For the love of Pete - I have to stop reading stuff like this. Having to listen to people this uniformed is one reason I got out of City Planning.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQTDjk1B75U

I don't think there is any way we will even see CNG on passenger trains. Union Pacific is testing CNG on freight trains but the reality is - CNG can go boom in a crash and diesel doesn't.

I own a CNG vehicle. There are a lot of misconceptions about CNG tank volatility. However, even using the theory of extremely explosive tanks, Trains would be a much safer use for LNG or CNG then personal vehicles, buses and trucks due to a multitude of factors including, but not limited to, far fewer trains on the rails then vehicles on the road, far fewer routes for trains to take then vehicles, and of course, as a result of both of those factors, there are far fewer train wrecks then vehicle collisions. None of that even mentions the fact that train cargo consists of much more volatile fuels and chemicals in larger quantities than CNG, but you don't see them shying away from transporting oil, gasoline, propane, and other chemical compounds all of which are under pressure (or at least in sealed containers) and will make a much bigger boom followed by a much, much larger and more difficult to control fire then CNG ever would (after a tank is punctured, Natural gas dissipates, it doesn't pool and create a fire hazard). All you need for proof of that is the massive oil cargo train explosion in Canada a few months ago; a few CNG tanks popping is nothing compared to the damage that caused.

Not going to turn it into a CNG/LNG vs Diesel thread, this is just my two cents based on a lot of research and experience before and after making the leap myself. CNG and LNG are much safer then a lot of the cargo that trains are already halling.

The Heartland Flyer experiment was a biodiesel blend (80/20).

Amtrak trials first cow-powered train | Environment | theguardian.com (http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/apr/26/amtrak-cow-train-biodiesel)

http://www.amtrak.com/ccurl/3/444/ATK-11-140%20Heartland%20Flyer%20biodiesel%20results%20re leased.pdf

http://www.technewsdaily.com/images/i/000/000/427/iFF/beef-amtrak-100506-02.jpg?1348086743

My bad, thanks. As much CNG talk as there is around here, it's easy to get my alternative fuels mixed up.

Yes, let's just use electricity only and keep the operating cost much lower.

Yes, let's just use electricity only and keep the operating cost much lower.

What fuel in this state do you think is used to generate the vast majority of electricity? It sure isn't wind.

What fuel in this state do you think is used to generate the vast majority of electricity? It sure isn't wind.

I just heard on the radio that OG&E is using COAL to source their electric power.

I just heard on the radio that OG&E is using COAL to source their electric power.

Yes you are correct. OGE gets coal from the Powder River Basin in Wyoming to a majority of their plants.

I own a CNG vehicle. There are a lot of misconceptions about CNG tank volatility. However, even using the theory of extremely explosive tanks, Trains would be a much safer use for LNG or CNG then personal vehicles, buses and trucks due to a multitude of factors including, but not limited to, far fewer trains on the rails then vehicles on the road, far fewer routes for trains to take then vehicles, and of course, as a result of both of those factors, there are far fewer train wrecks then vehicle collisions. None of that even mentions the fact that train cargo consists of much more volatile fuels and chemicals in larger quantities than CNG, but you don't see them shying away from transporting oil, gasoline, propane, and other chemical compounds all of which are under pressure (or at least in sealed containers) and will make a much bigger boom followed by a much, much larger and more difficult to control fire then CNG ever would (after a tank is punctured, Natural gas dissipates, it doesn't pool and create a fire hazard). All you need for proof of that is the massive oil cargo train explosion in Canada a few months ago; a few CNG tanks popping is nothing compared to the damage that caused.

Not going to turn it into a CNG/LNG vs Diesel thread, this is just my two cents based on a lot of research and experience before and after making the leap myself. CNG and LNG are much safer then a lot of the cargo that trains are already halling.

This^ is 100% correct

This^ is 100% correct


Do any of you know what a BLEVE is ? .... it ain't good. And you don't want this to happen when rolling into your neighbor hood.

Yes you are correct. OGE gets coal from the Powder River Basin in Wyoming to a majority of their plants.

That may be true of OGE but according to the EIA, Oklahoma as a whole generates more of it's electricity using natural gas.

4553

That may be true of OGE but according to the EIA, Oklahoma as a whole generates more of it's electricity using natural gas.

4553

... I'm all for Natural GAs partners here in Oklahoma, but we a Light Rail System, 100% is the way to go for the lowest unit cost per mile (operating cost).

Do any of you know what a BLEVE is ? .... it ain't good. And you don't want this to happen when rolling into your neighbor hood.

NG naturally dissipates into the atmosphere on its own.... I have personally seen this thousands of times and where it involved industrial volumes, sometimes in very large amounts.

The items carried on a train can be even more dangerous because in an accident they sometimes won't dissipate and they sometimes become mixed with other items in a toxic brew. Processed NG is not nearly as toxic as many train cargo's that pass though the OKC metro.

Pipelines are the safest form of transportation for most large scale liquids / gas cargoes but pipeline development is often hindered by a less than cooperative politicians on the left. This drives up cost of products and harms job development.
It also increases the risk to people.

That may be true of OGE but according to the EIA, Oklahoma as a whole generates more of it's electricity using natural gas.

4553

It would be interesting to see a break down on generating cost per KW on each fuel.

To get back on track a bit...pun intended. ;)

Does anyone know what the operating costs are for the Stadler GTW DMUs used by our friends down in Texas? Denton paid about $7 million for each unit which isn't bad since they can hold 200 pax.

Just wanting to play with some loose numbers. My "Red Line" which would operating Noble > Norman > Moore > Crossroads > Downtown and reverse comes in at around 24.5 miles which would typically take about 1 hour 5 minutes each direction based on normal diesel train speeds. Would be interested to see what a ballpark figured would be to run the trains. I believe these DMUs are also one of the few that are approved by the FRA to run on freight lines which would be central to getting commuter rail up and going here before the next ice age.

CNG and LNG are much safer then a lot of the cargo that trains are already halling.

Passenger trains haul people. While a person can be dangerous - they won't explode in a crash. They are already testing CNG on freight trains. It is one thing to crash and blow up a box-car full of DVD players, it is another thing to crash and blow up 200 people going to work. The destructive force of a train crash is orders of magnitude larger than a car crash. I'm not saying a CNG locomotive would be the Ford Pinto of the railroad world but safety requirements for freight trains aren't even in the same ballpark as safety requirements for passenger trains and the operating cost savings for a CNG fueled passenger train probably isn't worth the cost of maintaining a CNG refueling station. Union Pacific says they use something like 1.6 billion gallons of diesel fuel so if they just save a few cents per gallon it adds up for them. A commuter rail system won't use 0.01% of that.

Anyhow, I just wanted to add some context to my previous post and don't want to turn this into a diesel-cng debate either so that will be my last comment on it. . I'll give someone else the final word :)

To get back on track a bit...pun intended. ;)

Does anyone know what the operating costs are for the Stadler GTW DMUs used by our friends down in Texas? Denton paid about $7 million for each unit which isn't bad since they can hold 200 pax.

Just wanting to play with some loose numbers. My "Red Line" which would operating Noble > Norman > Moore > Crossroads > Downtown and reverse comes in at around 24.5 miles which would typically take about 1 hour 5 minutes each direction based on normal diesel train speeds. Would be interested to see what a ballpark figured would be to run the trains. I believe these DMUs are also one of the few that are approved by the FRA to run on freight lines which would be central to getting commuter rail up and going here before the next ice age.

You are correct - Denton/Stadler received a FRA waiver that permits the operation of the DMU on rail shared with freight operations. I think the DMU would be an excellent vehicle for commuter operations. DCTA leased RDC's from TRE while waiting for delivery of their Stadler units - might be an option worth exploring here.

4554

Something similar to what Norman-OKC would be like...granted OKC is much stronger than Detroit, but the Ann Arbor to Detroit commuter rail is ready to go...

Full details on the project - including financials: SEMCOG (http://www.semcog.org/AADD.aspx)

IFtxB4RjgwM

That is much further than Norman to OKC but, if you figure Norman to Edmond, it's similar.

That is much further than Norman to OKC but, if you figure Norman to Edmond, it's similar.

The distance is...Norman-OKC by rail is about 20 miles. I was more pointing out a community similar in size, a college town, into an urban core.

The distance is...Norman-OKC by rail is about 20 miles. I was more pointing out a community similar in size, a college town, into an urban core.

True, but there are several more destination areas between Ann Arbor and Detroit than there are between Norman and OKC.

True, but there are several more destination areas between Ann Arbor and Detroit than there are between Norman and OKC.

Not disagreeing. Just gives us a good idea of costs and such to help evaluate the best option here.

Passenger trains haul people. While a person can be dangerous - they won't explode in a crash. They are already testing CNG on freight trains. It is one thing to crash and blow up a box-car full of DVD players, it is another thing to crash and blow up 200 people going to work. The destructive force of a train crash is orders of magnitude larger than a car crash. I'm not saying a CNG locomotive would be the Ford Pinto of the railroad world but safety requirements for freight trains aren't even in the same ballpark as safety requirements for passenger trains and the operating cost savings for a CNG fueled passenger train probably isn't worth the cost of maintaining a CNG refueling station. Union Pacific says they use something like 1.6 billion gallons of diesel fuel so if they just save a few cents per gallon it adds up for them. A commuter rail system won't use 0.01% of that.

Anyhow, I just wanted to add some context to my previous post and don't want to turn this into a diesel-cng debate either so that will be my last comment on it. . I'll give someone else the final word :)

UP and BNSF have tested LNG, not CNG...

RFD-TV (that's right - Rural Television) had an hour long documentary on the other night about the ACE (Altamonte Commuter Rail) from Stockton to San Jose. It was pretty good so I watched it twice. I looked to see if it was coming again but nothing showed up for the next 2 weeks. Anyhow, they followed the number 3 train from Stockton as it made it's way to San Jose. They did a brief overview of each station and noted historical structures along the way. They also touched on how the commuter rail interacts with freight service as well as CalTrain,, Amtrak California, and Valley Transit Authority light-rail. Keep an eye out for it as it was pretty good.

I was surprised by how much rail activity there is in the South Bay. My son came in about half way through and started watching it. About 10 minutes into his viewing he asked me what country it was because he kept hearing city names he knew but didn't know that much passenger rail activity was taking place.

JTF, you made mention to finding a "replacement" for the interstate system that would be "cost less to maintain". This new Regional Light Rail system would be the start to moving a large volume of people to rail, and getting them away from the interstates. Less congestion. This would extend the life of our existing interstate structures.

If we are to beef-up our interstate system by the next 20 years, that cost is going to be a ( 2X ) cost today vs. tomorrow's cost + new modifications. Let's funnel those dollars to the next generation system today of High Speed Rail.

...and this needs to be built near interstates so it can take advantage of the existing structure & greater volume of people. ...not having them funneled to the older path of commerce.

JTF, you made mention to finding a "replacement" for the interstate system that would be "cost less to maintain". This new Regional Light Rail system would be the start to moving a large volume of people to rail, and getting them away from the interstates. Less congestion. This would extend the life of our existing interstate structures.

If we are to beef-up our interstate system by the next 20 years, that cost is going to be a ( 2X ) cost today vs. tomorrow's cost + new modifications. Let's funnel those dollars to the next generation system today of High Speed Rail.

...and this needs to be built near interstates so it can take advantage of the existing structure & greater volume of people. ...not having them funneled to the older path of commerce.

I still think you need to consider making your platform public. Sharing your sentiments on here is a noble effort, but the only way you're going to make an impact is to do what Bob Kemper did--start a public outcry group, ala Friends for a Better Boulevard. Your group could be called, "Expensive As Hell Rail But More Effective Cost Wise in the Long Term" group.

One thing - rail doesn't reduce congestion on the interstates. Latent demand will just fill in any gaps from people who opt to take the train. Create enough freeway capacity thru people opting for rail and sprawl will just continue to spread as some people will always opt to 'drive until they qualify'.

A lot of people think we can keep building interstate and build rail - we can't. We need to not only stop new freeway construction, we need to start tearing out old interstates as they reach the end of the lifespan. For example, I-40 through downtown should have never been rebuilt. We should have just taken it out and thru traffic diverted to I-240. We would have saved $600 million dollars. That money could have then been used to implement a regional rail system that has a fraction of the long-term maintenance costs of a new interstate.

One thing - rail doesn't reduce congestion on the interstates. Latent demand will just fill in any gaps from people who opt to take the train. Create enough freeway capacity thru people opting for rail and sprawl will just continue to spread as some people will always opt to 'drive until they qualify'.

A lot of people think we can keep building interstate and build rail - we can't. We need to not only stop new freeway construction, we need to start tearing out old interstates as they reach the end of the lifespan. For example, I-40 through downtown should have never been rebuilt. We should have just taken it out and thru traffic diverted to I-240. We would have saved $600 million dollars. That money could have then been used to implement a regional rail system that has a fraction of the long-term maintenance costs of a new interstate.

Yep... Let's just stop repairing streets all together and be much more progressive in our move towards sustainable transportation and do a Maps 4 for a return to the past... Livery stables, horse barns, stagecoach's and wagons... Hell lets even throw chariots in to the mix...

Green acres buddy... Petticoat junction...

I can hear the discussion amongst the early pioneers talking about how "you can't keep growing west, it's unsustainable! "

It just makes your comments so much more ridiculous when we all know that you live in the burbs and drive a car to get where you need to be... If everything you preach was so certain, you would think that you could/would have found a way to live it...

In one form or another, personal transportation vehicles will always be the future and it will always be sustainable barring something attune to a total zombie apocalypse...

One thing - rail doesn't reduce congestion on the interstates. Latent demand will just fill in any gaps from people who opt to take the train. Create enough freeway capacity thru people opting for rail and sprawl will just continue to spread as some people will always opt to 'drive until they qualify'.

A lot of people think we can keep building interstate and build rail - we can't. We need to not only stop new freeway construction, we need to start tearing out old interstates as they reach the end of the lifespan. For example, I-40 through downtown should have never been rebuilt. We should have just taken it out and thru traffic diverted to I-240. We would have saved $600 million dollars. That money could have then been used to implement a regional rail system that has a fraction of the long-term maintenance costs of a new interstate.What you want is never going to happen. As it has already been said, cars will always be the future. People are not looking to give their personal vehicles. Car sales this year have already reached record levels. I like our interstates and we should keep funding them. We can also create a new tax and let states partner up together to decide if a HSR is feasible for them.

Those that support rail in Oklahoma should be the first to give up the cars. It is time to put up or shut up and no complaining that the bus system stinks, you can always ride a bike or walk where you're going.

Those that support rail in Oklahoma should be the first to give up the cars. It is time to put up or shut up and no complaining that the bus system stinks, you can always ride a bike or walk where you're going.

Create a built environment that does require cars and people will stop needing them. Personally, I am tired of how much I have to spend on transportation costs just to participate in society. There are a lot of other things I would like to spend those dollars on.

Light rail can exist in a suburban dominated city. It's working pretty well in Charlotte, which for the most part is sprawling suburbia just like OKC, and has really spurred the kind of residential growth that many would like to see happen in OKC. I really think the city should have pushed light rail for MAPS 3 rather than the streetcar. Light rail would benefit the metro as a whole and would have probably spurred more gentrification of other areas a little ways out of downtown such as 23rd St.

Light rail can exist in a suburban dominated city. It's working pretty well in Charlotte, which for the most part is sprawling suburbia just like OKC, and has really spurred the kind of residential growth that many would like to see happen in OKC. I really think the city should have pushed light rail for MAPS 3 rather than the streetcar. Light rail would benefit the metro as a whole and would have probably spurred more gentrification of other areas a little ways out of downtown such as 23rd St.

Charlotte is a modern city that is better example than any "rust belt / east coast" city for comparison. The layout of OKC is perfect for the High Speed Light Rail for the metro. It is a must.

Charlotte is a modern city that is better example than any "rust belt / east coast" city for comparison. The layout of OKC is perfect for the High Speed Light Rail for the metro. It is a must.

HSR for commuter rail in the Metro is simply not going to happen. There are very few examples of HSR being used as commuter rail and it is usually to connect cities that are 75-150 miles apart. If you wanted people in OKC and TUL to commute back and forth, that is one thing. It isn't going to work for those in Norman going Downtown. What we need is a smart and extensive commuter rail system connecting the communities in the Metro area and with in say 75 miles of the city. HSR needs to be reserved for connecting to Dallas-Houston as well as Kansas City/St. Louis-Chicago from here.

While I haven't given up my car completely, I have reduced my annual miles driven by half since I moved downtown. My husband, unfortunately, has to drive farther to work since we moved. But the majority of things we can do in the evening we reach by walking. Some of that is a change in how we see things now. We used to drive distances before to get to a coffee shop, for example, that now we consider walking distance. But were there better public transit, we would happily drop down to one car. Three members of my family live in Chicago and they have one car between the 3. I have a daughter in San Francisco who chose to sell her can when she moved there. I didn't own a car when I lived in Denver and I would look forward to that kind of freedom myself if I lived in a city with good public transportation. A few people going carless here won't change transit, but its already changing with work being done on an RTD. As voters, we need to support taxes to improve public transportation and let our elected officials know we want it.

HSR for commuter rail in the Metro is simply not going to happen. There are very few examples of HSR being used as commuter rail and it is usually to connect cities that are 75-150 miles apart. If you wanted people in OKC and TUL to commute back and forth, that is one thing. It isn't going to work for those in Norman going Downtown. What we need is a smart and extensive commuter rail system connecting the communities in the Metro area and with in say 75 miles of the city. HSR needs to be reserved for connecting to Dallas-Houston as well as Kansas City/St. Louis-Chicago from here.

...No, I think our Central US location from LA to NYC / San Fran to DC / Orlando to Portland / Chicago to San Antonio puts OKC in a great position ( much easier & less espensive up-front cost vs. Dallas ) OKC needs to be this. We need to be the HUB for the US. This is what makes sense.

...and don't wait on the airlines support here either. We are the flyover to them. It will be the HSR community that looks at OKC as the HUB of operation(s).

ouch

While I wish that weren't true, I think it is. I think we have to be more proactive than leading by example. Politicians respond to numbers as well as squeaky wheels. The first place to start may be pushing for Sunday bus service, since the bus system is already doing some reorganizing. I don't think we're going to see major changes until we get an RTD and pass a transit tax.

...No, I think our Central US location from LA to NYC / San Fran to DC / Orlando to Portland / Chicago to San Antonio puts OKC in a great position ( much easier & less espensive up-front cost vs. Dallas ) OKC needs to be this. We need to be the HUB for the US. This is what makes sense.

...and don't wait on the airlines support here either. We are the flyover to them. It will be the HSR community that looks at OKC as the HUB of operation(s).

What? We are talking about two different things. This thread is about an OKC system, not a national HSR system. Please keep your topics straight.

What? We are talking about two different things. This thread is about an OKC system, not a national HSR system. Please keep your topics straight.

Venture, this is exactly what I am saying... Our OKC HSR needs to be "In Place" to accommidate the National needs. As a city / state, we don't need to spend this twice.

Light and/or commuter rail will allow for more development downtown. We can have a lot more density when every person who steps foot there does not require a parking space.

Venture, this is exactly what I am saying... Our OKC HSR needs to be "In Place" to accommidate the National needs. As a city / state, we don't need to spend this twice.

We have zero guarantee that HSR will ever be a reality in the US. People have proposed it, but there's little political will for it. If it starts to become a reality we should jump out in front as quickly as possible. But I'm not ready to sink a few billion dollars into developing this and then having no one else jump on board.

We have zero guarantee that HSR will ever be a reality in the US. People have proposed it, but there's little political will for it. If it starts to become a reality we should jump out in front as quickly as possible. But I'm not ready to sink a few billion dollars into developing this and then having no one else jump on board.a few billion????? Try a few trillion, maybe ,

California High Speed Rail Authority - State of California (http://www.hsr.ca.gov)

California High-Speed Rail - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_High-Speed_Rail)

98.1 billion final estimated full build cost

We have zero guarantee that HSR will ever be a reality in the US. People have proposed it, but there's little political will for it. If it starts to become a reality we should jump out in front as quickly as possible. But I'm not ready to sink a few billion dollars into developing this and then having no one else jump on board.

If we wait on the existing industries ( Railroad / Auto / Airlines ) they are the ones that have the most to lose.

This is OUR chance to be something different. Let's get this going for our OKC Metro Cities and let us begin to have a commerce boom / Universities connected , etc.

Venture, this is exactly what I am saying... Our OKC HSR needs to be "In Place" to accommidate the National needs. As a city / state, we don't need to spend this twice.

There is no point to have a local HSR option. A local network also doesn't need to be high speed to accommodate passengers connecting to a local market. If someone is taking a HSR train in from Dallas or St. Louis...they won't care if they are going to be on standard commuter/light rail from Downtown to Norman. It really isn't going to make a huge difference in travel times due to the number of stops that will likely need to be made.

a few billion????? Try a few trillion, maybe ,

California High Speed Rail Authority - State of California (http://www.hsr.ca.gov)

Not even close to that. THose are the big numbers the others want you to believe.

OKC Metro is flat ( not the Sierras / Rockies to build over). Try $20 M p/m.

California High-Speed Rail - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_High-Speed_Rail)

98.1 billion final estimated full build cost

California is going to be more expensive to build out than most areas in the Plains and Great Lakes. So you can't automatically take their cost per mile (for example) and say it will equal the same for the line that will run Cleveland-Toledo-Chicago or Chicago-St. Louis. Mostly flat terrain and the ability to have straight lines will be much more feasible than winding in an out of the mountains in California.

Ridership on HSR is equal to attending a NBA game in downtown "The Peake" watching KD dunk on Howard.

20 years ago we would have not "signed up" for that % of success for the Thunder. If we build a HSR Metro System it will be utilized to its fullest. They do in Japan. Why would we be any different?

California is going to be more expensive to build out than most areas in the Plains and Great Lakes. So you can't automatically take their cost per mile (for example) and say it will equal the same for the line that will run Cleveland-Toledo-Chicago or Chicago-St. Louis. Mostly flat terrain and the ability to have straight lines will be much more feasible than winding in an out of the mountains in California.i am such an idiot sometimes, don't even know how I didn't factor that in. We will still have the Arbuckles to deal with or I wonder if it would be cheaper to build around.

a few billion????? Try a few trillion, maybe ,

California High Speed Rail Authority - State of California (http://www.hsr.ca.gov)

A few billion just for us. The whole system, of course, will be significantly more expensive.

Ridership on HSR is equal to attending a NBA game in downtown "The Peake" watching KD dunk on Howard.

20 years ago we would have not "signed up" for that % of success for the Thunder. If we build a HSR Metro System it will be utilized to its fullest. They do in Japan. Why would we be any different?

1) We don't have the population density of Japan.

2) We aren't connecting people from over 150 miles away from the city center to come into work in the CBD of OKC - there simply aren't enough people.

I don't see why you would suggest having a HSR for LOCAL commuter rail over traditional rail since the speed benefits won't be there. A line from Norman to Downtown is going to likely have a stop in Moore and another in South OKC on its way in. The biggest break is going to be Norman-Moore which is about a 7 mile segment IIRC from the map I did a few months back.

i am such an idiot sometimes, don't even know how I didn't factor that in. We will still have the Arbuckles to deal with or I wonder if it would be cheaper to build around.

You aren't an idiot. :-P Stop that.

I don't think the Arbuckles are going to be a major deal since they aren't exact the Rockies with steep cliffs to contend with.

Ridership on HSR is equal to attending a NBA game in downtown "The Peake" watching KD dunk on Howard.

20 years ago we would have not "signed up" for that % of success for the Thunder. If we build a HSR Metro System it will be utilized to its fullest. They do in Japan. Why would we be any different?

High speed rail is like pouring money into creating a network of filling stations for hydrogen powered vehicles. Maybe they're the wave of the future, and we'll be well ahead of the game. Maybe they're not. If HSR does not catch on, if 20 years from now there's no HSR network connecting Dallas to St Louis and Chicago, then we've spent a massive amount of money on something that is of very limited use.

We should build an economical, functional local rail network. Let people who get off an airplane at Will Rogers take the train downtown. Let people who live in Midwest City take the train to Norman for an OU football game. Let's establish a regional transit authority and Midwest City, Del City, Moore, Edmond, Yukon, and other surrounding areas can help pay for it. Let's get it to work properly and let development spring up around the stations all across the city.

Then, IF the nation decides to invest in HSR, let's get funding for it through the state legislature. That wouldn't be just an OKC project, it would be a statewide project. But I don't need to get from MWC to downtown in 2 1/2 minutes.

1) We don't have the population density of Japan.

2) We aren't connecting people from over 150 miles away from the city center to come into work in the CBD of OKC - there simply aren't enough people.

I don't see why you would suggest having a HSR for LOCAL commuter rail over traditional rail since the speed benefits won't be there. A line from Norman to Downtown is going to likely have a stop in Moore and another in South OKC on its way in. The biggest break is going to be Norman-Moore which is about a 7 mile segment IIRC from the map I did a few months back.

The needs & desires of a passenger in Japan vs. OKC is the same. We have expensive roads in OKC now. ( $200 M for I-240 / I-35 exchange est ) We spend billions of $$$ each year on the ODOT highways and they still cant get it right. We do this for a state w/ 3.4M people? ...we don't have the density for our ODOT budget either, but we continue to punch-out an Overpriced / Cloverleaf product in 2013?

Yes, we need to have this in place for our OKC Metro Cities (Norman to OKC would be first / Edmond to OKC next / MWC to OKC / then Yukon to OKC. Let's take advantage of our lower cost of today, instead of waiting 20 years when it will be 4x the cost for the same thing.

A few billion just for us. The whole system, of course, will be significantly more expensive.

Yes, ODOT is expensive too. Their annual budget is well over the billion mark.

Yes, ODOT is expensive too. Their annual budget is well over the billion mark.

Not wanting to spend several billion dollars on a fantasy high speed rail system does not mean that I like ODOT.

The needs & desires of a passenger in Japan vs. OKC is the same. We have expensive roads in OKC now. ( $200 M for I-240 / I-35 exchange est ) We spend billions of $$$ each year on the ODOT highways and they still cant get it right. We do this for a state w/ 3.4M people? ...we don't have the density for our ODOT budget either, but we continue to punch-out an Overpriced / Cloverleaf product in 2013?

Yes, we need to have this in place for our OKC Metro Cities (Norman to OKC would be first / Edmond to OKC next / MWC to OKC / then Yukon to OKC. Let's take advantage of our lower cost of today, instead of waiting 20 years when it will be 4x the cost for the same thing.

Local rail lines don't need to be high speed rail. Local rail lines have to slow down frequently to pick people up. We don't need to spend ten times the money to shave six minutes off the trip time.

Not wanting to spend several billion dollars on a fantasy high speed rail system does not mean that I like ODOT.

you mean like building an arena in hopes of getting a larger minor league hockey team..., because we never thought we would get an NHL team (okc is too small for an NHL). OH, yeah the NBA was a Top Tier league that would never look at OKC, ever. ( Al Eshbach ).

No, it is not a fantasy, the other countries use it each day.

Local rail lines don't need to be high speed rail. Local rail lines have to slow down frequently to pick people up. We don't need to spend ten times the money to shave six minutes off the trip time.

Very few stops. Norman / South OKC (se 89th , this will include the Moore areas as well) / Downtown. Only 1 stop for the Norman group going to downtown.
Edmond / North OKC (63 rd) / Downtown.
Choctaw / MWC / DT.
Yukon / West OKC ( council ) / DT.

With a MagLev, the bracking times are much more efficient & the speeds are greater. ....not using the Heavy Diesel Engines to power this light rail train.

The needs & desires of a passenger in Japan vs. OKC is the same. We have expensive roads in OKC now. ( $200 M for I-240 / I-35 exchange est ) We spend billions of $$$ each year on the ODOT highways and they still cant get it right. We do this for a state w/ 3.4M people? ...we don't have the density for our ODOT budget either, but we continue to punch-out an Overpriced / Cloverleaf product in 2013?

Yes, we need to have this in place for our OKC Metro Cities (Norman to OKC would be first / Edmond to OKC next / MWC to OKC / then Yukon to OKC. Let's take advantage of our lower cost of today, instead of waiting 20 years when it will be 4x the cost for the same thing.

So exactly what are the trip times you figured out that HSR would take doing local rail versus standard commuter rail?

Heck, since we're sparing no expense at high speed travel, why stop at HSR, give me a freakin transporter. Stop thinking small people we can do this!