I was at the streetcar conference in Fort Worth on Friday. Rick Cain, Larry Hopper, and myself went down there to represent the city. It was a very enjoyable event.

Do you "represent the city"?

I represent MAPS 3 transit and Regional Transit Dialogue as a citizen and campaigner.

Here in Amsterdam there has been an ongoing and successful effort for years to slowly wean the city from automobile traffic altogether while giving more space to pedestrians and bicycles.

Granted this approach may not work yet for OKC, but it is definitely a move in the right direction. What will be created is the motivation for the public and commuter to actually use the the new public transportation as it is simply easier in the long run.

Crucial to this however is indeed a well-integrated transportation center. The idea of expanding the Sante Fe station into a greater center, connecting streetcars, commuter rails, high speed rail, and (why not) canal traffic in a multilevel facility is a winning one. Again that is exactly what is happening here in Amsterdam. Busses, trains, streetcars, and yes, even boats use the Amsterdam Central Station.

And why not an Oklahoma City Central Station?!

The cherry on the icing would be to have the new convention center and hotel located directly at this facility. Talk about creating a new center! Goes without saying that larger parking facilities would be conveniently placed at commuter and streetcar locations further away from downtown, where land is cheaper. Lots of dreams, but now is definitely the time for OKC to think big.

I am quite proud of my old home town for taking this route, and am watching closely what develops.

Touche OKC!


It is my personal guess from what I have heard that the existing Cox Center will be around for a while. Also, it seems that the powers that be like the extra square feet that it would provide to a new convention district. It has also been attractive in simultaneous sporting events such as Big 12 basketball.

The brainstorming is great but it might be more targeted if we bantered about the area between 2nd (Deep Deuce) North, EK Gayord (West), Bricktown (East), and just South of the proposed new Boulevard (South).

At the existing BSF tracks the boulevard is slated to be depressed and go under such as Reno does now.

How do people feel about the new boulevard as it pertains to transit?

I think the boulevard, as far as cars are concerned, should be for low volume traffic. The focus of the boulevard should be the median, rather than the street. I, personally, would love to see the streetcar run along the boulevard, if it's a reasonable location for part of the line, ala the St. Charles streetcar. It could still be attractively landscaped, and have sidewalks for strolling, as I think it should basically be an extension of the Central Park/Myriad Gardens system downtown.

One interesting element of the boulevard as it is described in the Fixed Guideway Study is how it could potentially provide a dedicated lane and direct access to the new I-40 for BRT (Bus Rapid Transit). The FGS shows BRT servicing some Western cooridoors that would directly interface to the streetcar at the new hub.

The thing with BRT is that it may or may not work in OKC, and realistically it comes several years after streetcar is able to be successful. If we don't improve the perception and ridership of public transit, BRT goes out the window because it's basically a glorified bus system which has been proven ineffective in attracting riders in OKC.

I totally agree. But in a broader discussion about making sure that the "hub" is designed for the future, it is an element that should be factored.

The other aspect about making space allocations for BRT is that it can be converted to true Light Rail technology in the future.

In the FGS, lines go out towards Yukon, Airport, and up Northwest Expressway.

I represent MAPS 3 transit and Regional Transit Dialogue as a citizen and campaigner.

Um, the election is over...


Anyway, The potential boulevard (if ODOT gets its act together) would be a great place for the streetcar and/or canal extension.

I totally agree. But in a broader discussion about making sure that the "hub" is designed for the future, it is an element that should be factored.

The other aspect about making space allocations for BRT is that it can be converted to true Light Rail technology in the future.

In the FGS, lines go out towards Yukon, Airport, and up Northwest Expressway.

But how far out do you design a hub? There has to be compromise here regarding what you can afford and what you plan to offer in the next 20 years. I highly doubt all the lines (CRT or BRT) will be built in that time frame. Let's not get carried away with delusions of grandeur before we've even laid down the first track. Design a hub that is expandable. It doesn't need 12 platforms and 20 bus turnouts at first, just room for them when funds become available and ridership deems it necessary.

Also, is the AA even considering the Boulevard for an alignment? I don't see how it can when there is no foreseeable funding.

True. Everyone here uses Western. Walker is usually traffic free like he said. Shields is almost never holding as much traffic as Western or even Penn.

Oklahoma Traffic Count Information System (http://www.okladot.state.ok.us/aadtcnt/map.aspx?map=Cleveland) County/Oklahoma City 06&year=2009

Traffic Counts (2004):

Shields (at Oklahoma River): 11,433
Robinson (at Oklahoma River): 6,364
Walker (at Oklahoma River): 8,910
Western (at Oklahoma River): 14,090
Pennsylvania (at Oklahoma River): 10,354
Exchange (at Oklahoma River): 4,806
Byers (at Oklahoma River): 4,104
I-35 (at Oklahoma River): 125,400

Result, if traffic seems lighter on Shields it is because it can handle a lot more traffic. It is the second busiest Oklahoma River crossing outside of the interstate system. When Shields get a little farther south the traffic count goes up to 23,379. South of I-240 the traffic count on Shilds go up again to 27,149. Shields is the busiest road in South OKC.

It would be interesting to see the latest numbers now that the Thunder are playing 42 games a year in downtown, one block off of Shields.

Oklahoma Traffic Count Information System (http://www.okladot.state.ok.us/aadtcnt/map.aspx?map=Cleveland) County/Oklahoma City 06&year=2009

Traffic Counts (2004):

Shields (at Oklahoma River): 11,433
Robinson (at Oklahoma River): 6,364
Walker (at Oklahoma River): 8,910
Western (at Oklahoma River): 14,090
Pennsylvania (at Oklahoma River): 10,354
Exchange (at Oklahoma River): 4,806
Byers (at Oklahoma River): 4,104
I-35 (at Oklahoma River): 125,400

Result, if traffic seems lighter on Shields it is because it can handle a lot more traffic. It is the second busiest Oklahoma River crossing outside of the interstate system. When Shields get a little farther south the traffic count goes up to 23,379. South of I-240 the traffic count on Shilds go up again to 27,149. Shields is the busiest road in South OKC.

It would be interesting to see the latest numbers now that the Thunder are playing 42 games a year in downtown, one block off of Shields.

Regarding traffic counts: I found this cool link on ACOG's site. You can look at traffic counts all over the metro.

link: http://www.acogok.org/Programs_and_Services/Transportation_and_Data_Services/TrafficCounts/

FYI.

Regarding traffic counts: I found this cool link on ACOG's site. You can look at traffic counts all over the metro.

link: http://www.acogok.org/Programs_and_Services/Transportation_and_Data_Services/TrafficCounts/

FYI.

Thanks this was fun- Lindsey St in Norman (1 lane each direction + center turn lane) carries about twice as much traffic as EK Gaylord!

Oklahoma Traffic Count Information System (http://www.okladot.state.ok.us/aadtcnt/map.aspx?map=Cleveland) County/Oklahoma City 06&year=2009


Thanks for posting this.

Oklahoma Traffic Count Information System (http://www.okladot.state.ok.us/aadtcnt/map.aspx?map=Cleveland) County/Oklahoma City 06&year=2009

Traffic Counts (2004):

Shields (at Oklahoma River): 11,433
Robinson (at Oklahoma River): 6,364
Walker (at Oklahoma River): 8,910
Western (at Oklahoma River): 14,090
Pennsylvania (at Oklahoma River): 10,354
Exchange (at Oklahoma River): 4,806
Byers (at Oklahoma River): 4,104
I-35 (at Oklahoma River): 125,400

Result, if traffic seems lighter on Shields it is because it can handle a lot more traffic. It is the second busiest Oklahoma River crossing outside of the interstate system. When Shields get a little farther south the traffic count goes up to 23,379. South of I-240 the traffic count on Shilds go up again to 27,149. Shields is the busiest road in South OKC.

It would be interesting to see the latest numbers now that the Thunder are playing 42 games a year in downtown, one block off of Shields.

Do you know why it would be interesting to get more recent numbers? Not because of the Thunder, but because half of those bridges are closed right now and everyone used Walker to get across the river.

You didn't mention how much busier Western is, and Shields is not the busiest road in S OKC..Western is, by far..

Spartan - the reason I would like to see more current numbers is because the most recent numbers are 5 years old (6 years old in about 4 hours). Downtown OKC has changed in the last 5 years.

Spartan.... those are numbers for traffic at the river... it's busier on shields south of the river. Western and Penn are the only ones closed right now.

Do you know why it would be interesting to get more recent numbers? Not because of the Thunder, but because half of those bridges are closed right now and everyone used Walker to get across the river.

You didn't mention how much busier Western is, and Shields is not the busiest road in S OKC..Western is, by far..

So we should close all bridges except Western then??

Hardly, I just don't think we need ten thousand bridges with a 2.5 mile stretch of the river. It kind of defeats the psychological understanding of a riverside. There are no special "river crossings" because everything goes across. And we especially don't need to endeavor to keep more of these bridges open.

The reason we got on this tangent in the first place is because someone argued that, "Oh noooo, we better not do anything that could risk closing off E.K. Gaylord, without that, the southside has no way to get downtown..."

I was just pointing out what a retarded and braindead response that is. No, I wouldn't argue for closing all of them. That would be pointless of me. I am not even going to say that we should go out of the way to close some..just saying, if the opportunity comes up we shouldn't avoid making a good move in downtown for risk that it might jeopardize keeping all of these bridges open. I'm just pointing out that it might not be so bad if we lose a bridge or two, especially EKG.

All sensationalism aside..

Thought you guys might like to see all the bridges that ruined the Pittsburgh waterfront.

http://pittsburgh.about.com/library/graphics/bridges_allegheny.jpg

http://pghbridges.com/articles/p1969.JPG

http://www.lakelandbus.com/pittsburgh08_files/image002.jpg

http://www.cmu.edu/mcs/images/photos/bridges-nside.jpg

http://z.about.com/d/pittsburgh/1/0/d/h/pnc2.jpg

Thought you guys might like to see all the bridges that ruined the Pittsburgh waterfront.


Pittsburgh HAS had to put a lot of focus on reinvigorating their waterfronts. They got the Monongahela waterfront back to life and they have some plans that they're working on atm to revitalize the Allegheny side of downtown. I would argue though that Pittsburgh's amazing terrain lends itself naturally to focusing more on the river valleys, than OKC's flat terrain. The challenge is more on us than it is them.

Also these bridges with Pittsburgh aren't all highways that don't stop for a mile in each direction. All of OKC's Oklahoma River bridges for the most part, traffic doesn't stop until SW 25th on the south and like SW 4th on the north -- so that's basically two miles where you just keep going and going and the objective is to get across to the other side. Nobody drives to the Oklahoma River riverfront, you just drive PAST it. It's little more integral a part of the urban environment than a railroad underpass for that matter.

If we really want to fix the Oklahoma River we're going to have to let its riverfront become more of a physical boundary between north and south, that way the city can come up to the river from the north AND the south. Usually I dislike having a million street lights everywhere, but somehow you need to get the traffic to stop on the north side of the river right before traffic goes over the bridge.

And then the ecological issues..Something has to be done about the repressive gray asphalt that repeals any interest anyone would have in going near the water's edge--it just looks like some kind of toxic drainage ditch that the gray asphalt is telling people not to go near (which it really isn't, if we can just keep the Stockyards waste from getting dumped in the river). And the riverfront needs to be densely wooded, or at least around the bridges. 10 years when the trees mature you'll have the added benefit of not being able to see on the horizon practically, which shouldn't be possible in the middle of a city unless you're on top of a tall building. If only the immediately surrounding few hundred feet is visible on the human scale then you'll have more of a sense of place along the river I think. As it is the area is too open and expansive.

These are just things that can be done to improve the impact and recognition that yet, we do actually have a waterfront by downtown OKC, and that's how the river crossings play a big role in that. Stop having these half dozen pseudo highways that cross the river in too many different places, either a roadway is a "street" or it is a "road" -- and good cities are made of good streets. Without that psychological recognition that the waterfront exists, obviously the Oklahoma River won't ever develop as a part of the community aside from being a backyard for Olympic hopefuls to play in. This is how you bring infill development to a detached part of the city.

The planting of trees in the area and allowing portions to return to a wooded less accessible area sans trails and lighting is important in adding credibility to it being an actual waterfront rather than the widened concrete and stone rip rap lined canal that it began as. Granted it is making huge strides in such a short time, but the majority of it still resembles...an army corps of engineers project. And this is by no means a slam on them for with out them it would not be, however the way the sides of the waterway are constructed reads unnatural and to engineered. I know along the rowing venue this is probably helpful, but I am hopeful that with additional development that a softer approach might be used to blur the lines a bit more gracefully, and even widen some areas welcoming the water into spaces that actually provide some character to the waterway.

With the reduced curent flow can't we get rid of all the concrete and rocks on the banks?

Kerry,

I think it will cost a lot of money to remove the nasty rocks. It will have to be done as devlopments along the river remove the rocks one by one, or MAPS 4 or a bond are funded to remove them. They are not along the river upstream around Meridian and it is so much more peaceful and attractive.

Kerry,

I think it will cost a lot of money to remove the nasty rocks. It will have to be done as devlopments along the river remove the rocks one by one, or MAPS 4 or a bond are funded to remove them. They are not along the river upstream around Meridian and it is so much more peaceful and attractive.

Don't we have prisoners that are capable of turning big rocks into small rocks.

In an effort to bring this thread back to the topic of transportation developments in relation to the passage of MAPS III and its street car and intermodal Hub study, possibilities.

Has anyone been following the High Speed Rail proposals that the Feds are proposing and allocating 13 Billion for? The Proposal links a Line from San Antonio to Austin and on to Dallas and then from Dallas it splits and one line goes up to OKC and then on to Tulsa where the High speed portion terminates. The second line from Dallas heads through Texarcanna on up to Fort Smith, Arkansas. In addition to that there is an actual proposal by a French High Speed rail company that has presented a formal proposal to fund and build a similar line from San Antonio/Austin/Dallas with the trains due to run up to 220 MPH cutting the time from Dallas to SA down to 1hour 50 mins.

Please note the link to the Dallas Morning News and the actual proposal.

http://transportationblog.dallasnews.com/archives/2009/09/french-interested-in-texas-hig.html

Originally Posted by Urban Pioneer

I represent MAPS 3 transit and Regional Transit Dialogue as a citizen and campaigner.




Um, the election is over...

Anyway, The potential boulevard (if ODOT gets its act together) would be a great place for the streetcar and/or canal extension.


And thank God for it. But please do not mis-understand, campaigning for transit doesn't ever really end until the train is rolling down the tracks and breaks the big ribbon. There are always small battles of public and leadership education along the way.

It took a year of careful diplomacy and education to get such a progressive transit proposal on the ballot. It is my guess that it will be a minimum of five years before we see a streetcar on a street.

It may not be me leading the streetcar charge, but I encourage anyone who thinks that it ends with the December vote to remain engaged in the public process forthcoming. Designing a system from scratch is the opportunity of a lifetime for Oklahoma City.

Lets make sure that it is built in the best possible way- Jeff Bezdek

But how far out do you design a hub? There has to be compromise here regarding what you can afford and what you plan to offer in the next 20 years. I highly doubt all the lines (CRT or BRT) will be built in that time frame. Let's not get carried away with delusions of grandeur before we've even laid down the first track. Design a hub that is expandable. It doesn't need 12 platforms and 20 bus turnouts at first, just room for them when funds become available and ridership deems it necessary.

Also, is the AA even considering the Boulevard for an alignment? I don't see how it can when there is no foreseeable funding.

Compromise is key. I think that the basic goal of this hub design is to be able to facilitate everything outlined in the Fixed Guideway Study. If the funds are available, obtaining the land for expansion as needed would be the smart and progressive pursuit.

Regarding the boulevard; it seems that the right people in the right places with the political will have set their sights on making sure that the boulevard get funded.

Technically it is an issue, but the pursuit for funding is underway.

and then from Dallas it splits and one line goes up to OKC and then on to Tulsa where the High speed portion terminates.

The HUB study undoubtedly should examine the possibilities of integrating future high speed into our future regional rail.

Thought you guys might like to see all the bridges that ruined the Pittsburgh waterfront.

http://pittsburgh.about.com/library/graphics/bridges_allegheny.jpg

http://pghbridges.com/articles/p1969.JPG

http://www.lakelandbus.com/pittsburgh08_files/image002.jpg

http://www.cmu.edu/mcs/images/photos/bridges-nside.jpg

http://z.about.com/d/pittsburgh/1/0/d/h/pnc2.jpg

I don't think the number of bridges has anything to do with it. It's the quality of the bridges. I don't think anyone would argue that the bridges in London or Paris over the Thames or Seine ruin the waterfront and they are at least that dense.

I don't think the number of bridges has anything to do with it. It's the quality of the bridges. I don't think anyone would argue that the bridges in London or Paris over the Thames or Seine ruin the waterfront and they are at least that dense.

On this we can agree, but that wasn't Spatans complaint. He doesn't want any bridges - other than Western.

Which causes a bottleneck... which cuts off certain neighborhoods that used to be close to a crossing... which eventually creates ghettos in the way another physical barrier would (1-40 and the crosstown is an example)

Why destroy infrastructure? Didn't we recently have a record setting blizzard and ice storms in the past few years? Wouldn't that suck for you to be stranded a mile from Western and a block from where some other bridge USED to be!!! Imagine the hampered rescue efforts. Even in our downtown we regret cutting off Main Street between Robinson and Walker etc. Isn't the trend toward more connectivity and flow? We should embrace the grid... something London, Paris, and Pittsburgh don't have. Besides... we are talking about a ditch filled with water. It was hardly the Thames, Seine, Allegheny, or even the South Canadian... rivers that make sense to invest large amounts of money into a few quality bridges... the North Canadian only required a causeway.

One interesting thing about the high speed rail proposal from ODoT- the alignment is as such that it travels directly up the Adventure Train alignment and part of the Midwest/Tinker commuter proposal.

Any one of the three would necessitate constructing a "trestle" or ramp replacing the trestle that apparently "once was" directing East West rail traffic through Bricktown Southbound on the elevated BNSF line.

Such a trestle exists going Northbound next to "The Lofts" on Second Street in the Triangle.

The Transit Politic blog ranks OKC's move toward rail mass transit the #5 transit story of 2009 out of 51 stories.

The Transport Politic The Year’s Top Transit News – State by State (http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2009/12/31/the-years-top-transit-news-state-by-state/)

The Transit Politic blog ranks OKC's move toward rail mass transit the #5 transit story of 2009 out of 51 stories.

The Transport Politic The Year’s Top Transit News – State by State (http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2009/12/31/the-years-top-transit-news-state-by-state/)

This is awesome for OKC!

AGENDA
CENTRAL OKLAHOMA TRANSPORTATION AND PARKING AUTHORITY
DATE: January 8, 2010
TIME: 9:00 A.M.
PLACE: City Council Chambers, 200 North Walker, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102

V. CONSENT DOCKET

B. Consideration of Approval of Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Association of
Central Oklahoma Governments (ACOG) and the city of Oklahoma City for Conducting and
Funding an Intermodal Transportation Hub Study


"It is my understanding that this was approved this morning as part of the consent docket." Jeff Bezdek

"It is my understanding that this was approved this morning as part of the consent docket." Jeff Bezdek [/QUOTE]

I apologize.. I'm confused.
Who are you quoting?

AGENDA
CENTRAL OKLAHOMA TRANSPORTATION AND PARKING AUTHORITY
DATE: January 8, 2010
TIME: 9:00 A.M.
PLACE: City Council Chambers, 200 North Walker, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102

V. CONSENT DOCKET

B. Consideration of Approval of Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Association of
Central Oklahoma Governments (ACOG) and the city of Oklahoma City for Conducting and
Funding an Intermodal Transportation Hub Study


"It is my understanding that this was approved this morning as part of the consent docket." Jeff Bezdek

Great news!

I'm glad they are moving forward with this. Urban Pioneer, thanks for all your hard work in getting the hub study in motion. I can't wait to see the final product.

- Fish

"It is my understanding that this was approved this morning as part of the consent docket." Jeff Bezdek

I apologize.. I'm confused.
Who are you quoting?[/QUOTE]

Urban Pioneer is Jeff Bezdek, though I do not know why he quotes himself.

Sorry. I cut and pasted that from an e-mail on the fly. Missed the "quote". Lol. The I-phone scrolling on this site leaves something left to be desired when editing in the window.

Sorry. I cut and pasted that from an e-mail on the fly. Missed the "quote". Lol. The I-phone scrolling on this site leaves something left to be desired when editing in the window.

What's the next step for you and other city transit experts/staff regarding this hub study and the Association of Central Oklahoma Government's involvement?

The I-phone scrolling on this site leaves something left to be desired when editing in the window. I sent an inquiry to mods about supporting the iPhone Tapatalk app or maybe adding an iPhone skin but have received no reply. Might not hurt for others to ask.

What's the next step for you and other city transit experts/staff regarding this hub study and the Association of Central Oklahoma Government's involvement?

The next step is for the ACOG Board of Directors to approve moving ahead with the study now that the formal city commitments have been expressed/written.

Once that is approved a RFP will be created and sent out to transit enginnering firms to bid on the request. My guess is that they will get plenty of responses due to the economy.

I sent an inquiry to mods about supporting the iPhone Tapatalk app or maybe adding an iPhone skin but have received no reply. Might not hurt for others to ask.

That would be nice but I'm not complaining. OKC talk is a private entity. I understand that it is more of a public service. Maybe they could reclaim their expenses through a "I-Phone" paid member enrollment.

...or you could just stop buying into the Apple hype and get a Windows Mobile based phone and see OKCTALK just fine. BTW - the new mobile NewsOK site looks really good.

Kerry, I can see fine. Its scrolling in the edit window that is a pain. Regarding Windows, I am definitely not a believer. We could discuss this further but I am sure there is probably another very lengthy thread somewhere on the subject. I can tell you though that changing both personal and business systems to Apple has saved me ungawdly amounts of money and mitigated daily head banging against the wall. If anything, your Windows needed the competition to motivate it to start cleaning up it's act.

That would be nice but I'm not complaining. OKC talk is a private entity. I understand that it is more of a public service. Maybe they could reclaim their expenses through a "I-Phone" paid member enrollment.Interesting response.

The Tapatalk plugin for vBulletin is free.

There is a free Tapatalk RO (read only) app for the iPhone. The full version is $2.99.

What's nice about it is that it is available for iPhone, Android, and Nokia phones and it supports multiple forums.

Tapatalk - iPhone Android Nokia forum app for vBulletin and phpBB (http://www.tapatalk.com/)

I think this is interesting. Because of the quantity of grants that are being released, I suspect our odds might be reasonable at getting some seed money.

All Aboard? Obama to Announce High-Speed Rail Grants - Washington Wire - WSJ (http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2010/01/27/all-aboard-obama-to-announce-high-speed-rail-grants/?mod=washwire)

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/wirestory?id=9672336&page=2

I think this is interesting. Because of the quantity of grants that are being released, I suspect our odds might be reasonable at getting some seed money.

All Aboard? Obama to Announce High-Speed Rail Grants - Washington Wire - WSJ (http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2010/01/27/all-aboard-obama-to-announce-high-speed-rail-grants/?mod=washwire)

Let's Just hope that our corridor is one of the to be announced 13 corridors! I would love to see federal money going to reinvest in our crumbling infrastructure. That is at least an investment in ourselves. It would also be great timing so that as they are studying the Intermodal Hub study they can coordinate that effort to work with the proposed HSR line that will move through OKC! What a great opportunity to do some really fantastic Icon for a rail station that will again get OKC noticed. Thinking something dramatic say of the order of a Calatrava sculptural building. Obviously his NYC Path station was for a subway system but nonetheless a great structure that communicates the HSR and its technology integrated with the thought of it being another form of first impression or gateway to the city.

Nevermind I figured out my answer..

Let's Just hope that our corridor is one of the to be announced 13 corridors! I would love to see federal money going to reinvest in our crumbling infrastructure. That is at least an investment in ourselves. It would also be great timing so that as they are studying the Intermodal Hub study they can coordinate that effort to work with the proposed HSR line that will move through OKC! What a great opportunity to do some really fantastic Icon for a rail station that will again get OKC noticed. Thinking something dramatic say of the order of a Calatrava sculptural building. Obviously his NYC Path station was for a subway system but nonetheless a great structure that communicates the HSR and its technology integrated with the thought of it being another form of first impression or gateway to the city.

It doesn't look like were one of the 13. Damn it!! I read the article on Yahoo.com

Let's Just hope that our corridor is one of the to be announced 13 corridors! I would love to see federal money going to reinvest in our crumbling infrastructure.

And now back to reality. As of an hour ago...high speed rail is NOT going to happen. Not when we are from a "red" state...bummer.

TIGER grant announcement is next month.
Does anyone really think we have a shot for TIGER?

I question the leadership and influence of OKC's rail representatives.

Hip - it is the difference between treating a patient that is bleeding and trying to prevent injuries in the first place. In OKC we plan ahead. That is not the case in Wasington D.C. and other parts of the country. OKC is putting in a streetcar system so we don't have to live through years of traffic congestion before we do it (like lots of other cities). The same can be said of high speed rail. There are many place that could have used high speed rail years ago so it only natural they get it before OKC. And don't underestimate that red state/blue state thing.

Maybe you guys are finding an article that I'm not, but isn't this a bit premature? I've been unable to find anything mentioning all of the states to receive funding. The only mention I've found is of the larger projects that are getting the larger chunks of money (LA to SF and the Florida line). There's also mentions that very little will be going to the northeast corridor. I haven't found a confirm or deny on what money OK would get if any. If you've found a definitive list of the 31 states that will receive money, please post a link.

Confirmed, we're SOL, at least on this round.

The full list is at:


http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/rss_viewer/hsr_awards_summary_public.pdf

The closest to Oklahoma is improvements for the Texas Eagle between Fort Worth and San Antonio.

We don't even make it into the final item, $6 Million for "Investments for high-speed and intercity passenger rail planning studies in Alabama, Colorado, Delaware, Georgia, Iowa, Kansas, New Mexico, Vermont and West Virginia"


Oh well, better red than dead.

Thanks for the confirmation. Disappointing, but in reality, I suppose it's reasonable. The most money should go to where it's going to be used the most and where there is already some good existing localized transit systems. It's still a huge step to get these lines moving and will do a lot for overall opinions of rail in the US.

I realize this has little to do with the intended thread but, since we're discussing it:
Does anyone think this may be a limited response to the French transportation management companies that have been pushing states to manage roads & Rails? Down here in Dallas, virtually all maintenance on the toll roads are let out to foreign countries, mainly French. Now, as the article stated in reply #328 by OKC@Heart, they are going for the rail system. A large part of the infrastructure will be under control of foriegn entities.
I think they know that the US is not only ill equiped financially but the citizens are not prepared to make the sacrifice to develop a nationwide network of high-speed rail. Most will continue to choose air or road travel because of the independent lifestyles we are all used to. Just an overanalytical view.
Having said that, I know in the last couple of years there has been a lot of talk between Kansas and Oklahoma to bring Amtrak service thru OKC to Texas. Mostly because Amtrak has a HUGE disconnect through the middle part of the country. As you move east to west accross the country the commuter rail service changes from a more north to south direction to an east west direction until you get to the west coast then there are a few north south routes.
http://www.usa-by-rail.com/assets/images/autogen/a_eastern.jpg
So, in the east, the way it is, to get from one populous metro area to another like Miami, Boston, NY or Chicago wouldn't be to difficult (With the crazy exception of Atlanta). But, from Dallas to KC or Denver doesnt exist. Heck, to get from KC to Denver, one has to go from KC to New Mexico and catch another route to Denver.
http://www.usa-by-rail.com/assets/images/autogen/a_western.jpg
Pretty much starving rail commute through the heart of the country. I think thats why OK and KS have been working so hard on a solution in the past couple of years.
UTU: News (http://www.utu.org/worksite/detail_news.cfm?ArticleID=40552)
also
An Oklahoma City to Kansas City Amtrak Connection may be coming! Moving at the Speed of Creativity (http://www.speedofcreativity.org/2008/12/28/an-oklahoma-city-to-kansas-city-amtrak-connection-may-be-coming/)

This will mostly benefit Kansas. There can be a route connecting KC with Denver and using existing rail T-off of that route coming through Salina, & Wichita to OKC and Dallas. (come to think of it, thats almost all of BIG12 country!) That would connect virtually all the major markets in the middle part of the country.

Thoughts??

Nationwide highspeed rail will not work in America. To work it will have to be regional. No one is going to take high speed rail from Chicago to Dallas. Even at a top speed of300 mph that trip would take all day. An airplane can do it in two hours.

Nationwide highspeed rail will not work in America. To work it will have to be regional. No one is going to take high speed rail from Chicago to Dallas. Even at a top speed of300 mph that trip would take all day. An airplane can do it in two hours.

While I tend to agree about the regional approach to HSR, your math is a little funny.

While disappointed, I would say that the selections are prudent. If you study where the funds are going, it seems that the large amounts are high unemployement areas. It also seems to follow corridoors with high passenger counts. It thought the Portland/Seattle connection is also interesting. It appears that cities with local transit infrastructure faired well. That is another reason why our streetcar is so important. If Fortworth or Tulsa commit to building local support systems it will probably improve our future rating. Heartland Flyer speed improvements namely.