http://newsok.com/flight-of-fancy-can-we-afford-high-speed-rail/article/3355998 (http://newsok.com/flight-of-fancy-can-we-afford-high-speed-rail/article/3355998)
High-speed passenger rail between Oklahoma City and Tulsa? When pigs fly first class!
We hate to put the kibosh on this caboose, but we doubt most Oklahomans want to spend up to $2 billion for a line connecting the state's two largest cities at up to 150 miles per hour.
Be sure and post a few words to the comments section at the bottom of the article.
"Where oh where", one wonders, "does the Oklahoman get their information?"
$2 billion is a number I've never heard. Actually, the last time price was brought up, I'm pretty sure the estimate to upgrade the lines is $250 million (and that's the extreme high end). So, as usual, the Oklahoman is off by about $1.75 billion.
"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."
Quote from: dsjeffries on March 25, 2009, 05:04:24 PM
"Where oh where", one wonders, "does the Oklahoman get their information?"
$2 billion is a number I've never heard. Actually, the last time price was brought up, I'm pretty sure the estimate to upgrade the lines is $250 million (and that's the extreme high end). So, as usual, the Oklahoman is off by about $1.75 billion.
"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."
Are you only quoting a price that uses existing lines? Last I remember, those lines run through small cities and would require slowdowns. The cities in between Tulsa and Oklahoma City that the existing tracks run through would include: Sapulpa, Kellyville, Bristow, Depew, Milfay, Stroud, Davenport, Chandler, Warwick, Wellston, Luther, Jones, and Spencer. I can only see a few of those cities as desirable stops. If you want
high-speed rail (150 mph according to the article), you would need an uninterrupted and gentle line with very little to subtle elevation changes. Taking into consideration how hilly I-44 is and I can see how the price would become fairly steep (if they were only looking at installing a brand new line). On another note, a line between Oklahoma City, Tulsa, and Kansas City would be very useful.
Do we really want to go to OKC or is Dallas/Ft Worth and beyond the goal. Maybe we need to let OKC be a dead end track and go from Tulsa to Dallas direct. The BNSF tracks through Okmulgee are twisty and would require a lot of upgrading. The tracks to BA go on to Muskogee. Maybe the UP tracks through Muskogee along US 69 are in better shape than the BNSF tracks through Okmulgee, Henryett, Holdenville and Ada. Another possibility would be to fix up the tracks to Henryetta, put down new tracks to McAlester along the Indian Nations TPK, then join the existing UP tracks. My Oklahoma rail map shows the UP tracks go to FtW and the BNSF tracks go to Dallas and cross near Colbert, south of Durant. Later we could add St Louis, KC, Memphis or where ever. Maybe 150 mph is a while off yet but even 80 mph with minimal stops to Dallas would be better than driving or getting to the airport 2 hrs early for a one hour flight. The railroads will probably complain about scheduling but that's what computers are for.
Later we could upgrade the tracks to OKC if they wanted the connections to KC, St Louis, etc.
I'm not going to hold my breath waiting but there's no sense in dreaming small.
Quote from: Red Arrow on March 25, 2009, 07:16:52 PM
Do we really want to go to OKC or is Dallas/Ft Worth and beyond the goal. Maybe we need to let OKC be a dead end track and go from Tulsa to Dallas direct. The BNSF tracks through Okmulgee are twisty and would require a lot of upgrading. The tracks to BA go on to Muskogee. Maybe the UP tracks through Muskogee along US 69 are in better shape than the BNSF tracks through Okmulgee, Henryett, Holdenville and Ada. Another possibility would be to fix up the tracks to Henryetta, put down new tracks to McAlester along the Indian Nations TPK, then join the existing UP tracks. My Oklahoma rail map shows the UP tracks go to FtW and the BNSF tracks go to Dallas and cross near Colbert, south of Durant. Later we could add St Louis, KC, Memphis or where ever. Maybe 150 mph is a while off yet but even 80 mph with minimal stops to Dallas would be better than driving or getting to the airport 2 hrs early for a one hour flight. The railroads will probably complain about scheduling but that's what computers are for.
Later we could upgrade the tracks to OKC if they wanted the connections to KC, St Louis, etc.
I'm not going to hold my breath waiting but there's no sense in dreaming small.
Actually San Antonio is the goal. Ride down for Margaritas on the River Walk.
Margaritas in San Antonio would be good.
If you were really adventuresome, you could take Amtrak east or west from San Antonio. East to New Orleans and the east coast or west all the way to California.
This article has nothing to do about the line between "between the capital city and Tulsa." It has everything to do with making sure the capital city is the rail hub in the state. Making sure the capital city gets connections to Dallas and Wichita and on to other destinations.
If Tulsa got a link to OKC, Tulsa a might get a link to Fayettville and eventually Little Rock, maybe even up to Kansas City and to wherever they connect to. People from the capital city might have to pass through Tulsa to get other places. This transgression can not stand.
Worse yet, a rail line between Tulsa and the capital city would benefit both cities equally. That is STATE MONEY going to benefit both major cities. Since people from Tulsa are required by state law to go to the capital city for some business and people in the capital city are given no reasons to come to Tulsa, this would essentially benefit the half of the state's population that lives closer to Tulsa more than the half of the states population that lives near the capital city. This transgression can not stand.
QuoteOklahoma City Mayor Mick Cornett says it's more important to connect the city with Dallas.
And for some reason Tulsa's mayor thinks that isn't as important. Well, I guess she does. I haven't really heard her speak out on this, or really anything having to do with the Tulsa region getting a fair share of the pie.
All moot anyway. No one in Oklahoma gives a crap about anything but more and bigger roads to drive pickups and SUVs on. Trillions for roads, not a penny for alternatives!
It's worth remembering that most of these rail alignments (the routes, not the rails themselves) are over 100 years old. The old Frisco line reached Tulsa in 1882 and pushed on to the southwest shortly thereafter. Recall that part of the 1889 Land Run came into the Unassigned Lands by AT&SF train from the north and the south. The MK&T route that parallels US 69 goes back to 1872 -- first railroad in Indian Territory. They follow the land and weren't laid out with 150 MPH rail in mind. A high speed link would almost certainly require new right-of-way and new track, and the cost could very well reach the billions. (Here's the Railroads article in the Oklahoma Encyclopedia of History and Culture (http://"http://digital.library.okstate.edu/encyclopedia/entries/R/RA004.html").)
Quote from: MichaelBates on March 26, 2009, 08:33:55 AM
It's worth remembering that most of these rail alignments (the routes, not the rails themselves) are over 100 years old. The old Frisco line reached Tulsa in 1882 and pushed on to the southwest shortly thereafter. Recall that part of the 1889 Land Run came into the Unassigned Lands by AT&SF train from the north and the south. The MK&T route that parallels US 69 goes back to 1872 -- first railroad in Indian Territory. They follow the land and weren't laid out with 150 MPH rail in mind. A high speed link would almost certainly require new right-of-way and new track, and the cost could very well reach the billions. (Here's the Railroads article in the Oklahoma Encyclopedia of History and Culture (http://"http://digital.library.okstate.edu/encyclopedia/entries/R/RA004.html").)
What he said.
The Jokelahoman is referring to plans for a true high-speed line, which would have to be built from scratch. It would be lots and lots of money and really would only make sense in the context of a national system.
But yeah, it's hilarious how much that paper hates Tulsa. It just oozes out of every single op-ed and column that mentions us. Remember this?
http://www.tulsanow.org/forum/index.php?topic=10214.0
Oddly enough after the Oklahoman's article, my letter was published in the Tulsa World today opinion section...
http://www.tulsaworld.com/opinion/article.aspx?subjectid=62&articleid=20090326_7_A12_spanc75227 (http://www.tulsaworld.com/opinion/article.aspx?subjectid=62&articleid=20090326_7_A12_spanc75227)
Conspiracy between the two papers? :P
Quote from: MichaelBates on March 26, 2009, 08:33:55 AM
It's worth remembering that most of these rail alignments (the routes, not the rails themselves) are over 100 years old. The old Frisco line reached Tulsa in 1882 and pushed on to the southwest shortly thereafter. Recall that part of the 1889 Land Run came into the Unassigned Lands by AT&SF train from the north and the south. The MK&T route that parallels US 69 goes back to 1872 -- first railroad in Indian Territory. They follow the land and weren't laid out with 150 MPH rail in mind. A high speed link would almost certainly require new right-of-way and new track, and the cost could very well reach the billions. (Here's the Railroads article in the Oklahoma Encyclopedia of History and Culture (http://"http://digital.library.okstate.edu/encyclopedia/entries/R/RA004.html").)
We have the right of way. The turnpike. The highway system is being discussed as the logical location for all sorts of infrastructure improvements due to the fact that the existing right of way is one of the nation's most valuable assets (and with a single purpose of moving automobiles, one could argue it's vastly underutilized).
Quote from: TURobY on March 26, 2009, 10:03:28 AM
Oddly enough after the Oklahoman's article, my letter was published in the Tulsa World today opinion section...
http://www.tulsaworld.com/opinion/article.aspx?subjectid=62&articleid=20090326_7_A12_spanc75227 (http://www.tulsaworld.com/opinion/article.aspx?subjectid=62&articleid=20090326_7_A12_spanc75227)
Conspiracy between the two papers? :P
Well written piece there TURobY!
You are right. No matter what the specific intercity rail priority is, Governor Henry must ensure that ODOT actually applies for the ARRA (stimulus) rail grants.
I don't see any reason to fear a rejected application, either. That will just put the proposed project in the federal governments infrastructure "to do" box.
In case anyone isn't aware, the ARRA rail grants are NOT subject to the same shovel-ready requirements that road and transit projects had to meet.
Quote from: Transport_Oklahoma on March 27, 2009, 02:39:52 AM
In case anyone isn't aware, the ARRA rail grants are NOT subject to the same shovel-ready requirements that road and transit projects had to meet.
Thanks, I contacted Jeannie McDaniel and Mayor Taylor to add that information.
Quote from: cannon_fodder on March 26, 2009, 08:24:17 AM
This article has nothing to do about the line between "between the capital city and Tulsa." It has everything to do with making sure the capital city is the rail hub in the state. Making sure the capital city gets connections to Dallas and Wichita and on to other destinations.
I agree, CF. OKC WANTS rail...ALL of it! So it behooves them to dismiss the TUL-OKC connection as irrelevant.
I'm not sure how to count the number of people who drive between TUL and OKC each day on the Turner Turnpike, but the traffic count for Stroud is over 12,000 vehicles per day (more vehicles pass through gates near OKC and Tulsa...up to 16,000 per day). It's also the most used east-west freight corridor in the state.
So, it sure sounds to me like a high-speed rail connection would be valuable to everyone. If I could get to OKC in 40 minutes, and without having to drive on the Turner Turnpike, I'd do it much more often. (Well, at least when the ponies are running at Remington Park....)
A quick and convenient rail corridor between TUL and OKC (with wireless Internet the whole way) would convert a lot of drivers to riders. And if it linked to the State Capital, it might even get more folks to participate in politics at the state level... Perhaps that's what they're afraid of!
Quote from: cannon_fodder on March 26, 2009, 08:24:17 AM
Tulsa a might get a link to Fayetteville
Don't make me drool. That would please me very much. I can only dream of an Acela-type 125mph journey across the countryside and never having to waste an hour and a half of my life driving back and forth again. I could actually sleep or do something productive with my time instead, what a thought!
Quote from: nathanm on March 30, 2009, 04:11:46 PM
Don't make me drool. That would please me very much. I can only dream of an Acela-type 125mph journey across the countryside and never having to waste an hour and a half of my life driving back and forth again. I could actually sleep or do something productive with my time instead, what a thought!
Where is the Rail Road equivalent of Dan P Holmes when we need him?
Quote from: MichaelBates on March 26, 2009, 08:33:55 AM
It's worth remembering that most of these rail alignments (the routes, not the rails themselves) are over 100 years old.
Considering the earth moving tools of the time, it's not surprising the routes the ROW took. They go around hills, around areas of creek oxbows, and follow river valleys. Straightening out those curves would be expensive. Following the river is one reason the Mid-Valley got wiped out in the 80s. Some of it was just too close to the Arkansas River or the immediately adjacent floodplain. Going through the towns was also intentional. Going close rather than through would be better for a highspeed line.
Edmond Sun article on rail
http://www.edmondsun.com/local/local_story_091235234.html (http://www.edmondsun.com/local/local_story_091235234.html)
Done deal.
OKC is smart enough to use the outlying communities to get what it wants. Tulsa fights with our outlying areas. Or at least don't ever get our crap together to get anything done. What does the article have to say about Tulsa Rail?
Quote"I think one day you'll see passenger rail to Tulsa from Oklahoma City. I think at some point we'll see passenger rail service from Tulsa to Kansas City. And that ties into St. Louis and the Midwest."
When asked, Ridley said the Oklahoma City route to Kansas would be the easiest route to put in play. Arcadia is the nearest stop to Edmond that the Oklahoma City to Tulsa track affords. Ridley said this track would be more difficult to implement because of geometrics and the existing track condition.
"It's owned by the state and we're using it for freight operations, but it certainly cannot handle passenger service," he said.
Short answer: No.
Here's what will happen:
The rail service will extend from OKC via several other Oklahoma communities, then on to Wichita using stimulus money and Oklahoma tax payer funds. It will then be subsidized by Oklahoma tax payers for operation.
Then when the time comes to expand the lines even more, Oklahoma City won't fight for a line to Tulsa - they will jump on board with pushing the line from Wichita to Kansas City. That route will have support from all constituents in Kansas and there is no way Oklahoma City bothers making a fuss or offers to subsidize a line to Tulsa. From there, it is logical to connect to Jeff City and St. Louis (Missouri line) and eventually to Chicago.
Poof! Tulsa is left out in the cold and America's Cross roads has better access to commerce to the South and through to Chicago - again subsidized with Tulsa tax money. Meanwhile, Tulsa will continue to pay tolls to drive out of town to where ever we are going and the state will take toll money from anyone with the nerve to come to Tulsa.
Quote from: Transport_Oklahoma on April 02, 2009, 10:54:12 AM
Edmond Sun article on rail
http://www.edmondsun.com/local/local_story_091235234.html (http://www.edmondsun.com/local/local_story_091235234.html)
Yes, we know that the most important route for Amtrak is connecting OKC all the way to... Edmond.
Quote from: cannon_fodder on April 02, 2009, 11:15:27 AM
Then when the time comes to expand the lines even more, Oklahoma City won't fight for a line to Tulsa - they will jump on board with pushing the line from Wichita to Kansas City. That route will have support from all constituents in Kansas and there is no way Oklahoma City bothers making a fuss or offers to subsidize a line to Tulsa. From there, it is logical to connect to Jeff City and St. Louis (Missouri line) and eventually to Chicago.
The route map on the Amtrak web site already shows a route through Newton (30 mi north of Wichita) to KC and beyond. Routes already exist from KC to Chicago through St Louis or a route that cut through the southeast corner of Iowa.
Tulsa is going to have to work hard to get Amtrak anything through here. I hope we get it.
You know what's INCREDIBLY pathetic? The math. OKC isn't trying to figure out how to get to MCI. For them, it's the same distance (317 v 320 mi) through ICT or TUL. And Amtrak, given the option, would probably prefer to go through our metro (1,000,000) over ICT's (600,000).
So it REALLY is about Edmond. Those jackasses would steer a train AWAY from 1,000,000 Tulsans to take care of 75,000 Edmondites. I don't begrudge Edmond anything, it's less stinky than a lot of OKC. But they don't rate a train before Tulsa. Sorry.
You know I might consider going to OKC and KC if we had train service, would make a little weekend getaway or a business trip more feasible since I could work on the train instead of having to worry about driving.
We all know what the likely outcome is going to be here. Tulsa without rail connection to other cities. But that doesnt mean we have to be left completely out of the rail picture. If they want their rail line, lets at least push for a good chunk to fund commuter rail and spur TOD within Tulsa and its suburbs.
Even if we were to get rail to OKC or wherever in the future. Having the downtown stations, good pedestrian friendly areas around those with TOD type development will make things cheaper and better for us when we do go that route. That downtown chunk, its bridges, infrastructure improvements etc. is going to be a fairly expensive venture in and of itself. Get it out of the way first and also use it to encourage the kind of growth we want to see in this city.
I can see whats going to happen, we are going to push for rail between Tulsa and OKC only and then end up with nothing.
Go ahead and raise a big stink and push for the line between Tulsa and OKC, but if it really looks like we wont get it,,, have a back up plan in place. Say, "Ok, ok, you can have your other line IF we get such and such amount for something IN Tulsa county. Which could in the future be linked to a line going to OKC. Plus by getting it started, it will then make any future jump to OKC or elsewhere, less expensive.
We are so good about not getting a danged thing. I can see thats just whats going to happen again unless we play this right. We do have a chip to play here, dont waste it.
I have to agree with Artist. (It happens more often than you think Artist, I just don't post a bunch of "+1"s.)
If we have a good rail system in place around the city and region, when it comes time to go to the well for Amtrak again we will be more attractive to visitors. Would you go to NYC and need a personal car? Probably not. Let's work on getting Tulsa car independent for those who wish to be so.
I think I agree with CF...the City to establish itself as the rail passenger hub, or rail hub period, will benefit...assuming that we do redevelop a worth while rail network.
Not that I would go so far as to say that rail travel will surpass air anytime in my life but for comparison sake, what would Dallas be without DFW? Certainly not what it is.
This is why value the Port of Catoosa - connectivity.
Artist and Red are right as well. In the meantime we have to improve accessibility in our own city...because once the train comes and stops then what. How will people get around...will they be limited to a few districts downtown or a rental car, cab, or poor bus transit system. Besides, I'm of the opinion, that the more we invest in reestablishing livable - walkable - pleasantly dense urban environments the more attractive we become as a city, for our own enjoyment and to the outside world.
Another article on rail from the Edmond Sun
http://www.edmondsun.com/opinion/local_story_094000543.html?keyword=secondarystory (http://www.edmondsun.com/opinion/local_story_094000543.html?keyword=secondarystory)
Quote from: Transport_Oklahoma on April 04, 2009, 06:29:47 AM
Another article on rail from the Edmond Sun
http://www.edmondsun.com/opinion/local_story_094000543.html?keyword=secondarystory (http://www.edmondsun.com/opinion/local_story_094000543.html?keyword=secondarystory)
Thanks for the link. From the Edmund Sun Editorial:
QuoteMore recently, Ridley has said it would cost $1 billion to build high-speed rail between Oklahoma City and Tulsa, and therefore it's unfeasible. But that's a straw man argument. The state owns more than 800 miles of railroad, including a perfectly good track between the stations in downtown Oklahoma City and Tulsa should be able to support passenger rail. There is support for light rail within the metro areas, both locally and in Washington. The key to economic growth is the convenience of transportation. Edmond, Norman, Midwest City, Tinker, Shawnee, Yukon and Oklahoma City would all benefit. What the state lacks is the willpower to make passenger rail a reality.
The test of good government is not how much money you can spend, or how big a highway you can build. The test is how effectively you can provide the common services needed for the economy to run smoothly and the people to prosper. It takes smart, progressive thinking.
ODOT's club-fisted handling of the I-40 project has at least tripled the projected cost. One wonders if it wouldn't have been less costly to just run through traffic in a tunnel beneath the new boulevard, saving millions of dollars in land acquisition and construction costs.
(http://www.cvilleok.com/2007SepNews/2007iSep06ChamberRidley_03ODOT.jpg)
ODOT Director Gary Ridley in Collinsville, 2007.
More bad math. So Ridley says the line is now $1 billion? Which is it? $1 Billion? $2 Billion? $200 million? I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me what is so unsafe about sending an Amtrak train from OKC to TUL next Wednesday? I mean, we already have freight running this route every day, right? I think somebody's avoiding an honest discussion.
Quote from: Chicken Little on April 04, 2009, 10:42:17 AM
I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me what is so unsafe about sending an Amtrak train from OKC to TUL next Wednesday? I mean, we already have freight running this route every day, right? I think somebody's avoiding an honest discussion.
The issue is how fast the train could go. Is there someone here well enough connected to the RR to find out how fast the freight trains go?
I have flown over the tracks between Sapulpa and Chandler at about 1000 ft above. The tracks themselves appear to be OK. There are numerous relatively tight turns. There are many (apparently from 1000 ft above) unprotected at grade crossings. The route goes through the built up section of most of the towns. When most people think of Amtrak, they think at least 80 MPH.
I'm sure a passenger train could be run, but not very fast.
The cost depends on how fast you want the train to go. At current speeds it would likely take you the better part of a day to get from OKC to Tulsa. Good luck finding a bunch of people to ride that train every day.
There was a different thread on here which laid out the different costs for the different speeds. The faster you went, which made it more likely people would use it, the more it cost.
If the train has a good wifi connection it can go a bit slower, but it will need to start a bit earlier in the day and end runs a bit later in the evening.
Either way though they state should still spend the money to connect its own community hubs before connecting to other states.
Artist, I don't think that it takes "the better part of a day", and unless you have proof of that, I think that kind of speculation is not at all helpful.
I understand that the cost is about the speed, but the cost they are quoting is for an entirely new alignment, and a bullet train, which I think is a red herring. What I want to know is how fast can you get there on the existing alignment? Sure, there are some curves and, duh, speeds will vary, but it ain't the Ozarks, where we have a study that says passenger rail from TUL-STL is unfeasible because of the mountains. There, it's too slow; there's evidence. I have seen no evidence that TUL-OKC is too slow for passenger service, or high speed service as defined (reaching 110 mph) between OKC and Tulsa.
The speed on existing tracks is regulated (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Train_speed_limit_(United_States)) by a formula established by the Federal Railroad Administration, and until somebody tells me that they have tested the formula along the entire route and found no Class 6, or potential Class 6 track between Tulsa and OKC, then I think it's safe to presume that the existing alignment is a potential high-speed corridor. If you can get up to 110 miles per hour at all, then it's a high speed corridor and is eligible for stimulus money. Who care's if it's a technicality? If we can get a train through the stimulus we damn well better get on it.
By the way, I've taken Amtrak from Boston to NYC and back...220 miles in a little over three hours. It can really haul donkey, but there are many, many times when it crawls through cities at low speed...it all averages out. I didn't take the Acela, but it's the same thing...it only saves you 15 minutes on this particular trip. These things are not like freight trains where it takes miles and miles to get up to speed, you can feel them accelerating and decelerating all the time. So, I don't see things like curves, or stops, as a meaningful barrier as long as there are a reasonable number of straightaways along the route. And that's what I'm asking.
Second hand I heard that the consultant told the Oklahoma house transportation committee $250 million for a 65 mph average train (roughly 2 hours). In 2001 the state hired Carter & Burgess (now Jacobs Engineering) to conduct preliminary engineering work on true high speed (50 minutes) the cost then was about $1 billion. The consultant updated that to $2 billion.
The track is maintained by regional freight hauler WATCO for FRA Track Class II, 25 mph today.
I think the thing to do is acquire the ROW now for true high speed but get to work on the existing track.
I have heard so many numbers I have "lost track" lol. Again, a lot of that depends on the different speeds your talking about. Have heard that with the current alignment and about 175mill in improvements you could achieve end point to end point average speeds of 40mph. As is, its rated at 25mph.
Did find this....
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.
Which still begs the question, Why not do the line through the Turnpike Right of way? Would seem to be cheaper and we wouldnt have to worry about freight disruption. However.... If OKC can get passenger rail to Kansas for 10-25mill (depending on the scenario) Whats gonna convince the state to have Tulsas share be hundreds of millions to a billion more? If you have paid attention to your history, you know danged well we get less, not more lol. I still say, get 80-100 mill for the starter line in Tulsa... then once thats out of the way, then push for more. (your gonna have to do that segment anyway no matter what you do) The rail line from OKC to Kansas is chump change comparatively speaking. It will help our state and those other small towns along the line. Getting a decent share for Tulsa and building up our city from the inside will help us too. If this state can get both commuter rail started in Tulsa and passenger rail from OKC to Kansas for around 125mill total, Id say its a danged good deal, especially in this tight economy.
Quote from: Chicken Little on April 04, 2009, 03:50:58 PM
It can really haul donkey, but there are many, many times when it crawls through cities at low speed...it all averages out. I didn't take the Acela, but it's the same thing...it only saves you 15 minutes on this particular trip.
It doesn't help that the MTA won't let Amtrak run trains over about 80mph on their trackage, which Amtrak uses until somewhere in Connecticut.
A lot of political leaders are missing the point here. I can understand OKC mayor Mick Cornett prioritizing Dallas over Tulsa, but south Kansas? The largest opportunity for rail travel should be between cities who are about the same distance apart as Tulsa and OKC, i.e. cities that have overlapping trade radii for some attractions and services. Rail travel fulfills the niche between air and auto travel distances. The northeastern US is a good example for working rail distances. Many northeastern cities are the same distance apart as Tulsa - OKC. For example: Baltimore to Philadelphia, Philadelphia to New York, New York to Hartford, CT, Hartford, CT to Boston. How could OKC people possibly think there is more benefit in being connected to Kansas than Tulsa? If we're talking about long-term ROI here, it makes a lot more financial sense to connect Tulsa and OKC than OKC to Newton, KS or Wichita. OKC's trade radius for certain types of attractions and services spills over into Tulsa, and vice versa. Few people in Kansas are part of trade radii in Tulsa or OKC. Wichita, for example, is only 40 miles farther away from Kansas City than it is from OKC, and only 20 miles farther from Kansas City than it is from Tulsa, respectively. I think it would pay off a lot more for OKC to be a destination point for Tulsans than be a bump-in-the-road for travelers going from Kansas City to Dallas. Tulsa, OKC, and the whole state are better off with a Tulsa-OKC line.
Quote from: Chicken Little on April 04, 2009, 03:50:58 PM
So, I don't see things like curves, or stops, as a meaningful barrier as long as there are a reasonable number of straightaways along the route. And that's what I'm asking.
Go to Google Maps and check the rail line between Tulsa and OKC. There are nasty curves near Bristow and Chandler. Plus you've got the rail line going right smack dab through the center of the small towns, too.
I really, really like rail. But I have a hard time seeing how a 100-mph train is going to be feasible on the current track. And, believe me, when you've got a 75-mph speed limit on the turnpike, you're going to need a 100-mph train for it to be attractive to passengers.
Quote from: rwarn17588 on April 06, 2009, 01:28:47 AM
Go to Google Maps and check the rail line between Tulsa and OKC. There are nasty curves near Bristow and Chandler. Plus you've got the rail line going right smack dab through the center of the small towns, too.
I really, really like rail. But I have a hard time seeing how a 100-mph train is going to be feasible on the current track. And, believe me, when you've got a 75-mph speed limit on the turnpike, you're going to need a 100-mph train for it to be attractive to passengers.
I've seen the curves, and there are straight runs, too, have you seen those? It does not have to
average 115 mph, just "reach" it. That would make it eligible for stimulus. Once funded, you can begin to straighten it out.
Quote from: perspicuity85 on April 06, 2009, 12:39:06 AM
A lot of political leaders are missing the point here. I can understand OKC mayor Mick Cornett prioritizing Dallas over Tulsa, but south Kansas? The largest opportunity for rail travel should be between cities who are about the same distance apart as Tulsa and OKC, i.e. cities that have overlapping trade radii for some attractions and services. Rail travel fulfills the niche between air and auto travel distances. The northeastern US is a good example for working rail distances. Many northeastern cities are the same distance apart as Tulsa - OKC. For example: Baltimore to Philadelphia, Philadelphia to New York, New York to Hartford, CT, Hartford, CT to Boston. How could OKC people possibly think there is more benefit in being connected to Kansas than Tulsa? If we're talking about long-term ROI here, it makes a lot more financial sense to connect Tulsa and OKC than OKC to Newton, KS or Wichita. OKC's trade radius for certain types of attractions and services spills over into Tulsa, and vice versa. Few people in Kansas are part of trade radii in Tulsa or OKC. Wichita, for example, is only 40 miles farther away from Kansas City than it is from OKC, and only 20 miles farther from Kansas City than it is from Tulsa, respectively. I think it would pay off a lot more for OKC to be a destination point for Tulsans than be a bump-in-the-road for travelers going from Kansas City to Dallas. Tulsa, OKC, and the whole state are better off with a Tulsa-OKC line.
If you sincerely want to know why south Kansas, the answer is right there in the linked article: "because it would allow connections with major east-west routes."
Quote from: perspicuity85 on April 06, 2009, 12:39:06 AM
A lot of political leaders are missing the point here. I can understand OKC mayor Mick Cornett prioritizing Dallas over Tulsa, but south Kansas? The largest opportunity for rail travel should be between cities who are about the same distance apart as Tulsa and OKC, i.e. cities that have overlapping trade radii for some attractions and services. Rail travel fulfills the niche between air and auto travel distances. The northeastern US is a good example for working rail distances. Many northeastern cities are the same distance apart as Tulsa - OKC. For example: Baltimore to Philadelphia, Philadelphia to New York, New York to Hartford, CT, Hartford, CT to Boston. How could OKC people possibly think there is more benefit in being connected to Kansas than Tulsa? If we're talking about long-term ROI here, it makes a lot more financial sense to connect Tulsa and OKC than OKC to Newton, KS or Wichita. OKC's trade radius for certain types of attractions and services spills over into Tulsa, and vice versa. Few people in Kansas are part of trade radii in Tulsa or OKC. Wichita, for example, is only 40 miles farther away from Kansas City than it is from OKC, and only 20 miles farther from Kansas City than it is from Tulsa, respectively. I think it would pay off a lot more for OKC to be a destination point for Tulsans than be a bump-in-the-road for travelers going from Kansas City to Dallas. Tulsa, OKC, and the whole state are better off with a Tulsa-OKC line.
I am a rail supporter. But lets use your argument. If you look at getting a max ROI on such huge rail development costs, Tulsa-OKC is not the best decision. That merely redistributes the income between the two cities and along its path. We may actually lose our share of the existing pie if OKC continues its success at developing itself. In fact, why put a regional office of a business or government entity in Tulsa when OKC is a mere 50 minutes away? We could continue our status as a net donor of tax and spendable money.
KC, Wichita or any destination outside of the state actually increases the chance for a good ROI. It will likely bring new $$ into the state. The pie would get bigger and hopefully our slice as well. Logic and emotion is on our side but economics and power is not. Tactically, the best idea I have heard thus far is to take the center median and possibly one lane of the Turnpike and dedicate it to high speed rail between OKC and Tulsa. Strategically, its like re-carpeting the bedroom when the real re-sell benefit is landscaping the front yard.
http://www.railwayage.com//content/view/723/217/ (http://www.railwayage.com//content/view/723/217/)
High speed trains overtake planes and autos in survey
A new study commissioned by HNTB, a Kansas City, Mo.-based infrastructure design and engineering firm, has found that given comparable fares and travel time, 54% of Americans would choose modern high speed trains over automobile (33%) and air travel (13%).
The survey was conducted at a time when high speed raill has achieved high visibility as a potential, if not actual, travel option. The passage of a $10 billion high speed rail bond measure in California last fall was followed by the set-aside of $8 billion for high speed rail in this year's American Recovery and Investment Act.
HNNB said its latest research, the second in series of America Thinks surveys, "found even greater acceptance of high speed rail among the 18% of [respondents] who have experienced such travel here or abroad. An overwhelming majority of high speed train travelers (82%) found it more enjoyable than plane travel, and slightly more than half (51%) said they would be most productive in high speed trains when traveling for business."
Quote from: waterboy on April 06, 2009, 08:14:02 AM
I am a rail supporter. But lets use your argument. If you look at getting a max ROI on such huge rail development costs, Tulsa-OKC is not the best decision. That merely redistributes the income between the two cities and along its path. We may actually lose our share of the existing pie if OKC continues its success at developing itself. In fact, why put a regional office of a business or government entity in Tulsa when OKC is a mere 50 minutes away? We could continue our status as a net donor of tax and spendable money.
KC, Wichita or any destination outside of the state actually increases the chance for a good ROI. It will likely bring new $$ into the state. The pie would get bigger and hopefully our slice as well. Logic and emotion is on our side but economics and power is not. Tactically, the best idea I have heard thus far is to take the center median and possibly one lane of the Turnpike and dedicate it to high speed rail between OKC and Tulsa. Strategically, its like re-carpeting the bedroom when the real re-sell benefit is landscaping the front yard.
I understand your points, but I still don't agree completely. I was speaking from the perspective of the cities of Tulsa and Oklahoma City. There are in fact many companies that have chosen Tulsa over Oklahoma City for regional offices. A prime example is the Hilti Corporation, whose entire US operations are based in Tulsa. There are a multitude of factors going into decisions to place regional offices. In terms of size, the Tulsa and OKC metro areas are really in the same category with 900K and 1.1M in population, respectively. It all depends on the specific needs of the company.
But aside from that, I do understand your point that Oklahoma would want to bring more people into the state from out-of-state. Obviously it would be beneficial to have the state connected to rail lines across the US. But with 25% of the state's population residing within the Tulsa metro area, I think having Tulsa connected with the state capitol is a good idea. And I don't think that too many people from Kansas are going to go to OKC to utilize the goods and services OKC produces, when Kansas City is nearby and much larger. That was my point about the trade radii. It's great to be a stop on the line, but it's better to be the destination point. OKC's development is moving along nicely, but it still isn't competing with Kansas City or Dallas.
I agree it would provide more convenience for residents of both cities. I also understand your concept of it as filling a niche between auto travel distances and air travel distances. The only difference we have is one of economic impact. It seems to me that there are some unintended consequences that are being overlooked in the process. Advertising will benefit as both cities will compete to attract each others residents to their entertainment venues. But that is not a net gain unless entertainment budgets of the residents are expanded. Even so, that would be at the expense of some other category of consumer expense.
I could foresee a venue such as the BOK arena actually suffer. A short, convenient, cheap rail trip to OKC would mean that a performer may only book one of the venues to get both cities' fans. Maybe not. I am reminded of the hotels situated halfway between Dallas and Ft.Worth that are within striking distance of the two but insulated from them. Perhaps Stroud might benefit by being a shorter trip from both metros than travelling across town. It may just end up being a salesman and gamblers express route. Don't forget to factor in the loss of revenue that the Turnpike brings in to the state either.
I love the idea of rail between the two cities, but we should do it with our eyes wide open and not assume it means economic benefit for the state. Connecting Tulsa to Missouri/Kansas first, then connect to OKC might make more economic benefit.
As I was reading this, the idea struck me that in a perfect world high speed rail could exist right alongside the turnpikes. In the right of way. I realize this has already been addressed, so I'm glad I'm not the only person this makes sense to.
I'm sure the logistics of getting the turnpike authority to align itself with rail would be difficult. There are a lot of people who would see that as something of a conflict of interest. But it seems to me that if the state really wanted to get serious about transit, utilizing existing resources is a win-win. It seems to me (though of course I'm no expert) that if you shared some of the infrastructure it would save money. For starters, you wouldn't have to purchase copious amounts of land, displace people from their homes...not to mention the disruption of local infrastructure when, say you put a high speed rail line right through the center of a little town like bristow or something.
Is there any "official" effort going into that possibility?
Quote from: mjchamplin on April 20, 2009, 08:56:28 AM
As I was reading this, the idea struck me that in a perfect world high speed rail could exist right alongside the turnpikes. In the right of way. I realize this has already been addressed, so I'm glad I'm not the only person this makes sense to.
I'm sure the logistics of getting the turnpike authority to align itself with rail would be difficult. There are a lot of people who would see that as something of a conflict of interest. But it seems to me that if the state really wanted to get serious about transit, utilizing existing resources is a win-win. It seems to me (though of course I'm no expert) that if you shared some of the infrastructure it would save money. For starters, you wouldn't have to purchase copious amounts of land, displace people from their homes...not to mention the disruption of local infrastructure when, say you put a high speed rail line right through the center of a little town like bristow or something.
Is there any "official" effort going into that possibility?
That's actually a good idea, in my mind. That way, instead of creating a new entity to oversee and manage the rail, use the existing. But rename it from Oklahoma Turnpike Authority to Oklahoma Transit Authority, if one doesn't already exist.
Quote from: perspicuity85 on April 06, 2009, 12:39:06 AM
A lot of political leaders are missing the point here. I can understand OKC mayor Mick Cornett prioritizing Dallas over Tulsa, but south Kansas? The largest opportunity for rail travel should be between cities who are about the same distance apart as Tulsa and OKC, i.e. cities that have overlapping trade radii for some attractions and services. Rail travel fulfills the niche between air and auto travel distances. The northeastern US is a good example for working rail distances. Many northeastern cities are the same distance apart as Tulsa - OKC. For example: Baltimore to Philadelphia, Philadelphia to New York, New York to Hartford, CT, Hartford, CT to Boston. How could OKC people possibly think there is more benefit in being connected to Kansas than Tulsa? If we're talking about long-term ROI here, it makes a lot more financial sense to connect Tulsa and OKC than OKC to Newton, KS or Wichita. OKC's trade radius for certain types of attractions and services spills over into Tulsa, and vice versa. Few people in Kansas are part of trade radii in Tulsa or OKC. Wichita, for example, is only 40 miles farther away from Kansas City than it is from OKC, and only 20 miles farther from Kansas City than it is from Tulsa, respectively. I think it would pay off a lot more for OKC to be a destination point for Tulsans than be a bump-in-the-road for travelers going from Kansas City to Dallas. Tulsa, OKC, and the whole state are better off with a Tulsa-OKC line.
Your right, but the thing your missing is that it would cost, from what I have heard, less than 20 million to get OKC connected to the Northern corridors, and would cost about a billion to connect Tulsa to OKC. Those conservative, penny penching, lower taxes, folk in OKC are gonna be looking at those two numbers.
But I just thought of something. Obama is wanting to stress high speed rail. I dont think the OKC to Newton line would be high speed? That cheap price is improving the old line, but not improving it to high speed capacity.
For high speed, you have to build a completely new line. You dont need to follow an old rail line per say and certainly wouldnt want to piddle around with an old line and try to improve it piecemeal. (it actually costs more in the long run to slowly improve old lines versus create new ones, look at Germany vrs France. Germany went the piecemeal, improve a spot here, then there and they still dont have as fast and nice of rail lines as France which just went ahead and built new ones, and in the end, the costs have equalled out.) What you need is right of way. So as people have noted on here, the Turnpike right of way can be just as viable as an old rail right of way.
But, the state still may go ahead and do the quick cheap line to Newton and the connections that offers. Then begin the process of building the line to Tulsa. Question... Would that include going on north from Tulsa? And what are the costs for doing that as well? Is that on top of the billion from OKC to Tulsa?
Quote from: TheArtist on April 20, 2009, 10:04:58 AM
But, the state still may go ahead and do the quick cheap line to Newton and the connections that offers. Then beginforget about the process of building the line to Tulsa.
Fixed that for ya.
Sad, but probably true.
This is ridiculous, we shouldn't be spending money on this until we fix the issues in DC. Otherwise we're creating another money sink where corruption will grow and money will be wasted/funneled to special interests.
High speed rail sounds good if we'd use it, but Amtrak is garbage overall because its not ridden, trains are not maintained etc, this would be the same smile...not to mention the costs are going to be nuts.
Lets fix the issues we've got or at least take a big bite out of them before driving up the national debt that I'm going to be taxed on either through increased marginal rates or inflation.