Daily Oklahoman slams Tulsa-OKC rail concept

[TheArtist]

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.

[godboko71]

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.

[Chicken Little]

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 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.

[Chicken Little]

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. 

[Transport_Oklahoma]

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.

[TheArtist]

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. 

[nathanm]

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.

[perspicuity85]

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.

[rwarn17588]

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.

[Chicken Little]

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.

[Oil Capital]

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."

[waterboy]

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.

[Transport_Oklahoma]

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."

[perspicuity85]

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.

[waterboy]

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.