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

[venture]

I don't think anyone said High Speed Rail would be cheap, but it would definitely help for business travelers that need to get somewhere fast (where there is little air service or they want to avoid it). Plus I would imagine it would be nice to have when oil spikes again and air fares for nuts.

[John]

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.

It'd be worth every penny! I'm sure the Oklahoma Turnpike Authority would hate it, though...

[CuatrodeMayo]

Running it along the the Turnpike ROW would make 100+ mph feasable.

[Prunepicker]

I don't like the idea of federally funded railroads. If it can't work on it's own
it can't work.

[venture]

I don't like the idea of federally funded railroads. If it can't work on it's own
it can't work.

Okay. So no more federally funded roads. Oh, no more federally funded air transport system (ATC, Airports, etc). So I guess that only leaves a few seaports.

[sgray]

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.

This is true. While some existing ROW's themselves may or may not be re-usable, the rail will need to be replaced. This would be true even if it weren't high speed...I mean LOOK at the existing layout! It zigzags thru every nook and cranny from here to TUL. If stretched out straight, the existing line would probably be at least 1.5 times the actual distance. We need a more direct run from OKC-TUL with unrestricted ROW, etc...which leads us to......

Running it along the the Turnpike ROW would make 100+ mph feasable.

WHOA! Shhhh!!!!! We can't have ideas like that floating around...might lead to some form of efficiency or, heaven forbid, cost savings!

Clearly utilizing the turnpike's ROW (or at least some of it) would be good. It is a pretty straight run, too.

Okay. So no more federally funded roads. Oh, no more federally funded air transport system (ATC, Airports, etc). So I guess that only leaves a few seaports.

Amen to that! Why don't we quit bailing out the roads!!!!

We could always convert all of the roads into toll roads, that way each would have to survive on their own. Seems that would satisfy the poster's request to do away with all the government funding. Then it would all be self-sufficient. Those who took car would have to pay their way and those who took rail would pay their way.

[soonerguru]

We could always convert all of the roads into toll roads

LOL. People hate those, too. People just hate a lot of stuff. Maybe we should go back to horses and buggies. That would please the natives. No tax dollars necessary. No guvmint fundin'.

[Superhyper]

LOL. People hate those, too. People just hate a lot of stuff. Maybe we should go back to horses and buggies. That would please the natives. No tax dollars necessary. No guvmint fundin'.

Yeah but then everyone wants a federal hay tax credit and we start having to pay government pooper scoopers :-D

[mecarr]

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.

I appreciate your analysis, but where are you getting all of your information from? I admit I don't know a lot about the tracks and costs, but I do know that the Acela goes much faster than 62 mph. The wikipedia page for Acela says that it goes at 86 mph. If you are correct in saying that limitations of the existing tracks would limit the speed to the speed of Acela, then that wouldn't be so bad in my opinion.

[namellac]

I've been traveling quite a bit regionally and nationally, and my basic equation is this:

<400 Miles Drive my own vehicle
>400 Miles Take the plane

It doesn't make sense to me to take a train to Dallas or Tulsa, and then have to rent a car when I get there.

[mcgrawsdad]

I appreciate your analysis, but where are you getting all of your information from? I admit I don't know a lot about the tracks and costs, but I do know that the Acela goes much faster than 62 mph. The wikipedia page for Acela says that it goes at 86 mph. If you are correct in saying that limitations of the existing tracks would limit the speed to the speed of Acela, then that wouldn't be so bad in my opinion.

At points the Acela travels faster than 62, but those points are on upgraded tracks. Overall, from DC to Boston the Acela averages 62 MPH. (This takes the distance divided by the average time of travel...so it includes stops) In order for the Acela to travel faster it would have to upgrade from freight tracks.

I agree with other posters, the ROW with the turnpike would be fantastic. I think with the texas proposal one of the big cost of the plan was the funds needed to obtain the ROW, particularly with the East/West leg. So, just a guesstimate on my part, but I believe we could probably do true high speed on elevated tracks in the turnpike ROW for less than the 2.25B.

On another note, after speaking with a friend (over a few perfectly poured guiness) who is involved with the midwest city to downtown rail project, I am now convinced that commuter rail is a must for OKC (even if it must be tax subsidized for a decade or longer...and this is coming from an extreme capitalist). To me, the argument is simple...we know that competition for jobs and employment are fierce. In the future (ten years from now) most, if not all of the cities in our region (cities we compete against) will have light rail systems. As petroleum continues to rise (and it will) the existence of a successful commuter rail system will be an even greater incentive than what it is today, and will be 100% necessary in order to compete for new and existing jobs. We all know that cities live and die by the availability of employment. My only concern is that we do it right, top notch, first class, high speed, with 100% dependability (that way it has a chance to be successful without subsidies). BTW, I 100% agree with my friends analysis that if light rail is successful than the suburbs will be the slums 30 years from now. Suburbia is a way of life than cannot sustain itself in the decades to come (assuming an increased demand and limited supply of petroleum).

[OKCMallen]

Okay. So no more federally funded roads. Oh, no more federally funded air transport system (ATC, Airports, etc). So I guess that only leaves a few seaports.

He's got a great point you just completely ignored. You don't PAY to get on a public road. You PAY to get on any and every train. If they can make money on a railroad, then someone private would have done it by now.

His point is that he doesn't like the idea of the government building something at a high price then having to continually support it with tax dollars. You can disagree with that, but don't act like he's an idiot for saying that.

[hoya]

He's got a great point you just completely ignored. You don't PAY to get on a public road. You PAY to get on any and every train. If they can make money on a railroad, then someone private would have done it by now.

His point is that he doesn't like the idea of the government building something at a high price then having to continually support it with tax dollars. You can disagree with that, but don't act like he's an idiot for saying that.

Well, he's got some point, but I think he's wrong.

The problem with railroads is that they require a huge monetary investment and only prove economically profitable after a very long lag time. The only way we were able to build the transcontinental railroad back in the 1800s was to create entirely new types of corporations (requiring changing the law), new types of loans, economic incentives, new bankruptcy laws, etc.

Railroads simply cost too much money for private companies to make a profit without some degree of government help. It's the same with other infrastructure. We see the same thing with roads, power plants, satellites, and similar structures.

I don't have a problem with federal funding of these items, because I want to live in a society where we have them. It might not be efficient, but it's the only way to get those things.

[Superhyper]

He's got a great point you just completely ignored. You don't PAY to get on a public road. You PAY to get on any and every train. If they can make money on a railroad, then someone private would have done it by now.

You don't pay to get on the road, you pay to put the fuel in your tank so that you CAN get on the road. You're paying in different places, but you're paying all the same.

[jbrown84]

His point is that he doesn't like the idea of the government building something at a high price then having to continually support it with tax dollars.

You mean like roads, for example?

[venture]

He's got a great point you just completely ignored. You don't PAY to get on a public road. You PAY to get on any and every train. If they can make money on a railroad, then someone private would have done it by now.

His point is that he doesn't like the idea of the government building something at a high price then having to continually support it with tax dollars. You can disagree with that, but don't act like he's an idiot for saying that.

Everyone pretty much summed it up. You could argue you are paying to use the equipment and fuel of the train, airplane, etc to use those modes of transportation. Just like, as was stated, you pay for your car and fuel to get on the road.

So no, I didn't completely ignore the point. The problem with this county's rail network is that it is really inefficient. Growing up in the Great Lakes, the city I lived in had 4 trains through a day...2 to Chicago, 1 to Washington and 1 to New York. However, the time they rolled through? 3-5am. So scheduling needs to get fixed, and HSR will help a ton with that.

So if there is this feeling of not wanting the government building something at a high price and then having to support it - what about he national Air Traffic Control system? That is pretty much just a highway or railway in the sky...just no tracks or pavement. Sure we can probably privatize it, but are you going to be ready to pay a $50-100 service fee on every ticket to cover that cost? The airlines are out of money as is, that would kill them. However, in order for this economy and country to function, it would be nightmare to not have air service. Look at 9/11 with the air network shut down for a couple days. Tragedy and all yes was a huge hit, but the fact that there was no real fast way of travel across the country was a major hit. Trains were packed, but they don't really go anywhere that much faster than a car.

You can argue against having this project rolled out, and I'm sure people said the same thing to Eisenhower on his crazy over bloated huge massive spending on an Interstate System. However, if we want a real and viable network on high speed rail, and not some half-assed system, it is going to cost some big bucks. Though when that system does come online, even being a major aviaton buff, i'll be one of the first ones on it. Now just so it connects us back to the Midwest some how. : )

[Chicken In The Rough]

You can take the Heartland Flyer to Ft Worth and change to the Trinity Railway (commuter rail) to Dallas in the sames station. When you get to Union Station in downtown Dallas, change to Dart (again, in the same station), and get to a great deal of the city without much inconvenience.

The high-speed commuter rail works in synergy with the developing transit rail systems in their corresponding cities. The feed off each other.

I lived in a city with a variety of transit options all sharing stations. Streetcars, subways, commuter trains, buses, ferries, and even long-distance trains were all accesible from the same system. It almost made cars irrelevant.

Regarding the proposed high-speed rail map: My uneducated opinion is that medium-distance, heavily travelled routes would do really well. If the route is too short, people will opt for their cars. Too long, and they will opt for planes. I would propose routes such as:

New York-Boston
New York-Philadelphia
New York-Washington
Chicago-Detroit
Chicago-St Louis
Dallas-Houston
Dallas-San Antonio
Dallas-OKC (of course)
LA-Phoenix
LA-Las Vegas
LA-San Francisco
Seattle-Portland
Seattle-Vancouver

[mecarr]

High-speed rail coming to Oklahoma?
by Janice Francis-Smith
The Journal Record
March 20, 2009


OKLAHOMA CITY – Only those who have been to Europe or Japan have seen what a real high-speed rail line can do, transportation officials told lawmakers on Thursday. But the federal government is putting up the money to make high-speed rail a reality in the U.S. – maybe even in Oklahoma.

Tulsa and Oklahoma City are the northernmost points on a proposed high-speed rail corridor extending down to Austin and San Antonio, Texas, which has already been approved by federal transportation officials. The U.S. Department of Transportation has approved about a dozen high-speed rail corridors around the country. But with costs of construction extending into the millions or billions for true high-speed rail, few of the projects have progressed beyond the beginning stages.

“No high-speed rail exists yet in the U.S.,” Gary Ridley, director of the Oklahoma Department of Transportation, told members of the House Transportation Committee on Thursday. “But there is potential.”
High-speed rail refers to passenger trains that operate at speeds exceeding 124 miles per hour. The closest thing to high-speed rail available in the U.S. today is Amtrak’s Acela service, running from Washington, D.C., to New York and north to Boston. The trip takes approximately two hours and 46 minutes at an average speed of 86 miles per hour – about half the speed of France’s TGV trains.

President Barack Obama has made a few public comments in support of high-speed rail for the U.S. as a means to ease travel congestion while reducing the nation’s dependence on oil, cutting pollution and creating jobs.
Included in the $787 billion stimulus plan Obama signed in February was $8 billion for high-speed rail projects across the country, available as grants to states issued on a competitive basis. By June, federal officials are expected to provide guidance to states on how to apply for the funds.

California is perceived to have an advantage in the competition, being the furthest along in the effort to build a high-speed rail line between San Francisco and Los Angeles. Voters in California have already agreed to commit millions in bond issues to the effort, building a rail line capable of handling speeds of more than 220 miles per hour.

The $8 billion could go quickly, given the high costs associated with building high-speed rail lines. The California project alone is estimated at $50 billion.
In Oklahoma, officials have often considered building passenger rail service to connect Oklahoma City and Tulsa. Consultant Jack Webb of Texas-based J. Webb and Associates said the Tulsa-Oklahoma City connection will one day be essential to a nationwide effort to connect major cities via rail lines. Other lines considered by both state and federal officials include links between Tulsa and Newton, Kan., and Oklahoma City through to Kansas City, Mo.

But before any lines can be seriously considered, four qualifiers must be met, said Ridley. The service in question must be convenient to users, dependable, affordable and subsidized.
A passenger rail line extending from Oklahoma City through Tulsa to Kansas City could be created relatively inexpensively by upgrading existing lines owned by the state, a process that would take five to seven years to complete, Ridley said. Trains would travel no more than 70 miles per hour, and with the delays of making stops and slowing for at-grade crossings, travel by train between Oklahoma City and Tulsa would be no faster than driving the distance along the Turner Turnpike.

A new, high-speed rail line could be constructed by extending the right of way for the turnpike, but the cost of such a project would require an investment of about $250 million, Ridley said.

[Jesseda]

i think it would be great for high speedfrom texas to okc area, to bad we cant get one that goes from okc directly to los angeles area

[metro]

I'll believe it when I see it.

[venture]

A train through the mountains would be an amazing trip from here. I always wanted to take that ride through Canada, some day. Either way, HSR would likely be much cheaper than air travel, and definitely a hot ticket for those of us that want to head down to Texas for the weekend or some other quick get away. Not to mention the increased attraction of business travel when you link some major business destinations. OKC to Dallas and on, would be huge. Yeah there is something like 12 flights a day right now between the two cities, but you add in the convenience of avoiding the TSA and having to get to the airport an hour early...not to mention you can continuously work on the train - no turning off electronics...the benefits are definitely there. Wow that was a nice run off sentence. LOL

We'll see what happens. I'll guess the coasts and the major pop centers will get it long before we do.

[Oil Capital]

A train through the mountains would be an amazing trip from here. I always wanted to take that ride through Canada, some day. Either way, HSR would likely be much cheaper than air travel, and definitely a hot ticket for those of us that want to head down to Texas for the weekend or some other quick get away. Not to mention the increased attraction of business travel when you link some major business destinations. OKC to Dallas and on, would be huge. Yeah there is something like 12 flights a day right now between the two cities, but you add in the convenience of avoiding the TSA and having to get to the airport an hour early...not to mention you can continuously work on the train - no turning off electronics...the benefits are definitely there. Wow that was a nice run off sentence. LOL

We'll see what happens. I'll guess the coasts and the major pop centers will get it long before we do.

What makes you think it would "likely be much cheaper than air travel"?

[fromdust]

one word: MAGLEV

[CuatrodeMayo]

I really like this idea:

www.masstramamerica.com

Old Boeing planes for mass transit :: Alternative Transit

[venture]

What makes you think it would "likely be much cheaper than air travel"?

Most studies and articles I've read on how it compares overseas where this is real HSR, the cost difference is around 30-40% less than an airline ticket.

I call that pretty significant.