The $8 billion devoted to high-speed rail in the stimulus package will result in a huge expansion of high-speed trains connecting cities throughout the country. In addition, President Obama is likely to increase funding for high-speed rail in his upcoming budget. The Federal Railroad Administration currently has a map designating high-speed rail cooridor designations. I've read where this is likely where the high-speed train routes will be. Note that it would connect Tulsa, Oklahoma City, Dallas, Austin and San Antonio. Let's try not to make this thread political. I just think it would be great if I could hop on a train here and visit my relatives in San Antonio.

http://www.fra.dot.gov/ResourceImages/Oct18FRAmap.jpg

link (http://www.fra.dot.gov/us/content/203)

I think the San Antonio to Tulsa route has been designated as priority for a high-speed upgrade for some time, pending funding. I'll try to find the evidence for that, but if anyone around here knows anything about that it would be helpful.

Too bad it's not linked to KC or St. Louis.

or Dallas to Houston. Have many friends down there. Ditto on the Link to KC. because that would open up many destinations.

You can thank Southwest Airlines for a lot of missing connections in the Midwest and Plains. They lobbied hard to make sure their half-hourly service was going to be impacted by a method of transportation that could be cheaper, and more useful than theirs.

I would love to have South Central and the Chicago networks connected. Would probably use it quite a bit.

Too bad it's not linked to KC or St. Louis.

Isn't the Kansas Dept. of transportation already working on something that would link KC and OKC, plus a lot of other towns in Oklahoma?

Agreed, if it was linked to KC and St. Louis and then Cleveland was linked to Buffalo and/or Albany, and if Nashville was in there somewhere, you'd have the whole eastern half of the United States pretty much covered.

Isn't the Kansas Dept. of transportation already working on something that would link KC and OKC, plus a lot of other towns in Oklahoma?

Amtrak, but not high speed rail like this is intended to be

I just think it would be great if I could hop on a train here and visit my relatives in San Antonio.



you can.

i rode the amtrak from san antonio to the norman stop, took nearly all day, but its there.

thats the problem with amtrak. a) they share thier lines with union pacific and UP has the right of way. That's why the train will randomly stop in the middle of nowhere. and b) they can only go so fast on those lines. I think top speed in Texas is 55mph if I'm not mistaken, which would take all day.

Wow. Ones things for sure, based on the map alone. This would be one heck of a jump-start for high-speed rail in the U.S., you know? Besides the upcoming recovery.org is there a site for this project? Or at least one or some that track the status?

My understanding is that the South Central High Speed Corridor has been planned for at least by 2004 but in concept by as early as 1993:


The FRA and the Federal Highway Administration jointly manage the Section 1103(c) grade crossing hazard elimination program in designated high-speed corridors. $1.565 million has been invested in reducing grade crossing hazards in the South Central Corridor since the program's beginning in 1993. Details on the grade crossing inventory in this corridor can be found HERE (http://www.fra.dot.gov/downloads/RRDev/grade_crossing_inv_southcentral.pdf).
This is from FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION : PASSENGER RAIL (http://www.fra.dot.gov/us/content/647)

The money included in the stimulus plan is not nearly enough to actually build the rail lines... the funds will be used to study the possibilities and provide seed funds for hopefully starting a few of the lines. California's own plan is estimated at $40 billion... I really want this to happen, but I also don't think we should get our hopes up yet.

The money included in the stimulus plan is not nearly enough to actually build the rail lines... the funds will be used to study the possibilities and provide seed funds for hopefully starting a few of the lines. California's own plan is estimated at $40 billion... I really want this to happen, but I also don't think we should get our hopes up yet.

I dunno about that. Check out this Politico article (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0209/18924.html) about how "obama plots huge railroad expansion." Obama wants $1 billion more each year for the next five years for high-speed rail. That would bring the total spent on highspeed rail to $15 billion.

Maybe we could have an el-train that connects Norman, edmond, OKC and possibly tulsa that is powered by wind turbines.

Maybe we could have an el-train that connects Norman, edmond, OKC and possibly tulsa that is powered by wind turbines.

LOL Yeah, if so this would definitely be the zone to be in to catch the most wind.

You can thank Southwest Airlines for a lot of missing connections in the Midwest and Plains. They lobbied hard to make sure their half-hourly service was going to be impacted by a method of transportation that could be cheaper, and more useful than theirs.

I would love to have South Central and the Chicago networks connected. Would probably use it quite a bit.
Southwest along with the other Texas based airlines, (American & Continental) had the Texas Triangle TGV (http://www.trainweb.org/tgvpages/texastgv.html) killed off in the early 90's.

Yeah...AA and CO raised a stink, Southwest was the loudest voice since it was at the heart of their company. But yes, you are right. :)

I would love for high speed rail to really become an option here. I am pretty jealous of places in Europe and Asia with their high speed rail and pretty luxurious offerings. Definitely much better than the cattle car treatment we get in the air now.

This is a very encouraging development. I'm just glad OKC is linked and that we -- and Tulsa -- weren't overlooked.

> weren't overlooked.

I's say we were overlooked, or at best looked upon as merely the unwelcome stepchild.
To not connect either: Tulsa to KC, or Houston to DFW (or even SA) seems lacking in logic.

I made some changes to the map adding some connections I thought made sense. I mean seriously, if we have Meridian, MS and Texarkana, TX....shouldn't we have Memphis and Nashville??

http://www.geocities.com/bombermwc/Oct18FRAmap.jpg

I am sure that this is just the beginning or a phase one type of plan.

Kansas City, Houston, Phoenix, Las Vegas, Denver, these cities will have multiple rail lines eventially as we all will.

It is good to start somewhere, even if this is twenty years out.

Sacramento to Eugene- that's a LOOOOOOONG, EXPENSIVE connection that will take a long time to travel. People will fly instead.

Tulsa > KC: what's the point? Not enough traffic from OKC/TUL to KC to justify it, and people further south would likely fly that.

Little Rock > Char: why?

Tulsa > Little Rock: I like this connection if there's something east of Little Rock to connect to, but there isn't I don't think the traffic between Tul and LR would justify this connection

Austin/SanAn > Houston: seems like a no-brainer...can't believe that's not proposed.

Jacksonville > Orlando: all the rails are right there anyway, it's a short connection to link in Tampa and Miami, and you'd think the Jacksonville>Orlando traffic would justify the route. I like this connection a lot.

I agree with most of your 'additions' with a few exceptions. I think a Dallas - Houston link would need to be made. I think the Tulsa - Little Rock connection is a little overkill. The link between Nashville and Birmingham (connecting through Huntsville) should be moved east. It should instead be a link between Nashville and Atlanta connecting through Chattanooga. Finally, I think there needs to be a link between Pittsburgh and either Cleveland (preferred) or Columbus.

kevinpate,

I think the point was made that other lines were not included due to industry pressure from airlines. I'm not sure. Either way, there are many states and cities that aren't in these plans, but we are. In my view, that is a positive development.

Why Dallas and Houston aren't linked, two of the biggest cities in the nation, is beyond me. I would use a OKC-Tulsa as well as OKC-Dallas-Houston, and OKC-Dallas-Austin-San Antonio. It would be cool to be linked to Denver via HSR but it may be too far away.

Sacramento to Eugene- that's a LOOOOOOONG, EXPENSIVE connection that will take a long time to travel. People will fly instead.

Tulsa > KC: what's the point? Not enough traffic from OKC/TUL to KC to justify it, and people further south would likely fly that.

Little Rock > Char: why?

Tulsa > Little Rock: I like this connection if there's something east of Little Rock to connect to, but there isn't I don't think the traffic between Tul and LR would justify this connection

Austin/SanAn > Houston: seems like a no-brainer...can't believe that's not proposed.

Jacksonville > Orlando: all the rails are right there anyway, it's a short connection to link in Tampa and Miami, and you'd think the Jacksonville>Orlando traffic would justify the route. I like this connection a lot.

Think bigger.

The Sac/Eug route would connect San Diego to Seattle.
Tulsa/KC would connect DFW to Chicago
Little Rock/Char would connect DFW with the east coast

Totaly agree with the others. Sad theres no crosscountry route. Why is there no mention of a NYC to LA rail via Chicago/STL/KC/OKC then west following 66 or south to Dallas then west?

Think bigger.

The Sac/Eug route would connect San Diego to Seattle.
Tulsa/KC would connect DFW to Chicago
Little Rock/Char would connect DFW with the east coast

Totaly agree with the others. Sad theres no crosscountry route. Why is there no mention of a NYC to LA rail via Chicago/STL/KC/OKC then west following 66 or south to Dallas then west?

Yeah, I understand what the point was, but the practical standapoint is: Commercial travelers will FLY from San Diego to Seattle, from DAL to CHI, and from DFW to the east coast. Hard to justify building these lines for the handful of passengers that will take the train from San Di-freaking-ego all the heck way up to Seattle.

Wouldn't also be smart to at least connect Dallas to Phoenix, to LA, and/or,
Chicago to Denver, to Las Vegas, to LA.

They should really connect the East and West Coasts some where.

I think one step at a time. Get people interested in wanting to take rail transportation again, and then grow from there. Unfortunately the travel priorities aren't the same here as they are in other countries with high ridership. Once the network is there, and people have a viable option to choose from, we'll probably see a good move from Air & Car to Rail - but the service/network needs to be deployed first.

Yeah, what venture said. It's important for everyone to remember that this map is not the grand master plan start to finish. Keep in mind that this is simply baby step #1 and it is quite possible that USDOT has a stack of additional maps, in which each and every one add more and more lines.

Clearly, by looking at this map, each region is getting a small piece of the pie, versus sending all of the taxpayers money to one area at once. I think that's a good change.

Hard to justify building these lines for the handful of passengers that will take the train from San Di-freaking-ego all the heck way up to Seattle.

Problem with San Diego or just being sarcastic? Last I checked people in other countries use the rails all the time rather than fly. Airlines aren't always the most reliable source of transportation.

I'm just glad we're part of the theoretical Phase One.

Why Dallas and Houston aren't linked, two of the biggest cities in the nation, is beyond me.

Again, you don't see this link because Southwest Airlines and American Airlines lobbied against it. It's been mentioned in the thread like five times now.

Problem with San Diego or just being sarcastic? Last I checked people in other countries use the rails all the time rather than fly. Airlines aren't always the most reliable source of transportation.

...and you're on to a good point, westsidesooner. Air travel has become a headache not to mention rail should be considerably cheaper...if it could just move a little faster, right? I work for an airline and I fly too--and even flying for free is a pain in the a**! And I can switch carriers while en-route and see into the system to identify the best route to take and it still ain't great.

Bottom line is, unless you've just got to get there "right now", we need an alternative that is efficient. I'm sorry, but long-distance rail without a dedicated right-of-way is inefficient, and obviously a lot of the reason for slowdown. We can always have air travel, but we should have a great ground-based alternative.

You know, there are parallels between the problems of areas without mass transit (that have autos on roads only and no alternative to load-balance with) and the congestion of the nation's air travel system (of which there is no decent ground-based alternative). Just like our own local areas need a decent alternative to load-balance traffic, we need the same on a national level. Essentially, we have a national network, but it is an extreme bottleneck in that the trains can't zoom between nodes, you know?

Problem with San Diego or just being sarcastic? Last I checked people in other countries use the rails all the time rather than fly. Airlines aren't always the most reliable source of transportation.

Neither. That's just a long damned way. 1200 miles by car. Probably not much shorter by train to hit other cities on the way. People will fly that. Now if they're connected, they're connected and that's awesome. But I don't think they'll be connected for the purpose of travelers between San Diego and Seattle. They'll be connected for the more intermediate routes. The rail will not take the place of flying longer distances.

The rail will not take the place of flying longer distances.

Such a good point. I think some proponents of HSR in the U.S. forget that the rest of the world's HSR programs cover much shorter distances overall... the map we've created above is fantastic for the short-haul routes. Creating a rail system to take care of short-haul and then formatting the air system to take care of long-haul is, in my opinion, the best way to set a national transportation system. Something that would need to be done, however, is make sure that these new HSR systems have solid, easy connections to airports to allow for quick transfer. Most of Europe's systems have sometime along those lines. Amtrak itself would be better off right now if those types of connections existed in more places.

Such a good point. I think some proponents of HSR in the U.S. forget that the rest of the world's HSR programs cover much shorter distances overall... the map we've created above is fantastic for the short-haul routes. Creating a rail system to take care of short-haul and then formatting the air system to take care of long-haul is, in my opinion, the best way to set a national transportation system. Something that would need to be done, however, is make sure that these new HSR systems have solid, easy connections to airports to allow for quick transfer. Most of Europe's systems have sometime along those lines. Amtrak itself would be better off right now if those types of connections existed in more places.

Exactly. I'd take a high speed train from OKC to KC, DFW, Austin, maybe STL and HOU.

I'd fly to DEN, NOLA, CHI, NASH.

I would love for high speed rail to really become an option here. I am pretty jealous of places in Europe and Asia with their high speed rail and pretty luxurious offerings. Definitely much better than the cattle car treatment we get in the air now.

I couldn't agree more. I've traveled lots in Europe by train, high-speed and snail rail. There is really nothing like it, especially high speed. Comfortable, convenient, and a heck of a lot less hassle than air travel. Of course, our country, I'm sure would find a way to make it just as a hassle.

Intermodal transit networks are definitely key to making it work. Only a few airports in the US have their rail and bus services leave from the same point. If HSR comes to OKC, that is definitely something we should look into here. Now exactly where to put it , would be the only thing. Having the terminal in the middle of the field (for the most part) would probably require an underground station or a station on the east side connected by a people mover.

Intermodal transit networks are definitely key to making it work. Only a few airports in the US have their rail and bus services leave from the same point. If HSR comes to OKC, that is definitely something we should look into here. Now exactly where to put it , would be the only thing. Having the terminal in the middle of the field (for the most part) would probably require an underground station or a station on the east side connected by a people mover.

Would it really matter as long as the airport had a nice, high-speed link to the future all-in-one transit hub in OKC? My thinking has always been that the airport needs to have a quick-link to the main intermodal station just as downtown would have to have a similar link, both for business, workers, conventions, etc...

Seems like a no brainer to have whatever type HSR system we eventually build to have links/connecting lines through/to major airports. Great link about HSR's on skyscrapercity Turkey Railway Development News & Photos - SkyscraperCity (http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=718354)

This map is not accurate. I spoke with a gentleman that is working for Siemens and is working on the high-speed rail from Vegas to L.A. He said this money will be going towards that as well. He is actually already working on that project.

That said, if that major connection is not listed then I imagine others arent as well. Lets just hope there arent connections that are listed but shouldn't be (OKC to Dallas).

I think that map pertains to existing routes to be upgraded, LA to LV might be a new route and why it is left off the map. Just a thought.

Yup, the map says "2005" so it clearly would not be showing us all the plans that were thrown in for the stimulus. Also, in 2005 there wasn't any extra funding for any mass transit, so their conservative "starter map" would still have been viewed as pretty aggressive. And even 6 months ago, there wasn't necessarily an indication that we would all of a sudden have a green light on the issue. I'm sure they will update the maps, but their first priority was to get the info into the stimulus proposal.

Would it really matter as long as the airport had a nice, high-speed link to the future all-in-one transit hub in OKC? My thinking has always been that the airport needs to have a quick-link to the main intermodal station just as downtown would have to have a similar link, both for business, workers, conventions, etc...

You can't really get too high speed on an intra-city network. I would rather have an intermodal facility in the true sense. Connect rail/air/bus together in one facility. It would greatly depend on scheduling, but you could easily find a way to allow connections between the various modes of travel. Hence the name.

You can't really get too high speed on an intra-city network. I would rather have an intermodal facility in the true sense. Connect rail/air/bus together in one facility. It would greatly depend on scheduling, but you could easily find a way to allow connections between the various modes of travel. Hence the name.

I totally agree on having the different modes of transit connected together as closely as possible. The only problem comes with trying to put the facility in the middle of an airfield.

I totally agree on having the different modes of transit connected together as closely as possible. The only problem comes with trying to put the facility in the middle of an airfield.

I don't think it would be a problem out at Will Rogers. There is plenty of open (available?) land that could be effectively linked to the terminal. I think this could be done here. The only potential problem I see is WRA is pretty far from the most likely right of way for a north-south high speed rail line - but since it cannot share the existing track, even that may not be too large an issue.

In a recent letter to the editor in Shawnee's News Star, James Townsend, a former leader in the State House of Representatives and a former Corporation Commissioner, explains how high-speed rail between OKC & Tulsa is possible.
===
SHAWNEE, Okla. —


The State of Oklahoma owns the rail line between Oklahoma City and Tulsa, The United States Department of Transportation has designated the rail line to be a part of their high-speed rail corridor designations. The distance from Oklahoma City to Tulsa is approximately 90 miles.
The administration’s Stimulus plan presents the Oklahoma Department of Transportation the opportunity for a golden parachute for Oklahoma in the form of high-speed rail service between Oklahoma City and Tulsa.
Oklahoma has completed a study for high-speed rail passenger service between Oklahoma City, and Tulsa. Oklahoma owns the railroad. The 90 miles of railroad between Oklahoma’s two major areas of population would become a showplace for America’s concept of Transportation for the 21st Century. With a plan from ODOT we could be shovel ready and raring to go!
James B. Townsend,
--
link (http://www.news-star.com/archive/x1237127293/A-golden-parachute)

In a recent letter to the editor in Shawnee's News Star, James Townsend, a former leader in the State House of Representatives and a former Corporation Commissioner, explains how high-speed rail between OKC & Tulsa is possible.
===
SHAWNEE, Okla. —


The State of Oklahoma owns the rail line between Oklahoma City and Tulsa, The United States Department of Transportation has designated the rail line to be a part of their high-speed rail corridor designations. The distance from Oklahoma City to Tulsa is approximately 90 miles.
The administration’s Stimulus plan presents the Oklahoma Department of Transportation the opportunity for a golden parachute for Oklahoma in the form of high-speed rail service between Oklahoma City and Tulsa.
Oklahoma has completed a study for high-speed rail passenger service between Oklahoma City, and Tulsa. Oklahoma owns the railroad. The 90 miles of railroad between Oklahoma’s two major areas of population would become a showplace for America’s concept of Transportation for the 21st Century. With a plan from ODOT we could be shovel ready and raring to go!
James B. Townsend,
--
link (http://www.news-star.com/archive/x1237127293/A-golden-parachute)


Ok..here's the deal as I understand it. The type of tracks that exist between tulsa and oklahoma cannot support true high speed rail. Even if a high speed train was offered due to the limitations of the tracks top speeds of no greater than an average of 62 MPH could be achieved. (Same thing the Acella (sp?) Express in NE faces...the train is capable of 150 but tracks limit its speed.) In order to have true high speed rail, you must have elevated tracks which cost big time dollars. In texas, a coalition of cities and businesses (Texas High Speed Rail and Transportation Corporation) are proposing a high speed rail line called the Texas -T Bone connecting DFW airport with waco, temple, austin, and San Antonio, crossed by a leg from Killeen to Houston. The 440 mile system will allow trains to travel at nearly 200 MPH and would cost between 11 and 22 BILLION. Supposedly American and Continental are members of this coalition in Texas and Southwest (who killed a similiar proposal in the mid 1990's) is staying neutral. The coalition is proposing 100M of the stimulus funds be allocated to a feasibility study.

If the figures are accurate then that means (on the low side) 25 MM per mile...in our case that would cost 2.25 BILLION for high speed rail to Tulsa.

I don't think anyone said High Speed Rail would be cheap, but it would definitely help for business travelers that need to get somewhere fast (where there is little air service or they want to avoid it). Plus I would imagine it would be nice to have when oil spikes again and air fares for nuts.

If the figures are accurate then that means (on the low side) 25 MM per mile...in our case that would cost 2.25 BILLION for high speed rail to Tulsa.

It'd be worth every penny! I'm sure the Oklahoma Turnpike Authority would hate it, though...

Running it along the the Turnpike ROW would make 100+ mph feasable.

I don't like the idea of federally funded railroads. If it can't work on it's own
it can't work.

I don't like the idea of federally funded railroads. If it can't work on it's own
it can't work.

Okay. So no more federally funded roads. Oh, no more federally funded air transport system (ATC, Airports, etc). So I guess that only leaves a few seaports.

Ok..here's the deal as I understand it. The type of tracks that exist between tulsa and oklahoma cannot support true high speed rail.

This is true. While some existing ROW's themselves may or may not be re-usable, the rail will need to be replaced. This would be true even if it weren't high speed...I mean LOOK at the existing layout! It zigzags thru every nook and cranny from here to TUL. If stretched out straight, the existing line would probably be at least 1.5 times the actual distance. We need a more direct run from OKC-TUL with unrestricted ROW, etc...which leads us to......


Running it along the the Turnpike ROW would make 100+ mph feasable.

WHOA! Shhhh!!!!! We can't have ideas like that floating around...might lead to some form of efficiency or, heaven forbid, cost savings!

Clearly utilizing the turnpike's ROW (or at least some of it) would be good. It is a pretty straight run, too.


Okay. So no more federally funded roads. Oh, no more federally funded air transport system (ATC, Airports, etc). So I guess that only leaves a few seaports.

Amen to that! Why don't we quit bailing out the roads!!!!

We could always convert all of the roads into toll roads, that way each would have to survive on their own. Seems that would satisfy the poster's request to do away with all the government funding. Then it would all be self-sufficient. Those who took car would have to pay their way and those who took rail would pay their way.

We could always convert all of the roads into toll roads

LOL. People hate those, too. People just hate a lot of stuff. Maybe we should go back to horses and buggies. That would please the natives. No tax dollars necessary. No guvmint fundin'.

LOL. People hate those, too. People just hate a lot of stuff. Maybe we should go back to horses and buggies. That would please the natives. No tax dollars necessary. No guvmint fundin'.

Yeah but then everyone wants a federal hay tax credit and we start having to pay government pooper scoopers :-D

Ok..here's the deal as I understand it. The type of tracks that exist between tulsa and oklahoma cannot support true high speed rail. Even if a high speed train was offered due to the limitations of the tracks top speeds of no greater than an average of 62 MPH could be achieved. (Same thing the Acella (sp?) Express in NE faces...the train is capable of 150 but tracks limit its speed.) In order to have true high speed rail, you must have elevated tracks which cost big time dollars. In texas, a coalition of cities and businesses (Texas High Speed Rail and Transportation Corporation) are proposing a high speed rail line called the Texas -T Bone connecting DFW airport with waco, temple, austin, and San Antonio, crossed by a leg from Killeen to Houston. The 440 mile system will allow trains to travel at nearly 200 MPH and would cost between 11 and 22 BILLION. Supposedly American and Continental are members of this coalition in Texas and Southwest (who killed a similiar proposal in the mid 1990's) is staying neutral. The coalition is proposing 100M of the stimulus funds be allocated to a feasibility study.

If the figures are accurate then that means (on the low side) 25 MM per mile...in our case that would cost 2.25 BILLION for high speed rail to Tulsa.

I appreciate your analysis, but where are you getting all of your information from? I admit I don't know a lot about the tracks and costs, but I do know that the Acela goes much faster than 62 mph. The wikipedia page for Acela says that it goes at 86 mph. If you are correct in saying that limitations of the existing tracks would limit the speed to the speed of Acela, then that wouldn't be so bad in my opinion.

I've been traveling quite a bit regionally and nationally, and my basic equation is this:

<400 Miles Drive my own vehicle
>400 Miles Take the plane

It doesn't make sense to me to take a train to Dallas or Tulsa, and then have to rent a car when I get there.