More like 3 and a half hours. It takes me ten minutes to get to the airport, and I've never gotten to the airport more than an hour early.
Right now they are starting a new project to expand/upgrade the security areas at the Austin airport and I have known more than a few people saying it has taken them an hour just to get through security because of the new procedures. It took us about 30 minutes to get through security last June for an 11:00 am or so flight in the middle of the week, I would hate to try and fly on a Monday morning or Friday evening right now especially during SXSW or ACL Fest.

We are already seeing the effects of high speed rail on the air travel industry in China. South China Air (the largest airline in China) has had to cut fares on routes it competes with HSR on by 80% in some cases and has resulted in some airlines abandoning the routes completely.

With our federal government I could easily see them not allowing people to buy tickets from OKC to Dallas/Houston/San Antonio/Austin/Kansas City/Tulsa if they had high speed rail connections. That would pretty much put Southwest Airlines out of business. I don't like the idea of government companies putting private sector companies out of business.

Like I said, if the government wants to build the tracks I am good with that, airlines don't build the airports either, but the train service should be provided by private companies. Imagine if we were like France and the SEIU could shut down all travel by going on strike.


http://coscc.ebizchina.net/2011/index.php/news/railway-news/high-speed-trains-reshape-nations-transport-landscap



Wang Changshun, deputy head of the Civil Aviation Administration of China, told a conference on Tuesday that the fast trains have forced some airlines to cancel short-distance flights along high-speed rail lines.
For example, the Wuhan-Guangzhou high-speed railway, where every few minutes trains zip between the two cities via Changsha, capital of Central China’s Hunan province, has carried 20.6 million passengers in the year since its opening in December 2009.

During that period the number of flights between Changsha and Guangzhou has been cut from an average of 11.5 flights a day to three flights a day, he said.
Hainan and Shenzhen airlines decided to withdraw from the market, leaving only China Southern Airlines carrying the three daily flights, Wang said.
The ticket price for those flights also dropped by 15 percent to attract travelers, but still the number of passengers flying between Changsha and Guangzhou dropped by 48 percent to 390,000 during 2010, he said.

“The opening of the Beijing-Shanghai high-speed line next year will be another blow to the air transport industry,” Wang said, without forecasting how serious the impact will be.
Airlines have been urged to cut costs, reduce delays and seek cooperation opportunities with high-speed railways.

What if the Government built grade separated dedicated tracks (much like they build airports) but had a process that had companies operating the day to day operation of the trains.
Most of the major airports already have parking, mass transit, car rental, security, highways, and other things that would support a train station.
You could more easily change forms of transportation. Weather would be less disruptive to travel.
The airlines are in the people moving business. If they wish, let them operate the trains and bid on routes.
Award the routs based on the lowest ticket price.

What if the Government built grade separated dedicated tracks (much like they build airports) but had a process that had companies operating the day to day operation of the trains.
Most of the major airports already have parking, mass transit, car rental, security, highways, and other things that would support a train station.
You could more easily change forms of transportation. Weather would be less disruptive to travel.
The airlines are in the people moving business. If they wish, let them operate the trains and bid on routes.
Award the routs based on the lowest ticket price.

That is what I mean, but I wouldn't award the routes based on ticket price because different trains could have different amenities (I'll explain below). Determine the capacity and let the private sector bid on the times they want to serve. If American Airlines wants to get in on the rail service then let them. If you don't like the ticket price of the American train, wait 20 minutes and a Southwest train will be along.

Trains won’t just have one fare. Some seats will cost more than others, and in some cases a lot more. This is one of the problems China has. The HSR trains were setup for the high-end customers but when those high-end customers left the airlines, the airlines had hard time keeping the routes open because they don’t make much money off the coach seats. The result was the airline choosing not to compete with HSR lines.

This left the coach passengers with a problem – HSR tickets they can’t afford and no more airlines. It has caused a major traffic issue between cities (remember the traffic jam in China a few months ago) as people buying cars or taking the bus. As a result China has started modifying some of the trains with smaller seats and less leg room to get more people in. In some cases they have entire first class trains and coach class trains. I imagine the coach class trains are pretty darn uncomfortable.

Come to think of it, the government shouldn't build roads designed for cars. It's putting horse-drawn carriage makers out of business.

After all, times and needs -- they never change.

Here's an idea: how about the taxpayers build the rails and control system, and private companies run the trains on them. Sorry, but I think regional airlines are a business model whose time has come and gone. Future air travel will be for long distances.

Robonerd, no one is saying the government shouldn't build tracks. We are saying they shouldn't operate the trains.

Robonerd, no one is saying the government shouldn't build tracks. We are saying they shouldn't operate the trains.

In principle I agree, but I wonder how feasible it's going to be for at least a starter period, say, the first 10 years or so. This may be one of those cases where a public corporation has to lay the foundation... then sell it off after a fixed period of time.

The question here is, what's the most likely approach to ensure success in the long term? Pragmatism must trump ideology.

The problem is the US doesn't have a very good track record with public corporations. Having the government run the initial 10 years will actually damage the brand. A business is only worth the revenue it can generate and if the government runs a loss or small profit the service won't be worth as much then if the private sector just buys it on day one. And heaven forbid that the taxpayers have to subsidize the public corporation because then the private sector will make the case they should get the subsidy as well. The last thing we need are more subsidies.

But before we even get to that stage where do we get the trillion dollars HSR is going to require? I know you are saying to yourself, China is only spending $200 billion for their system. Well, the average person in China makes $2 a day so you can do the math. As this author points out:

http://gas2.org/2010/12/03/the-cost-of-china%E2%80%99s-high-speed-rail/


China doesn’t have to worry about the EPA, lawyers, property rights or any of that nonsense. They say the train goes here, and that’s where the train goes. Since high-speed trains need long, flat surfaces, it isn’t as though they go around a protected temple or private homestead. The train goes through it, and that is that.

Environment impact statements alone will cost a billion dollars.

I was reading through some of the articles written about China high speed rail and have come to the conclusion that OKC/Dallas/Houston should be the first route in America. There are several factors working in our favor. HSR needs a few things to work; level terrain, straight lines, access to abundent electricity, and open space. Trying to put China style HSR from Boston to DC would be so expensive with so many right of way and power issues it would be cost prohibitive. California (except for the central valley) has way too many mountain ranges and no hope of having straight rails through urban areas. Houston/Dallas/OKC though has all the requirments needed with local rail available at all three cities. It might be too late for America's mega-cities to get true HSR into their urban cores.

That is what I mean, but I wouldn't award the routes based on ticket price because different trains could have different amenities (I'll explain below). Determine the capacity and let the private sector bid on the times they want to serve. If American Airlines wants to get in on the rail service then let them. If you don't like the ticket price of the American train, wait 20 minutes and a Southwest train will be along.

Trains won’t just have one fare. Some seats will cost more than others, and in some cases a lot more. This is one of the problems China has. The HSR trains were setup for the high-end customers but when those high-end customers left the airlines, the airlines had hard time keeping the routes open because they don’t make much money off the coach seats. The result was the airline choosing not to compete with HSR lines.

This left the coach passengers with a problem – HSR tickets they can’t afford and no more airlines. It has caused a major traffic issue between cities (remember the traffic jam in China a few months ago) as people buying cars or taking the bus. As a result China has started modifying some of the trains with smaller seats and less leg room to get more people in. In some cases they have entire first class trains and coach class trains. I imagine the coach class trains are pretty darn uncomfortable.

Kerry, do you have a source for your comments about China's CRH?

I spent very long durations of time in China the last few years, and the CRH wasn't designed for the upper crust (in an American way of thinking), it was designed as a sustainable method of travel connecting long distances while also improving the nation's infrastructure. America built a vast network of interstate highways, China is building a vast network of high speed rail (highways also). If you've ever been to China, you would know the reason for this (and it has NOTHING to do with Chinese not affording cars or riding bicycles) - the reason is, they have too many people. ... You DONT want everyone to own a car (much less 2 or 3 like many do in the USA), it would be chaos all around the nation.

Also consider, in the US, Airports were built by the government and Airlines were once regulated as a state monopoly. Sure the Airlines 'deregulated' and competition rose (much like what has happened in China), but the Trains really haven't purged much away from the airlines in total - because most common people couldn't afford regular plane tickets anyways.

You are right in one facet, high speed rail did purge away many premium seat airline customers. But you are not correct in my opinion and what I saw, that CRH was built for high end customer. ... There are two classes, but even the 'coach' class is quite first and the ticket price isn't much different between the two. The main difference I saw between First Class and 2nd class is the seating (First being 2 (pair) seats and even a few single seats), 2nd class having mostly 3 seats.

Yes, CRH is government run - but you can't really run a national train service highspeed unless a single entity does it. It works great in Japan and Europe, and there isn't much lost to their airlines. So in summary, yes CRH has had an impact on travel BUT air travel overall is still growing; it's just in the past China ONLY had airline (or very slow curvy freight sharing trains) and those airlines had multitudes of flights daily between city pairs; today - it's a more US like schedule and premium seats are still sold as air travel is still the fastest. CRH has opened travel up for everyone.

HOT Rod - here is one story. I'll see if I can find the others.

http://coscc.ebizchina.net/2011/index.php/news/railway-news/high-speed-trains-reshape-nations-transport-landscap

If you check Google you can find numerous stories.

Ya know, I'm just wondering... This country was built, first with railroads, and then with roads as the cities were developed. Then state highways followed and soon interstates. I imagine these HSR corridors would bypass all small towns and have no stops between the big 3 (OKC, Dallas and Houston). I'm also wondering if other countries that have HSR had to build over lots of roads or rivers or valleys (like those rather large aqueducts you see them flying over in France with the TGVs) and how much of a cost that would add to the construction of new lines. I just can't imagine it being High Speed Rail if you have to make a stop at Gainsville, a stop at Ardmore, a stop at Davis, a stop at Pauls Valley, a stop at Norman AND you have to deal with railroad freight traffic on a CTC one line system when the freight gets the hotshot spot because they're the ones letting the government use their line. That's why it currently takes Amtrak 4 hours each way between OKC and FTW. I know this is on page 11 so if any of these thoughts of mine have already been discussed, just give me a yes and I'll do a little more research, lol.

OKCisOK4me - I did a quick sample line from Houston to OKC. Here are the stops I put in:

Downtown Houston
The Woodlands
Downtown Dallas
Plano
Norman
Downtown Oklahoma City

Total trip is about 470 miles. Total trip with stops is about 2 1/2 to 3 hours. It pretty much paralleled I-45/I-35 but anywhere from 10 to 20 miles off of it. The interstate curves too much to be used as right of way so I ran it through rural countryside to avoid most towns while keep the tracks as straight and level as possible. For example, I took it to the west of the Arbuckles instead of following I-35 over them. Through Houston, Dallas, and OKC it will need to be 100% elevated.

OKCisOK4me - I did a quick sample line from Houston to OKC. Here are the stops I put in:

Downtown Houston
The Woodlands
Downtown Dallas
Plano
Norman
Downtown Oklahoma City

Total trip is about 470 miles. Total trip with stops is about 2 1/2 to 3 hours. It pretty much paralleled I-45/I-35 but anywhere from 10 to 20 miles off of it. The interstate curves too much to be used as right of way so I ran it through rural countryside to avoid most towns while keep the tracks as straight and level as possible. For example, I took it to the west of the Arbuckles instead of following I-35 over them. Through Houston, Dallas, and OKC it will need to be 100% elevated.

That is fantastic! Thank you Kerry. Your knowledge on this subject and your facts on the AT&T building have stunned me today. Seriously! That trip time is a lot better than the current OKC to Dallas trip. They'd have to move a lot of dirt to create one continuous level grade. The construction costs would be astronomical.

That is fantastic! Thank you Kerry. Your knowledge on this subject and your facts on the AT&T building have stunned me today. Seriously! That trip time is a lot better than the current OKC to Dallas trip. They'd have to move a lot of dirt to create one continuous level grade. The construction costs would be astronomical.

It doesn't have to be totally level but the grades can't be real steep. If you top a hill doing 230 mph the items around you are going to become airborne so the slopes have to be gradual. I am sure the biggest logistical problem is getting the electricity to the train over long stretches. I haven't seen what the power consumption is but wind resistance at those speeds must be off the chart.

It takes a lot of electricity to keep a train moving at those speeds. Another concern is weather. At 230 mph you have to know what the weather is 100 miles up the track because you are going to be there in 26 minutes, and unlike a plane - you can't go around it. You don't want to hit a hail storm at 230 mph.

Like I've said before, seems too costly and too complicated. I'd rather our state improve our interstates and roads before we invest in new types of infrastructure to maintain. Also, times aren't too much dissimilar from flying. In OKC I've parked, gone through security, and gotten on the plane in a total of 30 minutes....30 minutes flight time to Dallas, off the airplane and at the rental car booth (or hotel shuttle) an hour and 30 minutes from when I parked in OKC. Security in Dallas is also a breeze, and the times are similar on the way back. Honestly, I don't see why people think flying is such a hassle, even short flights to Dallas. You save an hour's time and two tanks of gas. If you plan ahead and have a strategy, it's not hard to get through security worry-free, get on the plane, and leave. Every time I go through security it takes me 5 minutes in line (at OKC) and then a total of 3 minutes to put my stuff in the bins and walk through the metal detector. People just don't know how to do it, and they wonder why it takes them 3 times through the metal detector and 10 minutes to put everything in the bins..... I put everything in my carry-on in a logical way. The things I need to take out are on top. Shoes and belts off before I get to the bins.... After I get through security, THEN you pack it how it needs to be.

Off the soapbox.

Like I've said before, seems too costly and too complicated. I'd rather our state improve our interstates and roads before we invest in new types of infrastructure to maintain. Also, times aren't too much dissimilar from flying. In OKC I've parked, gone through security, and gotten on the plane in a total of 30 minutes....30 minutes flight time to Dallas, off the airplane and at the rental car booth (or hotel shuttle) an hour and 30 minutes from when I parked in OKC. Security in Dallas is also a breeze, and the times are similar on the way back. Honestly, I don't see why people think flying is such a hassle, even short flights to Dallas. You save an hour's time and two tanks of gas. If you plan ahead and have a strategy, it's not hard to get through security worry-free, get on the plane, and leave. Every time I go through security it takes me 5 minutes in line (at OKC) and then a total of 3 minutes to put my stuff in the bins and walk through the metal detector. People just don't know how to do it, and they wonder why it takes them 3 times through the metal detector and 10 minutes to put everything in the bins..... I put everything in my carry-on in a logical way. The things I need to take out are on top. Shoes and belts off before I get to the bins.... After I get through security, THEN you pack it how it needs to be.

Off the soapbox.

I agree that flying is preferable to driving but anyone who hopes to allow 30 minutes to park and be on the plane is living very dangerously. If you're checking luggage, that probably won't even be allowed that close to departure. The standard time for a cutoff for accepting checked luggage is 30 minutes at a minimum.

Maybe it's dangerous, but I have yet to miss a flight because of that....and I fly to Dallas once a month, sometimes twice (like this month). I used to do the whole...arrive 1 1/2 hours early. Then I discovered that it took me 5 minutes to find a parking spot (in the winter; summer about 10-15 mins), 10 minutes at most to get through security (longer in the summer) and 5 minutes to get to my gate.....and had to find something to do for an hour waiting to board. All you are doing is eliminating the 30-45 minutes of boredom.

I agree, baggage and such, earlier drop times...but with a backpack and cellphone, not too many things to slow you down. It's all about how comfortable you are working the system to your advantage. It's a preconceived notion that traveling via air HAS to be difficult, but it's only as difficult as you make it.

Maybe it's dangerous, but I have yet to miss a flight because of that....and I fly to Dallas once a month, sometimes twice (like this month). I used to do the whole...arrive 1 1/2 hours early. Then I discovered that it took me 5 minutes to find a parking spot (in the winter; summer about 10-15 mins), 10 minutes at most to get through security (longer in the summer) and 5 minutes to get to my gate.....and had to find something to do for an hour waiting to board. All you are doing is eliminating the 30-45 minutes of boredom.

I agree, baggage and such, earlier drop times...but with a backpack and cellphone, not too many things to slow you down. It's all about how comfortable you are working the system to your advantage. It's a preconceived notion that traveling via air HAS to be difficult, but it's only as difficult as you make it.

I'm glad it seems to work for you but if your suggestion causes someone to miss a flight the airlines don't have to have any sympathy at all. The airport personnel have the option to help but don't have to if you're late. It's not something I would ever recommend to my customers and I can't tell you how many calls I've had from someone at an airport who missed a flight because they were a little late arriving and couldn't get through security in time. I have personally experienced problems at other airports even when I arrived more than 2 hours prior to departure and barely made a flight (LAX). I am currently suggesting that they arrive a minimum of one hour prior to departure. It's just not worth the stress especially for someone who isn't a regular flyer. Being bored for a few minutes is worth not having the worry.

Like I've said before, seems too costly and too complicated. I'd rather our state improve our interstates and roads before we invest in new types of infrastructure to maintain. Also, times aren't too much dissimilar from flying. In OKC I've parked, gone through security, and gotten on the plane in a total of 30 minutes....30 minutes flight time to Dallas, off the airplane and at the rental car booth (or hotel shuttle) an hour and 30 minutes from when I parked in OKC. Security in Dallas is also a breeze, and the times are similar on the way back. Honestly, I don't see why people think flying is such a hassle, even short flights to Dallas.

Then Dallas must be different than every other major airport in the US. If you aren't parking your car an hour and half before your departure at Orlando you aren't going to make it. Better give yourself two hours from parking lot to jetway in Atlanta.

Dallas Love or DFW? Big difference between the volume of the two airports. You can't do anything at DFW in 30 minutes.

DFW.....and I guess I can, because I did it on friday.....and that's not the first time

Kerry, the problem is we can't give a complete monopoly to the private sector, because we've already seen and have been experiencing the consequences of so called 'market policies'.

There's no way for HIgh Speed Rail to be competitive because there will be only one route built, at most; and most likely there wouldn't be enough market for there to be more than one daily train run on most routes.

Also, I think it is a bit hypocritical to want the government to build the infrastructure then get out of running it. If you;'re a T-Partier, pick one side or the other. ... Either it is cut spending or spend, the other parties already lie in the grey area.

If the private sector wants to run High Speed rail, then the private sector can build, own, and maintain the infrastructure. ... It might be successful on some of the Chicago runs, maybe the LA-SF, and the North East sector.

But I highly doubt OKC (or most other cities in the US in fact) will see any HSR unless the Federal Government deems it so (which is the exact same that many criticize China for. ....).

Kerry, the problem is we can't give a complete monopoly to the private sector, because we've already seen and have been experiencing the consequences of so called 'market policies'.

There's no way for HIgh Speed Rail to be competitive because there will be only one route built, at most; and most likely there wouldn't be enough market for there to be more than one daily train run on most routes.

Also, I think it is a bit hypocritical to want the government to build the infrastructure then get out of running it. If you;'re a T-Partier, pick one side or the other. ... Either it is cut spending or spend, the other parties already lie in the grey area.

If the private sector wants to run High Speed rail, then the private sector can build, own, and maintain the infrastructure. ... It might be successful on some of the Chicago runs, maybe the LA-SF, and the North East sector. But I highly doubt OKC will see any HSR unless the Federal Government deems it so (which is the exact same that many criticize China for. ....).

Couldn't agree more, high speed rail in this area will never turn a profit. High speed rail is not consumer based, it's goverment based.

The federal taxpayers built the interstate system but the government doesn't own the trucking companies, bus lines, or cars that drive on it. The only way HSR will be profitable is if private companies don't have to pay for the capital improvements. The US government should build rail infrastructure, not run passenger rail service. The US government should build interstates, not run trucking companies. The US government should help manage air logistics, not run airlines. The US government should establish navigable water ways, not run shipping companies.

If there is only demand for one train a day between OKC and Tulsa then HSR between Tulsa and OKC shouldn't exist.

Airline passengers are often charged a fee on their ticket that goes toward paying the airports expenses.
Why couldn’t a HSR ticket have a similar fee?

Airline passengers are often charged a fee on their ticket that goes toward paying the airports expenses.
Why couldn’t a HSR ticket have a similar fee?

The airports are usually owned by local governments. Who would own the train station?

Actaully, that brings up an interesting thought. If Ardmore wanted to buuld a train station along a Dallas/OKC route they could do so, but there would be no requirment that a train stop there. It would be up to Ardmore to entice trains to stop.

The airports are usually owned by local governments. Who would own the train station?



HSR stations should be locally owned and operated much like airports.
HSR fees should only be charged at the departing and the end of the trip stations.

Sid - Chicago to Dallas is 800 miles. I think there would more HSR demand between OKC and Dallas than Chicago and Dallas. 800 miles by HSR would take all day and maybe even into a second day. I would also like to learn more about how the elecricity for HSR is sent to each block. If you draw a line from Chicago to Dallas how many years it would take before a tornado crosses that line? If the power line goes down how many miles of track does that effect? Would be interesting to know.

Sorry, I wasn't very clear. I didn't mean that the only travelers would be from Dallas or Chicago. It is the connection to those cities from anyone in the states along the way. Those are major global airports so HSR could get you to those cities without having to fly in.

Okay, I see what you are saying. Let's say we had a Chicago to Houston HSR route. The following major cities would be served: Chicago, St Louis, Kansas City, Tulsa, Oklahoma City, Dallas, and Houston. There would be very few people making the entire trip but neighboring city-pairs could draw well.

When I look at the rail schedules in Europe most countries only have one major city so their HSR lines have lots of stops in small towns. Would we do the same thing here? Are we looking at 5 stops between Chicago and Houston or 500 stops?

BTW - that route would be 1,300 miles.

Hitting some of the bigger suburban areas or nears cities like Galveston, Fort-Worth, Arlington, Plano, Norman, Edmond, Aurora or Joliet seem like a better prospect than minor towns in the middle of nowhere that few will visit but slow the entire trip down, plus by hitting stops in clusters of cites where you probably would not be able to be running full speed so stops their would be less wear on the components.

Hitting some of the bigger suburban areas or nears cities like Galveston, Fort-Worth, Arlington, Plano, Norman, Edmond, Aurora or Joliet seem like a better prospect than minor towns in the middle of nowhere that few will visit but slow the entire trip down, plus by hitting stops in clusters of cites where you probably would not be able to be running full speed so stops their would be less wear on the components.

I guess that would be the HSR equivalent of pitting under caution instead of under green flag racing conditions.

Obama's plan to be unveiled, "a train in every pot" or something like that... http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704364004576132091951242426.html?m od=WSJ_hp_MIDDLENexttoWhatsNewsTop#articleTabs%3Da rticle

The reality is we don't have any money to pay for any of this at the federal level. Although, I was listening to Mark Stein yesterday and he said after $14 trillion in debt we might as well go for broke and borrow all we can while people will still loan it to us. If it is for permanent infrastructure I could go along with that. It isn't like the Chinese will come rip out our HSR tracks if we don't pay them back.

Right. It is just a thought. The sum of the value of the different links kinda of thinking. Would there only be one track? Or would it be smart to lay at least two and have an "express" line or alternating directions?

You would need tracks for travel in each direction. You wouldn't want to switch tracks at high speed. Intermediate stations could have sidings.

My guess is you wouldn't want anything on the train except people and their luggage. If you start adding freight and increasing the weight you slow down acceleration time, increase stopping distance, and consume so much electricity it would probably render the service cost prohibitive.

Freight trains can weigh up to 17,000 tons. There is a lot of momentum behind a 17,000 ton object moving 200 mph (momentum = mass * velocity). Good luck finding breaks that will stop that. Also, you would then have to start adding switching yards, freight support operations, hazardous cargo concerns, oversized railcars (remember, it is getting power from overhead lines), terrorism, etc.

You know, somebody needs to get on the horn with Washington D.C. and tell them what High Speed rail is. They don't seem to know.

Looking at the latest plan (and price tag) from Washington I have lost what little hope I had left.

I'd be much more excited if the government would spend that money on commuter rail. At least in cities like ours, it is a much more glaring need than high speed rail and the price tag would certainly be lower.

Just a thought, but in terms of human travel, that may be fairly easy to understand but wouldn't commercial use (packages, freight, etc) be a significant use of HSR? If so, it seems understanding those routes in those terms would go a long way in understanding the viability. When I think of a Chicago to Dallas/Houston HSR, I think of the money companies may be able to save by not having to use the airlines or heavy trucks.

Part of me has always wanted HSR between every major metro but I want it mostly for improving quality of products and reducing the massive negative impact of the tens of billions of miles traveled by semi trucks.

Cargo should be a significant user of HSR, but like interstates the HSR routes should have some sort of minimum standards for what the trains are operational capable of and loads they can carry.

The cargo on HSR is more along the lines of the airline cargo, much smaller, time critical packages or mail for the most part. The old 5:50 am TWA flight from OKC-StL was a mail flight.

In related news, Florida governor Rick Scott just turned down the HSR link between Tampa and Orlando. Good for him. Of all the places in Florida to build it Orlando to Tampa is among the worst. The time saved over driving is measured in minutes and by the time you drive to downtown Tampa, park your car, buy tickets, and wait for the train - you could already be in Orlando. It only takes an hour to drive it. Plus you have no way to get around on either end of the trip so you would have to rent a car anyhow. This is the problem with HSR in America. Until more cities get local rail it just isn't going to work. Miami to Tampa would be a better route but cost 5X as much.

http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/02/16/2069844_p2/florida-gov-rick-scott-rejects.html#disqus_thread

http://www.sncfhighspeedrail.com/ - - the builders and operators of the TGV and regional rail in France working in the United States.

I have been reading about the European HSR systems the last couple of days. It seems to me that if we can send people into space, surely we can build and operate a viable HSR system in the United States. It makes more sense for regional travel than regional air with multiple flights first to a hub and then to your destination. Of course there will be obstacles to overcome, but I believe the benefits far outweigh any potential problems.

The problem with a national HSR network in the US is the distance it has to cover. People say it should be easy to connect OKC with Kansas City and Dallas. That is 500 miles. 500 miles from Paris covers all of Western Europe. London to Paris is closer then OKC to Dallas. The best bet for HSR in the US is to start with regional HSR networks but they are super expensive. Also, we can't send people into space anymore. I would like to see the State start their own rail network.

https://sites.google.com/site/okcrail/

I agree JTF - HSR will be successful in the US if it is planned as several regional systems. It is the only thing that makes sense geographically and economically.

The link to the OKC Rail map is exactly the type of feeder system we need to restore in the US. The slower state run system would feed the HSR hub at OKC (and Tulsa?) wth HSR connecting to Dallas, KC, St. Louis, Denver, etc

BTW - we can still send people to space, we just pay the Russians to get them there!

London to Paris is closer then OKC to Dallas. https://sites.google.com/site/okcrail/

You make good points but this statement is marginal. Flying distance from London to Paris is about 213 miles. Rail distance is about 282 miles. OKC to Dallas driving distance is just over 200 miles, Amtrak is 206 miles to Fort Worth, and flying distance is 190 miles.

The link to the OKC Rail map is exactly the type of feeder system we need to restore in the US. The slower state run system would feed the HSR hub at OKC (and Tulsa?) wth HSR connecting to Dallas, KC, St. Louis, Denver, etc

The system I linked to uses express trains to connect the major hubs. They are not HSR, they are non-stop trains traveling at 95 mph. An HSR route across Oklahoma would have to be on elevated tracks the whole way. There are just too many hills and roads. If the tracks tried to follow the terrain people would be getting sea sick. At 180 mph you would be covering 3 miles a minute or 1 mile every 20 seconds.

The system I linked to uses express trains to connect the major hubs. They are not HSR, they are non-stop trains traveling at 95 mph. An HSR route across Oklahoma would have to be on elevated tracks the whole way. There are just too many hills and roads. If the tracks tried to follow the terrain people would be getting sea sick. At 180 mph you would be covering 3 miles a minute or 1 mile every 20 seconds.

They are not going to elevate the tracks the whole way, small segments where necessary, but it ridiculously expensive and degrades much faster; the main path will be graded to not exceed some angle probably less than 3 degrees and have bridges over for major roads. Did you think they missed much flatter paths within a mile of routes 66 and 77 that were luckily noticed when it was time to build i40, i44 and i35.

They are not going to elevate the tracks the whole way, small segments where necessary, but it ridiculously expensive and degrades much faster; the main path will be graded to not exceed some angle probably less than 3 degrees and have bridges over for major roads. Did you think they missed much flatter paths within a mile of routes 66 and 77 that were luckily noticed when it was time to build i40, i44 and i35.

Either way - it is going to be a major engineering feat and a lot more expensive than just laying some rails on the ground. Land acquistion alone will be huge.

The system I linked to uses express trains to connect the major hubs. They are not HSR, they are non-stop trains traveling at 95 mph. An HSR route across Oklahoma would have to be on elevated tracks the whole way. There are just too many hills and roads. If the tracks tried to follow the terrain people would be getting sea sick. At 180 mph you would be covering 3 miles a minute or 1 mile every 20 seconds.

I realize that. One of the primary barriers presently is the Federal Railroad Administration requirements for rail vehicles. Current regulations preclude light diesel units from running on the system we have. The feeder system running conventional, modern DMU's such as these ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siemens_Desiro ) would mesh very well with a regional HSR network. I have to believe that someone is pushing the FRA to modify the regulations governing DMU's.

These DMUs are rail legal:

http://www.usrailcar.com/index.php

Do they offer the efficiencies of the lighter DMU's? The lighter DMU's fuel efficiency would be one reason they may be preferred on most systems worldwide.

The cargo on HSR is more along the lines of the airline cargo, much smaller, time critical packages or mail for the most part. The old 5:50 am TWA flight from OKC-StL was a mail flight.

Wonder if we might ever see a FedEx or UPS HSR system??? Could start with domestic regional small package and passenger - may even put the regional air carriers out of business.....in time.

I may be totally wrong but I think I read somewhere there are high speed rails that use magnets and not diesel engines.

I may be totally wrong but I think I read somewhere there are high speed rails that use magnets and not diesel engines.

Most HSR presently use electric power from overhead lines. There are magnetic levitation vehicles in development in Europe, Asia, and the US. I think the first mag-lev line is being built in Shanghai from the airport to their city center.

it;s already built and up and running. I will be using it in 3 weeks. Shanghai has two airports, the Maglev runs from Pudong International Airport (which also has a MUCH slower subway line also running the route with stops - Maglev is nonstop).

SH Maglev doesn't go to the city center, but it does go to a subway stop a few stops outside of the Luzaijui CBD in New Pudong (think SH World Financial Center, Jin Mao Tower, Oriental Pearl Tower area). The main City Center is actually across the river, in PuXi (bund). I suppose there must have been a reason they didn't make it go all of the way. ...

Even Mag-lev uses electricity, as the magnets used are electro-magnets. I don't know of any HSR that uses diesel engines.

IfzvrFMTpIo

But if you want to go faster try this

sE4A0nPjyqQ

That is true JTF. At one time, there was a gas turbine powered TGV I think but otherwise HSR has always been powered from overhead electric cables.

Good Op Ed on Bloomberg.com - I wonder if we will ever see good policy overcome "good" politics at any level of government.




http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-12-19/riding-high-speed-rail-to-a-u-s-recovery-john-rosenthal.html (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-12-19/riding-high-speed-rail-to-a-u-s-recovery-john-rosenthal.html)

Good Op Ed on Bloomberg.com - I wonder if we will ever see good policy overcome "good" politics at any level of government.

No we won't. Washington has become paralyzed and ineffective. If regional intercity rail is going to happen the states will have to do it by themselves.

So when do we get one of these in OKC? I hear it's going to Dallas/Ft.Worth then on to Tulsa the other way with connections to KC & STL.