Daily Oklahoman slams Tulsa-OKC rail concept

[mjchamplin]

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?

[Hoss]

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.

[TheArtist]

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?   

[nathanm]

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.

[TheArtist]

 Sad, but probably true.

[OUGrad05]

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.