High-speed rail to link Tulsa\OKC\Dallas and more...

[BG918]

Why Dallas and Houston aren't linked, two of the biggest cities in the nation, is beyond me. I would use a OKC-Tulsa as well as OKC-Dallas-Houston, and OKC-Dallas-Austin-San Antonio. It would be cool to be linked to Denver via HSR but it may be too far away.

[westsidesooner]

Sacramento to Eugene- that's a LOOOOOOONG, EXPENSIVE connection that will take a long time to travel. People will fly instead.

Tulsa > KC: what's the point? Not enough traffic from OKC/TUL to KC to justify it, and people further south would likely fly that.

Little Rock > Char: why?

Tulsa > Little Rock: I like this connection if there's something east of Little Rock to connect to, but there isn't I don't think the traffic between Tul and LR would justify this connection

Austin/SanAn > Houston: seems like a no-brainer...can't believe that's not proposed.

Jacksonville > Orlando: all the rails are right there anyway, it's a short connection to link in Tampa and Miami, and you'd think the Jacksonville>Orlando traffic would justify the route. I like this connection a lot.

Think bigger.

The Sac/Eug route would connect San Diego to Seattle.
Tulsa/KC would connect DFW to Chicago
Little Rock/Char would connect DFW with the east coast

Totaly agree with the others. Sad theres no crosscountry route. Why is there no mention of a NYC to LA rail via Chicago/STL/KC/OKC then west following 66 or south to Dallas then west?

[OKCMallen]

Think bigger.

The Sac/Eug route would connect San Diego to Seattle.
Tulsa/KC would connect DFW to Chicago
Little Rock/Char would connect DFW with the east coast

Totaly agree with the others. Sad theres no crosscountry route. Why is there no mention of a NYC to LA rail via Chicago/STL/KC/OKC then west following 66 or south to Dallas then west?

Yeah, I understand what the point was, but the practical standapoint is: Commercial travelers will FLY from San Diego to Seattle, from DAL to CHI, and from DFW to the east coast. Hard to justify building these lines for the handful of passengers that will take the train from San Di-freaking-ego all the heck way up to Seattle.

[Saberman]

Wouldn't also be smart to at least connect Dallas to Phoenix, to LA, and/or,
Chicago to Denver, to Las Vegas, to LA.

They should really connect the East and West Coasts some where.

[venture]

I think one step at a time. Get people interested in wanting to take rail transportation again, and then grow from there. Unfortunately the travel priorities aren't the same here as they are in other countries with high ridership. Once the network is there, and people have a viable option to choose from, we'll probably see a good move from Air & Car to Rail - but the service/network needs to be deployed first.

[sgray]

Yeah, what venture said. It's important for everyone to remember that this map is not the grand master plan start to finish. Keep in mind that this is simply baby step #1 and it is quite possible that USDOT has a stack of additional maps, in which each and every one add more and more lines.

Clearly, by looking at this map, each region is getting a small piece of the pie, versus sending all of the taxpayers money to one area at once. I think that's a good change.

[westsidesooner]

Hard to justify building these lines for the handful of passengers that will take the train from San Di-freaking-ego all the heck way up to Seattle.

Problem with San Diego or just being sarcastic? Last I checked people in other countries use the rails all the time rather than fly. Airlines aren't always the most reliable source of transportation.

[jbrown84]

I'm just glad we're part of the theoretical Phase One.

[soonerguru]

Why Dallas and Houston aren't linked, two of the biggest cities in the nation, is beyond me.

Again, you don't see this link because Southwest Airlines and American Airlines lobbied against it. It's been mentioned in the thread like five times now.

[sgray]

Problem with San Diego or just being sarcastic? Last I checked people in other countries use the rails all the time rather than fly. Airlines aren't always the most reliable source of transportation.

...and you're on to a good point, westsidesooner. Air travel has become a headache not to mention rail should be considerably cheaper...if it could just move a little faster, right? I work for an airline and I fly too--and even flying for free is a pain in the a**! And I can switch carriers while en-route and see into the system to identify the best route to take and it still ain't great.

Bottom line is, unless you've just got to get there "right now", we need an alternative that is efficient. I'm sorry, but long-distance rail without a dedicated right-of-way is inefficient, and obviously a lot of the reason for slowdown. We can always have air travel, but we should have a great ground-based alternative.

You know, there are parallels between the problems of areas without mass transit (that have autos on roads only and no alternative to load-balance with) and the congestion of the nation's air travel system (of which there is no decent ground-based alternative). Just like our own local areas need a decent alternative to load-balance traffic, we need the same on a national level. Essentially, we have a national network, but it is an extreme bottleneck in that the trains can't zoom between nodes, you know?

[OKCMallen]

Problem with San Diego or just being sarcastic? Last I checked people in other countries use the rails all the time rather than fly. Airlines aren't always the most reliable source of transportation.

Neither. That's just a long damned way. 1200 miles by car. Probably not much shorter by train to hit other cities on the way. People will fly that. Now if they're connected, they're connected and that's awesome. But I don't think they'll be connected for the purpose of travelers between San Diego and Seattle. They'll be connected for the more intermediate routes. The rail will not take the place of flying longer distances.

[LakeEffect]

The rail will not take the place of flying longer distances.

Such a good point. I think some proponents of HSR in the U.S. forget that the rest of the world's HSR programs cover much shorter distances overall... the map we've created above is fantastic for the short-haul routes. Creating a rail system to take care of short-haul and then formatting the air system to take care of long-haul is, in my opinion, the best way to set a national transportation system. Something that would need to be done, however, is make sure that these new HSR systems have solid, easy connections to airports to allow for quick transfer. Most of Europe's systems have sometime along those lines. Amtrak itself would be better off right now if those types of connections existed in more places.

[OKCMallen]

Such a good point. I think some proponents of HSR in the U.S. forget that the rest of the world's HSR programs cover much shorter distances overall... the map we've created above is fantastic for the short-haul routes. Creating a rail system to take care of short-haul and then formatting the air system to take care of long-haul is, in my opinion, the best way to set a national transportation system. Something that would need to be done, however, is make sure that these new HSR systems have solid, easy connections to airports to allow for quick transfer. Most of Europe's systems have sometime along those lines. Amtrak itself would be better off right now if those types of connections existed in more places.

Exactly. I'd take a high speed train from OKC to KC, DFW, Austin, maybe STL and HOU.

I'd fly to DEN, NOLA, CHI, NASH.

[FritterGirl]

I would love for high speed rail to really become an option here. I am pretty jealous of places in Europe and Asia with their high speed rail and pretty luxurious offerings. Definitely much better than the cattle car treatment we get in the air now.

I couldn't agree more. I've traveled lots in Europe by train, high-speed and snail rail. There is really nothing like it, especially high speed. Comfortable, convenient, and a heck of a lot less hassle than air travel. Of course, our country, I'm sure would find a way to make it just as a hassle.

[venture]

Intermodal transit networks are definitely key to making it work. Only a few airports in the US have their rail and bus services leave from the same point. If HSR comes to OKC, that is definitely something we should look into here. Now exactly where to put it , would be the only thing. Having the terminal in the middle of the field (for the most part) would probably require an underground station or a station on the east side connected by a people mover.

[sgray]

Intermodal transit networks are definitely key to making it work. Only a few airports in the US have their rail and bus services leave from the same point. If HSR comes to OKC, that is definitely something we should look into here. Now exactly where to put it , would be the only thing. Having the terminal in the middle of the field (for the most part) would probably require an underground station or a station on the east side connected by a people mover.

Would it really matter as long as the airport had a nice, high-speed link to the future all-in-one transit hub in OKC? My thinking has always been that the airport needs to have a quick-link to the main intermodal station just as downtown would have to have a similar link, both for business, workers, conventions, etc...

[westsidesooner]

Seems like a no brainer to have whatever type HSR system we eventually build to have links/connecting lines through/to major airports. Great link about HSR's on skyscrapercity Turkey Railway Development News & Photos - SkyscraperCity

[autoMATTic]

This map is not accurate. I spoke with a gentleman that is working for Siemens and is working on the high-speed rail from Vegas to L.A. He said this money will be going towards that as well. He is actually already working on that project.

That said, if that major connection is not listed then I imagine others arent as well. Lets just hope there arent connections that are listed but shouldn't be (OKC to Dallas).

[bluedogok]

I think that map pertains to existing routes to be upgraded, LA to LV might be a new route and why it is left off the map. Just a thought.

[sgray]

Yup, the map says "2005" so it clearly would not be showing us all the plans that were thrown in for the stimulus. Also, in 2005 there wasn't any extra funding for any mass transit, so their conservative "starter map" would still have been viewed as pretty aggressive. And even 6 months ago, there wasn't necessarily an indication that we would all of a sudden have a green light on the issue. I'm sure they will update the maps, but their first priority was to get the info into the stimulus proposal.

[venture]

Would it really matter as long as the airport had a nice, high-speed link to the future all-in-one transit hub in OKC? My thinking has always been that the airport needs to have a quick-link to the main intermodal station just as downtown would have to have a similar link, both for business, workers, conventions, etc...

You can't really get too high speed on an intra-city network. I would rather have an intermodal facility in the true sense. Connect rail/air/bus together in one facility. It would greatly depend on scheduling, but you could easily find a way to allow connections between the various modes of travel. Hence the name.

[sgray]

You can't really get too high speed on an intra-city network. I would rather have an intermodal facility in the true sense. Connect rail/air/bus together in one facility. It would greatly depend on scheduling, but you could easily find a way to allow connections between the various modes of travel. Hence the name.

I totally agree on having the different modes of transit connected together as closely as possible. The only problem comes with trying to put the facility in the middle of an airfield.

[CaptDave]

I totally agree on having the different modes of transit connected together as closely as possible. The only problem comes with trying to put the facility in the middle of an airfield.

I don't think it would be a problem out at Will Rogers. There is plenty of open (available?) land that could be effectively linked to the terminal. I think this could be done here. The only potential problem I see is WRA is pretty far from the most likely right of way for a north-south high speed rail line - but since it cannot share the existing track, even that may not be too large an issue.

[mecarr]

In a recent letter to the editor in Shawnee's News Star, James Townsend, a former leader in the State House of Representatives and a former Corporation Commissioner, explains how high-speed rail between OKC & Tulsa is possible.
===
SHAWNEE, Okla. —


The State of Oklahoma owns the rail line between Oklahoma City and Tulsa, The United States Department of Transportation has designated the rail line to be a part of their high-speed rail corridor designations. The distance from Oklahoma City to Tulsa is approximately 90 miles.
The administration’s Stimulus plan presents the Oklahoma Department of Transportation the opportunity for a golden parachute for Oklahoma in the form of high-speed rail service between Oklahoma City and Tulsa.
Oklahoma has completed a study for high-speed rail passenger service between Oklahoma City, and Tulsa. Oklahoma owns the railroad. The 90 miles of railroad between Oklahoma’s two major areas of population would become a showplace for America’s concept of Transportation for the 21st Century. With a plan from ODOT we could be shovel ready and raring to go!
James B. Townsend,
--
link

[mcgrawsdad]

In a recent letter to the editor in Shawnee's News Star, James Townsend, a former leader in the State House of Representatives and a former Corporation Commissioner, explains how high-speed rail between OKC & Tulsa is possible.
===
SHAWNEE, Okla. —


The State of Oklahoma owns the rail line between Oklahoma City and Tulsa, The United States Department of Transportation has designated the rail line to be a part of their high-speed rail corridor designations. The distance from Oklahoma City to Tulsa is approximately 90 miles.
The administration’s Stimulus plan presents the Oklahoma Department of Transportation the opportunity for a golden parachute for Oklahoma in the form of high-speed rail service between Oklahoma City and Tulsa.
Oklahoma has completed a study for high-speed rail passenger service between Oklahoma City, and Tulsa. Oklahoma owns the railroad. The 90 miles of railroad between Oklahoma’s two major areas of population would become a showplace for America’s concept of Transportation for the 21st Century. With a plan from ODOT we could be shovel ready and raring to go!
James B. Townsend,
--
link

Ok..here's the deal as I understand it. The type of tracks that exist between tulsa and oklahoma cannot support true high speed rail. Even if a high speed train was offered due to the limitations of the tracks top speeds of no greater than an average of 62 MPH could be achieved. (Same thing the Acella (sp?) Express in NE faces...the train is capable of 150 but tracks limit its speed.) In order to have true high speed rail, you must have elevated tracks which cost big time dollars. In texas, a coalition of cities and businesses (Texas High Speed Rail and Transportation Corporation) are proposing a high speed rail line called the Texas -T Bone connecting DFW airport with waco, temple, austin, and San Antonio, crossed by a leg from Killeen to Houston. The 440 mile system will allow trains to travel at nearly 200 MPH and would cost between 11 and 22 BILLION. Supposedly American and Continental are members of this coalition in Texas and Southwest (who killed a similiar proposal in the mid 1990's) is staying neutral. The coalition is proposing 100M of the stimulus funds be allocated to a feasibility study.

If the figures are accurate then that means (on the low side) 25 MM per mile...in our case that would cost 2.25 BILLION for high speed rail to Tulsa.