these tracks are not currently Continuous Welded Rail.

So how much is that going to add to the cost of rehabilitation of this line?

This is why HSR will never use that right of way. It is suitable for a regional rail network that uses conventional equipment or modern DMU's. PTC and welded rail would be the highest cost I think.

How much will it cost to signal the track and straighten out some curves? When I worked on trains on that line in 1980, there were 110 curves in 114 miles to Tulsa.

Large portions of the existing line will be rendered useless for HSR due to horizontal curve geometry. That thing snakes around as if it were laid out by a wandering mule.

If true HSR were used between OKC and Tulsa it wold require a whole new right of way. Not only would they need to make it straight but they would also have to level it out. People would get sea sick in they tried to make it follow the terrain across Oklahoma. At 200 mph you would be covering a mile every 18 seconds.

The 5:33 mark will give you a good idea of how fast this thing is really going.

wfll-5h6Rg8

OKC-Tulsa Rail Study Seeks Ideas:

http://newsok.com/oklahoma-veterans-job-fair-passenger-rail-project-briefs/article/3696358

That was probably discussed at the meeting I was unable to attend last week. Thanks G.W.

This completely excludes modern nuclear power generation. While the initial costs are very high, the long term cost is reasonable - unfortunately the nuclear industry is still trying to overcome a couple very large black eyes in the United States and a lot of NIMBYism.


I don't think nuclear power is considered renewable.

No - but it has become "alternative". I think it is one of the best options that provides a lot of power for a long time, with less environmental impact than coal plants without NOx scrubbers. Even the irradiated material and spent fuel can be stored and disposed of in ways that make environmental impact minimal. It is just very difficult to get most people to put Three Mile Island and Chernobyl in proper perspective because they never hear the full story about the causes of each incident.

BUT - I think future HSR systems in the US should strongly consider natural gas fired turbines for power generation. We have plenty of NG which would provide the energy companies long term stable customers, then sell any excess power generated to the public grid to recoup some of the cost. This would provide the HSR system its own dedicated power supply. I am eventually going to find out how much power SNCF requires for the TGV. I honestly have no idea how much power is required to move a vehicle along at 200mph but I hope to soon.

CaptDave, please don't make us create another thread based on your history of derailing them ;-)~

I know!! :butbutbut I did attempt to steer it back to HSR related subject matter though. :D

I am curious to know what the power requirements are for HSR though - and if there are some lessons we could learn from countries with HSR systems. France and Japan are the most frequently referenced systems and those countries generate a large percentage of their electricity with nuclear plants (at least Japan did before the earthquake and tsunami.)

CaptDave, please don't make us create another thread based on your history of derailing them ;-)~

Lighten up, dude. The discussion regarding renewable energy was directly related to HSR.

No - but it has become "alternative". I think it is one of the best options that provides a lot of power for a long time, with less environmental impact than coal plants without NOx scrubbers. Even the irradiated material and spent fuel can be stored and disposed of in ways that make environmental impact minimal. It is just very difficult to get most people to put Three Mile Island and Chernobyl in proper perspective because they never hear the full story about the causes of each incident.

BUT - I think future HSR systems in the US should strongly consider natural gas fired turbines for power generation. We have plenty of NG which would provide the energy companies long term stable customers, then sell any excess power generated to the public grid to recoup some of the cost. This would provide the HSR system its own dedicated power supply. I am eventually going to find out how much power SNCF requires for the TGV. I honestly have no idea how much power is required to move a vehicle along at 200mph but I hope to soon.

I have no particular disagreement with any of that. However, the bogus environmental impact study done for the California HSR specified "renewable" energy for the HSR, not "alternative" energy. That is why I left out nuclear power when I discussed the high costs of renewables.

I have no particular disagreement with any of that. However, the bogus environmental impact study done for the California HSR specified "renewable" energy for the HSR, not "alternative" energy. That is why I left out nuclear power when I discussed the high costs of renewables.

Fair enough. While I agree the actual benefits of the CA HSR "green energy" impact is highly debatable, it is laudable to make it part of the system requirements as much as practical.

Lighten up, dude. The discussion regarding renewable energy was directly related to HSR.

Listen up brother...u should learn to take a joke. Did u not see the smiley face with the tongue sticking out. Get over it jack!

Listen up brother...u should learn to take a joke. Did u not see the smiley face with the tongue sticking out. Get over it jack!

Happens to me all the time; I cut back on joking around on here because someone always comes along and can't sense that it's a joke, even if it's obvious.

Happens to me all the time; I cut back on joking around on here because someone always comes along and can't sense that it's a joke, even if it's obvious.

Well, at least you know the definition of "emoticons" lol.

THIS is why the State of Oklahoma needs to take over operations of the Heartland Flyer and any future expansions. The federal government simply can't run a rail system effectivly.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/amtrak-lost-800m-on-cheeseburgers-and-soda/article/2503832


Taxpayers lost $833 million over the last decade on the food and beverages supplied by Amtrak, which managed to spend $1.70 for every dollar that received in revenue.

...

“It costs passengers $9.50 to buy a cheeseburger on Amtrak, but the cost to taxpayers is $16.15. Riders pay $2.00 for a Pepsi, but each of these sodas costs the U.S. Treasury $3.40.

...

Amtrak President Joe Boardman tried encourage House investigators by telling them that last year's losses represent an improvement over previous years. "Our ongoing programs have certainly delivered measurable financial efficiencies," Boardman told Congress in his written testimony today. "In 2006, our food and beverage service recovered 49 percent of their costs. In 2011, these services recovered 59 percent of their costs," he testified.

Jeez, if they bought all their food supplies at Sam's then there wouldn't be an issue ;-)

It would be good to see a little intellectual honesty in the debate over federal transportation subsidies.

How much of our tax dollars go to the FAA and the air traffic control system?
How many airports has a private airline ever built or expanded?
How many highways has a trucking company built independently?
How many repairs of the road network have trucking companies or the auto industry independently funded?
How many interstate expansions have trucking companies or the auto industry independently funded?

And the list can go on..... the point is all transportation infrastructure is subsidized yet is never included in the passenger rail debate. There is room to argue that Amtrak should not be in the operational side of passenger rail, but there are counter arguments to that as well.

I think it is perfectly reasonable for federal government to subsidize passenger rail transportation, especially for regional travel of around 500 miles or less. The efficiency or rail transportation has been well documented in the freight transportation industry and those companies HAD to build and maintain all their infrastructure. Talk about giving the trucking industry a government supplied competitive advantage! We have got to start looking at alternatives to being an auto-centric society and HSR and smaller regional system should be more strongly supported.

And the list can go on..... the point is all transportation infrastructure is subsidized yet is never included in the passenger rail debate. There is room to argue that Amtrak should not be in the operational side of passenger rail, but there are counter arguments to that as well.

That is the whole debate. The federal government doesn't operate a trucking company, an airline, or own commercial airports (except maybe the CIA). The federal government finances the infrastructure and private companies use it. Rail is the exact opposite. The federal government paid the railroads to build the tracks, but then the private companies got to keep ownership. Today that would be like the federal government paying Company X to build I-42 and then company X gets to own the freeway when it is done.

What needs to happen is what HSR in California is doing. The state is building the tracks (financed in part by the feds) and they will own it when they are done. They will run their own state owned/operated trains. This is what should happen nationwide with what we call Am-Track. The federal government should assist states with building regional rail networks that the states then manage. For example, Oklahoma, Kansas, and Nebraska would have their own networks. Trains from OKC to Wichita (Tulsa to KC) would operate under a joint agreement between Oklahoma and Kansas. Trains running entirely within the boundaries of Oklahoma would be the responsibility of the State of Oklahoma.

Now if a private company wants to offer service from OKC to Omaha via Wichita then they negotiate rail access with each state and start running their train. Not only do we need to move away from cars, but we have to also move away from Burlington Northern/Santa Fe, Union Pacific, CSX, etc… owning the only right of way. The State of Oklahoma already started this by buying the line from OKC to Sapulpa.

Italy has a similar service on their HSR network. The state run company operates HSR and conventional service and is supplemented by at least one private HSR operation.

There is data to support that increasing train frequency actually lowers per passenger cost/subsidy. (I will send the link to you if you wish.)

I think the ideal KS-OK-TX service would be at least 2 round trips with all the intermediate stops on two separate corridors with OKC in the middle. 2 round trips each from OKC - KS and OKC - FTW. Schedule it such that the two trains meet within 10-15 minutes at Santa Fe Station. Then offer one or two express trains running the entire length stopping only at the KS terminus, OKC, and FTW. The main obstacle to making reliable passenger rail work is sharing rails with freight. I think sharing corridors usually makes sense but for service to become more reliable I think the actual rails and traffic control needs to be separated.

Then implement state systems such as the OK network you offered. The trick will be making it reliable enough that people will trust it to be there when they want it and be available for spur of the moment trips. The modern diesel multi units are perfect for a state system and were recently granted clearance to share rails with conventional equipment by the FRA. It really isn't much different than running air passenger service as far as scheduling - it is the infrastructure we either destroyed or allowed to deteriorate and now requires substantial refurbishment that will make the initial costs so high. I am sure the long term operational costs will be lower than the doomsday highway/auto/air transport/government cartel have too many people convinced otherwise at this time.

I think you and I are in at least 95% agreement on this. Probably more.

China is going full speed ahead with HSR.

http://www.cnngo.com/shanghai/play/complete-guide-chinas-high-speed-rail-038363

I would like to know how it compares to France, Japan, or other longer term HSR operations. It appears to be faster than all at first glance and they had a major accident last year (?). Looks to be very good though.

It would be good to see a little intellectual honesty in the debate over federal transportation subsidies.

How much of our tax dollars go to the FAA and the air traffic control system?
How many airports has a private airline ever built or expanded?
How many highways has a trucking company built independently?
How many repairs of the road network have trucking companies or the auto industry independently funded?
How many interstate expansions have trucking companies or the auto industry independently funded?

And the list can go on..... the point is all transportation infrastructure is subsidized yet is never included in the passenger rail debate. There is room to argue that Amtrak should not be in the operational side of passenger rail, but there are counter arguments to that as well.

I think it is perfectly reasonable for federal government to subsidize passenger rail transportation, especially for regional travel of around 500 miles or less. The efficiency or rail transportation has been well documented in the freight transportation industry and those companies HAD to build and maintain all their infrastructure. Talk about giving the trucking industry a government supplied competitive advantage! We have got to start looking at alternatives to being an auto-centric society and HSR and smaller regional system should be more strongly supported.

I would very much like to see some intellectually honest analyses of the allocations of the taxes collected by the Federal Government on the airlines and of the gasoline taxes collected by the Federal Government. Have you seen any? Is all transportation infrastructure truly subsidized and if so, to what degree? (FWIW, just because a government entity undertakes the construction of an airport or a highway, does not mean it was subsidized by general tax revenue.)

Do you know of any intellectually honest analyses?

Do you know of any intellectually honest analyses?

No I do not - and that is precisely the point. Refer me to something since you have consistently been dismissive of anyone that questions our dependency on oil for nearly all our transportation requirements. If I am so far off base with my gut instincts on this, show me why.

I do not think anyone wants our energy companies to fail, there will be plenty of uses for hydrocarbon based products/fuels in a future that is not completely dependent upon highway and oil based transportation. Good lord..... this attitude is what has brought us to being such a wasteful people in many ways.

I would like to hear someone explain why trucking companies should be provided such a huge competitive advantage. The freight railroads are one of the great success stories of the last decade and longer. They build and maintain their entire infrastructure AND pay taxes on the property they use to generate revenue. What trucking company has ever built a highway? Sure they pay some fuel taxes and some other taxes, but so does everyone else. No one assists the BNSF's and Union Pacifics with their capital projects, yet they manage to generate revenue and are also the most fuel efficient way to move freight.

Honestly Oil Capital, I would like to have this discussion with you over a cup of coffee or pint of Guinness some time. I am interested to know how you arrived at your conclusion(s). This forum is great for quick statements of opinion and/or fact, but I think intents are hard to read.

I know that we're 450 posts into this thread, but generally speaking I believe the traveling public would be better served by an efficient and reliable passenger train system that can replace much of what the commercial airline industry over-promises and under-delivers. I'm not talking about high-speed rail, but what we had in this country a half-century ago. Why can't we go backwards in order to go forward?

Rails ruled until the mid-1950s when the interstate highway system was developed and people moved out of trains and into cars. A decade later, commercial jet travel was offered, and that doomed long-distance passenger rail. In the 50 years since, the commercial air industry has degenerated to one of TSA indignities, cramped seating, high fares, nuisance fees, low reliability and tremendous inconvenience when things go wrong (everything from a single lost suitcase to thousands of passengers sleeping in airport terminals). And now regional jets are about to be replaced by turboprops (remember ATRs?).

A return to conventional (not high speed) passenger rail would be a tremendous step forward in the eyes of many people, myself included. Sure, I'd fly commercially if I was going to the coasts, and I'd drive a car for trips up to 250 miles (or longer if staying a longer period of time), but there's a sweet spot for passenger rail travel that doesn't require bullet trains, and I believe people would support it.

No I do not - and that is precisely the point. Refer me to something since you have consistently been dismissive of anyone that questions our dependency on oil for nearly all our transportation requirements. If I am so far off base with my gut instincts on this, show me why.

I do not think anyone wants our energy companies to fail, there will be plenty of uses for hydrocarbon based products/fuels in a future that is not completely dependent upon highway and oil based transportation. Good lord..... this attitude is what has brought us to being such a wasteful people in many ways.

I would like to hear someone explain why trucking companies should be provided such a huge competitive advantage. The freight railroads are one of the great success stories of the last decade and longer. They build and maintain their entire infrastructure AND pay taxes on the property they use to generate revenue. What trucking company has ever built a highway? Sure they pay some fuel taxes and some other taxes, but so does everyone else. No one assists the BNSF's and Union Pacifics with their capital projects, yet they manage to generate revenue and are also the most fuel efficient way to move freight.

Honestly Oil Capital, I would like to have this discussion with you over a cup of coffee or pint of Guinness some time. I am interested to know how you arrived at your conclusion(s). This forum is great for quick statements of opinion and/or fact, but I think intents are hard to read.

What conclusions? I am happy to tell you how I arrive at any conclusions I have made. You have apparently drawn conclusions regarding the existence and extent of the subsidies to highways and air travel even while we both search for an intellectually honest analysis of same. I have drawn no such conclusions.

I know that we're 450 posts into this thread, but generally speaking I believe the traveling public would be better served by an efficient and reliable passenger train system that can replace much of what the commercial airline industry over-promises and under-delivers. I'm not talking about high-speed rail, but what we had in this country a half-century ago. Why can't we go backwards in order to go forward?

Rails ruled until the mid-1950s when the interstate highway system was developed and people moved out of trains and into cars. A decade later, commercial jet travel was offered, and that doomed long-distance passenger rail. In the 50 years since, the commercial air industry has degenerated to one of TSA indignities, cramped seating, high fares, nuisance fees, low reliability and tremendous inconvenience when things go wrong (everything from a single lost suitcase to thousands of passengers sleeping in airport terminals). And now regional jets are about to be replaced by turboprops (remember ATRs?).

A return to conventional (not high speed) passenger rail would be a tremendous step forward in the eyes of many people, myself included. Sure, I'd fly commercially if I was going to the coasts, and I'd drive a car for trips up to 250 miles (or longer if staying a longer period of time), but there's a sweet spot for passenger rail travel that doesn't require bullet trains, and I believe people would support it.

If we are going to subsidize slow methods of transportation it would be far cheaper and much wiser expenditure of increasingly limited resources to have national over land bus system.

Service could operate with far more frequency and often from better locations and on the existing interstate and highway system. There would be no need to spend hundreds of billions on a limited and slow train system.

If Megabus can transport people with their low fares maybe we should offer them a small subsidy to operate between OKC and Tulsa and other points of state interest and save our self-millions.

PS: We should increase the rural interstate speed limits up to 80 MPH.

PS: We should increase the rural interstate speed limits up to 80 MPH.

I think this is something all of us would agree on!

I wonder how feasible a direct HSR link to Denver would be especially since there isn't a direct highway link

I wonder how feasible a direct HSR link to Denver would be especially since there isn't a direct highway link

This is the problem of scale in the US. In the US Denver is our neighbor, but it is still over 500 miles away as the crow flies. It would take HSR 4 hours, at least, to cover the trip and probably closer to 6 hours by the time it meanders across the plains. By comparison, London to Paris is only 200 miles (which takes 2hr 15 min). 500 miles from Paris would put you well into Italy. Denver might as well be out on an island and will probably never have HSR to anywhere outside of Colorado. A Cheynne to Pueblo route might work but you don't need HSR for that.

I know that we're 450 posts into this thread, but generally speaking I believe the traveling public would be better served by an efficient and reliable passenger train system that can replace much of what the commercial airline industry over-promises and under-delivers. I'm not talking about high-speed rail, but what we had in this country a half-century ago. Why can't we go backwards in order to go forward?

Rails ruled until the mid-1950s when the interstate highway system was developed and people moved out of trains and into cars. A decade later, commercial jet travel was offered, and that doomed long-distance passenger rail. In the 50 years since, the commercial air industry has degenerated to one of TSA indignities, cramped seating, high fares, nuisance fees, low reliability and tremendous inconvenience when things go wrong (everything from a single lost suitcase to thousands of passengers sleeping in airport terminals). And now regional jets are about to be replaced by turboprops (remember ATRs?).

A return to conventional (not high speed) passenger rail would be a tremendous step forward in the eyes of many people, myself included. Sure, I'd fly commercially if I was going to the coasts, and I'd drive a car for trips up to 250 miles (or longer if staying a longer period of time), but there's a sweet spot for passenger rail travel that doesn't require bullet trains, and I believe people would support it.

First off, what's wrong with turboprops replacing RJs on some routes? Sure they may be a little noisier and not quite as smooth, but in terms of fuel efficiency they absolutely smoke the 50-seat RJs. Do some research - the economics of those small regional jets is obsolete. Delta is nearly eliminating their 50-seat flying in favor of 70-90 seat jets. I flew OKC-IAH on one of the newest turboprops last year (Bombardier Q400) and it feels exactly like a "jet." As I understand UA/CO has since eliminated the Q400 from the route, but it was still a perfectly fine flying experience. I agree with the rest of the hassles as far as dealing with TSA and whatnot, but the sheer speed of travel makes air travel somewhat irreplaceable, regardless of how unpleasant it can be.

And I really question the utility of high speed rail, particuarly in the western US. In the northeast corridor where there are several large cities relatively close together, rail makes a lot of sense (Boston-New York-Philly-DC), but out here, everything is just way too far apart. And then what do you do when you get to your destination? You need a car anyway. Cities in this part of the country are simply not walkable like they can be out east (even Chicago is somewhat doable without a car). The reason rail works so well in places like Japan is simply the much higher population density - there's no need for a car anywhere (nor the space to park it). That's just not true here. And if we were going "reinvent" the train system here, why would it not be bullet trains? I don't see the point in taking a train that wouldn't be significantly faster than driving - you might as well just drive if you'll need a car at your destination anyway. Now granted there are parts of the country where this works - I used to take Amtrak from Milwaukee to Chicago all the time, but that was because I didn't need or want a car if I was spending a weekend in downtown.

I don't see the point in taking a train that wouldn't be significantly faster than driving - you might as well just drive if you'll need a car at your destination anyway.

Adapt for economic activity without affordable fuel or parish wishing you had.

http://cdn.blogs.sheknows.com/thewire.sheknows.com/2010/09/gas_prices_labor_day.jpg

Seems to me like most rural i-state traffic flows at 76-84+ already

Adapt for economic activity without affordable fuel or parish wishing you had.

http://cdn.blogs.sheknows.com/thewire.sheknows.com/2010/09/gas_prices_labor_day.jpg

Which parish? And may I ask what you drive and what kind of mileage you get? And gas for 4.99/6.99? Hah.

Which parish? And may I ask what you drive and what kind of mileage you get? And gas for 4.99/6.99? Hah.

LOL - stupid spell checker. That should read 'perish', as in to slowly die. I drive a Ram 1500 that gets about 17 mpg in the city. The good news is I almost never have to drive it because I don't need a car to do about 95% of my living. Not sure what the $4.999 and $6.999 are doing on this pump (I dind't take the picture) but the $3.529 is accurate and when I do fill my tank it is nearly $100. Don't get me wrong though, I know that my current living arrangement is NOT part of the solution. I am trapped in suburbia like a lot of other people are. We waste billion of dollars just to get from where we live to where the things are that allow us to keep living.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/16/business/hassles-of-air-travel-push-passengers-to-amtrak.html?google_editors_picks=true

Story today in the NYT about the growth of rail passengers in the Boston-Washington, DC corridor, primarily due to the hassles of flying. Since 2000 between Washington & New York, the Amtrak rail/air market share has gone from 37% to 75%. Between New York & Boston, it's gone from 20% to 54%. Passengers appreciate not having to take off their shoes, having more space to move around, the ability to talk on the phone, higher on-time arrival rates, less impact due to weather, lower fares. The downsides include aging equipment (30 year old trains), infrastructure (bridges & tunnels slow the trains), and full cars.

I wish we had this option here.

Sadly the NE doesn't have many options to fix their problem. They need dedicated ROW for true high speed rail but it is cost prohibitive. They should have built it 50 years ago.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/16/business/hassles-of-air-travel-push-passengers-to-amtrak.html?google_editors_picks=true

Story today in the NYT about the growth of rail passengers in the Boston-Washington, DC corridor, primarily due to the hassles of flying. Since 2000 between Washington & New York, the Amtrak rail/air market share has gone from 37% to 75%. Between New York & Boston, it's gone from 20% to 54%. Passengers appreciate not having to take off their shoes, having more space to move around, the ability to talk on the phone, higher on-time arrival rates, less impact due to weather, lower fares. The downsides include aging equipment (30 year old trains), infrastructure (bridges & tunnels slow the trains), and full cars.

I wish we had this option here.

Agreed. But like I said I think the biggest difference between NY/BOS/DC is once you get from New York Penn to Washington Union, you can still use public transport/taxis/walking(!) to get where you need to go. That's just not the case out west. Most of the western US cities arose after the car came about and thus are much more sprawled out. Agree that it would be great to hop on a frequent, comfortable, fast train to Dallas or Houston, but what good is it if you can't get around once you get there?

Looks like we might have high speed rail from OKC to South Texas in the short term:

http://www.statesman.com/news/local/texas-awarded-high-speed-rail-grant-1001595.html

http://journalrecord.com/2012/08/16/transportation-departments-to-study-high-speed-rail-in-oklahoma-texas-capitol/

Looks like we might have high speed rail from OKC to South Texas in the short term:

http://www.statesman.com/news/local/texas-awarded-high-speed-rail-grant-1001595.html

http://journalrecord.com/2012/08/16/transportation-departments-to-study-high-speed-rail-in-oklahoma-texas-capitol/

I'm not sure what you consider "short term". It says the funding would be for a 3 1/2 year study and specifically says there are no funding sources for construction. It's at least a start but doesn't appear very near happening to me.

Thanks G. Walker. How cool would that be? Too bad Southwest Airlines has more say in transportation options than the people do though.

I am curious what exactly is in the scope of work for either the 5.6 million granted with 2.8 contributed by TDOT or even the 11.2 million requested, the article only had a short paragraph that leaves some range for how detailed it will be. With that much of a difference it seems there is likely some steps that will need to be done later to get to the original aim of the study.

The JR article appears to be unavailable to non subscribers. The Statesman article was almost two years old. Is something new afoot?

The JR article appears to be unavailable to non subscribers. The Statesman article was almost two years old. Is something new afoot?

Hopefully this means the study is half done :)

Hopefully this means the study is half done :)

Yes, the the article from two years ago was just about the grant, and the new article is an update on progress.

With projects like this, short-term to me would be seeing construction start 10 years from now, and I'm sure Texas has the funds to start project tomm if they wanted to, it's the Oklahoma portion that scares me. However, ODOT will only be responsible for construction to Oklahoma/Texas border? If thats the case, big Texas would be footing most of the bill.

More info here, Oklahoma City mentioned heavily: ftp://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/rail/high_speed/ok_stx_multi/multi_state_okc_stx.pdf, wonder if ODOT is working on RFP, which is due in 2014.

More info: http://www.nctcog.org/trans/committees/sttc/Item_6.sttc072211.pdf

Recent: http://www.nctcog.org/trans/committees/sttc/Item_5.sttc062212.pdf

This should be easy to do.


There is also existing intercity passenger rail service on the Heartland Flyer between Oklahoma City and Fort Worth. It is proposed to at a minimum expand
the Heartland Flyer service to two round trips per day.

Of more interest


Improvements to the South Central High Speed Rail Corridor between Fort Worth and Oklahoma City were requested
as part of ODOT'S "2030 Oklahoma Statewide Intermodal Transportation Plan" policy directives.

To be connected to the Dallas/Ft. Worth Metroplex, the 4th largest and #1 fastest growing metro area in th US, via high HSR, will promote economic development and population growth in the Okahoma City metro area. People could actually live in downtown OKC and work in Dallas, or vice versa.

I was hoping for at least one alternative to study moving the OKC to DFW route to Dallas's station, especially the HSR route, from the maps it looks like it is not being considered.

I think they are considering OKC to FTW, then use the TRE right of way to Dallas Union Station. At least it appears to be under consideration in some of the studies I read recently. Not direct, but it may be more cost effective to use or parallel an existing right of way but I don't know for sure.

Why are people even discussing a new Crosstown Boulevard relying on personal automobiles and fossil fuels?
What about Lo-Speed Urban rail?

Why are people even discussing a new Crosstown Boulevard relying on personal automobiles and fossil fuels?
What about Lo-Speed Urban rail?

From my personal point of view, it is because the new boulevard is likely to be a catalyst for redevelopment and revitalization of downtown OKC and thereby increase the downtown population. Once the population density increases, then other forms of transit become necessary. Many of these issues are interrelated and cannot be viewed and analyzed in a vacuum.

I am a proponent of a future light rail system as part of a comprehensive central Oklahoma transit authority system. I view the MAPS Streetcar as our first real step toward restoring what was once a very extensive mass transit system in OKC. Near term (within 5 -10 years), I hope to see conventional commuter rail running from Edmond to Norman, and Yukon/Mustang to Tinker AFB/MWC. I envision streetcars running throughout the central downtown area, light rail to the airport, NW Expressway, Adventure District, etc. in the long term future. Some day - hopefully in my lifetime - I think the US will build several, interlocking regional HSR systems that will link major metropolitan areas as a more efficient means of travelling as compared to airlines or automobiles for short and medium distance travel.

It would be nice if they could get HSR speeds from 200-220mph. You could live in downtown OKC, leave OKC 6:30a to work in downtown Dallas by 8a, and be back by 6pm, nice.

It would be nice if they could get HSR speeds from 200-220mph. You could live in downtown OKC, leave OKC 6:30a to work in downtown Dallas by 8a, and be back by 6pm, nice.

That is still not a commute I would consider having unless it was going to be very short term or infrequently needed.

Let's say this thing will be completed in the next 15 years, by then, the DFW Metroplex would be pushing 8 million people, it would be nice to be just an hour away commute from such a economic and population centre.

It would be nice if they could get HSR speeds from 200-220mph. You could live in downtown OKC, leave OKC 6:30a to work in downtown Dallas by 8a, and be back by 6pm, nice.

This raises a big caution flag for cities such as OKC with regard to HSR connections. There are some analysts who suggest that such connections serve to boost the big metro areas at the expense of the smaller metro areas, making OKC, in effect, a far-flung suburb of DFW. Your hypothetical scenario is exactly the kind of thing we do not really want to happen for OKC, but may in fact the result. It may very well make further job concentration, retail concentration, air connections concentration, etc. etc. more likely to occur in the mega-metropolis's such as DFW and Houston.

This raises a big caution flag for cities such as OKC with regard to HSR connections. There are some analysts who suggest that such connections serve to boost the big metro areas at the expense of the smaller metro areas, making OKC, in effect, a far-flung suburb of DFW. Your hypothetical scenario is exactly the kind of thing we do not really want to happen for OKC, but may in fact the result. It may very well make further job concentration, retail concentration, air connections concentration, etc. etc. more likely to occur in the mega-metropolis's such as DFW and Houston.

But with large population base that DFW has, I think it would benefit OKC more than it would DFW. OKC's impact on the Dallas economy would not make a dent in development. In respects to economic impact in the US, Dallas could be put right behind the big three of NYC, LA, and Chicago. The DFW is already the fastest growing metro area, and are years ahead of us and most other metro areas in development. If anything, we would see a bleed over of economic development here, as there are economic development activities that have yet to tap our market, that have been in the DFW for years.

Proposed HSR Route:

http://mediad.publicbroadcasting.net/p/kut/files/styles/card/public/201010/high%20speed%20rail.JPG

http://www.mpithcc.org/assets/Hill%20Country%20Spotlight/Venue_News/kawasakiefset.jpg

I know it is a little off topic, but why doesn't the heartland flyer take advantage of the booming Winstar Casino and either add a stop in Thackerville with shuttle service to casino or offer shuttle service from the stops in Gainesville (~10 miles) or Ardmore (~30 miles).

Looking at the schedule you would get in around 11am and get picked up around 7. Could promote a golf and gambling day trip/weekend.