Oklahoma, Texas Economies Linked
Growth In One State Results In Growth For The Other

POSTED: 10:43 am CST February 19, 2010
UPDATED: 10:49 am CST February 19, 2010
[EMAIL: Oklahoma, Texas Economies Linked] Email [PRINT: Oklahoma, Texas Economies Linked] Print
[COMMENTS: Oklahoma, Texas Economies Linked] Comments
(0)
Bookmark and Share
STILLWATER -- An Oklahoma State University study indicates the economic performance of Oklahoma and Texas are linked through trade and that growth in one state results in growth in the other.

Kyle Dean and Russell Evans of OSU's Center for Applied Economic Research led the study. They developed a model to estimate the level of economic interdependency existing along the Interstate 35 corridor linking Oklahoma City to Dallas and Fort Worth.

The study indicates a hypothetical 1 percent increase in the Texas region's gross domestic product will likely result in a $56 million increase in Oklahoma output. And a hypothetical 1 percent increase in the Oklahoma region GDP will likely result in a $173.7 million increase in Texas output.

Copyright 2010 by The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

http://www.koco.com/news/22611586/detail.html

Wrong thread sorry feel free to delete this

North Texas is getting so big that its economic development can't help but spill over into Oklahoma! The I-35 super highway corridor north of the Metroplex is an untapped virgin empire!

What does Oklahoma have to offer:

1. An abundance of land development potential
2. Great water resources
3. Driveable cities
4. Quality Jobs Program
5. Inexpensive to operate and expand business
6. Inexpensive utilities and related resources
7. Expanding transportion and most inland ports within the U.S.
8. Great education base: college, vocational private & public schools
9. Very diverse work force and employment training base
10. Aggressive improvments in air and quality of life.

The study indicates a hypothetical 1 percent increase in the Texas region's gross domestic product will likely result in a $56 million increase in Oklahoma output. And a hypothetical 1 percent increase in the Oklahoma region GDP will likely result in a $173.7 million increase in Texas output.

Not to cast doubts, but does this mean Texas would be better off trying to grow the Oklahoma economy instead of their own? Surely it would be far cheaper to grow the Oklahoma economy by 1% than it would be to grow their own economy by 1% and Texas would see more than a 300% higher return than Oklahoma.

I'm not surprised by the results of this study. I've felt for years that we benefit by our proximity to Dallas, but I am surprised that it actually works both ways, and they benefit from our growth as well.

I wonder what multiplier effect a regional high speed rail connection along I 35 would be? I suspect it would be tremendous...

I'm not surprised by the results of this study. I've felt for years that we benefit by our proximity to Dallas, but I am surprised that it actually works both ways, and they benefit from our growth as well.

I wonder what multiplier effect a regional high speed rail connection along I 35 would be? I suspect it would be tremendous...

A high speed rail link between Chicago and the Midwest to Dallas and the rest of Texas through Oklahoma's two main cities would be a huge driver for economic development.

Not to cast doubts, but does this mean Texas would be better off trying to grow the Oklahoma economy instead of their own? Surely it would be far cheaper to grow the Oklahoma economy by 1% than it would be to grow their own economy by 1% and Texas would see more than a 300% higher return than Oklahoma.

That is the way I read it, and having lived in both locations and realizing just how many OKC transplants are in prominant positions in many companies there in Dallas, It is not surprizing that there are such significant ties to the north.

A high speed rail link between Chicago and the Midwest to Dallas and the rest of Texas through Oklahoma's two main cities would be a huge driver for economic development.

What will this accomplish that our current air service cannot support? We have nonstops to Dallas about every hour or other hour. We have 10 non stop flights to Chicago, we have nonstops to the Midwest: St. Louis and Kansas City.

Why should we try to hurt one positive aspect of the city that is working right now for a monumental high speed rail link that will take business away from what we have now and will provide slower and less frequent service.

Spend the government cheese money for high speed rail in NY, NY, PA, Boston. That is where it is needed. OKC is not NYC or Boston, let's not get ahead of ourselves.

Not to cast doubts, but does this mean Texas would be better off trying to grow the Oklahoma economy instead of their own? Surely it would be far cheaper to grow the Oklahoma economy by 1% than it would be to grow their own economy by 1% and Texas would see more than a 300% higher return than Oklahoma.

Check your logic.

A 1% growth of the TEXAS economy results in $56 Million increased output in OKLAHOMA.

With a $1.245 Trillion Dollar economy, that same 1% growth in the Texas economy would result in $12.45 BILLION increased output in Texas, almost 72 times the $173.7 Million Texas would get from growing Oklahoma's economy by 1%.

There may be nonstop flights to Dallas and Chicago, but who wants to be bothered with all the nonsense involved with getting on a plane these days? Also, burning all that expensive fuel just to get to Dallas a little quicker seems like kind of a waste to me.

I'm not saying get rid of the airlines, but doesn't hurt to have options. I, for one, would probably ride high-speed rail to DFW if it existed.

Well, apparently 259 people do on average out of OKC every day, and those people are not connecting to other flights. That is a very strong local flight market when compared to our other fare markets. That is called a local O/D market, they are needed to sustain air service even if a majority of the passengers are not O/D but are connecting.

When we cut this number, we lose frequencies and aircraft size -- meaning, if you are connecting in Dallas you won't have as many options. Then you complain.

We are not a big city, and I am tired of people convincing themselves that we are Los Angeles or New York City. Wake up, we are smaller than Austin, TX. We cannot support diversifying our travel needs. All that will happen is a market share split. The high speed rail will have half the market, the airlines will have the other half. Neither will do good. I'd say keep on dreaming about this high speed rail idea, it's not going to happen for many years. The Northeast needs it badly, and they will get it first.

When the OKC-Dallas air market is like the Dallas-Houston market with roughly 50 flights a day between them, then you can talk to me about some high speed rail. It's not needed. Spend an hour at the airport, 30 minutes on the plane and you are there. Spend 3 hours in your car. Take the Heartland Flyer train down there. We have many options - we don't need a 4th and unnecessary one.

Husband was allowed to relocate back home to Oklahoma, in large part, because of its proximity to Dallas and the airline hubs. Nice to hear it goes both ways. And I agree with Skywest. Husband would drive to Dallas if he couldn't catch a flight - can't see him taking a train on a regular basis. By the time he parked and boarded in OKC, with the need for transportation in Dallas to get where he needed to be (a regional office is in Dallas), it would be just as easy to drive and he'd have more options to get home the same day if it turned into a long meeting.

So is SkyWest lobbying against HSR now or something?

Well, apparently 259 people do on average out of OKC every day, and those people are not connecting to other flights. That is a very strong local flight market when compared to our other fare markets. That is called a local O/D market, they are needed to sustain air service even if a majority of the passengers are not O/D but are connecting.

When we cut this number, we lose frequencies and aircraft size -- meaning, if you are connecting in Dallas you won't have as many options. Then you complain.

We are not a big city, and I am tired of people convincing themselves that we are Los Angeles or New York City. Wake up, we are smaller than Austin, TX. We cannot support diversifying our travel needs. All that will happen is a market share split. The high speed rail will have half the market, the airlines will have the other half. Neither will do good. I'd say keep on dreaming about this high speed rail idea, it's not going to happen for many years. The Northeast needs it badly, and they will get it first.

When the OKC-Dallas air market is like the Dallas-Houston market with roughly 50 flights a day between them, then you can talk to me about some high speed rail. It's not needed. Spend an hour at the airport, 30 minutes on the plane and you are there. Spend 3 hours in your car. Take the Heartland Flyer train down there. We have many options - we don't need a 4th and unnecessary one. Nothing wrong with other options. I have to disagree. In some ways, you can never have enough options. It depends on many factors. I believe that trains are viable transportation options just like airplanes.

So is SkyWest lobbying against HSR now or something?
Between OKC and Dallas yes. We have train already, ride that.

HSR in Florida, the Northeast Cooridor, California, Las Vegas to SoCal would all be great additions.

Our current transportation sector is providing a good service right now between the said cities [OKC-D/FW], let's not hurt them by splitting our very limited demand compared to other places.


The problem is, unlike NY or such, we have a limited number of people going between those cities each day. The airlines are carrying 300 or so per day, the train is probably carrying a good portion, and bus lines/personal vehicles take up the rest. Neither of those options are overpacked and congested, which means, to the capitalist, demand has been met by supply. By adding more supply than the demand, all the said options will begin to see decreased revenue/loads as the marketshare is distributed on more seats than people.

Like I said, I am for it if no matter how many planes you put in the sky, buses you put on the road, and trains you put on the rails, demand is still above supply. We are talking tens of thousands of people per day traveling between Dallas and OKC. Right now I'd say we have maybe a thousand or two thousand people leaving OKC and heading to Dallas, or vice versa. I am for protecting our companies by not flooding the market with options.

----
The opinions expressed in this post only reflect mine and do not reflect or resemble in any way the views or opinions of my employer.

Love your spin... but I'm for modern infrastructure and bringing America into the 21st century. Europe and Japan have left us in the dust... soon to be followed by China.

Check your logic.

A 1% growth of the TEXAS economy results in $56 Million increased output in OKLAHOMA.

With a $1.245 Trillion Dollar economy, that same 1% growth in the Texas economy would result in $12.45 BILLION increased output in Texas, almost 72 times the $173.7 Million Texas would get from growing Oklahoma's economy by 1%.

This is exactly my point. If Texas spent the $12.45 billion growing the Oklahoma economy they would make 300% more if the study is correct. Now we all know that doesn't make sense.

There is no way Texas benefits 3X as much from Oklahoma as Oklahoma does from Texas.

QUOTE=Platemaker;302166]Love your spin... but I'm for modern infrastructure and bringing America into the 21st century. Europe and Japan have left us in the dust... soon to be followed by China.[/QUOTE]

Pretty interesting show the other day on Discovery Channel about the trains in Europe giving way to jet aircraft. It is kind of like people touting roundabouts as a better way to control traffic at intersections, citing Europe, and all the while, Europe is busy putting in traffic lights at all of their roundabouts.

http://www.oxford-chiltern-bus-page.co.uk/upload%20200308/Eden%20Centre%20-%20the%20remodelled%20roundabout%20with%20traffic% 20lights%20130308%20Nigel%20Peach.jpg

That's right, let's bring America into the 21st century! I'm all for that! I am against using that money for something that will hurt us. Let's get high speed rail going in the Northeast Corridor, Florida, Dallas-Houston, etc. OKC-Dallas just doesn't have the demand for more seats. If the demand was there, Southwest and American would be adding tons of flights between our two cities, just as they have done between Houston and Dallas. Our city doesn't NEED this rail line. It would be cool, but we don't need it.

This is exactly my point. If Texas spent the $12.45 billion growing the Oklahoma economy they would make 300% more if the study is correct. Now we all know that doesn't make sense.

There is no way Texas benefits 3X as much from Oklahoma as Oklahoma does from Texas.


Your first paragraph still make no logical sense. Nothing in the study says that Texas benefits more from growing Oklahoma's economy than it does from growing its own.

I think your confusion in the second paragraph might be coming from disregarding the enormous disparity between the sizes of the two economies. It might make more sense to you if you put the same facts this way: a 1% increase in the Oklahoma economy will cause a .0134% (that's just over 1/100th of 1%) increase in Texas' 1.245 Trillion Dollar economy. Meanwhile, a 1% increase in the Texas economy will lead to a .033% (just over 3/100ths of 1%) increase in Oklahoma's 150 Billion Dollar economy. As you can see, in reality, when you account for the size difference, Texas' economy has nearly three times the impact on Oklahoma as vice versa.

QUOTE=Platemaker;302166]...Pretty interesting show the other day on Discovery Channel about the trains in Europe giving way to jet aircraft. It is kind of like people touting roundabouts as a better way to control traffic at intersections, citing Europe, and all the while, Europe is busy putting in traffic lights at all of their roundabouts.

I agree...and a few years ago OKC finally got rid of all of our traffic circles and now are bringing them back? The reason given for putting one back over there near the Hosp and 10th was "advancements in technology make them safer". Really? What technology? They are dangerous and always will be IMO

By the way, does anyone know where "Classen Circle" is? There are highway signs pointing this way and that at the Classen/NW Highway intersection but I can't seem to locate it... (signs don't look old either)

And boy did they mess up that intersection when they redid it a year or two ago. It is entirely geared to get people on/off the interstate. If you are trying to head west from Western and that area, you are out of luck...have to go up to Grand or down to 36(?) and then back up. Can't just get across there any more. Try to get from Jimmy's Egg parking lot back onto Classen/NW Expressway!

But then again, OKC used to have about 200 miles of streetcar track and we got rid of it all. Now we are bringing 5 to 6 miles back! Everything old is new again or something like that...

Traffic circles are fine where traffic volumes are not too high. Given the volumes of gasoline we waste at stop lights, traffic circles can be very helpful to keep traffic moving. The Europeans have no trouble with them and traveling around the country, you see them being used more and more in other cities and states.

That's right, let's bring America into the 21st century! I'm all for that! I am against using that money for something that will hurt us. Let's get high speed rail going in the Northeast Corridor, Florida, Dallas-Houston, etc. OKC-Dallas just doesn't have the demand for more seats. If the demand was there, Southwest and American would be adding tons of flights between our two cities, just as they have done between Houston and Dallas. Our city doesn't NEED this rail line. It would be cool, but we don't need it.


I think the world is changing WAY faster than most realize. We should be in panic mode when it come to peak oil, etc. We're gonna find ourselves in a world of hurt when when if there is a major crisis and we don't have this option.

On short trips... like OKC to Dallas... only 20% of the travel time is flying... the rest is waiting boarding and more waiting.

Plus... HSR is much more reliable in bad weather (this is Oklahoma) than air. Ice will shut down air travel... but trains could potentially still move.

Not to mention pollution on short trips:

Journey:
London to Paris
3.5 hours, 244 Kg/CO2 PLANE
2.75 hours, 22 Kg/CO2 TRAIN

London to Edinburgh
3.5 hours, 193 Kg/CO2 PLANE
4.5 hours, 24 Kg/CO2 TRAIN

I think the world is changing WAY faster than most realize. We should be in panic mode when it come to peak oil, etc. We're gonna find ourselves in a world of hurt when when if there is a major crisis and we don't have this option.

I like to plan ahead, but that might be too far ahead. Cities need to build local rail first. Imagine if we built the interstate highway system before we built local roads. Sure there is a nice road from OKC to Tulsa but you can't go anywhere on either end.

The world has over a hundred year supply of oil even with increased demand. We won't run out of oil anytime soon and when we do we will probably have teleporter technology down pat, thus making HSR old technology.

As you can see, in reality, when you account for the size difference, Texas' economy has nearly three times the impact on Oklahoma as vice versa.

That is the exact point I am making. The study said the opposite though. It says a 1% increase in the Oklahoma economy has a bigger impact on Texas than a 1% increase on the Texas economy has on Oklahoma.


The study indicates a hypothetical 1 percent increase in the Texas region's gross domestic product will likely result in a $56 million increase in Oklahoma output. And a hypothetical 1 percent increase in the Oklahoma region GDP will likely result in a $173.7 million increase in Texas output.

No way that is possible, as proved by the math you demonstrated. The study can't be correct.

I like to plan ahead, but that might be too far ahead. Cities need to build local rail first. Imagine if we built the interstate highway system before we built local roads. Sure there is a nice road from OKC to Tulsa but you can't go anywhere on either end.

The world has over a hundred year supply of oil even with increased demand. We won't run out of oil anytime soon and when we do we will probably have teleporter technology down pat, thus making HSR old technology.

Over a hundred year supply even with China and India in the mix? I want to see where you're getting this from!

The world has over a hundred year supply of oil even with increased demand. We won't run out of oil anytime soon and when we do we will probably have teleporter technology down pat, thus making HSR old technology.

...Baby Jesus.

Over a hundred year supply even with China and India in the mix? I want to see where you're getting this from!

From stories like this.

The World Has Plenty of Oil - WSJ.com (http://online.wsj.com/public/article_print/SB120459389654809159.html)


As a matter of context, the globe has consumed only one out of a grand total of 12 to 16 trillion barrels underground.

...

When will peak oil arrive? This widely accepted tipping point -- 50% of ultimately recoverable resources consumed -- is largely a tribute to King Hubbert, a distinguished Shell geologist who predicted the peak oil point for the U.S. lower 48 states. While his timing was very good (he forecast 1968 versus 1970 in fact), he underestimated peak daily production (9.5 million barrels actual versus eight million estimated).

But modern extraction methods will undoubtedly stretch Hubbert's "50% assumption," which was based on Sputnik-era technologies. Even a modest shift -- to 55% of recoverable resources consumed -- will delay the onset by 20-25 years.

Where do reasonable assumptions surrounding peak oil lead us? My view, subjective and imprecise, points to a period between 2045 and 2067 as the most likely outcome.


12 to 16 trillion of reserves and we have used 1 trillion so far. I think we are OK for awhile. Even if we use it at 12X our current rate we have enough to last 100 more years. Your great great grandkids will be using oil.

I bet only a percentage of all that alleged oil is conventional crude oil. Limitations on production prevent the rest from becoming an effective substitute for conventional crude oil. These are high energy intensity projects that can never reach high volumes to offset significant losses from other sources.

Even still... one person can live 100 years. Why not modernize and urbanize so we can stretch that 100 years to 150....200?

"Let's leave our mess for someone else" What an awful mind-set.

What exactly is synthetic oil?

@mmonroe - it's the stuff they make from the Canadian tar sands in Alberta. Basically, as we run out of the easy-to-get, cheap-to-extract stuff, we're left with methods and resources that become more attractive as the price per barrel of oil increases. The stuff in the tar sands is actually more like a bitumen, and has to be enormously refined to become useful as fuel. It's doable - just expensive, and way more environmentally damaging than other sources.

For example, the oil we get from Saudi Arabia from the Gahawar field (their largest) gives us around 100 units of energy for every one that's spent to extract it. Synthetic oil is more around a 10 to one ratio - not nearly as good, obviously. I'd rather see us focus on natural gas from shale, personally and not mess with the tar sands.

Incidentally, Classen Circle is where you are if you continue east from Northwest Distressway past Classen Boulevard. And it's fairly comprehensible once you've gone through it, which I do five or six days a week.

Incidentally, Classen Circle is where you are if you continue east from Northwest Distressway past Classen Boulevard. And it's fairly comprehensible once you've gone through it, which I do five or six days a week.

Could you post a map, I have tried folling the signs posted but can't seem to locate it. Thanks!

http://www.windowphobe.com/gfx/classencircle.jpg

http://www.windowphobe.com/gfx/classencircle.jpg

Thanks for the map but I still don't see anything that approximates a Circle (as in "Classen Circle")

That is the exact point I am making. The study said the opposite though. It says a 1% increase in the Oklahoma economy has a bigger impact on Texas than a 1% increase on the Texas economy has on Oklahoma.



No way that is possible, as proved by the math you demonstrated. The study can't be correct.

First paragraph: The study did not say the opposite. The study spoke in nominal dollar terms. Growth in the general economy, wherever it comes from, will produce more growth in pure dollar terms in a huge economy than in a small economy. That is what the study said. I translated it into percentage terms in an attempt to help you understand how it would happen.

Try this: The 1% growth in the Oklahoma economy, if evenly spread, will produce 1% growth in every city and hamlet in Oklahoma. But if you report it in dollar terms, guess what, that growth will produce millions of dollars in Oklahoma City, but only perhaps thousands of dollars in a town such as Guymon. Similar, although not quite identical, analysis.

Second paragraph: My math did not demonstrate any such thing. My math merely translated the same information into percentage growth rates. The nominal dollar growth that has you so confused is merely (in the case of analyzing the effects of 1% growth in Oklahoma) a function of applying the smaller percentage growth spurred in Texas to the VERY much larger Texas economy.

Try this: The 1% growth in the Oklahoma economy, if evenly spread, will produce 1% growth in every city and hamlet in Oklahoma. But if you report it in dollar terms, guess what, that growth will produce millions of dollars in Oklahoma City, but only perhaps thousands of dollars in a town such as Guymon. Similar, although not quite identical, analysis.


OK - this is a good example but a bit more to the extreme so it will make it obvious. Let's say OKC sees a 1% increase in its GDP and from the 1% growth in OKC - Guymon see a $100 increase. However, if Guymon has 1% growth then, according to the study, OKC would see a $300 benefit. How can OKC get 3X the benefit from a 1% growth in Guymon (only thousands of dollars of GDP) versus what Guymon gets from 1% growth in OKC (billion in GDP).

The study has to be wrong. Oklaoma benefits more from being near Texas than Texas does from being near Oklahoma just like Guymon benefits more from OKC than OKC benefits from its proximity to Guymon.

This is what the study said:

1% increase in Texas GDP means a $56 million increase in Oklahoma production
1% increase in Oklahoma GDP means a $173.3 increase in Texas production

OK - this is a good example but a bit more to the extreme so it will make it obvious. Let's say OKC sees a 1% increase in its GDP and from the 1% growth in OKC - Guymon see a $100 increase. However, if Guymon has 1% growth then, according to the study, OKC would see a $300 benefit. How can OKC get 3X the benefit from a 1% growth in Guymon (only thousands of dollars of GDP) versus what Guymon gets from 1% growth in OKC (billion in GDP).

The study has to be wrong. Oklaoma benefits more from being near Texas than Texas does from being near Oklahoma just like Guymon benefits more from OKC than OKC benefits from its proximity to Guymon.

This is what the study said:

1% increase in Texas GDP means a $56 million increase in Oklahoma production
1% increase in Oklahoma GDP means a $173.3 increase in Texas production

Your example is possible (although a town closer than Guymon would be more likely). You are still not grasping the difference caused by the relative size of the economies. If you spur a small economy, you get small results. If you spur a HUGE economy, even by a small amount, you get large results. It's just simple mathematics.

what we have to offer is casinos...plenty of them. I am fine with north texans spending their hard earned money in my state any day lol

I know that many Texans are dumping tons of money in the casinos in Ok. (and I love it) but, what happens when Texans wise up and starts building casinos? I guess off-setting penalties on that one.

If you spur a small economy, you get small results. If you spur a HUGE economy, even by a small amount, you get large results. It's just simple mathematics.

I can buy that argument.

I know that many Texans are dumping tons of money in the casinos in Ok. (and I love it) but, what happens when Texans wise up and starts building casinos? I guess off-setting penalties on that one.

There was an article the other day about how the new casino in Durant and the one on I-35 just north of the Red River are pulling gamblers away from Shreveport. I've not seen the new Durant casino but its apparently pretty nice.

The fear is that Texas will seriously consider legalizing some sort of casino gaming. There was talk in the last legelative session there and the Chickasaw's bought Lone Star Horse Track in Grande Prairie with the vision of it being a full gaming casino before long.

What were the plans with the redevelopment of the Texoma Lodge? Was there to be any casino operation with that or was it strictly a family resort? I would think something on the shore of Texoma would go over in a big way.

There was an article the other day about how the new casino in Durant and the one on I-35 just north of the Red River are pulling gamblers away from Shreveport. I've not seen the new Durant casino but its apparently pretty nice.

The fear is that Texas will seriously consider legalizing some sort of casino gaming. There was talk in the last legelative session there and the Chickasaw's bought Lone Star Horse Track in Grande Prairie with the vision of it being a full gaming casino before long.

What were the plans with the redevelopment of the Texoma Lodge? Was there to be any casino operation with that or was it strictly a family resort? I would think something on the shore of Texoma would go over in a big way. The article appeared in the DMN Sunday edition. Some residents stated that they refuse to gamble in Oklahoma and still go to Shreveport to gamble because they offer "full service gambling". but others are catching on to Oklahoma because of the nice ammenities offered at Winstar and Choctaw with better hotel rates and other things to offer like spas and good restaurants. I bet Texas will eventually vote for gambling casinos and they will offer "full fledged" gambling including dice and roulette, not the 'waterdowned' version that Oklahoma offers.

Here is the link:



Oklahoma casino may pull Texas gamblers away from Shreveport | News for Dallas, Texas | Dallas Morning News | Dallas Business News (http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/bus/stories/DN-casino_28bus.ART.State.Edition1.3ce94a6.html)

I bet Texas will eventually vote for gambling casinos and they will offer "full fledged" gambling including dice and roulette, not the 'waterdowned' version that Oklahoma offers.

Not to get political, but...

Considering Rick "goodhair" Perry's beatdown of KBH last night and a clinching of frontrunner status of the governor's race, don't expect that to happen soon. He's already been on the record that Texas won't be expanding gambling beyond the lottery and horsetracks. Oh well, Oklahoma will gladly take the money.

No surprise that the Chickasaw Nation gave him $40,000 last election cycle and will probably support him again this one. They are smart enough to know what will happen once he vacates Austin.

Gubernatorial Candidates Report Contributions - cbs11tv.com (http://cbs11tv.com/local/Campaign.donations.Texas.2.496518.html)

Oh well, Oklahoma will gladly take the money.

How much money does the state get?

Your example is possible (although a town closer than Guymon would be more likely).

Do you realize that Guymon's County borders Texas?

Guymon is the county seat of T E X A S county, Oklahoma. There is no "Guymon" county.

Ah thank you very much, further proving my point.

That's right, let's bring America into the 21st century! I'm all for that! I am against using that money for something that will hurt us. Let's get high speed rail going in the Northeast Corridor, Florida, Dallas-Houston, etc. OKC-Dallas just doesn't have the demand for more seats. If the demand was there, Southwest and American would be adding tons of flights between our two cities, just as they have done between Houston and Dallas. Our city doesn't NEED this rail line. It would be cool, but we don't need it.


I dislike hearing the reasoning that a third option will take away people from one of the two main options (in this case flight and auto). More than likely a cheap efficient method of travel could open up the possibility for new travelers for leisure, recreation, and visiting family/friends. I just searched for Airplane tickets to and from Dallas. $140 and up. That's too much for a leisurely trip to visit friends in Dallas for a couple of days. I can get on the Heartland Flyer at 8:25 in the morning, and it would only cost $52. But I've done that, and it takes awhile. Each day they have to stop and ask permission to pass through the railroad's construction areas. The amount of time it takes to pass depends on the mood of the rail gang, from what I can tell. You might sit there for 30 minutes or you might sit there for an hour and a half. Not moving at all. And then, when you come home, there's one trip.

I don't know if a high speed rail would make more than one trip back and forth per day, I'm assuming it would? And I don't know what it would cost for a passage from here to Dallas and back. But I would like to know more before your kind just decide to poo poo the idea based on your fear that it will take airline business away. I never fly, so it would probably gain my business and I know there are many others like me.