But with large population base that DFW has, I think it would benefit OKC more than it would DFW. OKC's impact on the Dallas economy would not make a dent in development. In respects to economic impact in the US, Dallas could be put right behind the big three of NYC, LA, and Chicago. The DFW is already the fastest growing metro area, and are years ahead of us and most other metro areas in development. If anything, we would see a bleed over of economic development here, as there are economic development activities that have yet to tap our market, that have been in the DFW for years.

I think you missed the point. The HSR allows further agglomeration into the biggest and fastest growing metro areas, such as DFW and Houston. Your hypothetical showed how: People could have jobs in Dallas and live in Oklahoma City (and that is likely the dominant route it would take, not vice versa). People would also take HSR to DFW airport for nonstop flights to a hundred destinations, enhancing the network benefits of DFW airport, diminishing the market for flights from Will Rogers. People in OKC would take HSR to Dallas for a day of shopping, a day in the Dallas or Fort Worth arts districts, diminishing the need and likelihood of better shopping and arts choices in OKC itself.

See, e.g.,
http://danbyles.co.uk/conservatives/content/why-i-am-opposed-hs2-regionally

I know it is a little off topic, but why doesn't the heartland flyer take advantage of the booming Winstar Casino and either add a stop in Thackerville with shuttle service to casino or offer shuttle service from the stops in Gainesville (~10 miles) or Ardmore (~30 miles).

Looking at the schedule you would get in around 11am and get picked up around 7. Could promote a golf and gambling day trip/weekend.

That's a pretty good idea. I could see that working well. Seriously.

But Oil Capital, people do that now, lol. Many people from the OKC metro drive down to Dallas for a weekend getaway for shopping, etc. This is nothing new, and it will continue to go on. But I do agree with you on the fact that HSR could increase this activity.

However, I think OKC can benefit just as much, there are already people moving here from Dallas, stating its too fast, too crowded, and OKC is a slower pace they like. You also have to remember we are talking 10-15 years from now before we see this actually coming to fruition. By then, the OKC population would be at least 700,000 and metro area 1.5M, by then I think OKC can pretty much hold its own economically even if some of our commerce is directed to DFW.

I just can't find a plausible reason how HSR can negatively effect OKC's economic viability being connected to one of the most strongest economic metro areas in the US.

People would also take HSR to DFW airport for nonstop flights to a hundred destinations, enhancing the network benefits of DFW airport, diminishing the market for flights from Will Rogers. [/URL]

Trust me, people are not going to take a 2 1/2 hour train trip to Dallas to take a nonstop flight when they can take a 45 minute flight from OKC to DFW to do the same thing.

Trust me, people are not going to take a 2 1/2 hour train trip to Dallas to take a nonstop flight when they can take a 45 minute flight from OKC to DFW to do the same thing.

You cannot be serious. There is so much wrong with your post, it's hard to know where to start.

(1) Flights from OKC to DFW are 1 hour flights, not 45 minutes.

(2) Plenty of people already drive to DFW to take nonstop flights. See, e.g., various threads decrying the low traffic at WRWA relative to the population of the metro area.

(3) Why would you imagine the HSR train trip would take 2 1/2 hours? Depending on whether there are any stops in between, it should be more like a 1 hour trip on HSR.

But Oil Capital, people do that now, lol. Many people from the OKC metro drive down to Dallas for a weekend getaway for shopping, etc. This is nothing new, and it will continue to go on. But I do agree with you on the fact that HSR could increase this activity.

However, I think OKC can benefit just as much, there are already people moving here from Dallas, stating its too fast, too crowded, and OKC is a slower pace they like. You also have to remember we are talking 10-15 years from now before we see this actually coming to fruition. By then, the OKC population would be at least 700,000 and metro area 1.5M, by then I think OKC can pretty much hold its own economically even if some of our commerce is directed to DFW.

I just can't find a plausible reason how HSR can negatively effect OKC's economic viability being connected to one of the most strongest economic metro areas in the US.

Yes, I am quite aware people already do that now. And HSR will make it that much easier for people to do it... Therefore, negative affect on OKC.

Dude, I have given you plausible reasons how HSR can negatively affect OKC and you have agreed to the plausibility of those reasons.

To be clear, I am not predicting doom and gloom for OKC if HSR is implemented. I think OKC has a bright future. But, we need to be cautious about what we wish for and be clear about possible unintended consequences.

If HSR to DFW is faster and more cost effective then what is wrong with that? We should keep a slower and more expensive WRWA for what reason - to say we have an airport?

As far as the OKC to Tulsa connection, ODOT did say at the meeting tonight that they were looking at the feasibility of using the state owned line or a line north of the turnpike. I don't know if that meant the Avard Sub on BNSF's route from Perry to Tulsa or a totally new straight shot alignment that has yet to fully be constructed.

You cannot be serious. There is so much wrong with your post, it's hard to know where to start.

(1) Flights from OKC to DFW are 1 hour flights, not 45 minutes.

(2) Plenty of people already drive to DFW to take nonstop flights. See, e.g., various threads decrying the low traffic at WRWA relative to the population of the metro area.

(3) Why would you imagine the HSR train trip would take 2 1/2 hours? Depending on whether there are any stops in between, it should be more like a 1 hour trip on HSR.

As someone who's been in the travel business for almost 25 years I don't need lectures about travel times. I know much more about it than you do.
In many cases the actual flying time from OKC to DFW is closer to 30 minutes. The schedule just puts in a buffer for taxi times to be safe. Also any HSR from OKC to Dallas won't be going direct to the DFW airport. It will go to a terminal which will require additional transportation to get to the airport. When a traveler arrives at the DFW airport they still have to go through security just like they do in OKC and it's often a longer ordeal there. I deal with flyers on a daily basis and almost none of them ever decide to depart from DFW instead of OKC (especially business travelers). Of course some do, but it's an overblown issue.

You might also reference the Paris to Lyon TGV route which is slight further than OKC to Dallas at 254 miles. It takes 2 hours 10 minutes.

If HSR to DFW is faster and more cost effective then what is wrong with that? We should keep a slower and more expensive WRWA for what reason - to say we have an airport?

Air service is a major factor in attracting businesses to a city. Cities with more nonstop service tend to be more attractive places to do business. It's important to maintain and grow as much air service as possible, not only for personal quality of life issues, but for business reasons also. Air service is a form of mass transportation, and mass transportation does create business opportunities.

As far as the OKC to Tulsa connection, ODOT did say at the meeting tonight that they were looking at the feasibility of using the state owned line or a line north of the turnpike. I don't know if that meant the Avard Sub on BNSF's route from Perry to Tulsa or a totally new straight shot alignment that has yet to fully be constructed.

I think my point ^^ was lost in translation due to the ongoing argument, so please...enjoy this valuable information from ODOT ;-)

As someone who's been in the travel business for almost 25 years I don't need lectures about travel times. I know much more about it than you do.
In many cases the actual flying time from OKC to DFW is closer to 30 minutes. The schedule just puts in a buffer for taxi times to be safe. Also any HSR from OKC to Dallas won't be going direct to the DFW airport. It will go to a terminal which will require additional transportation to get to the airport. When a traveler arrives at the DFW airport they still have to go through security just like they do in OKC and it's often a longer ordeal there. I deal with flyers on a daily basis and almost none of them ever decide to depart from DFW instead of OKC (especially business travelers). Of course some do, but it's an overblown issue.

You might also reference the Paris to Lyon TGV route which is slight further than OKC to Dallas at 254 miles. It takes 2 hours 10 minutes.

Congratulations on your career choice and longevity.

Allow me to clarify and correct some of your statements.

I am well aware that actual flight time is probably closer to 30 minutes. But actual flight time could not be less relevant. The scheduled time includes taxiing from the gate, etc. AND, the scheduled time does NOT even include taxiing at the arrival airport. I am also aware that people will have to go through security at DFW; that is why I did not mention time for going through security at WRWA.

FACT: If you are flying to DFW to connect to another flight, your have to plan on being on the plane for 1 hour + before you get to the DFW gates, plus you'll need to plan an extra 45 minutes to 1 hour at DFW between flights.

A post ago, you assured us that no one would take HSR to DFW rather than catch a flight from WRWA; now you admit that some already drive to DFW rather than fly from WRWA. Which is it, dude? If people are willing to drive 3+ hours, they will surely be even more willing to take a 1 1/2 hour ride on HSR.

Further, this completely ignores the people who currently fly from OKC to DFW/DAL, with DFW/DAL as their final destination. Then we are comparing a 2 1/2 journey by air (including security clearance time at WRWA) with a 1 1/2 hour (or less) journey by HSR. How can that not result in less air capacity between WRWA and both DFW and DAL? Less capacity may in part mean less flight frequency, which means less convenient connections, which at the margins will drive even more connecting traffic to HSR (and to the extent it doesn't result in lower frequency, it results in smaller aircraft, which drives another part of the market to HSR).

We simply do not know that there will not be an HSR stop at DFW airport. In fact, DFW Airport is one of the prime possible locations being discussed in DFW as either THE terminal stop for HSR or as one of 2 or 3 stops in the DFW area. See, e.g., http://www.star-telegram.com/2012/07/18/4109889/rail-line-for-dallas-fort-worth.html

I am happy to look at Paris-Lyon. OKC to DFW is 194 miles. Assuming the same rate of travel as on the TGV, that would take us from OKC to DFW in just over 1 1/2 hours (99 minutes). FWIW, I believe the Paris-Lyon route has two intervening stops. Not sure we'd have two intervening stops between OKC and DFW. Plus, what I've been reading lately is talking about 200 MPH trains. So the full travel time from OKC to DFW should be under 1 1/2 hours - depending on the number of stops, perhaps closer to 1 hour.

Congratulations on your career choice and longevity.

Allow me to clarify and correct some of your statements.

I am well aware that actual flight time is probably closer to 30 minutes. But actual flight time could not be less relevant. The scheduled time includes taxiing from the gate, etc. AND, the scheduled time does NOT even include taxiing at the arrival airport. I am also aware that people will have to go through security at DFW; that is why I did not mention time for going through security at WRWA.



Actually airlines schedule these times from Gate to Gate. So, once the pilot releases the parking brakes at the departure gate, the clock has started. The clock stops when the pilot sets his parking brake at the arrival gate. So that one hour includes taxiing at the arrival airport.

Actually airlines schedule these times from Gate to Gate. So, once the pilot releases the parking brakes at the departure gate, the clock has started. The clock stops when the pilot sets his parking brake at the arrival gate. So that one hour includes taxiing at the arrival airport.

Good catch. Nevertheless, that (the gate-to-gate time) is the only time that matters. The actual flight time is irrelevant.

I think agree with everything in the pro-HSR group but for fun I'll add one point for discussion: Security on the Amtrak (non-existent) will probably be nothing like HSR and more like actual TSA security. I just have my doubts that a 200mph train carrying passengers will slip by the opportunists at Homeland Security.

You can't fly a train into building. You can kill people on the train, but you don't need to even be on the train to do that.

Congratulations on your career choice and longevity.

Allow me to clarify and correct some of your statements.

I am well aware that actual flight time is probably closer to 30 minutes. But actual flight time could not be less relevant. The scheduled time includes taxiing from the gate, etc. AND, the scheduled time does NOT even include taxiing at the arrival airport. I am also aware that people will have to go through security at DFW; that is why I did not mention time for going through security at WRWA.

FACT: If you are flying to DFW to connect to another flight, your have to plan on being on the plane for 1 hour + before you get to the DFW gates, plus you'll need to plan an extra 45 minutes to 1 hour at DFW between flights.

A post ago, you assured us that no one would take HSR to DFW rather than catch a flight from WRWA; now you admit that some already drive to DFW rather than fly from WRWA. Which is it, dude? If people are willing to drive 3+ hours, they will surely be even more willing to take a 1 1/2 hour ride on HSR.

Further, this completely ignores the people who currently fly from OKC to DFW/DAL, with DFW/DAL as their final destination. Then we are comparing a 2 1/2 journey by air (including security clearance time at WRWA) with a 1 1/2 hour (or less) journey by HSR. How can that not result in less air capacity between WRWA and both DFW and DAL? Less capacity may in part mean less flight frequency, which means less convenient connections, which at the margins will drive even more connecting traffic to HSR (and to the extent it doesn't result in lower frequency, it results in smaller aircraft, which drives another part of the market to HSR).

We simply do not know that there will not be an HSR stop at DFW airport. In fact, DFW Airport is one of the prime possible locations being discussed in DFW as either THE terminal stop for HSR or as one of 2 or 3 stops in the DFW area. See, e.g., http://www.star-telegram.com/2012/07/18/4109889/rail-line-for-dallas-fort-worth.html

I am happy to look at Paris-Lyon. OKC to DFW is 194 miles. Assuming the same rate of travel as on the TGV, that would take us from OKC to DFW in just over 1 1/2 hours (99 minutes). FWIW, I believe the Paris-Lyon route has two intervening stops. Not sure we'd have two intervening stops between OKC and DFW. Plus, what I've been reading lately is talking about 200 MPH trains. So the full travel time from OKC to DFW should be under 1 1/2 hours - depending on the number of stops, perhaps closer to 1 hour.

Dude, as I said I deal with the public on a daily basis on these issues and I know what I'm talking about. The only reason anyone might considering traveling to DFW first and flying from there is to save a bunch of money and in most cases that is just a myth and people don't realize it. MOST people just won't take that time to go to DFW just because they can take a nonstop flight. If I at first hinted that nobody would do that and recanted, I apologize. There are always exceptions to any rule but I assure you your concerns are not justified.

And your point about having a connecting time in DFW of 45 minutes to an hour is of no concern. You're forgetting for a person checking in at DFW they also have to check in at least that far in advance if they have any luggage. They will have to spend at least as much time at the airport before a flight as anyone making a connection.

It sounds like from your article that leaders in both Dallas and Forth Worth are not keen on a rail stop at the airport so that seems very unlikely.

In the end, this just isn't going to affect OKC the way you think it might.

Maybe you need to be more concerned about your Tulsa airport.

http://newsok.com/oklahoma-citys-will-rogers-world-airport-reports-growth-in-july-tulsa-airport-sees-decline/article/3703290?custom_click=pod_headline_financial-news

Good catch. Nevertheless, that (the gate-to-gate time) is the only time that matters. The actual flight time is irrelevant.

And in most cases, when flying to DFW, the gate to gate is less than an hour. It mostly depends on how much traffic is on the ground at DFW and which runway you have to land at.

Keep in mind also, that as Sid suggested, there will likely be higher security requirements for HSR as opposed to Amtrak which could mean having to go through security twice if taking a train to Dallas to catch a flight.

I think agree with everything in the pro-HSR group but for fun I'll add one point for discussion: Security on the Amtrak (non-existent) will probably be nothing like HSR and more like actual TSA security. I just have my doubts that a 200mph train carrying passengers will slip by the opportunists at Homeland Security.

yep ... security on the eurostar (london to paris) is very much like airport security ... the rest of the UK train system is like Amtrak

I suspect that TSA will become involved in passenger rail security, but as we know too well at the airports, it will be "security theater," and serve only to delay and inconvenience passengers. As JTF wrote, you don't need to be IN the train to kill the passengers, but TSA will get involved simply because that's what they do. All Al Qaeda needs to do is park a car on a rail crossing.

And in most cases, when flying to DFW, the gate to gate is less than an hour. It mostly depends on how much traffic is on the ground at DFW and which runway you have to land at.

Keep in mind also, that as Sid suggested, there will likely be higher security requirements for HSR as opposed to Amtrak which could mean having to go through security twice if taking a train to Dallas to catch a flight.

It really doesn't matter that occasionally or even in most cases your actual gate to gate time is less than the full scheduled hour. When making your travel plans, you would be foolish in the extreme to assume anything less than the full scheduled time.

I think the Eurostar London-Paris route is the only one with airport-type security. I believe the others, including HSR in France, UK and elsewhere are still operating without security clearance at check-in. Simple walk-on, walk-off like Amtrak. Likewise, the higher-speed rail we currently have in this country (Acela) does not have any airport-style clearance procedures, even though it operates in the target-rich Boston-Washington corridor. All of this suggests that the airport style security procedures being imposed on our future HSR trains is perhaps relatively unlikely.

It is also possible that if HSR has airport level security imposed on it, then clearance on to HSR might obviate security clearance a the airport.

Dude, as I said I deal with the public on a daily basis on these issues and I know what I'm talking about. The only reason anyone might considering traveling to DFW first and flying from there is to save a bunch of money and in most cases that is just a myth and people don't realize it. MOST people just won't take that time to go to DFW just because they can take a nonstop flight. If I at first hinted that nobody would do that and recanted, I apologize. There are always exceptions to any rule but I assure you your concerns are not justified.

And your point about having a connecting time in DFW of 45 minutes to an hour is of no concern. You're forgetting for a person checking in at DFW they also have to check in at least that far in advance if they have any luggage. They will have to spend at least as much time at the airport before a flight as anyone making a connection.

It sounds like from your article that leaders in both Dallas and Forth Worth are not keen on a rail stop at the airport so that seems very unlikely.

In the end, this just isn't going to affect OKC the way you think it might.

Maybe you need to be more concerned about your Tulsa airport.

http://newsok.com/oklahoma-citys-will-rogers-world-airport-reports-growth-in-july-tulsa-airport-sees-decline/article/3703290?custom_click=pod_headline_financial-news

Again, congratulations on your many years of work as a travel agent.

(1) Saving money is not the only reason someone might choose to travel to DFW first and take their flight from there. Some people just do not want to deal with changing planes and the inherent risk of missing the connecting flight, especially when they are dragging their carry-on luggage and 3 kids behind them. At times, the choice is puddle-jumpers from OKC to DFW... some people just will not fly on puddle jumpers. There are as many reasons as there are people who do it. I am not one who would make that choice, but to pretend there are not plenty of people who do is just ignorant. There have been other posters in other threads who have noted that they regularly hear of people making the drive to DFW to take a flight. I have lived in and frequented Oklahoma City for 27 years and for that entire time, I have regularly heard people talk of driving to DFW to catch their flights. Further, it is hard to deny that such behavior will increase with HSR, especially if HSR goes to DFW airport.

(2) The hour between flights most certainly must be considered if you are calculating your trip time. I am not forgetting that a person checking at DFW has to be there at least 1 hour in advance. So does a person who checks in at Will Rogers. Those are equal for either trip. Only the flyer starting in OKC and connecting at DFW has to factor in the 1 hour connect time in addition to the check-in/security clearance time.

(3) Even if we assume,arguendo that the current leakage to DFW airport is de minimis and that HSR will not increase the leakage significantly, what about the air traffic that stops in the Dallas Fort Worth area? Surely you understand that HSR will eat into the number of people taking flights from OKC to Dallas-Fort Worth (with Dallas Fort Worth being the final destination). As I said in my earlier post, this can only result in a loss of air capacity between OKC and Dallas Fort Worth (both DAL and DFW). Do you disagree with that analysis? At least at the margins, that will cause less convenient connections and/or more small aircraft, which will lead to some additional number of people choosing to travel to Dallas Fort Worth to take their flights to other destinations. I have no idea how significant that number might be, but any loss is detrimental, especially for an airport that already pulls weigh below its metro area's weight.

(4) Is this what you were referring to when you said "It sounds like from your article that leaders in both Dallas and Forth Worth are not keen on a rail stop at the airport so that seems very unlikely"?

"Many Fort Worth-area elected leaders, like Fickes (Tarrant County Commissioner), would prefer that bullet trains come up the middle of the Metroplex along the Texas 360 corridor, with a direct connection to DFW Airport"

Or was this what you were referring to?

"But the Regional Transportation Council has already agreed on one important point: the area needs multiple high-speed rail stations -- and not just a single stop in downtown Dallas. This plan does endorse the three-station concept -- at a minimum, downtown Dallas, DFW Airport and downtown Fort Worth," said Tom Shelton, senior program manager at the council governments. "There's many different routes a private sector implementer could choose to do that."

Read more here: http://www.star-telegram.com/2012/07/18/4109889/rail-line-for-dallas-fort-worth.html#storylink=cpy

(5) I have no idea why you would refer to Tulsa as my airport. But, whatever... FWIW, I think Tulsa will be even more damaged by HSR than OKC. I think OKC is already benefiting from agglomeration effects that are in turn holding Tulsa back. HSR connecting Tulsa and OKC will be to OKC's benefit and Tulsa's detriment (relative to each other) in the same way that I see HSR connecting OKC to DFW being to OKC's detriment.

(6) Back to your suggestion that I look at the Paris-Lyon HSR service. I wanted to further clean up. You stated that it is 254 miles from Paris to Lyon, only "slightly further" than OKC to DFW. Using Google maps to obtain an apples-to-apples comparison, it is actually 282 miles from Paris to Lyon. It is 194 miles from OKC to DFW. (Not what most people would consider "slightly further"). Using the same rate of speed, that would make the OKC-DFW trip 89 minutes (and probably less, since there would probably not be two intervening stops).

For it to be politically viable..... high speed rail from OKC TO DFW would very likely require stops in Norman and Ardmore, ,,,,otherwise you can pretty much kiss high speed rail from OKC to DFW good bye.

For it to be politically viable..... high speed rail from OKC TO DFW would very likely require stops in Norman and Ardmore, ,,,,otherwise you can pretty much kiss high speed rail from OKC to DFW good bye.

all depends where the money comes from

all depends where the money comes from


People who are in the know tell me that this is what the major money wants... if we build HSR to DFW

For it to be politically viable..... high speed rail from OKC TO DFW would very likely require stops in Norman and Ardmore, ,,,,otherwise you can pretty much kiss high speed rail from OKC to DFW good bye.

This is where the need for a regional conventional system tying smaller towns to the HSR hub comes in. Get "conventional" rail moving at 80-90 mph consistently and feed those lines to a regional HSR hub and then the systems works. Stops in places like Norman and Ardmore would largely negate the advantages of HSR.

(6) Back to your suggestion that I look at the Paris-Lyon HSR service. I wanted to further clean up. You stated that it is 254 miles from Paris to Lyon, only "slightly further" than OKC to DFW. Using Google maps to obtain an apples-to-apples comparison, it is actually 282 miles from Paris to Lyon. It is 194 miles from OKC to DFW. (Not what most people would consider "slightly further"). Using the same rate of speed, that would make the OKC-DFW trip 89 minutes (and probably less, since there would probably not be two intervening stops).

I'm not going to waste my time trying to rehash all of your arguments because most hold no water in determining the success of the OKC airport. You like to use anecdodal evidence based on what you hear compared to situations that I deal with personally on an every day basis. I KNOW WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT. You may want to use more reliable sources for your rail maps though. The distance of the LGV route from Paris to Lyon is 409km which equates to 254 miles. It takes a slightly different route from normal trains to avoid tieups. The rail distance from OKC to Fort Worth (which would be basically identical to DFW) is 206 miles. Clean away. LOL

It is also possible that if HSR has airport level security imposed on it, then clearance on to HSR might obviate security clearance a the airport.

Have you ever flown into DFW on an international flight? Despite all of the intense security you go through prior to that flight after you go through immigration and customs you have to exit the secure area at DFW and go back through security before taking a connecting flight. Even if there was a rail terminal that won't happen. You're forgetting luggage considerations. The airlines wouldn't transfer luggage from a train direct to a plane unless they were involved in the original check in situation. That scenerio just won't fly (so to speak). LOL

For it to be politically viable..... high speed rail from OKC TO DFW would very likely require stops in Norman and Ardmore, ,,,,otherwise you can pretty much kiss high speed rail from OKC to DFW good bye.

I highly doubt it will stop in Norman and Ardmore, Ardmore is not that big and is already close to Dallas, so there will not be a demand for HSR to stop. Moreover, Norman residents will just drive to the OKC hub to catch the HSR.

I highly doubt it will stop in Norman and Ardmore, Ardmore is not that big and is already close to Dallas, so there will not be a demand for HSR to stop. Moreover, Norman residents will just drive to the OKC hub to catch the HSR.

or norman residents will take a train from norman to okc to catch the HSR

Given the time and costs in building HSR we are more likely to have commuter rail service to Norman before HSR would be built

Ideally, no one should ever drive to a train station. For mass transit to work best all trips should start and end with walking. I forget the official term but there is a very high tendency for people who start out in their car just to keep driving to their final destination, even if they fully intend not to.

Chapter 8 can say it better than I can.

http://www.cnu.org/sites/files/charter_book.pdf

Given the time and costs in building HSR we are more likely to have commuter rail service to Norman before HSR would be built

IDK, according to recent documents/articles, Texas wants their part implemented by 2020, only 8 years away, now for Oklahoma's part, who knows?

Have you ever flown into DFW on an international flight? Despite all of the intense security you go through prior to that flight after you go through immigration and customs you have to exit the secure area at DFW and go back through security before taking a connecting flight. Even if there was a rail terminal that won't happen. You're forgetting luggage considerations. The airlines wouldn't transfer luggage from a train direct to a plane unless they were involved in the original check in situation. That scenerio just won't fly (so to speak). LOL

You may be right. But the fact is, we don't know. What we do know pretty well from available evidence is that it is unlikely that there would be airport-type security imposed on HSR.

I'm not going to waste my time trying to rehash all of your arguments because most hold no water in determining the success of the OKC airport. You like to use anecdodal evidence based on what you hear compared to situations that I deal with personally on an every day basis. I KNOW WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT. You may want to use more reliable sources for your rail maps though. The distance of the LGV route from Paris to Lyon is 409km which equates to 254 miles. It takes a slightly different route from normal trains to avoid tieups. The rail distance from OKC to Fort Worth (which would be basically identical to DFW) is 206 miles. Clean away. LOL

LOL indeed. You keep telling us you know what you are talking about (in all capital letters, no less) and then proceed to demonstrate your cluelessness.

I recognize my discussion regarding connecting traffic relies on anecdotal evidence. A few points on that: (i) Your evidence is anecdotal as well. (ii) The relative absence of people driving to DFW Airport among your client base does nothing to demonstrate the absence of people driving to DFW Airport in the larger population. (iii) Enough anecdotes added together and eventually you have reality ;-) The reality is, some number of people currently choose to drive to DFW Airport rather than use WRWA. The number may not be significant, but it exists and it is a little preposterous to pretend that number won't grow upon the advent of a HSR connection.

More important, you continue to ignore the undeniable fact that HSR, by design, will bleed traffic from the airlines for trips from OKC where Dallas Fort Worth is the destination (and vice versa). Part of the promotion of HSR is to reduce airport congestion. (There is probably a reason Southwest Airlines fought tooth and nail against Texas high speed rail back in the 90s and has so far reserved judgment on the current HSR discussions.) The riders projected to ride on HSR are coming from somewhere. Of course some will switch from cars, but a whole bunch will switch from airplanes. See, e.g., the effects in the northeast corridor of Acela (higher-speed rail) and increased airport security post 9/11. (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/16/business/hassles-of-air-travel-push-passengers-to-amtrak.html?_r=2&pagewanted=all#comments) There is zero reason to expect a significantly different result here. The HSR will cut into OKC-Houston; OKC-Austin and OKC-San Antonio air traffic as well. Passengers with Houston, DFW, and San Antonio as their origin/destination constitute more than 10% of the total traffic at Will Rogers World Airport, so the numbers are certainly significant.

You can tell us again in all caps and bold-faced that you know what you are talking about, but you cannot avoid the simple fact that HSR will bleed traffic from airlines, especially for Dallas Fort Worth destination traffic (and vice versa). This is not an argument against HSR. I am not claiming WRWA will "fail". But it is a factor we should be aware of, acknowledge, and fully understand. Reduced traffic on those flights to DFW and DAL is going to cause reduced capacity at WRWA (relative to what otherwise would have been). That means a combination of reduced frequency and smaller aircraft.

Why would an HSR route to DFW Airport be "basically identical" to a slow speed train route to Ft. Worth? That is utter nonsense. They are 2 different destinations, one farther from OKC than the other. Further, any HSR built here is going to take the shortest, straightest route possible, just as the French TGV does. A direct route from downtown Oklahoma City to DFW Airport is 175 miles, 31% shorter than the Paris-Lyon TGV route. Again, that gives us a 90 minute train ride from OKC to DFW Airport, assuming the same speed of travel and 2 intervening stops. Thanks for suggesting we look at the Paris - Lyon route.

Maybe Dallas passengers will take HSR to OKC to avoid long security lines at DFW.

My guess is some of the airlines don't want a regional HSR serving DFW. That will kill a lot of their routes in the region and will allow other carriers to enter their market.

I highly doubt it will stop in Norman and Ardmore, Ardmore is not that big and is already close to Dallas, so there will not be a demand for HSR to stop. Moreover, Norman residents will just drive to the OKC hub to catch the HSR.

Don’t under-estimate the political forces and big money that want a Norman / OU & Ardmore stop.
They will have a powerful say in any OKC to DFW HSR project. They could easily kill the entire project if they really want too.

Ideally, no one should ever drive to a train station. For mass transit to work best all trips should start and end with walking. I forget the official term but there is a very high tendency for people who start out in their car just to keep driving to their final destination, even if they fully intend not to.

Chapter 8 can say it better than I can.

http://www.cnu.org/sites/files/charter_book.pdf

millions of people in the UK drive to the train station to start their trips each and every week

millions of people in the UK drive to the train station to start their trips each and every week

How come I never see parking for millions of cars at UK rail stations?

How come I never see parking for millions of cars at UK rail stations?

i guess your not looking .. most of the rural towns outside london have parking garages and good size parking lots near by

You should also see the parking lots for bikes. Talk about blow you away. I have never seen so many bikes in one place. But yeah, thousands of people ride their bike to the train station as well.

Biking is an advanced form of walking :)

Regarding HSR diminishing short, regional airline travel - so what? I actually think this would be a positive step for a few reasons. With the consolidation going on in the airline industry, fares are going to continue to escalate. I think it would be best to have HSR become the primary means of regional (150-500 miles) travel and airlines handle the longer distances with some limited short haul flights that would cost a premium for those who insist on flying. The airlines are cutting capacity as fast as they can merge and the laws of supply and demand are demonstrated in the fare increases. If anything, OKC might benefit by having more direct flights to the coasts if the airlines ever got away from the hub and spoke model.

Rail transport is far more energy efficient than flight and moving a large portion of passenger travel to fast regional and high speed rail will have long lasting positive effects on our energy consumption. All the "internal combustion engine only" people have got to recognize that as a nation, we must evolve our in our use of energy resources. I am a proponent of using natural gas power plants to generate the electricity for electrified HSR corridors. Natural gas is more plentiful than oil and we need to reduce our oil consumption for numerous, obvious reasons. No one wants to put oil and gas producers out of business, we simply need to be smarter with the resource they provide.

Regarding HSR diminishing short, regional airline travel - so what? I actually think this would be a positive step for a few reasons. With the consolidation going on in the airline industry, fares are going to continue to escalate. I think it would be best to have HSR become the primary means of regional (150-500 miles) travel and airlines handle the longer distances with some limited short haul flights that would cost a premium for those who insist on flying. The airlines are cutting capacity as fast as they can merge and the laws of supply and demand are demonstrated in the fare increases. If anything, OKC might benefit by having more direct flights to the coasts if the airlines ever got away from the hub and spoke model.

I agree, but I don't think Southwest and AA agree. They aren't interested in moving people efficiently. They are interested in moving their customers.

http://www.statesman.com/news/local/texas-awarded-high-speed-rail-grant-1001595.html


Overnight" actually occurred in the 1980s when the state created the Texas High-Speed Rail Authority . That authority, later disbanded, in 1991 chose a French-American consortium to build a $6.8 billion system linking Houston, Dallas, San Antonio and Austin with trains going up to 240 mph. By late 1992 the idea, facing rural opposition and Southwest Airlines, among other challenges, was dead.

A $6.8 billion system to connect the 4 largest cities in Texas. Even if it came in 4X that it would have been a bargin. Thanks Southwest!

I agree, but I don't think Southwest and AA agree. They aren't interested in moving people efficiently. They are interested in moving their customers.

http://www.statesman.com/news/local/texas-awarded-high-speed-rail-grant-1001595.html

A $6.8 billion system to connect the 4 largest cities in Texas. Even if it came in 4X that it would have been a bargin. Thanks Southwest!

"High-speed rail, you're talking gazillions of dollars," LeCody said. "I don't know where we're going to get that."

Anyone remember that budget surplus we had in the 90's? This is really beyond unfortunate - extremely short sighted. I wonder if we will ever learn......

I wouldn't mind Southwest running SW branded HSR - in fact, I can see the mid size airlines becoming HSR operators. Their long term operational costs would decrease and a large number of their customers simply change the vehicle they in which they are transported. With a little vision beyond "what we have always done" HSR could become a reality in the United States. But until the entrenched political and business "leaders" are moved out or retire, I am not at all confident HSR will ever get a legitimate analysis.

Meanwhile, back at the Waco ranch...

http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/pub_inv/committees/segment2/workshop/projects.pdf


The estimated cost for expanding I-35 from six to eight lanes is between $2.25 billion and $3.25 billion, including design and construction. This cost, in 2010 dollars, does not include the purchase of right of way.

There will be federal stimulus funds available for HSR implementation, that will cover some of the cost.

Anyone remember that budget surplus we had in the 90's? This is really beyond unfortunate - extremely short sighted. I wonder if we will ever learn......

A budget surplus is a bit of an illusion if you are planing to spend more than you take in anyway, granted it is better they limited themselves to only going in debt the amount they planed verses more than they planned those years.

LOL indeed. You keep telling us you know what you are talking about (in all capital letters, no less) and then proceed to demonstrate your cluelessness.

LOL, I'm so glad you enjoy my clueless comments on travel based on 25 years of everyday personal experience with what the OKC traveling public likes. I think I'll take my experience with the matters over what your hearsay tells you. I KNOW WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT. Your talking points are based solely on speculation.

LOL, I'm so glad you enjoy my clueless comments on travel based on 25 years of everyday personal experience with what the OKC traveling public likes. I think I'll take my experience with the matters over what your hearsay tells you. I KNOW WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT. Your talking points are based solely on speculation.

Hearsay and speculation like the data on higher-speed rail taking over the majority of travel in the northeast corridor? Is that what you are referring to? Be happy continuing to live in your little delusional bubble, dude.

You should also see the parking lots for bikes. Talk about blow you away. I have never seen so many bikes in one place. But yeah, thousands of people ride their bike to the train station as well.

Have you seen the bike lots (and multi-level parking ramps) in Amsterdam. Crazy.

Regarding HSR diminishing short, regional airline travel - so what? I actually think this would be a positive step for a few reasons. With the consolidation going on in the airline industry, fares are going to continue to escalate. I think it would be best to have HSR become the primary means of regional (150-500 miles) travel and airlines handle the longer distances with some limited short haul flights that would cost a premium for those who insist on flying. The airlines are cutting capacity as fast as they can merge and the laws of supply and demand are demonstrated in the fare increases. If anything, OKC might benefit by having more direct flights to the coasts if the airlines ever got away from the hub and spoke model.

Rail transport is far more energy efficient than flight and moving a large portion of passenger travel to fast regional and high speed rail will have long lasting positive effects on our energy consumption. All the "internal combustion engine only" people have got to recognize that as a nation, we must evolve our in our use of energy resources. I am a proponent of using natural gas power plants to generate the electricity for electrified HSR corridors. Natural gas is more plentiful than oil and we need to reduce our oil consumption for numerous, obvious reasons. No one wants to put oil and gas producers out of business, we simply need to be smarter with the resource they provide.

Fair enough. There is an argument to be made that HSR is better for regional travel. I have neither expressed or implied any judgment, one way or the other. I only brought up likely side-effects that should be recognized. (But part of the "so what" that we should also be cognizant of, is that especially for an airport such as WRWA, the loss of that regional traffic will cause a combination of reduced frequency and reduced aircraft sizes, which will also make long-distance travel connections just a bit less convenient.)

Hearsay and speculation like the data on higher-speed rail taking over the majority of travel in the northeast corridor? Is that what you are referring to? Be happy continuing to live in your little delusional bubble, dude.

You know exactly what I'm talking about, dude. And I will, indeed, continue to be happy in the knowledge that I know what I'm talking about because of years of personal, first hand experience.

Amtrak deserves U.S. investment - baltimoresun.com (http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/editorial/bs-ed-amtrak-20120919,0,7571191.story)

The problem with Amtrak is that it tries to create a nationwide rail network. Only two lines on Amtrak are profitable - Boston to DC and the Heartland Flyer. Amtrack should be broken up into regional systems and operated independtly from each other. No more trains from LA to Chicago. They should focus on geogrphic regions. For example: Jacksonville, Chattanooga, Charlotte, Birmingham, Greenville/Spartanburg, and Columbia should all be connected to an Amtrak hub in Atlanta. Likewise: Jacksonville, Tampa/SP Pete, Daytona, Miam, Ft Lauderdale, West Palm, and Naples should be connected to a hub in Orlando. From this example there is a common station in Jacksonville but there is no single train from Orlando to Atlanta. If you want to do that route you either wait in Jacksonville for a connecting train or fly.

If a region is profitable it shoudl benefit from the profit by getting more frequent service or better stations. If a region doesn't use it then they should risk losing it.

i have a very hard time believing that the heartland flyer is in any way "profitable " i would need to see a link for that

I understand where you are coming from, but there is data that shows eliminating long distance service would be highly detrimental. If all we have are separate regional systems, you greatly reduce the number of city pair combinations possible.

Why does Amtrak need to be profitable? We subsidize every form of transportation in the United States except for freight rail, yet no one demands we eliminate those subsidies.

Amtrak certainly is not perfect, but it could be much better if it wasn't constantly defending off ill advised grandstanding in Congress about a tiny portion of the federal budget. I doubt their annual budget would last a week in the Middle East securing our oil imports.

I think if anything, Amtrak evolves to a land / rail holding entity and leases access to private companies to run regional systems. Establish passenger priority rights of way parallel to existing freight ROW where possible, and build more efficient passenger exclusive ROW's where possible. Then increase their budget sufficiently to make the long distance operations more self sufficient but not necessarily show a profit. Yes it would be expensive, but what if we hadn't had to spend trillions in the Middle East since 1991 because of our dependence on the oil under the desert?

I understand where you are coming from, but there is data that shows eliminating long distance service would be highly detrimental. I all we have are separate regional systems, you greatly reduce the number of city pair combinations possible.

Why does Amtrak need to be profitable? We subsidize every form of transportation in the United States except for freight rail, yet no one demands we eliminate those subsidies.

Amtrak certainly is not perfect, but it could be much better if it wasn't constantly defending off ill advised grandstanding in Congress about a tiny portion of the federal budget. I doubt their annual budget would last a week in the Middle East securing our oil imports.

I think if anything, Amtrak evolves to a land / rail holding entity and leases access to private companies to run regional systems. Establish passenger priority rights of way parallel to existing freight ROW where possible, and build more efficient passenger exclusive ROW's where possible. Then increase their budget sufficiently to make the long distance operations more self sufficient but not necessarily show a profit. Yes it would be expensive, but what if we hadn't had to spend trillions in the Middle East since 1991 because of our dependence on the oil under the desert?

amtrak owns very little of the land/rail/track that they run on

I understand where you are coming from, but there is data that shows eliminating long distance service would be highly detrimental. I all we have are separate regional systems, you greatly reduce the number of city pair combinations possible.

It might reduce the City pair combos but it would greatly increase where people want to go at the time they want to go. I would love to take Amtrak to Orlando or Atlanta - but I can't. It take something like 32 hours to get from Jacksonville to Atlanta. The Orlando to Jax route is at very inconvenient times because the train was setup to be convenient for Miami and New York City. It doesn't work well for places in between. I looked into going to Charleston SC last weekend. Only 3.5 hours by train which isn't bad - but to come home I would have to be at the station at 4:30AM because that is when the train from Washington D.C. stops in Charleston.

amtrak owns very little of the land/rail/track that they run on

Yes I know. Hence the evolving part. They actually own the NE Corridor however.

It might reduce the City pair combos but it would greatly increase where people want to go at the time they want to go. I would love to take Amtrak to Orlando or Atlanta - but I can't. It take something like 32 hours to get from Jacksonville to Atlanta. The Orlando to Jax route is at very inconvenient times because the train was setup to be convenient for Miami and New York City. It doesn't work well for places in between. I looked into going to Charleston SC last weekend. Only 3.5 hours by train which isn't bad - but to come home I would have to be at the station at 4:30AM because that is when the train from Washington D.C. stops in Charleston.

That is one of Amtrak's primary challenges. They need to increased frequency to better serve those city combinations. Maybe regional systems with Amtrak connecting the hubs would be viable? That is closer to the model I was thinking about.

That is one of Amtrak's primary challenges. They need to increased frequency to better serve those city combinations. Maybe regional systems with Amtrak connecting the hubs would be viable? That is closer to the model I was thinking about.

You mean like this?

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

http://i1178.photobucket.com/albums/x378/KerryinJax/Oklahoma-Kansas-NebraskaRail2.jpg