Do they? If they lived in a space where all modes were equal, would everyone "want" to own a car?

everyone no ... most yes ...

I don't feel there is love lost for the OTA, so the fact that it goes a little slower than if you were just driving would not be a big deal IMO. But it does need to be convenient for riders on both ends.

Last night my dad and I get into his car and some program is on the AM station...probably KTOK because that's all he ever listens to. Anyway, he proceeds to say "yeah, why would I want to ride a train to Tulsa...blah blah blah...and how am I suppose to get around once I get to the end of the line?"

I just laughed and told him of the conversations we have on here. I said the only reason there is interest now is so that the state doesn't sell the line back to BNSF which would eventually agree to have Amtrak operate a train instead of a private entity which would cost less. As it is, its just bad timing. There is absolutely no transportation modes at the ends of the line right now. Taxis? Car rentals? No streetcar, either here or there. No connecting services. Obviously all of that would be considered and worked out. Oh and then he says "so then I have to walk in the cold and the rain" and I'm like "seriously? What do those poor Chicago residents do when its blustery and cold and snowy outside. I'm sure they don't whine like little (fill in this blank, (plural))!"

Nonetheless, I told him, that it would not be dissimilar to what you see in Fort Worth. All you need is an integrated station with those services, which is what OKC is in the process of trying to do with the Santa Fe station downtown. If Tulsa has some kind of similar plan then it is totally doable.

My grandma lives up in T town and she feels the same way. They just don't think outside the box.

Step 1: Stop living in the past. A quick google search would show you that the number of people opting out of automobile ownership is already a significant percentage and growing rapidly everyday. Plus with people living much long on the other end we have a large and growing population of elderly that don't drive as well.

Why young Americans are not buying cars - Sep. 17, 2012 (http://money.cnn.com/2012/09/17/news/economy/young-buying-cars/index.html)


The share of new cars purchased by those aged 18-34 dropped 30% in the last five years, according to the car shopping web site Edmunds.com.

...

One reason is demographic: The re-urbanization of America is giving more people access to public transportation. The advent of Zipcar (ZIP) and other car-on-demand businesses is eliminating the need to own and insure an expensive vehicle that often isn't driven much.

But mostly it's the explosion of social media. Car ownership just may not be as socially important as it used to be.

"What we used to do in cars, young people are now doing online," said one analyst at a recent oil conference.

...

This is particularly true for the youngest, most digitally-connected members of Generation Y. Forty-six percent of 18-24 year-olds would choose Internet access over owning a car, according to a recent Deloitte study.

Study Confirms Fewer Young People Getting Driver?s Licenses - WNYC (http://www.wnyc.org/blogs/transportation-nation/2012/jul/20/percentage-of-young-persons-with-a-drivers-license-continues-to-drop/)


Young people aren't lining up to drive like they used to. Year over year, fewer 16 to 24 year-olds are getting driver's licenses according to a new study released today by Michael Sivak and Brandon Schoettle of the University of Michigan's Transportation Research Institute.

Take 16 year-olds: In 2008, 31 percent of them got driver's licenses. In 2010 it fell to 28 percent. That's part of a steady trend the researchers track back to 1983. That's when Return of the Jedi, Scarface and The Outsiders were in theaters, and 46 percent of 16 year-olds were licensed to drive

...

Using Census and Federal Highway Administration data, the researchers identified a general decline in the percentage of people who sign up for a driver's license across almost all age groups, but it was especially pronounced for younger would-be drivers.

...

◦Electronic communication reduces the need for actual contact (and some young people feel that driving interferes with texting)
◦Current economic downturn is making it more difficult for young persons to buy and maintain a vehicle
◦Young people are moving in increasing numbers to large cities with reasonable public transportation (e.g., New York and San Francisco)"

If there were a train to/from Tulsa, I would not hesitate to use it in lieu of a car if I were attending an event at the BOK Center or doing something else downtown (assuming there's some method of simple local locomotion around the train terminus).
Speed of trip is not the only consideration to take. The ease of not having to sit behind the wheel the entire trip and ability to catch a quick nap enroute hold some value.
Keep in mind that everybody in the car is trapped by either the group or the keyholder. Having a car (especially sharing, even with a loving spouse) does not confer total freedom. Instead, imagine the freedom of not having to worry about the car!

The actual not driving part is a big part of the advantage of mass transit. No risk of wrecking your car. No worries about parking. No chance for massive traffic delays. You can also use the time of transportation in other beneficial ways: Work on e-mails, reports, other business related things...or read...or study.

Also...the train doesn't need to go to other rail transit. As long as there are reliable buses in the area along with sufficient means of knowledge about the buses, then that is really all that is needed. [Sufficient means of knowledge means, stops have to be designated with the times that the buses run clearly marked along with the general path they take.]

I would have no problem giving up a car for a daily commute. I would still keep one for day trips and such until rail is further expanded (unless I can get there by air...but I have an unfair advantage when it comes to that). I spend a few weeks a year in Chicago. I love the mass transit options and able to get around without a car. Not to mention the ability to walk to most places we need to go when there - at least while Downtown. If we had commuter rail and also regional rail in this state, I would definitely use it.

However I agree that the the trip to TUL has to be able to competitive with vehicles to an point and there has to be quality service for the "last mile" leg of service. Even if it takes slightly longer than a car, I would give up the drive to not deal with traffic and other idiots on the road. :)

When we fly as a family it is usually on frequent flyer miles and my wife and I often fly on different airlines. Several years ago we went to Hawaii and my wife and one son got there 2 hours before me and my other son. They had to hang around the airport until we got there because we needed a rental car. On our trip to Philly she got there an hour and a half before us so she caught the train into Center City, checked in to the hotel, and took a nap. When given the choice between 'wife waiting 2 hours' and 'wife taking nap' - always pick wife taking nap. Its a no-brainer.

I love the "stats" on youngsters not wanting cars. If you actually objectively dissect the causes you would see it is not necessarily by choice. A part may be. A big part is economics as we have been in a terrible recession and the lower tier economics still is. Not being ABLE to is not the same as not WANTING to. People are delaying having families, much due to economics. The use of the internet is a contributor. As quoted in the article "Krebs said the drop in sales share by young people is misleading, as more of them are buying used cars or simply living at home longer and using their parents' vehicles. When the economy improves, they will be back en masse." Also, many states now have raised the age for licensing, or have severely restricted use by 16 year olds. Duh...this contributes to fewer 16 yr old drivers too.

All in all, you can use a narrowly focused set of data to prove about what you want. But in this case, even the story quoted doesn't agree with the implication made earlier. Cars still represent freedom to most people. But people obsessed about restricting or taking cars away aren't concerned with choice or individual freedom anyway.

If you don't have a car and need to go somewhere does it matter why you don't have a car? And your example is even more of a reason why mass transit should be implemented. Not being able to afford something really puts a damper on your desire to have.

If you don't have a car - does it matter why?

It does if you are using the stat to prove some agenda. Stats aren't the same as facts.

If there were a train to/from Tulsa, I would not hesitate to use it in lieu of a car if I were attending an event at the BOK Center or doing something else downtown (assuming there's some method of simple local locomotion around the train terminus).
Speed of trip is not the only consideration to take. The ease of not having to sit behind the wheel the entire trip and ability to catch a quick nap enroute hold some value.
Keep in mind that everybody in the car is trapped by either the group or the keyholder. Having a car (especially sharing, even with a loving spouse) does not confer total freedom. Instead, imagine the freedom of not having to worry about the car!

After many a Sunday morning, hungover drive back from Tulsa...I wholeheartedly agree with this. I would gladly double the travel time if I could sleep during the majority of it.

I love the "stats" on youngsters not wanting cars. If you actually objectively dissect the causes you would see it is not necessarily by choice. A part may be. A big part is economics as we have been in a terrible recession and the lower tier economics still is. Not being ABLE to is not the same as not WANTING to. People are delaying having families, much due to economics. The use of the internet is a contributor. As quoted in the article "Krebs said the drop in sales share by young people is misleading, as more of them are buying used cars or simply living at home longer and using their parents' vehicles. When the economy improves, they will be back en masse." Also, many states now have raised the age for licensing, or have severely restricted use by 16 year olds. Duh...this contributes to fewer 16 yr old drivers too.

All in all, you can use a narrowly focused set of data to prove about what you want. But in this case, even the story quoted doesn't agree with the implication made earlier. Cars still represent freedom to most people. But people obsessed about restricting or taking cars away aren't concerned with choice or individual freedom anyway.

Not true. The latest reputable stats from the University of Michigan indicated that the trend to driving less began in 2004, before the recession. University of Michigan News Service | Ladies and gentlemen, stop your engines: Americans driving less (http://www.ns.umich.edu/new/releases/21606-ladies-and-gentlemen-stop-your-engines-americans-driving-less)

I just don't understand how wanting more modes of transportation = "taking cars away".

You are assuming people want to own a car ou48A. I am encouraging my kids not to make the same costly mistakes I made and live in a place that doesn't require car ownership. When I look back over the years on the money I have spent on cars, gasoline, insurance, repairs, tires, etc... I have wasted a lot of money because after all that expense I only have two assets to show for it, and they are worth less than I paid for them, let alone how much I have spent over the year on auto-based transportation.

If you went back over your whole life how much do you think you have spent on transportation? Between my wife and we are up over $500,000 and all we have is a Durango and a Ram pickup to show for that $500,000. Between you and me, I would rather have the money.I love cars and if I ever chose to live in a place that doesn't require car ownership I would still own a car. To me, a car represents freedom and some of my friends and my most memorable moments were when we first got our cars. It was so exciting and its all how you look at it. If you choose to say, I had to spend $500,000 to own a car, great. I look at it as money=happiness and that bought me a car that I dearly enjoyed. Maybe one day I might be able to afford a Ferrari or perhaps a Pagani, but for now, it's just me and mah Malibu. Have I told I love cars, so maybe I'm just biased, I dunno ;P

The actual not driving part is a big part of the advantage of mass transit. No risk of wrecking your car. No worries about parking. No chance for massive traffic delays. You can also use the time of transportation in other beneficial ways: Work on e-mails, reports, other business related things...or read...or study.

Also...the train doesn't need to go to other rail transit. As long as there are reliable buses in the area along with sufficient means of knowledge about the buses, then that is really all that is needed. [Sufficient means of knowledge means, stops have to be designated with the times that the buses run clearly marked along with the general path they take.]Advantages of owning a car. 1.Personal comfort(change air temp. radio, turn up the volume(and don't even try to compare headphones to amplified speakers because they aren't in the same league), change the seat position, ect. ect.) 2.It's you and your car, you don't have to worry about getting sick from sitting next to people 3.Customize it to meet your preferences 4.Freedom!!! Go where you want(buses, trains, streetcars have routes, your car doesn't) 5.Hop in and GO! (no waiting for mass transit, your car is ready when you are) 5.If you buy a chick magnet(to put it politely), it helps you go places son

Now there are downsides(or what some might consider downsides, it doesn't bother me). Maintenance, gas, interesting interactions with other drivers. The parking issue has never really bothered me, in fact, the only time I ever have a problem with parking is downtown and in OKC it really isn't that bad. I usually park at the Bass Pro lot and walk around. I have yet to get in one wreck in the 4 years I've been driving.

Either way, its good to have options and have a city where you can choose, I choose driving and thats just me, I enjoy it.

Step 1: Stop living in the past. A quick google search would show you that the number of people opting out of automobile ownership is already a significant percentage and growing rapidly everyday. Plus with people living much long on the other end we have a large and growing population of elderly that don't drive as well.

Why young Americans are not buying cars - Sep. 17, 2012 (http://money.cnn.com/2012/09/17/news/economy/young-buying-cars/index.html)



Study Confirms Fewer Young People Getting Driver?s Licenses - WNYC (http://www.wnyc.org/blogs/transportation-nation/2012/jul/20/percentage-of-young-persons-with-a-drivers-license-continues-to-drop/)I wonder if that takes into account the number of parents buying cars for their children as more parents do that today than previously. Also, those stats look like they are about new cars, not used.

I wonder if that takes into account the number of parents buying cars for their children as more parents do that today than previously. Also, those stats look like they are about new cars, not used.

Look at my previous link - it's a much newer analysis.

Yes,,,,^ the vast majority of people want to own the freedom that comes with car ownership. We have seen that in virtually every major society in the world.

Is it really freedom if there is no choice? Of course the oilies will say it is. Personally, I think needing to spend $500,000 or more is a net loss of freedom - kind of like buyng a time share. Sure you can go places, but what might you have done with that money if the automobile ownership freedom not necessary for basic functions in America? Opportunity cost is pretty high when one thinks what that much money would have become had it been invested. For people that "will always have" a car payment, I have seen a calculation that showed what the average car payment would be after 40 years invested in an average stock market - over $4 milllion. Hope you enjoyed all that freedom from being a millionaire.

Is it really freedom is there is no choice? Of course the oilies will say it is. Personally, I think needing to spend $500,000 or more is a net loss of freedom - kind of like buyng a time share. Sure you can go places, but what might you have done with that money if the automobile ownership freedom not necessary for basic functions in America? Opportunity cost is pretty high when one thinks what that much money would have become had it been invested. For people that "will always have" a car payment, I have seen a calculation that showed what the average car payment would be after 40 years invested in an average stock market - over $4 milllion. Hope you enjoyed all that freedom from being a millionaire.In that line of logic, no one is free, which is true if you think about it.

Is it really freedom if there is no choice? Of course the oilies will say it is. Personally, I think needing to spend $500,000 or more is a net loss of freedom - kind of like buyng a time share. Sure you can go places, but what might you have done with that money if the automobile ownership freedom not necessary for basic functions in America? Opportunity cost is pretty high when one thinks what that much money would have become had it been invested. For people that "will always have" a car payment, I have seen a calculation that showed what the average car payment would be after 40 years invested in an average stock market - over $4 milllion. Hope you enjoyed all that freedom from being a millionaire.

Holy hyperbole batman. Do you have a link?

Right, wrong or indifferent the car will be the dominate mode of Oklahoman transportation for our lifetimes unless you can change the mindset of your average okie.

Holy hyperbole batman. Do you have a link?

Right, wrong or indifferent the car will be the dominate mode of Oklahoman transportation for our lifetimes unless you can change the mindset of your average okie.

It might be the dominant mode for those that choose to make it so, but what about the people who don't want to own a car? It won't be their dominant mode.

Anyhow, the next batch of young adults are drifting away from car ownership so if Oklahoma wants to keep the economic lights on they are going to do what is required to keep those people in Oklahoma. 10 lanes of free flowing traffic doesn't mean anything to someone who doesn't own a car.

It might be the dominant mode for those that choose to make it so, but what about the people who don't want to own a car? It won't be their dominant mode.

Anyhow, the next batch of young adults are drifting away from car ownership so if Oklahoma wants to keep the economic lights on they are going to do what is required to keep those people in Oklahoma. 10 lanes of free flowing traffic doesn't mean anything to someone who doesn't own a car.

Hello dream world

It might be the dominant mode for those that choose to make it so, but what about the people who don't want to own a car? It won't be their dominant mode.

Anyhow, the next batch of young adults are drifting away from car ownership so if Oklahoma wants to keep the economic lights on they are going to do what is required to keep those people in Oklahoma. 10 lanes of free flowing traffic doesn't mean anything to someone who doesn't own a car.JTF, I'm not trying to put you down or anything, but man, you keep saying the suburbs are disappearing and shrinking and car ownership is declining and posting these articles about it, and I'm only one person so I can't speak for anyone here, but I am seeing the exact opposite of what you're saying. My dad owns a car lot in Moore and I see that used cars are becoming very expensive and hard to find as many people aren't buying new cars but rather used ones and I think that is being manipulated by these people writing these articles to paint the picture that fits their agenda.

It might be the dominant mode for those that choose to make it so, but what about the people who don't want to own a car? It won't be their dominant mode.

Anyhow, the next batch of young adults are drifting away from car ownership so if Oklahoma wants to keep the economic lights on they are going to do what is required to keep those people in Oklahoma. 10 lanes of free flowing traffic doesn't mean anything to someone who doesn't own a car.

Well that's encouraging but not surprising given the recession, high unemployment for rescent college grads and the overal shrinking of the middleclass. I'm sure a car is a luxury these days many choose not to afford. Or perhaps its just a change in attitudes. I'm not an opponent of mass trans, just kind of skeptical it will catch on anytime soon in Oklahoma. I could be totally wrong.

Well that's encouraging but not surprising given the recession, high unemployment for rescent college grads and the overal shrinking of the middleclass. I'm sure a car is a luxury these days many choose not to afford. Or perhaps its just a change in attitudes. I'm not an opponent of mass trans, just kind of skeptical it will catch on anytime soon in Oklahoma. I could be totally wrong.

I see no reason public transit won't catch on here. Obviously, it's an academic argument when we don't have quality transit to speak of right now. How different would it look if we did?

JTF, I'm not trying to put you down or anything, but man, you keep saying the suburbs are disappearing and shrinking and car ownership is declining and posting these articles about it, and I'm only one person so I can't speak for anyone here, but I am seeing the exact opposite of what you're saying. My dad owns a car lot in Moore and I see that used cars are becoming very expensive and hard to find as many people aren't buying new cars but rather used ones and I think that is being manipulated by these people writing these articles to paint the picture that fits their agenda.

How many car dealerships closed down over the last 5 years? With fewer outlets sales will increase at the remaining ones - even if the over all market is declining.

How much of an oil crisis will there be in the next 50-100 years. I fear by the time someone born today gets to be my age, they will wish we would have built in this day instead of during the future crisis...when the price will escalate because of the crisis.
http://www.resilience.org/stories/2011-05-30/cia-accurately-predicted-how-long-world-oil-supplies-would-last—-1978

Holy hyperbole batman. Do you have a link?

Right, wrong or indifferent the car will be the dominate mode of Oklahoman transportation for our lifetimes unless you can change the mindset of your average okie.

Of course it is hyperbole - as is equating automobile ownership with freedom. It isn't freedom - it's just another form of mobility. And a costly one at that. In many places that have invested in their transit infrastructure, people without cars are just as mobile as the people stuck in cars.

With all that said, I like cars - a lot. I've modified them, raced them (legally - not that idiotic street crap), crewed endurance race cars, and have a project in the garage now. None of that has made me blind to the fact there may be better ways to invest our time, treasure, and infrastructure engineering effort. Germany makes some of the finest automobiles on the planet - and they somehow managed to build a robust rail transportation system AND a well built highway network that shames ours. How? Balance maybe? Knowing that both modes of transportation are part of a modern transportation systems. We are so out of balance in the US after decades of auto/highway only policy and investment it will take years before we even approach the transport systems of developed nations around the world.

With all that said, I like cars - a lot. I've modified them, raced them (legally - not that idiotic street crap), ...

Are you sure this isn't you?

kzlg3oQMze4

Idiots....but it is Texas. And then there is this:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1pgm8I0B8bY


Why do so many clueless people have cars like that?

How many car dealerships closed down over the last 5 years? With fewer outlets sales will increase at the remaining ones - even if the over all market is declining.
I am sure the recession had nothing to do with that.

Idiots....but it is Texas. And then there is this:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1pgm8I0B8bY


Why do so many clueless people have cars like that?Because it's a free country and if they have the money to buy it, they should be able to. Needless to say, that gave me good laugh.

Because it's a free country and if they have the money to buy it, they should be able to. Needless to say, that gave me good laugh.

Proof than money is not always the result of having brains.

Of course it is hyperbole - as is equating automobile ownership with freedom. It isn't freedom - it's just another form of mobility. And a costly one at that. In many places that have invested in their transit infrastructure, people without cars are just as mobile as the people stuck in cars.

With all that said, I like cars - a lot. I've modified them, raced them (legally - not that idiotic street crap), crewed endurance race cars, and have a project in the garage now. None of that has made me blind to the fact there may be better ways to invest our time, treasure, and infrastructure engineering effort. Germany makes some of the finest automobiles on the planet - and they somehow managed to build a robust rail transportation system AND a well built highway network that shames ours. How? Balance maybe? Knowing that both modes of transportation are part of a modern transportation systems. We are so out of balance in the US after decades of auto/highway only policy and investment it will take years before we even approach the transport systems of developed nations around the world.Wasn't Berlin one of the lists that has the worst traffic in the world? They have an amazing highway system? Guess we just disagree then.

I like our highways here and what ODOT has built for this city. Our interchanges need some major work as do a few of our highways, but Oklahoma likely won't have a robust rail system like Germany does, and it doesn't affect me one bit because I would probably not ride, I might who knows, but at this point I care about my cars for my transit I and I like that. I too, would like balance, for people that either can't afford cars or people like Sid who just prefer walking and mass transit, that just fine.

Also, using Europe as a scale for economic development wouldn't be the smartest thing to do in my opinion. I've been focusing on the basics of economics in my class right now and haven't really studied much of Europe, but I do know a little and that is that they aren't doing to well, just saying.

I find nothing wrong with street racing under certain conditions and I have yet to race, legally or not. Germany, Italy, Japan, Sweden and GB all make great cars, as does America, that's all in personal taste. I'm not stuck in a car, I choose to drive one. If I didn't like it, I wouldn't live in OKC(at this moment). Not every city is going to have mass transit like NYC or London, its that simple.

Proof than money is not always the result of having brains.You're exactly right, and that's their freedom. You can't fix stupid, and if your implying that sentence for the folks down in the big D, then that's just your opinion.

Wasn't Berlin one of the lists that has the worst traffic in the world? They have an amazing highway system? Guess we just disagree then.

Ever heard of the autobahn?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qm6S9z5BqyU

Wasn't Berlin one of the lists that has the worst traffic in the world? They have an amazing highway system? Guess we just disagree then.

I'm going out on a limb here, you've never driven the Deutschland highways. Siting Berlin as a German norm would be like tossing out Mississippi as an example of American academia standards.

Yet in a nation with balanced transportation infrastructure spending, they also built this:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTOdhzq7fIo

At the 0:55 and 2:30 mark you will see conventional trainsets operating on the same line as the HSR/ICE.

So for all the naysayers out there, the United States once lead in technology. We sent people the the moon for the love of God. Yet today all we hear is "we can't afford to do anything other than cars and highways". What happened to the America that dared push limits? Seems like we were passed in transportation technology about 30 years ago with Japanese and European HSR and Airbus gaining parity with Boeing. What event coincided with that? Coincidence maybe? We don't even seem to be able to build roads that last more than a few years.....we can't even figure out how to build and operate modern conventional passenger rail very well - why? Think about the various interests - political and corporate and the people. Who is "winning" really?

Balance - restore balance to US transportation policy and infrastructure spending. Recognize ALL transportation modes are subsidized. That is all the vast majority of people advocating for rebuilding our once great American passenger rail network is demanding.

You're exactly right, and that's their freedom. You can't fix stupid, and if your implying that sentence for the folks down in the big D, then that's just your opinion.

Actually I give Dallas a lot of credit for diversifying their transportation infrastructure. 30 years ago they had the good sense to establish DART. The combined bus, light rail, commuter rail, and soon - modern streetcar - make it possible to live, work, and play without a car in some parts of the Metroplex. I don't recall ever saying the word "stupid" in association with DFW. I hate driving there most of the time, but they are light years ahead of central OK in transportation policy.

Yet in a nation with balanced transportation infrastructure spending, they also built this:
European comparisons are a bogus argument in comparison to the US. Germany has density that all but five US states like can claim with a population of almost 82 million in the land area of about half of Texas (583/sq mi vs. 98.1/sq mi). The US as a whole is 88/sq mi, the density that most of Europe has allows the mass transit systems to be very effective. You could effectively cut all road spending and put all that money into mass transit methods and it would never be as successful as what Europe has, most of Europe still relies on government owned or heavily subsidized systems. Yes, more needs to be invested in mass transit in this country but to hold up the European model up as the standard is a false goal and one that is not attainable for a country as spread out as this.

I'm going out on a limb here, you've never driven the Deutschland highways. Siting Berlin as a German norm would be like tossing out Mississippi as an example of American academia standards.No I haven't, but I know people who have and being very interested in them, I've talked for hours about it and they say their highway aren't the best in the world. They are good, but to say they put ours to shame is a bit of a stretch. I will go to there and be able to form an opinion myself one day.

BTW, let it be known that I don't know for sure about Berlin having some of the worst traffic, I just thought I read it somewhere and tomorrow when I get a chance, I'll dig and see if I can find it.

Yet in a nation with balanced transportation infrastructure spending, they also built this:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTOdhzq7fIo

At the 0:55 and 2:30 mark you will see conventional trainsets operating on the same line as the HSR/ICE.

So for all the naysayers out there, the United States once lead in technology. We sent people the the moon for the love of God. Yet today all we hear is "we can't afford to do anything other than cars and highways". What happened to the America that dared push limits? Seems like we were passed in transportation technology about 30 years ago with Japanese and European HSR and Airbus gaining parity with Boeing. What event coincided with that? Coincidence maybe? We don't even seem to be able to build roads that last more than a few years.....we can't even figure out how to build and operate modern conventional passenger rail very well - why? Think about the various interests - political and corporate and the people. Who is "winning" really?

Balance - restore balance to US transportation policy and infrastructure spending. Recognize ALL transportation modes are subsidized. That is all the vast majority of people advocating for rebuilding our once great American passenger rail network is demanding.Now that is pretty sweet. I would be all in supporting something like that here!

Also, Bluedog makes a pretty good point that I didn't think of the density and size. That is something to take into account.

Actually I give Dallas a lot of credit for diversifying their transportation infrastructure. 30 years ago they had the good sense to establish DART. The combined bus, light rail, commuter rail, and soon - modern streetcar - make it possible to live, work, and play without a car in some parts of the Metroplex. I don't recall ever saying the word "stupid" in association with DFW. I hate driving there most of the time, but they are light years ahead of central OK in transportation policy.Oh, my bad then. I thought you were implying that. North Dallas is more car oriented, but Dallas as a whole is really diversifying their options and I really admire that. Again, I will say I would love to see a light-rail here in the metro. I am a supporter of mass transit, it just sounds like some here are making cars out to be something designed by the devil himself. I might be getting the wrong picture, but that is kind of what it sounds like.

European comparisons are a bogus argument in comparison to the US. Germany has density that all but five US states like can claim with a population of almost 82 million in the land area of about half of Texas (583/sq mi vs. 98.1/sq mi). The US as a whole is 88/sq mi, the density that most of Europe has allows the mass transit systems to be very effective. You could effectively cut all road spending and put all that money into mass transit methods and it would never be as successful as what Europe has, most of Europe still relies on government owned or heavily subsidized systems. Yes, more needs to be invested in mass transit in this country but to hold up the European model up as the standard is a false goal and one that is not attainable for a country as spread out as this.

That is why HSR in the US would/should be 5 or 6 regional systems. It doesn't make sense to run HSR through Montana, Wyoming, and Idaho. But corridors with sufficient population density have been identified that will leverage the advantages of HSR.

ALL transportation in the US is subsidized also - this includes the highways. The "rail/mass transit will never work because it requires a subsidy" is the most dishonest argument against it.

Ever heard of the autobahn?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qm6S9z5BqyUYes sir I have and would love to see a highway like that here, perhaps running from Texas through the midwest(including Oklahoma) to Illinois, maybe into Canada and one running East to West, NYC to L.A. and a branch to Seattle up to Alaska would be neat.

The biggest difference in the Autobahn and the US highway system is much more in how people drive than the roads themself, if people drove here with the lane disciplined and attention to the road that German drivers do then you could go faster safely, especially outside of major cities but even in them to a lower extent. They do maintain it at a higher level but also we have a much higher percentage of strait sections and their police enforce lane discipline more than ours do speeding.

^^ winner, winner ^^ I'd add maintenance to that as well.

The biggest difference in the Autobahn and the US highway system is much more in how people drive than the roads themself, if people drove here with the lane disciplined and attention to the road that German drivers do then you could go faster safely, especially outside of major cities but even in them to a lower extent. They do maintain it at a higher level but also we have a much higher percentage of strait sections and their police enforce lane discipline more than ours do speeding.You got that right, it's ridiculous. Great post btw, that is all spot on!

It's a completely different mindset driving on the autobahns than it is driving on the U.S. interstate system. They were built completely different, too. There's no exit every mile or half on the autobahn. It's the highway equivalent of a high-speed, dedicated bus line.

It's a completely different mindset driving on the autobahns than it is driving on the U.S. interstate system. They were built completely different, too. There's no exit every mile or half on the autobahn. It's the highway equivalent of a high-speed, dedicated bus line.

European freeways were built on the philosophy of the 'townless highway and highwayless town' model. That was the original idea behind the US interstate system as well but we dropped that idea in 1956. To this day very few highways in Europe go through any towns and exit ramps are a rarity compared to the US.

To this day very few highways in Europe go through any towns and exit ramps are a rarity compared to the US.

Have you ever even driven in Europe? First of all, Europe is multiple countries with different highway profiles. People who are ignorant of Europe tend to lump everything together as if it is one country with one system and one philosophy. That is where credibility ends when an argument starts with that assumption.

I have traveled extensively through Europe for 3 decades and traveled many a highway to and through towns and never lacked exits and entrances.

The biggest difference in the Autobahn and the US highway system is much more in how people drive than the roads themself, if people drove here with the lane disciplined and attention to the road that German drivers do then you could go faster safely, especially outside of major cities but even in them to a lower extent. They do maintain it at a higher level but also we have a much higher percentage of strait sections and their police enforce lane discipline more than ours do speeding.

And, people who are not familiar with Germany assume that the Autobahns are the only limited access highways. And, that Autobahns are the model for the other European countries. LOL.

And, people who are not familiar with Germany assume that the Autobahns are the only limited access highways. And, that Autobahns are the model for the other European countries. LOL.out of curiosity, do you think an Autobahn model could here(America in general)? I'm curious as there is a huge number of people here in OKC who merge on the highway going 20-30mph and can't drive or pay attention worth a sh@t.

out of curiosity, do you think an Autobahn model could here(America in general)? I'm curious as there is a huge number of people here in OKC who merge on the highway going 20-30mph and can't drive or pay attention worth a sh@t.

Just like there are people that drive 20-30 mph over the limit and can't drive or pay attention worth a darn. If you are going to call out one group of idiots, call out the others. :)

... if people drove here with the lane disciplined and attention to the road that German drivers do [on Autobahn] then you could go faster safely, ...

I find myself quite unable to disagree.
(/Pb-pes)

out of curiosity, do you think an Autobahn model could here(America in general)? I'm curious as there is a huge number of people here in OKC who merge on the highway going 20-30mph and can't drive or pay attention worth a sh@t.

The Autobahn is more limited and JTF is correct about that on this system. Generally on ramps would be longer also. Plus, I have seen some devastating wrecks and massive pileups on the Autobahn - greater incentives to drive right than are tickets. If you don't know how to drive on it you can get vaporized. Therefore, it is not as highly traveled by looky loos and "Sunday drivers". You have to be disciplined as a driver or it is your LIFE.

The biggest motivator which moves travelers from highway to railway is the cost of gas and the taxes put on car purchases and rental....VERY high in most of the world compared to the US. But, there is still a lot of highway traffic and congestion. When they can afford them, people all over tend to love their cars and the freedom it gives them.

Just like there are people that drive 20-30 mph over the limit and can't drive or pay attention worth a darn. If you are going to call out one group of idiots, call out the others. :)Yeah, I speed a lot, so I might be in a category of "those" people, although it's rare I'll go 15 over. But I know what you're saying.

To add to that, my new class schedule has me going during the 7-8am rush hour and I never knew just how bad it was. The amount of people flying through heavy traffic and the over all rudeness. I'll get used to it, just thought it was interesting lol

The Autobahn is more limited and JTF is correct about that on this system. Generally on ramps would be longer also. Plus, I have seen some devastating wrecks and massive pileups on the Autobahn - greater incentives to drive right than are tickets. If you don't know how to drive on it you can get vaporized. Therefore, it is not as highly traveled by looky loos and "Sunday drivers". You have to be disciplined as a driver or it is your LIFE.

The biggest motivator which moves travelers from highway to railway is the cost of gas and the taxes put on car purchases and rental....VERY high in most of the world compared to the US. But, there is still a lot of highway traffic and congestion. When they can afford them, people all over tend to love their cars and the freedom it gives them.I'm sure there will always be idiots who will do something stupid. I saw this guy on a motorcycle on Shields an hour ago, who must of been nearing 200MPH coming up on traffic, really stupid. People like that, well it's self explanatory. :p

Yeah, I speed a lot, so I might be in a category of "those" people, although it's rare I'll go 15 over. But I know what you're saying.

To add to that, my new class schedule has me going during the 7-8am rush hour and I never knew just how bad it was. The amount of people flying through heavy traffic and the over all rudeness. I'll get used to it, just thought it was interesting lol

I'll admit that I will speed...but usually keep it to within 5 over unless I really have to speed up to get out of the way (i.e. someone merging not paying attention). However more often than not...there is little reason to speed. I normally always end up catching up to people that blasted past me.

I agree with Sid's point of view though. I come from a family filled with paramedics, firemen, and nurses. I've seen and heard the stories of people speeding and losing control. I've come to the point of no longer feeling sorry when some idiot flips their car or splits it in two hitting a pole/medium/support beam. I look at it as survival of the fittest and the dumb asses are just filtering themselves out of the gene pool.

With that...isn't this a thread on rail? lol

Rail in the Western United States is going to be relatively difficult to make happen and useful. The west needs to focus on localization and development of non-car transit infrastructure. THEN can the west start thinking about comprehensive rail systems going from city to town to town.

The reason to go ahead and connect Tulsa to OKC is that now it's cheap, it will always have utility and it will have reasonable usership even now and that usership will only grow over time.

Stop speeding. It isn't your right and it is the leading cause of accidents. Accidents that are likely to involve other people. Slow down or take the bus but speeding, especially 15 over is downright irresponsible.

I've had to cut out far too many innocent people from mangled cars due to the fact that some people thought that they should have the freedom to drive at whatever speed they wanted and that it was their judgement as to what is safe that should be the determining factor.

Driving on taxpayer funded roads is a privilege that comes with defined responsibilities. I hope when you go home today you'll respect those responsibilities better.


---


In "Europe" (I'm using quotes because I agree with Rover...far too much is generalized) you also see rail as simply being the main connector. You might have a small rural road connecting towns but also have a pretty major rail line that does as well. We've built such a massive highway and interstate network that we don't have that advantage.

I like JTF's network for Oklahoma idea too but the challenge again is that these smaller towns more and more are lacking the town centers that offer riders a walkable center. Just think about many of the cities you've been to. If you got dropped off at the train station, how many places you could walk to? Or would you need a car there to get you where you finally needed to go? I say that because transit is also pretty much non-existent in these smaller cities.

So to recap, rail in "Europe" has one advantage we probably will not see in our lifetime. Their networks are supported significantly with lots of smaller trips between smaller cities and aren't just about connecting the major hubs or capturing that kind of commuter traffic.

Commuter rail here needs to go from Downtown Norman to Downtown OKC as an express service every hour and then trips that make several stops along the way every half hour (or something like that).Really? Not distracted driving? Tell that to the other thousands of people who speed. I drive very safe and will continue to do so, Sid. Thanks for the input though.