OK wins three grants for high speed rail

[PonderInc]

I recieved an email from Oklahoma Rail... pretty exciting stuff!

Oklahoma wins three grants from high speed rail initiative
As we reported in the June edition of Oklahoma Passenger Rail, the state submitted three applications for funds in response to solicitations from the Federal Railroad Administration-High Speed Intercity Passenger Rail program.

Today we learned that each was approved for funding.

Oklahoma City station track and signal improvements. 
This project will involve installation of a switch and associated signal work on the south end of the Amtrak station track. This work will allow trains to leave directly from the station without having to back out and consume main line capacity.  Federal grant award is $1.66 million.

State Rail Plan. 
Inventory and analysis of the state's rail infrastructure, identification of its strengths, weaknesses, and impacts. Perform a review of intermodal connections and opportunities. Compile a lists of studies. Create an investment plan. This applies to passengers and freight service. Having a State Rail Plan in place will be a requirement of most future types of federal aid for rail projects.  ODOT has already selected Parsons Brinkerhoff/PB Americas to undertake the plan.  Federal grant award is $384,000 towards the plan's $512,000 cost estimate.

Service Development Plan
Environmental Impact Statement
Tulsa-Oklahoma City portion of the South Central High-Speed Rail Corridor
Design project administration and controls, refine rationale and purpose, develop operating plan, refine ridership estimates, refine operating and capital costs, scoping, quality assurance, environmental mediation and mitigation, alternatives analysis, etc.
Federal grant award is $2.24 million towards the plan's $2.99 million cost estimate.

And as reported earlier today, Texas was awarded $5.6 million to begin corridor planning work between Oklahoma City, San Antonio, and Corpus Christi/Brownsville/Laredo. The State of Oklahoma has pledged its cooperation for this project.

[SXSW]

It's not shown on the current HSR plan but Tulsa-St. Louis-Chicago would be awesome, connecting to OKC-Dallas-Austin-San Antonio.  The Ozarks make that difficult though.  I'd be very happy with just a link to Texas for now.

[TheTed]

At this point, connecting to St. Louis (and Illinois' extensive network of trains) would be far better than Texas. Texas is not at all interested in rail. They have zero short-distance trains. They have one train that makes any sense for Oklahomans, the one slow, often-late long-distance train that connects D/FW to Austin and San Antonio. If Texas were actually interested in rail, their cities would be connected by a web of multi-frequency daytime, short-distance trains, like Illinois.

Connecting to St. Louis would be so much better. They have a dozen or so daily trains to Chicago and the time difference over driving is negligible. Plus they're making constant improvements.

Texas is doing nothing for rail. Hitching up to that wagon seems like a waste.

There's not much allure in taking a slow train that will probably only run once a day to an auto-centric city in Texas.

[SXSW]

At this point, connecting to St. Louis (and Illinois' extensive network of trains) would be far better than Texas. Texas is not at all interested in rail. They have zero short-distance trains. They have one train that makes any sense for Oklahomans, the one slow, often-late long-distance train that connects D/FW to Austin and San Antonio. If Texas were actually interested in rail, their cities would be connected by a web of multi-frequency daytime, short-distance trains, like Illinois.

Connecting to St. Louis would be so much better. They have a dozen or so daily trains to Chicago and the time difference over driving is negligible. Plus they're making constant improvements.

Texas is doing nothing for rail. Hitching up to that wagon seems like a waste.

There's not much allure in taking a slow train that will probably only run once a day to an auto-centric city in Texas.

Agree, I'd rather connect to the Midwest network at this point.  3 hours to St. Louis and 6 hours to Chicago that puts you in the heart of downtown would be really nice. 

[patric]

Connecting to St. Louis would be so much better. They have a dozen or so daily trains to Chicago and the time difference over driving is negligible. Plus they're making constant improvements.

+1.

If Tulsa had a rail link to STL and Chicago I would actually use it.  Cant say I would ever do the same with a dead-end link to Texas.

[Red Arrow]

Agree, I'd rather connect to the Midwest network at this point.  3 hours to St. Louis and 6 hours to Chicago that puts you in the heart of downtown would be really nice. 

Straight line distance from Tulsa Int'l Airport to Lambert Field - St Louis Int'l is 304 NM, or about 350 Statute Miles.  That train is going to have to be really fast to average about 115 MPH including stops and the fact that the rail will not be a straight line.  However, if you consider waits at the airport and getting from the airport to either downtown, it's still close enough to consider a fast train over a plane ride.

[Transport_Oklahoma]

Texas won a planning award in the same round.  They applied for funds to study several routes, but USDOT chose the Oklahoma City-San Antonio leg of the South Central Corridor.

[cannon_fodder]

Come on rail hookups!

[Oil Capital]

At this point, connecting to St. Louis (and Illinois' extensive network of trains) would be far better than Texas. Texas is not at all interested in rail. They have zero short-distance trains. They have one train that makes any sense for Oklahomans, the one slow, often-late long-distance train that connects D/FW to Austin and San Antonio. If Texas were actually interested in rail, their cities would be connected by a web of multi-frequency daytime, short-distance trains, like Illinois.

Connecting to St. Louis would be so much better. They have a dozen or so daily trains to Chicago and the time difference over driving is negligible. Plus they're making constant improvements.

On Amtrak.com I find 6 trains per day from St. Louis to Chicago.  Nice service, but obviously well short of "a dozen or so".
FWIW, the first train departs St. Louis at 4:35 AM.  The trains take from 5 1/2 - 6 hours to make the trip vs. maybe 4 1/2 by car.

[custosnox]

On Amtrak.com I find 6 trains per day from St. Louis to Chicago.  Nice service, but obviously well short of "a dozen or so".
FWIW, the first train departs St. Louis at 4:35 AM.  The trains take from 5 1/2 - 6 hours to make the trip vs. maybe 4 1/2 by car.

but the real question is, does it have a full bar on board?

[heironymouspasparagus]

There is rail service to Texas.  It just starts in OKC.  Very cool, too.  Rode to Ft Worth a few weeks ago and had a blast. 
Short notice costs $74 round trip.

There are even a couple of tolerable restaurants in the stockyards area! 

Dallas still sucks.

[Oil Capital]

Agree, I'd rather connect to the Midwest network at this point.  3 hours to St. Louis and 6 hours to Chicago that puts you in the heart of downtown would be really nice. 

6 hours to downtown Chicago sounds good to you?  Really?  Even wildly making all of the assumptions that are necessary to make a 6-hour train trip from Tulsa to Chicago possible, I am thinking a 2 hour flight still beats the pants off of a 6 hour train trip, even when you add the 1/2 hour train ride from O'Hare to downtown Chicago.  

Why the attraction to an inferior, outdated mode of transportation?  ;-)  

There are currently at least 10 flights a day that can get you from Tulsa to downtown Chicago in well under 6 hours.  (And any realistic rail service from Tulsa to Chicago more likely be a 10+ hour trip and is not likely to be offered 10 or 12 times per day)  For an example of the frequency of service offered in the much-vaunted European rail service:  Seville Spain (larger than Tulsa) to Barcelona (larger than St. Louis) service is offered twice per day (three times if you count the train that takes 12 1/2 hours to travel the 620 miles.

[heironymouspasparagus]

In today's world, you don't ride the train for speed - at least not in this country - but for the 'experience'.  It can be a fun way to get there if you are more concerned about the trip rather than the destination.

And there is an incredible amount of leg room!  Used to an airplane??  Well, think first class plus an extra two feet of leg room!

Sit back and enjoy the ride!

[heironymouspasparagus]

And the Courtyard by Marriott right across from the OKC train station lets you park in their covered parking for about $5 a day.  Beats Fine!

And rental cars are available at Ft Worth.  Enterprise on site and Hertz a few blocks away (Hertz will pick you up or reimburse for cab.)

[Red Arrow]

Straight line (or at least great circle) distance from Tulsa Int'l to Chicago O'hare is 508 nm (584 statue miles).  The farther the distance, the easier it is for a 500+ knot airliner  to make up for delays at the airport compared to hopping on a train.  I believe about 250 miles (Tulsa to Dallas) is about as far as a train could be competitive with an airliner for time. It would depend on connections at either end too.