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

[Kerry]

I travel to Tulsa, Austin, and San Antonio quite frequently and would most definitely be a customer!

If you took a train to Tulsa, Austin, and San Antonio, how would you get around once you got there?

[EBAH]

What about bringing in ZipCar or other hourly or short term car rental services to be readily accessible from the stations. A Business traveler could come in from Dallas, rent a car for 4 hours, go to a couple of meetings, drop off the car at the station and hop back on the train.

[metro]

Kerry/bomber, yeah but have you ever seen/heard of a rail system that offers a "flat bed" style trailer that lets you drive your car on it and sit in it and go 180mph?

[Kerry]

Kerry/bomber, yeah but have you ever seen/heard of a rail system that offers a "flat bed" style trailer that lets you drive your car on it and sit in it and go 180mph?

Yes - Eurostar. Although they don't let you sit in your own car you can take it with you. But just because it hasn't been done doesn't mean it can't be done.

The beauty of my system is that stations could be placed in multiple locations on sidings. If you aren't stopping at an intermediate station you would just by-pass it. It is kind of like the SkyTran system except instead of a two person pod, you could take a 7 passenger minivan (complete with rear seat DVD entertainment)

[metro]

You won't see it done in this country due to safety standards. At the very best, you'd see it like Eurostar with some passenger cars.

[Kerry]

You won't see it done in this country due to safety standards. At the very best, you'd see it like Eurostar with some passenger cars.

Where there is a will there is a way. Maybe the railcar could have a passenger compartment you ride in while your car is in storage on the same railcar. The ideal thing is that each railcar only transports one car at a time and allows stations to be by-passed. The bottom line is, without a local rail system in place at each end you need to be able to take your own car with you.

[EBAH]

Again, Zipcars are $7 per hour. Park and ride in your home city, pick up an hourly rental upon arrival.

[Mr Big]

I don't understand how this concept is lost on people. We have large sections of this country that successfully utilize light rail to connect cities. The inability to look to these cities, who are quite frankly far more successful than ours, and to understand some of the tools are they using, is quite surprising.

There's no question that will be plenty of business travelers utilizing it. Some will actually live in one city, while working in the other. Others will be people employed or owning businesses who operate in both. Much like Chicago, Philly, NYC, Baltimore, DC (etc....) connections, we should expect a social impact as well. I know with this in play, I'll start catching concerts at the BOK. The Thunder will see more Tulsa citizens, as will bricktown.

Some mentioned it earlier. The real kicker is when we have stations in the suburbs to get around city or to the speed train to Tulsa (like Chicago or St. Louis).

One last point, these trains are not, will not, nor should they be expected to be the end all, be all of transportation. They will not be the perfect answer to every situation. They are an alternative, and in becoming an alternative they reduce the stress of the current transportation models.

[metro]

Where there is a will there is a way. Maybe the railcar could have a passenger compartment you ride in while your car is in storage on the same railcar. The ideal thing is that each railcar only transports one car at a time and allows stations to be by-passed. The bottom line is, without a local rail system in place at each end you need to be able to take your own car with you.

Seems MUCH more cost prohibitive and expensive, if that's the case, why not just DRIVE down the turnpike. The whole point of MASS transit, is carrying a mass of people.

[Kerry]

Again, Zipcars are $7 per hour. Park and ride in your home city, pick up an hourly rental upon arrival.

That might work. I do have concerns about how many Zipcars will be needed and the parking that will be required for them. If a single train hold 300 people then you are talking maybe 150 Zipcars.

[mugofbeer]

I don't understand how this concept is lost on people. We have large sections of this country that successfully utilize light rail to connect cities. The inability to look to these cities, who are quite frankly far more successful than ours, and to understand some of the tools are they using, is quite surprising.

There's no question that will be plenty of business travelers utilizing it. Some will actually live in one city, while working in the other. Others will be people employed or owning businesses who operate in both. Much like Chicago, Philly, NYC, Baltimore, DC (etc....) connections, we should expect a social impact as well. I know with this in play, I'll start catching concerts at the BOK. The Thunder will see more Tulsa citizens, as will bricktown.

Some mentioned it earlier. The real kicker is when we have stations in the suburbs to get around city or to the speed train to Tulsa (like Chicago or St. Louis).

One last point, these trains are not, will not, nor should they be expected to be the end all, be all of transportation. They will not be the perfect answer to every situation. They are an alternative, and in becoming an alternative they reduce the stress of the current transportation models.

I agree with what you say. These are an alternative to air travel. As that type of fuel becomes more expensive and air travel becomes much more expensive, this will be a fast alternative. When we suddenly find ourselves with $8 to $10/gal gas and no rail travel, it will be too late to quickly make a changeover. Planning now, buying rights of way now, and starting the construction process soon is what needs to take place. Its an investment and it takes a long time to build.

[Kerry]

I don't understand how this concept is lost on people. We have large sections of this country that successfully utilize light rail to connect cities. The inability to look to these cities, who are quite frankly far more successful than ours, and to understand some of the tools are they using, is quite surprising.

There's no question that will be plenty of business travelers utilizing it. Some will actually live in one city, while working in the other. Others will be people employed or owning businesses who operate in both. Much like Chicago, Philly, NYC, Baltimore, DC (etc....) connections, we should expect a social impact as well. I know with this in play, I'll start catching concerts at the BOK. The Thunder will see more Tulsa citizens, as will bricktown.

Some mentioned it earlier. The real kicker is when we have stations in the suburbs to get around city or to the speed train to Tulsa (like Chicago or St. Louis).

One last point, these trains are not, will not, nor should they be expected to be the end all, be all of transportation. They will not be the perfect answer to every situation. They are an alternative, and in becoming an alternative they reduce the stress of the current transportation models.

I'm not missing the point - I am saying that building a highspeed rail connecting OKC and Tulsa before you build a local transit network is putting the cart before the horse. Build the local stuff first (or at least at the same time). Help the 50,000+ get to downtown OKC everyday before we spend billions to get 300 people to Tulsa everyday.

[Mr Big]

I have to respectfully disagree with you Kerry. While both inner-city light rail and between cities light rail stand to de-stress traffic and transportation. Only one stands truly increase commerce for both cities, by bringing dollars from the other city into each city, promoting business growth and the entertainment industries. Inner-city travel simply can't do any of that.

Again, this is business model that is already proven to work, time and time again. When we know for fact how this succeeds, its tough to understand to changing the formula.

[mugofbeer]

Local transit is a local issue to be dealt with locally. The high speed rail between large cities is something that must be done nationally, the way the interstate hiway network was built.

[EBAH]

I agree MugOfBeer. I think if the fed is offering to help us build this, we'd be silly to pass it up. Once it is there, it will provide incentive for the city to provide more transit options for potential travelers and their money. It also provides a potential money making opportunity to local and national businesses selling transit services like hourly car rentals or shuttles. I hate to sound too, "if you build it they will come". But If we don't take them up on this there is no way we can do it alone. I'd hate to be 25-30 years down the line with gas prices back up to $4+/gal and wondering why we didn't put in that HSR line.

[OKCMallen]

I don't understand how this concept is lost on people. We have large sections of this country that successfully utilize light rail to connect cities. The inability to look to these cities, who are quite frankly far more successful than ours, and to understand some of the tools are they using, is quite surprising.

There's no question that will be plenty of business travelers utilizing it. Some will actually live in one city, while working in the other. Others will be people employed or owning businesses who operate in both. Much like Chicago, Philly, NYC, Baltimore, DC (etc....) connections, we should expect a social impact as well. I know with this in play, I'll start catching concerts at the BOK. The Thunder will see more Tulsa citizens, as will bricktown.

Some mentioned it earlier. The real kicker is when we have stations in the suburbs to get around city or to the speed train to Tulsa (like Chicago or St. Louis).

One last point, these trains are not, will not, nor should they be expected to be the end all, be all of transportation. They will not be the perfect answer to every situation. They are an alternative, and in becoming an alternative they reduce the stress of the current transportation models.

So true, and I see more shows at Cain's.

[onthestrip]

...I'd hate to be 25-30 years down the line with gas prices back up to $4+/gal and wondering why we didn't put in that HSR line.

I dont think it will take that long to for gas to be back to $4/gallon. I hate to think what it will cost in 25-30 years.

But I agree with you. The future of effecient and economical travel is rail based and we would be stupid to not take the Feds money and put in some of our own and build some rail lines.

[Caboose]

I have to respectfully disagree with you Kerry. While both inner-city light rail and between cities light rail stand to de-stress traffic and transportation. Only one stands truly increase commerce for both cities, by bringing dollars from the other city into each city, promoting business growth and the entertainment industries. Inner-city travel simply can't do any of that.

Again, this is business model that is already proven to work, time and time again. When we know for fact how this succeeds, its tough to understand to changing the formula.

I am pretty pessimistic about this due to the lack of density in OKC and Tulsa. Even the large Texas cities have the same issue with everything being so spread out. I would love to take a high speed train from Tulsa to OKC or OKC to San Antonio... but what to do when I get there? Rent a car? Might as well drive my own.

[Kerry]

How much would a one-way ticket from OKC to Tulsa cost per person?

Stop me when you reach what you are willing to pay.

A. $5

B. $10

C. $20

D. $25

E. $50

F. $75

G. $100

H. $125

I. $150

The cheapest ticket for a 2.5 hour trip aboard Eurostar from London to Disneyland-Paris is $186 + taxes. A full-flex leisure ticket is $415 + tax.

Boston to NYC is $75 to $100

Even if OKC to Tulsa was on the low end would you be willing to pay $25 each way ($50 round trip) for OKC to Tulsa? Would a family of 4 pay $200 to do that? How many people fom Tulsa would go to a Thunder game if the train ticket cost as much as the game ticket?

[OKCHerbivore]

Kerry- I think you are right in needing to develop local transit in both cities in tandem with high speed connection, and those who make it either/or are seeing the rail link as a federal grab bag, when it is hardly guaranteed.

Getting AROUND our cities without cars is probably still prior to getting TO our cities without cars. The only bright spot is, the central portions of both cities could support pedestrian growth, and perhaps the limit of transit will further help us to infill downtowns, rather than spread them out like we seem to be doing still.

Yet I do think the link is about 30 years in the coming, which is about how behind in infrastructure we are in both cities, seeing as we still think it is the 1970's in oil windfall, despite having the 1980's to remind us how fragile that is.

Yet the point you also make about the cost being prohibitive is simply an economy of scale, and Tulsa-OKC are hardly London-Paris, thus making the value of the rail route much less than the already exchange-rate mauled one under the Channel.

So, unless the rail authorities are totally daft (and they might be), it will not cost anything like a trip on the Eurostar. Of course, once I get to Tulsa I also won't be able to go grab a beer in sight of St. Paul's or grab bread on Rue St. Dominique.

[decepticobra]

. How many people in OKC commute to downtown OKC for work (30,000+) compared to the number of people that commute between OKC and Tulsa (maybe a few hundred per day).

the problem with high speed rail on an urban level is that a high speed train simply can not make frequent stops. It takes time for it to achieve a desired speed.

There was a proposition for high speed rail in California that would link many major CA cities together. The trouble was, is that the train wouldnt be feasible as it would make excessive stops along various cities and hubs between San Francisco and Los Angeles.

Is it possible for a high speed route to be made that only serves SF & LA? Yes. However, such a train/route would financially benefit more if it had more stops to service.

How does this apply to Oklahoma?

Even if the OK route excluded creating any stops between OKC and Tulsa, youre still left with the issue of how many trains stops to construct in both the OKC and Tulsa metro areas.

The only viable solution I see is to have a lower speed train collect all passengers at each metro area's respective train stops (i.e. OKC: Norman, Edmond, MWC, DT, Yukon/Mustang, etc) and then transport such passengers to the designated high-speed train stop that would be constructed somewhere in the vicinity of the Turner Turnpike terminus (the 100 mile stretch) allowing the high speed train to achieve maximum speeds in excess of 100 mph. The high speed train would then embark on its route and end at the Tulsa Turner Turnpike terminus and then a lower speed train would then disperse the passengers to their desired Tulsa area stops (Broken Bow, Sapulpa, Owasso, etc)

a high speed rail simply doesnt have enough time to slow down in congested metropolitan areas for various stops.

So its not so much a matter of where lay down the tracks for the high speed rail route, but rather, where to build each train stop in each metropolitan area. Thats the real ticket to its success.

[mugofbeer]

Hey, if they are going to build a brand new train track, I can't see why it wouldn't be plenty feasible to build it with one Tulsa stop, Stroud, N OKC, Downtown, Norman, Ardmore, Gainsville, Denton, N Dallas and Central Dallas. Getting up to speed wouldn't be hard at all except w/in OKC and Urban Dallas. Even within the urban areas, trains can easily get to 60+ mph within a minute or 2.

[kevinpate]

In truth, while I am interested in rail, just change the speed limit significantly. Do that and I'll gladly make the OKC to Tulsa & back run just fine on my own, and the extra expense of a rail system can go to something else. I doubt I am alone in that view.

[PennyQuilts]

I'll pay 200.00 for a round trip between Quantico to NYC (about 4.5 hours each way) to avoid the traffic which can involve a trip anywhere from 6.5 hours to 12 hours (one way). In my situation, the Amtrak train station is only about 4 miles from the house and easy to get to, and there are subways in NYC.

But it makes no sense to pay that kind of money to go back and forth to Tulsa. By the time you get to the train station, park, arrange to drive in Tulsa and do the reverse on the way back, why bother? You'd be a third of the way to Tulsa by the time your train pulled out of the station, maybe further since I guarantee they wouldn't be running on the hour. And aren't there buses between OKC and Tulsa? People who can't drive or don't want to drive could take the bus. I just don't see people using a high speed rail between cities that close with no more traffic than we have in Oklahoma. As for Dallas, that is a different deal - it is further and more business people are liable to take advantage of it. Don't get me wrong, I love trains. I just don't see it giving the consumer enough of an advantage that they would prefer it or make it profitable.

[sgray]

Reading today's posts gives one the impression that folks just can't see past the OKC-TUL portion of the greater picture. As clarified earlier by several posters, this is not simply an "OKC-TULSA EXPRESS"!!!

This is a new segment to the country's existing passenger rail infrastructure that would immediately offer Tulsa the opportunity to connect to DFW (and TX to TUL) as well as future service on to Springfield and on to St Louis where it would meet at an existing hub, giving access to even more destinations.

Again, this is not just a rail service for Oklahoma, but rather a new segment to the existing rail infrastructure that will move not only Oklahomans but also lots of outside traffic through our state!


Think Chicago->St Louis->OKC->Dallas! See where we fit in?

PS- of course we will still need local service in each area. OK has been s-l-o-w to embrace any local transit services. Hopefully seeing passengers passing through the state will inspire folks to make some noise and get the local leaders to do something about it.