Streetcar

[Watson410]

Let's Just hope that our corridor is one of the to be announced 13 corridors! I would love to see federal money going to reinvest in our crumbling infrastructure. That is at least an investment in ourselves. It would also be great timing so that as they are studying the Intermodal Hub study they can coordinate that effort to work with the proposed HSR line that will move through OKC! What a great opportunity to do some really fantastic Icon for a rail station that will again get OKC noticed. Thinking something dramatic say of the order of a Calatrava sculptural building. Obviously his NYC Path station was for a subway system but nonetheless a great structure that communicates the HSR and its technology integrated with the thought of it being another form of first impression or gateway to the city.

It doesn't look like were one of the 13. Damn it!! I read the article on Yahoo.com

[the hip]

Let's Just hope that our corridor is one of the to be announced 13 corridors! I would love to see federal money going to reinvest in our crumbling infrastructure.

And now back to reality. As of an hour ago...high speed rail is NOT going to happen. Not when we are from a "red" state...bummer.

TIGER grant announcement is next month.
Does anyone really think we have a shot for TIGER?

I question the leadership and influence of OKC's rail representatives.

[Kerry]

Hip - it is the difference between treating a patient that is bleeding and trying to prevent injuries in the first place. In OKC we plan ahead. That is not the case in Wasington D.C. and other parts of the country. OKC is putting in a streetcar system so we don't have to live through years of traffic congestion before we do it (like lots of other cities). The same can be said of high speed rail. There are many place that could have used high speed rail years ago so it only natural they get it before OKC. And don't underestimate that red state/blue state thing.

[max]

Maybe you guys are finding an article that I'm not, but isn't this a bit premature? I've been unable to find anything mentioning all of the states to receive funding. The only mention I've found is of the larger projects that are getting the larger chunks of money (LA to SF and the Florida line). There's also mentions that very little will be going to the northeast corridor. I haven't found a confirm or deny on what money OK would get if any. If you've found a definitive list of the 31 states that will receive money, please post a link.

[Tier2City]

Confirmed, we're SOL, at least on this round.

The full list is at:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/defa...ary_public.pdf

The closest to Oklahoma is improvements for the Texas Eagle between Fort Worth and San Antonio.

We don't even make it into the final item, $6 Million for "Investments for high-speed and intercity passenger rail planning studies in Alabama, Colorado, Delaware, Georgia, Iowa, Kansas, New Mexico, Vermont and West Virginia"


Oh well, better red than dead.

[max]

Thanks for the confirmation. Disappointing, but in reality, I suppose it's reasonable. The most money should go to where it's going to be used the most and where there is already some good existing localized transit systems. It's still a huge step to get these lines moving and will do a lot for overall opinions of rail in the US.

[BigD Misey]

I realize this has little to do with the intended thread but, since we're discussing it:
Does anyone think this may be a limited response to the French transportation management companies that have been pushing states to manage roads & Rails? Down here in Dallas, virtually all maintenance on the toll roads are let out to foreign countries, mainly French. Now, as the article stated in reply #328 by OKC@Heart, they are going for the rail system. A large part of the infrastructure will be under control of foriegn entities.
I think they know that the US is not only ill equiped financially but the citizens are not prepared to make the sacrifice to develop a nationwide network of high-speed rail. Most will continue to choose air or road travel because of the independent lifestyles we are all used to. Just an overanalytical view.
Having said that, I know in the last couple of years there has been a lot of talk between Kansas and Oklahoma to bring Amtrak service thru OKC to Texas. Mostly because Amtrak has a HUGE disconnect through the middle part of the country. As you move east to west accross the country the commuter rail service changes from a more north to south direction to an east west direction until you get to the west coast then there are a few north south routes.

So, in the east, the way it is, to get from one populous metro area to another like Miami, Boston, NY or Chicago wouldn't be to difficult (With the crazy exception of Atlanta). But, from Dallas to KC or Denver doesnt exist. Heck, to get from KC to Denver, one has to go from KC to New Mexico and catch another route to Denver.

Pretty much starving rail commute through the heart of the country. I think thats why OK and KS have been working so hard on a solution in the past couple of years.
UTU: News
also
An Oklahoma City to Kansas City Amtrak Connection may be coming! Moving at the Speed of Creativity

This will mostly benefit Kansas. There can be a route connecting KC with Denver and using existing rail T-off of that route coming through Salina, & Wichita to OKC and Dallas. (come to think of it, thats almost all of BIG12 country!) That would connect virtually all the major markets in the middle part of the country.

Thoughts??

[Kerry]

Nationwide highspeed rail will not work in America. To work it will have to be regional. No one is going to take high speed rail from Chicago to Dallas. Even at a top speed of300 mph that trip would take all day. An airplane can do it in two hours.

[PLANSIT]

Nationwide highspeed rail will not work in America. To work it will have to be regional. No one is going to take high speed rail from Chicago to Dallas. Even at a top speed of300 mph that trip would take all day. An airplane can do it in two hours.

While I tend to agree about the regional approach to HSR, your math is a little funny.

[Urban Pioneer]

While disappointed, I would say that the selections are prudent. If you study where the funds are going, it seems that the large amounts are high unemployement areas. It also seems to follow corridoors with high passenger counts. It thought the Portland/Seattle connection is also interesting. It appears that cities with local transit infrastructure faired well. That is another reason why our streetcar is so important. If Fortworth or Tulsa commit to building local support systems it will probably improve our future rating. Heartland Flyer speed improvements namely.

[Larry OKC]

Hip - it is the difference between treating a patient that is bleeding and trying to prevent injuries in the first place. In OKC we plan ahead. That is not the case in Wasington D.C. and other parts of the country. OKC is putting in a streetcar system so we don't have to live through years of traffic congestion before we do it (like lots of other cities). The same can be said of high speed rail. There are many place that could have used high speed rail years ago so it only natural they get it before OKC. And don't underestimate that red state/blue state thing.

But how far ahead? LOL We have been trying to get downtown streetcars since the original MAPS 16 years ago! In those 16 years that have passed, do we need them now, or are we still planning for that sometime in the future? Perhaps we should have really planned ahead and never taken out the streetcars we had out to begin with. Think I remember reading that OKC had over 200 miles of streetcar and we are talking about 5 to 6 to start over again.

[Larry OKC]

While I tend to agree about the regional approach to HSR, your math is a little funny.

Have to agree...

"The straight line distance between Dallas and Chicago is approximately 804 miles". Works out to be 2.6 hours if top speed of 300 mph is maintained and no stops.

Going Southwest with 1 plane change is as little as 3.25. Nonstop on American Airlines is 2 hours, 10 min.

Not too much difference time wise.

[LakeEffect]

Have to agree...

"The straight line distance between Dallas and Chicago is approximately 804 miles". Works out to be 2.6 hours if top speed of 300 mph is maintained and no stops.

Going Southwest with 1 plane change is as little as 3.25. Nonstop on American Airlines is 2 hours, 10 min.

Not too much difference time wise.

Don't forget to add in the 30 minutes for pre-boarding and 30 minutes for checking in/getting through security. That adds an hour, so it would be 3 hours 10 min. for a non-stop flight.

However, we'll most likely not see speeds above 200 mph here, so that math is a bit off as well. More like 4.02 hours... I'd still take the convenience of HSR though - far fewer delays, more comfort...

[Kerry]

You guys think a high speed train from Chicago to Dallasis going to go non-stop? No it won't. It will stop several times along the way plus it won't be able to run at top speed the whole way. And forget that straight line thing - there is no way a track doesn't turn a thousand times. Throw in a few hail storms, tornado warnings, and other other conditions and delays will be crazy. Anyone interested in going through a storm front at 200+ mph?

Regional is the only way this will work.

[LakeEffect]

You guys think a high speed train from Chicago to Dallasis going to go non-stop? No it won't. It will stop several times along the way plus it won't be able to run at top speed the whole way. And forget that straight line thing - there is no way a track doesn't turn a thousand times. Throw in a few hail storms, tornado warnings, and other other conditions and delays will be crazy. Anyone interested in going through a storm front at 200+ mph?

Regional is the only way this will work.

Don't know why you'd suggest that a plane would be flying through that though...

[Kerry]

Don't know why you'd suggest that a plane would be flying through that though...

Planes fly over or around bad weather. A high speed train only has one way it can go. And keep this in mind on the time thing. London to Paris is only 211 miles; closer than OKC is to Dallas and it takes EuroStar 2 hours 15 minutes to get there. Plus we still have the problem of how you get around most cities in America once you get there. There is a reason airports have huge rental car lots.

[BigD Misey]

Planes fly over or around bad weather. A high speed train only has one way it can go. And keep this in mind on the time thing. London to Paris is only 211 miles; closer than OKC is to Dallas and it takes EuroStar 2 hours 15 minutes to get there. Plus we still have the problem of how you get around most cities in America once you get there. There is a reason airports have huge rental car lots.

Planes also fly over 15mi straigths of water and from one country to another. I understand that, but we're not talking costs associated with European transnational travel, no bridges or tunnels longer than a mile or so. All land and all owned by one country. And Dallas to OKC is a virtual strait shot. London to paris' route is more of a bow shaped route going toward Lille then Calais then across the straight to Dover and a hard Left to London. So, instead of it being 211 mi, it actually turns out to be 308 miles through many more populated areas and stops in those metro areas.
Here, there might be one in Ardmore,Winstar or Gainsville and Denton but thats it. If the train averages 120mph (Peaking at 180) (Heck even i might have averaged 85 or 90 on I35 at times) you would realistically be in dallas in far less than 2 hrs.
The thing is Plane tickets are based on a foreign, becomeing exhausted fuel and they use a TON of it! The tickets will continue to rise as barrels continue to rise. With new natural gas turbine engines, fuel costs and emissions will be a fraction.
Now, I make this trip at least 5 times a year. Tickets on discount sometimes get down to $200 but most of the time its around $300 per person round trip. Amtrak is $55!!. Even if the price doubles to $120 round trip, it would be a viable alternative to flying.
1hr and 15min longer than flying but up to $180 less per person.

Three more things...
1.the natural gas would come from OK
2.the Bullet train would have 2 or three trips a day instead of amtraks 1 a day.
3.And if you have ever ridden a train vs flying, do i need to bring up the comfort, room and amenities!

[ljbab728]

Kerry's point was that a Chicago to Dallas nonstop train would not be faster than flying and that's difficult to argue against. Taking a train from OKC to Dallas or even driving can take less time than flying sometimes depending on how early you have to be at the airport or how much time you have to spend on the taxiway. The train would be much less stressful, however.

[BigD Misey]

If the ticket to Chicago would be $250 round trip, and only 6-8hrs, I would much rather take a high speed train from DFW.

But, i guess that is why France is doing what they are doing. They know mentality of americans. 'I've got the money, I want it NOW!
Ease of life will always win out over the environment in this country.
If drastic changes don't take place in the US and in China with huge emission reductions, the environment doesn't stand a chance. Intesified storms, UV poison and viral incubation will start taking us out in droves.
I feel like an environmental activist for posting this, but here ya go:

"Development is the first urgent task," said Qin Dahe, a member of the Chinese Academy of Sciences and co-chair of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
China's greenhouse gas emissions are dwarfed by those of the developed countries: Per capita discharge is only 61 percent of the world's average and 21 percent of that of OECD (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development) countries.

Anyone who has visited an inland Chinese city knows how terrifyingly bad the air is. Chinese media are replete with horrifying statistics: An estimated 400,000 people die prematurely from respiratory diseases related to air pollution each year;
one-quarter of China's land is desert, and the desert is advancing at the rate of 1,900 square miles per year, producing tens of thousands of environmental migrants;
and in China's north and west, severe and growing water scarcity is impinging on economic growth, limiting agricultural and industrial output.

In late April the Chinese government is expected to release a national plan on global climate change.
From all accounts, the document will reinforce the government's commitment to energy efficiency and renewables while also setting forth prevention policies for natural disasters.
What it will not do, unsurprisingly, is embrace any targets or timetables for greenhouse gas emission reductions. For that to happen, two things are necessary.
First, the United States, preferably with Australia and India in tow, must agree to aggressive emission reductions, perhaps along the lines currently pursued by California.
Without a strong US commitment, the international community has no credibility in pressuring the Chinese.
Second, OECD countries will have to be far more generous and comprehensive in compensating China in its struggle to enforce tougher energy efficiency and renewable standards.
That can be done with both financial incentives and technology transfers. What finally brought the Chinese on board with Kyoto and previous international environmental agreements was the attraction of getting paid to do the right thing.
If the United States joins the fight against climate change--and if the price is right--there is every reason to believe that China can commit to doing the right thing again.

-China vs. Earth , The Nation Magazine, April 2007

The Chages would certainly include using untapped technology with cleaner natural gas fuel, and a Bullet Train system. That will call for us to forfeit some money, even though we may not use/choose it ourselves. I mean, i choose not to use the Toll road down here, but it doesn't matter, i still paid taxes for it.

China has already began a huge movement. Check out thier Highspeed Rail system, covering an area nearly as lage as the US.


Somehow, they think its a good idea. But, what do they know, right!

So they have it, Europe has the largest network of high speed rails, Japan has it. All of them are looking for cleaner alternatives for the environment.

The one in Israel is just about done:



Sout Korea, Brazil, Argentina, Morocco, heck even Tangiers has one.
That leaves us and Australia and the rest of Africa. Hmmm, which one produces the most polution and should be the leader and most environmentally conciencious?
Just sayin...maybe we should catchup to the rest of the world, instead of annoying them with our 'right now' mentality, before its all built and owned by a foreign entity.

Respectfully,
The Misey

[Larry OKC]

You guys think a high speed train from Chicago to Dallasis going to go non-stop? No it won't. It will stop several times along the way plus it won't be able to run at top speed the whole way. And forget that straight line thing - there is no way a track doesn't turn a thousand times. Throw in a few hail storms, tornado warnings, and other other conditions and delays will be crazy. Anyone interested in going through a storm front at 200+ mph?

Regional is the only way this will work.

Kerry, really wasn't trying to pick on you (that is why I responded to another person's response to your post) but it was in re: to your original post where you mentioned the 300 mph thing:

"Even at a top speed of300 mph that trip would take all day. An airplane can do it in two hours."

My response indicated that IF the top speed was maintained (and non-stop, like the airline flight), the time was comparable. Of course there are variables that you later mentioned and the time/security delays at airports that the other poster mentioned. When you throw in all of the variables of both modes of transportation, they may still be closer than farther. Then there are other considerations (cost, comfort etc).

If time is the deciding factor, absolutely, go with the shortest amount but you have to take in other factors such as the security and time to get a car rental etc. What is your total time spent from your doorstep to your final destination? My response was strictly travel time in an ideal situation.

Non stop airline can have delays and cancellations. My recent non-stop to Vegas had a delay that changed a 3+ hr flight into a 4.5 hr. one. Fortunately we were allowed to deplane and wander the airport instead of being stuck at the gate or tarmac. Had a similar delay coming back from Vegas (but before we boarded).

Personally, if I can get to where I want to go in about the same amount of time/cost, I would probably pick the train over air. Then there are those that hate/afraid of air travel. A minority, but they exist.

[Rover]

I travel on the high speed trains in Europe quite alot and would MUCH rather travel that way than by air. When you take into account the time to and from airports vs. where most train stations are located, it is very efficient time-wise. And, since you are usually ending in an urban station, local travel without a rental car is usually very easy.

[Kerry]

For the record, I am huge rail supporter but I think cities have to put in local systems before we ever think about connecting cities with high speed rail.

Take Florida as an example. A few years ago we passed a constitutional amendment to put in a $20 billion system that would connect Miami, Orlando, Disney, Jacksonville, Tampa, and St. Petersburg. It would have been a huge waste of money. You can fly direct to everyone of those cities everyday with multiple flights per day on multiple airlines and no $20 billion investment needed. Hell, just pay the airlines the $20 billion in tax payer funds with the requirement that all Florida residents can fly from any Florida city to any other Florida city for $25. You would have more flights and options than you could shake a stick at.

Creating a local system that gets people to work everyday is a much better use of funds than competing with an existing airline industry.

[Larry OKC]

For the record, I am huge rail supporter but I think cities have to put in local systems before we ever think about connecting cities with high speed rail. ... Creating a local system that gets people to work everyday is a much better use of funds than competing with an existing airline industry.

I agree. However, aren't we talking about 2 or more different animals here? The high speed rail concept is a Fed idea and the local system uses primarily local funds (at least that is the plan with MAPS 3, that the local funds would still produce the beginnings of local rail and hopefully spur Fed involvement). Shot down for now it looks like. Were we talking about using any City funds for the High Speed or would it be State/Federal funds?

[LakeEffect]

I agree. However, aren't we talking about 2 or more different animals here? The high speed rail concept is a Fed idea and the local system uses primarily local funds (at least that is the plan with MAPS 3, that the local funds would still produce the beginnings of local rail and hopefully spur Fed involvement). Shot down for now it looks like. Were we talking about using any City funds for the High Speed or would it be State/Federal funds?

The States that won the recent Federal funding were the ones that had shown their willingness to share in the cost and move HSR forward. The states that haven't done much were the ones that last. A sudden willingness to submit a Federal funding request wasn't good enough... it had to be sustained past interest.

[Kerry]

I think the Feds provide matching funds with some kind of ratio like 80-20. The Feds aren't just going to show up and put in a rail system - nor should they. I would only connect cities that had a local rail system in place. No local rail - not HSR stop. If an HSR went from St. Louis to OKC and passed right thru downtown Tulsa it wouldn't stop there until Tulsa put in a local rail system. "Rail System" being defined as a fixed guideway.