Passenger Rail Set To Connect OKC, Tulsa

[venture]

Sid, Japan is an Island and they have zero options regarding locations for HSR. The middle of the US is vastly open with multiple options. ...an apple vs orange.

OKC provides a viable option w/ the least cost per/mile ( up front ) for HSR HUB vs. Dallas. Also, when it comes to Ridership, the North Half of the US will not to go further south, if they don't have too. Dallas is not the only (investment community w/ a big voice).

Okay, so you want to take Denver out of the equation. If you go south that also means you are eliminating Des Moines, Omaha, and Las Vegas. Now adding an additional 200 miles to the trip you are adding in St. Louis, Springfield, Tulsa, OKC, and Albuquerque. However, you still have the mountains to deal with in NM, AZ, and CA and also now the Ozarks in MO. There is a shorter route a bit further south that essentially joins up with I-76 and then I-70 in Southern PA. However, you not eliminate Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Toledo, and Chicago in exchange for Columbus, Dayton, and Indianapolis. Eliminating Chicago, IMO, is non-starter and will kill any deal. If you do that you might as well go nonstop NY to LA and eliminate any stops except for fuel.

So far though you still haven't justified that passengers will switch to take a 12+ hour journey by rail over a 5 hour flight.

[OKVision4U]

Okay, so you want to take Denver out of the equation. If you go south that also means you are eliminating Des Moines, Omaha, and Las Vegas. Now adding an additional 200 miles to the trip you are adding in St. Louis, Springfield, Tulsa, OKC, and Albuquerque. However, you still have the mountains to deal with in NM, AZ, and CA and also now the Ozarks in MO. There is a shorter route a bit further south that essentially joins up with I-76 and then I-70 in Southern PA. However, you not eliminate Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Toledo, and Chicago in exchange for Columbus, Dayton, and Indianapolis. Eliminating Chicago, IMO, is non-starter and will kill any deal. If you do that you might as well go nonstop NY to LA and eliminate any stops except for fuel.

So far though you still haven't justified that passengers will switch to take a 12+ hour journey by rail over a 5 hour flight.

I'm sorry venture, I forgot you were still here. No, you are still Way Too Swayed By the Airlines to ever understand the needs of a consumer.

[OKCisOK4me]

Wtf^^

[venture]

Wtf^^

I think we got confirmation he has no interest in actually discussing this properly and will just attack and deflect any thought that counter his. Which is unfortunate.

[OKCisOK4me]

I think we got confirmation he has no interest in actually discussing this properly and will just attack and deflect any thought that counter his. Which is unfortunate.

I put "it" on ignore a LOOOOOOOOOOOONG time ago BUT I still find myself clicking on the posts just to see what "nonsense" is spilled onto this forum, lol.

[Richard at Remax]

don't you guys get it, he is throwing out a plan to make sure everyone in the USA can get to OKC quick for the Olympics!

[ljbab728]

don't you guys get it, he is throwing out a plan to make sure everyone in the USA can get to OKC quick for the Olympics!

And to be sure they can admire that new office tower in far south Norman.

[warreng88]

I'm sorry venture, I forgot you were still here. No, you are still Way Too Swayed By the Airlines to ever understand the needs of a consumer.

I am not swayed by the airlinies so I will say what he said since I agree with it. Okay, so you want to take Denver out of the equation. If you go south that also means you are eliminating Des Moines, Omaha, and Las Vegas. Now adding an additional 200 miles to the trip you are adding in St. Louis, Springfield, Tulsa, OKC, and Albuquerque. However, you still have the mountains to deal with in NM, AZ, and CA and also now the Ozarks in MO. There is a shorter route a bit further south that essentially joins up with I-76 and then I-70 in Southern PA. However, you not eliminate Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Toledo, and Chicago in exchange for Columbus, Dayton, and Indianapolis. Eliminating Chicago, IMO, is non-starter and will kill any deal. If you do that you might as well go nonstop NY to LA and eliminate any stops except for fuel.

So far though you still haven't justified that passengers will switch to take a 12+ hour journey by rail over a 5 hour flight.

[Just the facts]

I think some of you are missing what OKVision4U is saying. He isn't saying Denver shouldn't have HSR access. He is just saying that it doesn't make a good location for a transcontinental HSR hub. Building west out of Denver is so expensive and difficult that I-70 was just completed a few years ago.

[venture]

I think some of you are missing what OKVision4U is saying. He isn't saying Denver shouldn't have HSR access. He is just saying that it doesn't make a good location for a transcontinental HSR hub. Building west out of Denver is so expensive and difficult that I-70 was just completed a few years ago.

He would actually have to be clear in his posts first for us to get that. Not saying there ever will be a HSR hub, but wouldn't Kansas City or St. Louis make a much better choice?

[warreng88]

He would actually have to be clear in his posts first for us to get that. Not saying there ever will be a HSR hub, but wouldn't Kansas City or St. Louis make a much better choice?

KC is what I was thinking orignally if you are talking the center of the country, that is it. And you have more direct access to Chicago without having to go as far north. Also, it is directly west on I-70 from Denver. It could be the center then it would go southwest to Wichita to OKC, Dallas, Austin, SA, Houston, etc.

[catch22]

If you're going this far south, might as well go thru Dallas and have a potential 6,700,000 riders, and closer access to San Antonio, Houston, and Austin, giving you an extra 10,000,000 or so riders within an hour or less HSR distance. Also add in OKC within an hour and a half and you have an additional 1 million riders.

[warreng88]

If you're going this far south, might as well go thru Dallas and have a potential 6,700,000 riders, and closer access to San Antonio, Houston, and Austin, giving you an extra 10,000,000 or so riders within an hour or less HSR distance. Also add in OKC within an hour and a half and you have an additional 1 million riders.

But Novision doesn't like that route...

[Snowman]

KC & SL seem too close to Chicago to be a major HSR hub, maybe some transfers but looking at city sizes and distances there is just more opportunity east of the Mississippi River for hubs in the forseable future.

[catch22]

Like it or not, HSR will mimick the current air travel routes and hubs.

The airlines have a ton of data on markets. They know where people want to go and at what price they want to do it. You can transpose air passenger data to a rail level. You can look and see Dallas to Houston has on average XX people who pay to fly between the two cities, and what they want to pay to do it. You would build your HSR infrastructure in proven markets, not guess work.

For example OKC-Denver would be a perfect HSR market. Accesses denver from the east, so no mountains. No direct highways, and air data shows about 500 people per day travel between the two cities (not counting connecting, so we know quite a few business and leisure travelers take flights to get to Denver). Could tag Dallas on to the route. Dallas-OKC-Denver. That route would be successful and be used quite a bit by many.

[venture]

Like it or not, HSR will mimick the current air travel routes and hubs.

The airlines have a ton of data on markets. They know where people want to go and at what price they want to do it. You can transpose air passenger data to a rail level. You can look and see Dallas to Houston has on average XX people who pay to fly between the two cities, and what they want to pay to do it. You would build your HSR infrastructure in proven markets, not guess work.

For example OKC-Denver would be a perfect HSR market. Accesses denver from the east, so no mountains. No direct highways, and air data shows about 500 people per day travel between the two cities (not counting connecting, so we know quite a few business and leisure travelers take flights to get to Denver). Could tag Dallas on to the route. Dallas-OKC-Denver. That route would be successful and be used quite a bit by many.

That route would be packed in the winter for everyone wanting to go up for skiing/snowboarding in the winter. Avoid the hassle of having to take your equipment through the airport and it would be a winner.

[trousers]

That route would be packed in the winter for everyone wanting to go up for skiing/snowboarding in the winter. Avoid the hassle of having to take your equipment through the airport and it would be a winner.

You have forgotten that everyone will be here practicing in our indoor snow skiing facililty.
We will be hosting the Summer AND Winter Olympics.

[venture]

You have forgotten that everyone will be here practicing in our indoor snow skiing facililty.
We will be hosting the Summer AND Winter Olympics.

Nooooo...we'll host the Winter Olympics but people will need to take the HSR to the venues (to DEN) to actually watch the competition. Then return to OKC for any ceremonies.

[catch22]

I was thinking since we were the HSR hub, that we would have intercontinental direct service to Dubai for the use of their indoor ski facility. The rest of the events would be held here?

[OKVision4U]

But Novision doesn't like that route...

Having the correct location for a HSR HUB is not about gaining addtional ridership. It is about linking the other regional systems in a way that is most beneficial to the W to E / N to S systems.

If you look at the requirements for HSR, you will see that flat is better, open is better, less congestion is better. Then simply link all other these regional systems in a (Single Line Only ), then OKC is the fit.

The Texas volume of riders will already be included in the system, they just need to get (linked) at a central location too. OKC is centered. Flat, and not too big. It works.

[OKVision4U]

You have forgotten that everyone will be here practicing in our indoor snow skiing facililty.
We will be hosting the Summer AND Winter Olympics.

...see, now you won't be bored.

[venture]

Having the correct location for a HSR HUB is not about gaining addtional ridership. It is about linking the other regional systems in a way that is most beneficial to the W to E / N to S systems.

If you look at the requirements for HSR, you will see that flat is better, open is better, less congestion is better. Then simply link all other these regional systems in a (Single Line Only ), then OKC is the fit.

The Texas volume of riders will already be included in the system, they just need to get (linked) at a central location too. OKC is centered. Flat, and not too big. It works.

So you are saying that local originating passengers won't matter? If that's the case, put it in the middle of Kansas. Let's be honest here, any passenger hub operation requires strong local originating traffic to support the hub. All existing rail and air hubs right now are examples of this. There is a reason why there are major Amtrak facilities in Chicago, New York, and Washington. There is a reason why airline hubs are closed in cities with low local originating traffic (Memphis, Cincinnati, St. Louis). You can't base the entire system on connecting traffic or you'll never make money.

If flat is better, why would you even come into Oklahoma from the east? You are fighting the Ozarks all the way through MO and AR. Whereas if you go from Chicago down through Iowa and Kansas, you avoid all of that. I know you love to mock those of us in the aviation industry but lets be honest...it is one based on the rail industry. There is a reason why all of our labor agreements are governed by the Railway Labor Act.

We first need to get HSR off the ground and deployed first. At the rate we are going it is still going to be 30 years before we even look at connecting the east and west networks by rail.

[catch22]

Sure, operationally speaking, the most efficient spot would be the best.

But, at the same time, you have to have people to ride it. So you have to balance ridership potential with operational efficiency. we could have a HSR shooting across the flat desert. but no one to ride it, but boy would we have a flat and efficient system.....

[Just the facts]

This is what I was afraid of - that I would actually start to understand what OKVision4U is saying (even if I don't necessarily agree with it). Here is what I think he is saying.

For transcontinental HSR travel there is a long physical barrier running north/south - the Rocky Mountains which will cost a lot of money to over-come and will cause the train to go slower. The most economical way around is to go south. This route provides the least amount of mountain passes and receive much less snow than any route north. If you go all the way south to Dallas you start having exponentially high land acquisition and construction costs to get north, south, east, and west lines into metro Dallas. Dallas will still have HSR but if someone in Dallas wants to go to LA they will need to connect to an west bound train in OKC. Likewise, if the want to go to any point east they will need to connect to an east bound train in OKC.

Essentially what he is saying that the Rockies create a choke point and he thinks OKC should be the eastern hub of that choke point (and maybe Las Vegas is the western hub). So all transcontinental trains from the east would converge in OKC, pass through the choke point to Las Vegas, and then branch off to Phoenix, LA, San Fran, Portland, Seattle, etc.... Trains from the west would all converge in Las Vegas, pass through the choke point to OKC, and then branch off to Houston, Chicago, DC, New York, Atlanta, etc...

For freight we have similar situation here in Florida. Nearly every train that enters the State of Florida has to pass through a section of track called the Folkston Funnel (which is just across the boarder in Georgia). It doesn't matter if the train is going to/from Jacksonville, Miami, Orlando, or Tampa - it pass through the Folkston Funnel.

http://www.folkston.com/trains/trains.htm

[OKVision4U]

Having the correct location for a HSR HUB is not about gaining addtional ridership. It is about linking the other regional systems in a way that is most beneficial to the W to E / N to S systems.

If you look at the requirements for HSR, you will see that flat is better, open is better, less congestion is better. Then simply link all other these regional systems in a (Single Line Only ), then OKC is the fit.

The Texas volume of riders will already be included in the system, they just need to get (linked) at a central location too. OKC is centered. Flat, and not too big. It works.

In order to gain a High Speed Rating of 300 mph, these are (part) of the requirements.