High Speed Rail meeting in Okla Legislature

[Transport_Oklahoma]

This article was a little more positive than what Ms. Palmer wrote for the Tulsa World & Daily Oklahoman on Friday.

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.

A few comments and corrections:

"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.

ACELA EXPRESS is not true high speed in the sense that its average speed is sub 100 mph.  But it does briefly achieve 150 mph, the fastest in the western hemisphere, for short distances in CT and RI.  Between NYC and DC the max speed is 135 which it maintains for significant distances.  Once again, it's the infrastructure, not the capabilities of the trains themselves.

The federal definition of high speed in the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act (Signed into law by President Bush in October) is 110 mph, not 124.  Elsewhere USDOT assigns a market-based definition where HSR is anywhere door-to-door rail trip times are competitive with air and highway.

Director Ridley says operational subsidies are a pre-requisite.  But true high speed systems operate across the globe in competition with discount air carriers at an operational profit.  Tulsa-OKC in a vacuum is too short to be profitable, that is why the USDOT designated it as part of a regional system so it can benefit from operational efficiencies of shared overhead and maintenance.   Lower speed systems using existing railroad rights-of-way will need continued operational support, but they cost much less to build.

The big issue now for Oklahoma is will ODOT apply for stimulus funds?  And will the application be regionally-balanced, i.e. include Tulsa.

[Red Arrow]

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.

I flew over the tracks between Sapulpa and Chandler last weekend. I think you would be lucky to go 70 mph.  It would make a nice excursion train ride.   If it isn't any faster than the Turner Turnpike, you may not get many riders. 

I would like to see passenger rail between Tulsa and then beyond in both places.  Biting the bullet for the high speed ROW and tracks would probably be the better investment.

[TheArtist]

I would prefer you go the whole 9yards and go with the higher speed rail. BUT we are not likely to get that large of an amount. So again I would recommend we work on getting partial funding for a "phase 1" plan that could also be used for commuter rail within Tulsa in the meantime. No matter what rail scenario you go for, high or moderate speed to OKC, or commuter rail to BA, or the airport and then Owasso, Jenks... whatever, you still have to get that section done downtown first. The rail stations there, the infrastructure, bridges, etc. And thats a pretty good sized chunk on its own. You can push for bigger things sure, but if ya cant get that, be smart and get something at least started. That "starter line" scenario is a good jumping off point, a first step that will make whatever you add onto it later, easier and not as costly. I noticed in the stimulous package they had money set aside for expansion of the highway into Owasso. We keep planning for widening highways in the future, lets get something started that will make rail more competitive and put it on the table as an option. That starter line downtown will do that.

Go ahead and push for some sort of rail from Tulsa to OKC if you want. And when they balk at the over all price tag... say "well how about just this much to get it started and we can also use that starter line for commuter rail in Tulsa as well." Ya get a two fer for a tenth the price lol. I dont know, it sells itself. 

[patric]

It just seems incomplete without a line between Tulsa and St Louis to connect the major sections.

[Red Arrow]

It just seems incomplete without a line between Tulsa and St Louis to connect the major sections.

Comparing the present Amtrak route map and the High-Speed Rail Corridor Designations shows that most of the ends of the High-Speed sections are already joined with regular Amtrak service to one or more places.  Connecting Tulsa to St. Louis makes sense, as would continuing the "Route 66" corrridor to Albuquerque and beyond. There is also a noticable lack of East-West service along the I-40 corridor.  I would deviate from I-40 to follow the Muskogee Turnpike to Tulsa and then continue to Oklahoma City and then rejoin I-40.

I would like High-Speed service between Tulsa and OKC. Not quite High-Speed service would be acceptable.  My concern about using the mostly existing ROW is that if it is not competitive with driving the Turner TPK, it might not be successful enough to continue development.  I like Tulsa but don't see it as a successful endpoint of a passenger rail route.

Routing a fast train along the Interstates in view of car drivers could induce the "I could've had a V-8" response. (The veggie drink, not engine type.)