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.

When you have a tire blow out and roll your car several times cause you couldn't handle your vehicle due to the stress being put on it, I'll pray you wore your seat belt.

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? lolI rarely go 15 over the limit, but I understand what you're saying. I even posted an article awhile back that had some facts about it, and it really doesn't save you too much time. I get out on a track every once awhile though, to satisfy my need for speed :P

There are people who speed and then there are people who just flat out drive recklessly, imo. This likely won't make me popular around here, but that's alright. I'm sorry though, if I don't think doing 10-15 over is the leading cause of accidents when drunk driving, distracted driving(texting), sleeping drivers or people under the influence of narcotics and even just household prescription medication. Some of those alone, I'm sure kill more people than speeding.

My dad also employs someone whom is a part time paramed for EMSA and from what I've been told, distracted driving kills more people than anything on the roads and the only thing about speed is, the higher the speed, the higher chance for death. Which is to be expected.

Yeah, sorry about getting off topic and I won't post anymore about it, can't quite remember how the Autobahn was brought up in the first place.

When you have a tire blow out and roll your car several times cause you couldn't handle your vehicle due to the stress being put on it, I'll pray you wore your seat belt.I'll respond PM ;P

It wil be interesting to watch this - TX HSR private venture with Japanese HSR operator.

Editorial: Boost for Texas bullet-train project | Dallasnews.com - News for Dallas, Texas - The Dallas Morning News (http://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/editorials/20130821-editorial-boost-for-texas-bullet-train-project.ece)

I think a high speed rail corridor between Dallas and OKC would be more promising if they built a direct high speed rail connection to Denver. I only say that because there is no direct interstate connection to Denver and there is plenty of open land.

I think a high speed rail corridor between Dallas and OKC would be more promising if they built a direct high speed rail connection to Denver. I only say that because there is no direct interstate connection to Denver and there is plenty of open land.

Interesting idea. Everyone seem to have been focused on connecting to Kansas City and/or St Louis with the intent to further connect to Chicago.

HSR just seems to be perfect for "Fly Over Country" and I really like the Denver-OKC example. I would think it would only be feasible though if we had a HSR rail option that went north into Wichita and then connected to the same line running Denver - Kansas City. Though I can think of the big impact it could have in places like Woodward and Dodge City to have a HSR rail link to OKC and beyond.

To me...HSR is the "mainline" of rail service so seeing a train going DEN > Dodge City > Woodward > OKC > Dallas > Houston would be a big draw. You would have people taking the entire route but also a lot of "local" traffic on the individual segments. Then utilize commuter rail to do more of the intrastate connections, at least for Oklahoma.

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.

We have to start somewhere and a rail station in small towns would give something for high density to coalesce around. Small towns in Oklahoma all used to be walkable because most of them were built around the original rail station. One of the things that separates new urbanism from old urbanism is that new urbanism has to compete against the automobile. However, I am happy that places like Chickasha see the writing on the wall and want to be part of a state wide rail system. The train station in Chickasha is adjacent to their downtown which already has some good bones to start a revitalization with.

http://chickashanews.com/topnews/x596946075/Perryman-says-all-aboard-for-Oklahoma-mass-transit-plan


And for smaller county seats, like Chickasha, Perryman said the plan would eventually connect the large rail via small substations or bus systems that could take passengers to the nearest station.

Respondents to a question on The Express-Star's Facebook regarding a high-speed rail line heavily supported Perryman's initiative.

"There is a lot of talk about attracting out of state firms to boost our jobs numbers, this would be a step in the right direction," J.J. Francis wrote. "What major metropolitan area doesn't have access to high speed rail and mass transit? Mass transit in Oklahoma is primarily for those without the means to afford a vehicle and a handful of others, but it isn't for everyone. This project if linked with Kansas City it would pave the way toward making it for everyone and attracting out of firms who can offer competitive jobs."

Jenny Robinson wrote that the current cost of gas alone would be enough for her to look at the rail as an alternative.

"I live in Chickasha and work and go to school in Oklahoma City," she wrote. "The gas and the toll booth are my top priority when I leave my house now. I would like to see this happen in hopes to get to work cheaper. The convenience alone would encourage me to use the rail as frequently as possible!"

Should the study show such a project to be a possible, Perryman said he hopes the mind-set of all Oklahomans will change to one that supports mass transit in the state.

We have to start somewhere and a rail station in small towns would give something for high density to coalesce around. Small towns in Oklahoma all used to be walkable because most of them were built around the original rail station. One of the things that separates new urbanism from old urbanism is that new urbanism has to compete against the automobile. However, I am happy that places like Chickasha see the writing on the wall and want to be part of a state wide rail system. The train station in Chickasha is adjacent to their downtown which already has some good bones to start a revitalization with.

Perryman says all aboard for Oklahoma mass transit plan » Top News » Chickashanews.com (http://chickashanews.com/topnews/x596946075/Perryman-says-all-aboard-for-Oklahoma-mass-transit-plan)

In fact, JTF, in your Walmart thread, you say that small towns are just starting to recover from the Walmart decimation of local commerce. Maybe a TOD focus could jump start or piggyback on those efforts and get them in the lead of local rail efforts.

In fact, JTF, in your Walmart thread, you say that small towns are just starting to recover from the Walmart decimation of local commerce. Maybe a TOD focus could jump start or piggyback on those efforts and get them in the lead of local rail efforts.

TURN ALL WAL-MARTS INTO TRAIN STATIONS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[lower-case letters]

In fact, JTF, in your Walmart thread, you say that small towns are just starting to recover from the Walmart decimation of local commerce. Maybe a TOD focus could jump start or piggyback on those efforts and get them in the lead of local rail efforts.

That is what I am thinking.

Here is really cool interactive map that is really worth taking a look at! Environment a high-speed unknown in Texas passenger rail hopes (http://res.dallasnews.com/interactives/2014_January/highspeedrail/)

Here is really cool interactive map that is really worth taking a look at! Environment a high-speed unknown in Texas passenger rail hopes (http://res.dallasnews.com/interactives/2014_January/highspeedrail/)

“Because high-speed rail will only capture a relatively small share of total passenger trips, it is also unlikely to make much difference in achieving greenhouse gas reduction targets and in reducing petroleum consumption,” the Congressional Research Office concluded last month.Reliving congestion and cutting travel time remains the best reason for train service.

Reliving congestion and cutting travel time remains the best reason for train service.

Relieving congestion for whom? Since latent demand makes up 30% of all highway travel as soon as Person A takes the train person B will be right there with their car to take up the new empty spot on the highway. Rail will NEVER solve traffic congestion because some people will always choose to drive. The only way to solve congestion is to not build roads. However, if you are person A taking the train traffic congestion doesn't exist to you. The train only solves traffic congestion if you are on the train.

Relieving congestion for whom? Since latent demand makes up 30% of all highway travel as soon as Person A takes the train person B will be right there with their car to take up the new empty spot on the highway. Rail will NEVER solve traffic congestion because some people will always choose to drive. The only way to solve congestion is to not build roads. However, if you are person A taking the train traffic congestion doesn't exist to you. The train only solves traffic congestion if you are on the train.

Not building roads sends us back to the dark ages and kills off the economy.
Unless there is congestion duplicating transportation options isn't a very smart expenditure of very limited resources.....Because you can not deliver bulk goods to the door of each business with a train the need for roads will always come first for reasons of commerce.

Not building roads sends us back to the dark ages and kills off the economy.
Unless there is congestion duplicating transportation options isn't a very smart expenditure of very limited resources.....Because you can not deliver bulk goods to the door of each business with a train the need for roads will always come first for reasons of commerce.

So the dark ages ended in 1908 and before that there were no economies? Also no one said anything about removing existing roads so are you saying if we stop building new roads the economy will crash? If so, I tend to agree with you. We are rapidly approaching the point where we can't afford to build more roads and I have argued for a while now that to keep the wheels of commerce turning we need a more efficient transportation system.

So the dark ages ended in 1908 and before that there were no economies? Also no one said anything about removing existing roads so are you saying if we stop building new roads the economy will crash? If so, I tend to agree with you. We are rapidly approaching the point where we can't afford to build more roads and I have argued for a while now that to keep the wheels of commerce turning we need a more efficient transportation system.
You can't turn back the clock on the prosperity and grater freedom that great roads have brought man everywhere in the world.
Advanced society's have great roads and other great transportation options including trains that move goods, service and people with speed at cost effective prices.
Except where congestion is common trains are rarely the most cost effective option to move people.

You better tell that to Germany.

A ban on autos? Major cities consider going carless (http://www.cnbc.com/id/101359812)


The northern city of Hamburg has laid out an initial concept, named the Green Network Plan, that would expand public transportation and add more routes for pedestrians and bicyclists. The most controversial aspect of the plan calls for a steady phase-out of automobiles in the center of the city over the next two decades.

...

"Other cities, including London, have green rings, but the green network will be unique in covering an area from the outskirts to the city center," Hamburg city spokeswoman Angelika Fritsch told The Guardian newspaper. "In 15 to 20 years, you'll be able to explore the city exclusively on bike and foot."

You better tell that to Germany.

A ban on autos? Major cities consider going carless (http://www.cnbc.com/id/101359812)


We are a continental country where in most cases we need a more pragmatic approach to our transportation problems.

Geographically the vast majority of our nation could never financially justify the cost of duplicating transportation options with extremely high cost trains. There are vast stretches of the nation where the population is way too low to spend so much money when they can already drive or fly.

We are a continental country where in most cases we need a more pragmatic approach to our transportation problems.

Geographically the vast majority of our nation could never financially justify the cost of duplicating transportation options with extremely high cost trains. There are vast stretches of the nation where the population is way too low to spend so much money when they can already drive or fly.

One line of rail can handle the same number of people as 15 lanes of interstate. Which is cheaper to build, one lane of rail or 15 lanes of interstate? Also, why do we continue to build roads into the vast stretches of low density population even though it cost orders of magnitude more? Why can't Altus be connected to Lawton by a rail line (complete with auto-carrier) instead of a paved and 4 lane divided highway US 62?

One line of rail can handle the same number of people as 15 lanes of interstate. Which is cheaper to build, one lane of rail or 15 lanes of interstate? Also, why do we continue to build roads into the vast stretches of low density population even though it cost orders of magnitude more? Why can't Altus be connected to Lawton by a rail line (complete with auto-carrier) instead of a paved and 4 lane divided highway US 62?

One line of rail can handle the same number of people as 15 lanes of interstate but it can't profitably stop every few blocks to deliver or pick up goods and services over a wide area and do in small city’s, towns and rural areas that are not going away. They don't need 15 lane interstates. What many need are good roads and mostly good 2 lane roads that are a lot cheaper than operating trains with their extremely limited service.

You are a hard person to keep up with because you seem to keep moving the goal posts. I thought we were talking about transportation options between cities and towns, now we are talking about local traffic?

You are a hard person to keep up with because you seem to keep moving the goal posts. I thought we were talking about transportation options between cities and towns, now we are talking about local traffic?


Because subsidized bus service where there is not a lot of conjestion between most towns and most small citys makes far more economic sence and by many times.... because it's far cheaper and not a duplication for something that is already a must.

Relieving congestion for whom? Since latent demand makes up 30% of all highway travel as soon as Person A takes the train person B will be right there with their car to take up the new empty spot on the highway. Rail will NEVER solve traffic congestion because some people will always choose to drive. The only way to solve congestion is to not build roads. However, if you are person A taking the train traffic congestion doesn't exist to you. The train only solves traffic congestion if you are on the train.The only way to prevent income inequality is to stop printing money. The only way to prevent future diseases is to stop people from having kids. The only way to prevent crime is to assume every single person is a criminal and just lock everyone up.

Hold on - something got lost in translation.

The anti-rail crowd says rail doesn't solve congestion. I am agreeing with them, rail doesn't solve congestion for those who still choose to drive. A train from Norman to OKC will not reduce traffic on I-35. However, if you are ON the train then congestion for you IS solved. Aspirin only works if the person with the headache takes it. If you have a headache and I take aspirin how is that supposed to help you?

Hold on - something got lost in translation.

The anti-rail crowd says rail doesn't solve congestion. I am agreeing with them, rail doesn't solve congestion for those who still choose to drive. A train from Norman to OKC will not reduce traffic on I-35. However, if you are ON the train then congestion for you IS solved. Aspirin only works if the person with the headache takes it. If you have a headache and I take aspirin how is that supposed to help you?

I'm not anti rail........................ and I don't know of anyone who doesn’t want trains, just because they are trains.

Most people only want the most cost and time efficient type of transportation and except in some of the most urbanized areas of the USA trains are not ussually the first answer for cost and time efficiency for the movement of people.

A slow moving train is no solution for most people. Time is a very valuable commodity that most won't waste on a train when driving is still much faster.

You guys need a boxing ring?

Time is a very valuable commodity that most won't waste on a train when driving is still much faster.

Thanks for proving one of JTF's primary points - what can you safely do while driving? Drive and drive only.

But one can do all manner of things whilst connected to the wifi (or not) of a commuter rail or intercity rail passenger coach. Productivity is increased by regional rail transport.

For anyone that tries to say roads are more "modern" than rail transport systems, allow me to remind you the Romans built roads which predated rail systems by a few centuries. :D

Looks like things are moving forward, and TxDot is really engaged on implementing the OKC-Dallas corridor, good deal:

Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study (http://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/projects/studies/statewide/texas-oklahoma-rail.html)

http://therivardreport.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/texas-oklahoma-passenger-rail-presentation-may-19-2014.pdf

"The study is scheduled to conclude by the end of 2014 after the completion of a service-level environmental impact statement and a service development plan."

Could we see construction starting by 2016, with completion by 2021? I know past conversations stated it was a 5-year build, and full implementation of service by 2020 was their goal, hope it all comes to fruition.

After reviewing the updated presentation I hope they go with the highest HSR, fully dedicated tracks to get us at 220MPH. I don't know what the total travel time would be from OKC to Dallas, JTF can you help?

Keep in mind, Texas will not be buying Oklahoma's part. Texas might be leading the way on getting this done, but it will take some serious participation from Oklahoma. And not to take this too political, but I don't think 23rd and Lincoln has rail at any level of speed, as any type of priority.

I agree, I can see TxDot moving forward with their pieces, and leaving us behind, hence we will always be behind the cutting edge of transportation economic development.

After reviewing the updated presentation I hope they go with the highest HSR, fully dedicated tracks to get us at 220MPH. I don't know what the total travel time would be from OKC to Dallas, JTF can you help?

It is 205.9 miles from OKC to Dallas. So non-stop at 220MPH, that gets you there in 55m8s.

Math.

It is 205.9 miles from OKC to Dallas. So non-stop at 220MPH, that gets you there in 55m8s.

Math.

Um yea, I know that, I am talking about with stops, loading and unloading times, and transferrig in Ft. Worth.

I'd bet there would be a express train that takes 1:45, and the rest of the trains would run about 2:30 to 3:00.

There's no way the train runs 220MPH through much of North Texas at 220MPH, nor until you're south of OU, and even everything in between, there would be some slower moments from turns and then approaching other stops.

Keep in mind, Texas will not be buying Oklahoma's part. Texas might be leading the way on getting this done, but it will take some serious participation from Oklahoma. And not to take this too political, but I don't think 23rd and Lincoln has rail at any level of speed, as any type of priority.

Rail's a priority to Fallin as long as she can help her buddies in the freight industry ship petroleum. For people, not so much.

Rail's a priority to Fallin as long as she can help her buddies in the freight industry ship petroleum. For people, not so much.

I should have been clearer; passenger rail. :)

I'd bet there would be a express train that takes 1:45, and the rest of the trains would run about 2:30 to 3:00.

There's no way the train runs 220MPH through much of North Texas at 220MPH, nor until you're south of OU, and even everything in between, there would be some slower moments from turns and then approaching other stops.

That sounds about right time wise. London to Paris non-stop is 2:08 on Eurostar at it maxes out 186 mph. Not sure how they would deal with the Arbuckles though. Going over the top is probably the least favorable route, which leaves either going around or tunneling though.

I'd bet there would be a express train that takes 1:45, and the rest of the trains would run about 2:30 to 3:00.

There's no way the train runs 220MPH through much of North Texas at 220MPH, nor until you're south of OU, and even everything in between, there would be some slower moments from turns and then approaching other stops.

So how would that be better than driving, because its still going to take you 3 hours to get to Dallas? And the cost of a ticket might be the same if not more in what you will pay for gas?

The only way I would use this service is if I could get to Dallas in 1.5 hours, and the cost for tickets are reasonable. I have a family of four and we go to Dallas often because that is where my in-laws live, but a ticket for HSR for 4 people might be too high, it would be more cost effective for me to drive.

So how would that be better than driving, because its still going to take you 3 hours to get to Dallas? And the cost of a ticket might be the same if not more in what you will pay for gas?

Because, well, you wouldn't have to drive…You'd most likely have Wifi and be able to get work done, you could eat lunch on the train, there would be no risk of getting in a wreck or a getting a ticket for speeding in addition to no extra miles/wear on your car. You wouldn't have to drive in Dallas traffic. You could get to a Dallas airport without a car...

Furthermore, it will go all the way down to South Texas, and while the ticket would likely be more than gas between OKC and Dallas, it would likely be cheaper per mile going between OKC and Austin or San Antonio, especially if you book a whole round-trip ticket well in advance.

The only way I would use this service is if I could get to Dallas in 1.5 hours, and the cost for tickets are reasonable. I have a family of four and we go to Dallas often because that is where my in-laws live, but a ticket for HSR for 4 people might be too high, it would be more cost effective for me to drive.

Driving is almost always SUPER Cost effective when there are 4+ people in the car. I highly advocate driving vehicles when they are all full of people.

So how would that be better than driving, because its still going to take you 3 hours to get to Dallas? And the cost of a ticket might be the same if not more in what you will pay for gas?

You have to own a car to do that. Believe it or not, there is a large and growing segment of the population that doesn't want to spend $20,000 to $80,000 every 6 years on a car. And of course, that is just the direct costs. The new generation doesn't also want to be on the hook for the billions in maintenance that I-35 will require plus the environmental costs as well. I for one don't want to pay the tax rates necessary to keep doing what we have been doing since 1954. For me it is about long-term cost avoidance as much as it is short term cost/benefit.

I just think of the benefits of an express train to Dallas from the OKC area (likely would stop in Norman before going nonstop) to people that want to live here but work there.

I just think of the benefits of an express train to Dallas from the OKC area (likely would stop in Norman before going nonstop) to people that want to live here but work there.

I would guess a stop in Ardmore and Denton as well.

I guess I am looking at it from a different perspective, and with a leisure point of view. We go to Dallas to visit family, and for leisure, not for work, and the drive is really not that bad, depending on what time you leave, plus you will have transportation to get around Dallas. I just don't see the cost effectiveness for paying for 4 tickets, it taking the same amount of time, and not having adequate transportation in and around Dallas. Dallas was built around the car, now if it were more pedestrian friendly like New York, Chicago, or Seattle, then that is different.

I could see us as a family using HSR just to say we did it, but not on a regular basis. Now if I worked there, and I could get there in 1.5 hours, and traveled alone, I could see the benefits.

I guess I am looking at it from a different perspective, and with a leisure point of view. We go to Dallas to visit family, and for leisure, not for work, and the drive is really not that bad, depending on what time you leave, plus you will have transportation to get around Dallas. I just don't see the cost effectiveness for paying for 4 tickets, it taking the same amount of time, and not having adequate transportation in and around Dallas. Dallas was built around the car, now if it were more pedestrian friendly like New York, Chicago, or Seattle, then that is different.

I could see us as a family using HSR just to say we did it, but not on a regular basis. Now if I worked there, and I could get there in 1.5 hours, and traveled alone, I could see the benefits.

I agree with your point from the leisure perspective. I see HSR replacing the short hop air service that airlines have been scaling back on which normally targets business passengers. Much more cost effective over time to have that via rail anyway.

Preferred high-speed rail route goes above I-30, then south to Houston - Dallas Business Journal (http://www.bizjournals.com/dallas/news/2014/05/08/preferred-high-speed-rail-route-goes-above-i-30.html)

The Triumphant Return of Private U.S. Passenger Rail - CityLab (http://www.citylab.com/commute/2014/06/the-triumphant-return-of-private-us-passenger-rail/372808/)

Something interesting I came across I never noticed before was a high-speed intercity link on ODOT's plan.

It states the following:
The competitive grant program which allows for these improvements is part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act and advances the Obama administration’s vision for high speed intercity passenger rail throughout the nation.

In all, $8 billion in ARRA funds are available to states through this program, which is divided among the following funding tracks: Track One - Shovel-ready Projects; Track Two - Service Development Programs; Track Three - Service Planning Activities; and Track Four - Appropriations-Funded Projects.

ODOT’s preliminary application was filed on July 10, 2009 and it’s final application was submitted on October 1, 2009. ODOT sought approximately $2 billion in Track Two funding for service development programs. ODOT did not receive funding in the initial round but will continue to seek funding throughout the remiander of the program.

- High Speed Intercity Passenger Rail (http://www.okladot.state.ok.us/recovery/hs_rail/index.htm)

If I read this right, ODOT is actively seeking funds for a HSR or was. What came of this? They said they weren't chosen the first time but will continue to seek funds. Sorry if this has been discussed, I was just curious because I never heard of this before.

Off track: Budget hole could put Heartland Flyer funding on chopping block

By: Dale Denwalt The Journal Record April 19, 2016

OKLAHOMA CITY – As lawmakers meet privately to negotiate the next year of state spending, nearly anything could be on the chopping block.

One of those projects is a $3.2 million subsidy to support the Heartland Flyer passenger rail service to and from Fort Worth.

“It may be trimmed a little bit,” House Appropriations Chairman Earl Sears, R-Bartlesville, said Tuesday. “We’ve talked about it, but there’s no hard language in that funding.”

The daily service to Texas and back is supported by the two states. Oklahoma pays for its share from income tax and motor fuel tax allocations.

State Sen. Dan Newberry, R-Tulsa, said that with such a large budget shortfall, the state should reconsider whether to subsidize the train.

“It may have been a meritorious project at one time,” said Newberry. “We’re just not in a world where we can afford it today. If you can’t afford the car you’re driving, you’ve got to sell the car you’re driving and get one you can afford.”

Each year, about 77,000 people ride the Heartland Flyer. Craig Moody, who oversees rail programs for the Oklahoma Department of Transportation, said the number fluctuates. When gas prices were above $3 per gallon, ridership was more than 80,000.

“Obviously, if gas prices are $1.56 a gallon, people are more apt to take their vehicle than to jump on a train,” Moody said.

The state is negotiating with Amtrak and trying to secure another train to run in the opposite direction each day.

“If (state support of) passenger rail service was discontinued, this would be the beginning of the end for the Heartland Flyer,” Moody said. “If this service was to go away, I really honestly don’t know what it would take to get it back in.”

The connection between Oklahoma City and Tulsa is not subject to legislative appropriation. A private entity, Watco Cos., has purchased the line and has until 2019 to run a six-month test of passenger service. The line, dubbed the Eastern Flyer, would not be affiliated with Amtrak.

It would also not have financial support from the state.

“If we started service and people don’t ride it, then it’s going to lose money,” said Watco government affairs executive Jeff Van Schaick. “But the way our deal will be structured is that it would not be publicly funded.”

Director Mike Patterson of the Oklahoma Department of Transportation said he’s extremely concerned that lawmakers will end the annual subsidy to the southbound connection.

“We really believe the Heartland Flyer brings to the state of Oklahoma an alternative mode of transportation for those who can’t drive (or) don’t want to drive,” Patterson said.

In Oklahoma City, where the Heartland Flyer starts its daily commute to Fort Worth, it waits at the Santa Fe Depot. Moody said the depot is in line for upgrades that would make it the intermodal hub for both Amtrak and the intra-city transportation system.

“OKC would still have a hub, it just wouldn’t be complete” without the Heartland Flyer, Patterson said.

So Amtrak has roughly 77,000 passengers. $37.00 one way. $68 roundtrip. Children are half price. So what I would say is a fair estimate is an average of $40 per person roundtrip. that's just over 3 million dollars. and Amtrak needs another 3.2 million to run?

ya, questionable. Particularly when it is JUST one train per day. .....

I wonder if the Thruway service from OKC-Newton KS will be a positive impact on the Heartland Flyer? Could result in an increase in pax for those in OKC (or DAL/FTW) who want to get to Chicago or LA quicker or those in KC who want to get to OKC and Texas quicker. Plus there's the added audience of Wichitans who would get access period to OKC and beyond to their south and KC/Chicago or LA. .. I think it could be an injection for all service, filling in that hole since the Heartland Flyer isn't expanding any time soon.

I ONLY worry about the timing of the Thruway service; Newton Train arrive 2am - OKC Train Depart 835am. So folks in Wichita would need to depart around 5am. OKC Train Arrives at what? 9pm Newton Train depart at 230. So Wichita folks would leave OKC at 9pm (and arrive in Wichita at midnight?, I guess that could work).

As to the operating cost; perhaps there could be a slight increase in fares (esp with the possible new passengers) and they could serve food/drinks to get revenue on the trains. Perhaps the state could add a very slight .0001% to the property tax of those along the rail route(s). $10 average assessment X 700,000 households in the OKC metro alone would net a huge revenue stream of $7M annually for rail. This would more than pay for the whole state's part of the Heartland and ensure the OKC train station stayed open all day.

Maybe a combination gas tax/property tax could work if there isn't appetite for one tax. In fact, I think there should be a penny per gallon to go to rail for the entire state; would do wonders having a fund (likely of what? $50M per year??) that could help fund more intercity services to OKC.

There were a couple other threads I could have posted this, but I saw this one had the largest discussion.
I've been perusing Reason this morning, so here's another article from them regarding the state of California's planned HSR piece:

http://reason.com/blog/2017/01/15/even-the-feds-are-warning-that-californi

Some key points:

-It's already 7 years behind schedule for just the first leg of the plan
-The first leg was originally budgeted at $6.4 billion, but is now coming in at $10 billion
-The federal government apparently released a report citing massive cost overruns
-Eminent domain will be taking away lots of land from its owners (this is just a general point that pops up with projects like these all the time)

I have always dreamed of a high speed rail line connecting Chicago to St.Louis/Kansas City to Tulsa to OKC to DFW to Houston. It's been one of my fantasies for years. But even the Dallas-Houston HSR has run into issues and last I checked, they had made little to no significant progress on those talks.

We can cite Europe or Japan as prime examples for a functioning HSR system, but the truth is, they NEEDED it. So they adapted and put truly valuable resources and money into it. Much of the U.S. simply does not NEED this, hence why we're running into difficult and compromising costs and scenarios. I certainly don't wish it were this way, but it is. And as we talk about a line between OKC and Tulsa that could get us to either city in less than 30 minutes, I feel that is still decades away, sadly. If the cost benefit is not there, it simply should not be done. Because many of these commuter lines still require subsidies after they're built and operational. HSR may not require as many subsidies if more people feel enticed to ride them if the trip is shorter and more convenient than driving, true. But, we may not ever know.

Edited link.

HSR would be great.

Agree with Catch22 that passenger rail would be where Oklahoma's focus should be. Is Tulsa & Wichita routes a reasonable start?

HSR would be great.

Agree with Catch22 that passenger rail would be where Oklahoma's focus should be. Is Tulsa & Wichita routes a reasonable start?

Whatever happened to the Iowa Pacific deal to run passenger service from OKC to Tulsa?

Whatever happened to the Iowa Pacific deal to run passenger service from OKC to Tulsa?

They seem to have a contract in the Chicago to Indianapolis area, and the 'loaned' equipment is gone. I worked for the ATSF and BNSF for 38 years, and Watco's offer of service between OKC and Tulsa is a complete scam, at best. Run some excursions with free food and drinks and legislators could be sold anything.. It's a complete scam at taxpayers expense, selling the state owned track, and it's still a 25 mph railroad, you want to ride a train to Tulsa for 4 hours?

They seem to have a contract in the Chicago to Indianapolis area, and the 'loaned' equipment is gone. I worked for the ATSF and BNSF for 38 years, and Watco's offer of service between OKC and Tulsa is a complete scam, at best. Run some excursions with free food and drinks and legislators could be sold anything.. It's a complete scam at taxpayers expense, selling the state owned track, and it's still a 25 mph railroad, you want to ride a train to Tulsa for 4 hours?

For what it's worth, WATCO's offer of passenger service was a contractual obligation from the sale of the Sooner Sub. Per the terms of the Final Sale Agreement, WATCO (or a designated operator) must (at minimum) conduct a passenger service pilot program within 5 years of closing the sale (which works out to August 04, 2019). This pilot program must operate at least twice per day, 7 days a week, for a minimum period of 6 months, to establish demand. If demand is high enough to support "profitable passenger operations", then WATCO must begin to provide continuous daily passenger service within 10 years of closing (August 04, 2024). If WATCO defaults on this obligation, they must pay damages of $2.8MM to ODOT.

WATCO reported to ODOT in March of 2016 that they had completed repairs and upgrades to the Sooner Sub to bring it up to FRA Class III track standards (which for everyone else, this allows for a maximum speed of 40mph for freight trains and 60mph for passenger trains). This was another contractual obligation from the sale; WATCO must invest a total of just under $104MM in capital improvements into the line to improve freight and passenger service within 10 years of closing (August 04, 2024). Did WATCO lie to ODOT about their early fulfillment of this obligation?

Here's the full text of the sale agreement, for anyone interested: http://www.odot.org/SoonerSub/16-FINAL%20Sale%20Agreement%20(2014).pdf