Shawn isn't far off. The demand has to go up and then they'll invest money. It also doesn't help rail's case with continued expansion of roads and highways, increases in speed limits, etc. Toll every highway, cap speeds and load limits, and free up the money in the budget that goes to highways to reinvest in rail. We also need to keep in mine that the nation's air space is even more congested now and that can be used as another driver to push people to rail. Take care of the capacity problems at airports - start re-implementing slots in a smart way - and then encourage expanding the code-share relationships between airlines and rail lines.

Yeah it makes no sense to just not do anything until you get the gold standard. The culture here is to either drive or fly. It is going to take some time to get people to accept rail here. The most likely area to build out HSR first is from Chicago on lines to Detroit, Toledo, Cleveland, Pittsburgh, St. Louis, Des Moines, and Minneapolis. Then move to the Boston-New York-Washington-Florida corridor and tie it also into the Midwest network.

I'm gonna shed some light on how the rest of the US travels... The big money ( LA - NYC / Chicago - Dallas ) ALL fly over your heads. This is the WHY OKC should / must place this OPTION for travel. We hold the key to their ability to connect this concept into reality.

Shawn isn't far off. The demand has to go up and then they'll invest money. It also doesn't help rail's case with continued expansion of roads and highways, increases in speed limits, etc. Toll every highway, cap speeds and load limits, and free up the money in the budget that goes to highways to reinvest in rail. We also need to keep in mine that the nation's air space is even more congested now and that can be used as another driver to push people to rail. Take care of the capacity problems at airports - start re-implementing slots in a smart way - and then encourage expanding the code-share relationships between airlines and rail lines.

and those are great ideas for the airlines & standard freight lines industries. This group will never place any support for HSR. Boeing builds and sells planes, they don't want to see HSR demand increase ever!

If we want to see HSR, then we have to be "outside" the other industries influences. Airlines & Freight. They are holding it all back.

Yeah it makes no sense to just not do anything until you get the gold standard. The culture here is to either drive or fly. It is going to take some time to get people to accept rail here. The most likely area to build out HSR first is from Chicago on lines to Detroit, Toledo, Cleveland, Pittsburgh, St. Louis, Des Moines, and Minneapolis. Then move to the Boston-New York-Washington-Florida corridor and tie it also into the Midwest network.

Exactly, not to mention that people do actually use the Heartland Flyer right now as I'm sure they would regular service between OKC and Tulsa. People are starting to see the benefits of rail travel over at least driving. I used to be in the group that thought the heartland flyer was pointless, but a few trips have changed that for me. It's never been completely full when I've ridden it outside of OU/TX weekend but has always had a pretty decent amount of people on it depending on the day. I love my truck as much as the next guy but it's nice to take a break every once and awhile on frequently traveled routes like I-35 and I-44. Besides working, the train is usually pretty comfortable...not a bad place to take a nap.

I'm gonna shed some light on how the rest of the US travels... The big money ( LA - NYC / Chicago - Dallas ) ALL fly over your heads. This is the WHY OKC should / must place this OPTION for travel. We hold the key to their ability to connect this concept into reality.

Again, what do you propose we do? Enough with the conjecture. Share your realistic ideas. I want to hear them. The city of Oklahoma city cannot reasonably be expected to build and own high speed rail lines and equipment for the purpose of people "passing through" OKC. That would be no better than them flying over us.

I'm gonna shed some light on how the rest of the US travels... The big money ( LA - NYC / Chicago - Dallas ) ALL fly over your heads. This is the WHY OKC should / must place this OPTION for travel. We hold the key to their ability to connect this concept into reality.

Thanks for shedding some light to an airline employee...I never would have understood that otherwise. :rolleyes:


and those are great ideas for the airlines & standard freight lines industries. This group will never place any support for HSR. Boeing builds and sells planes, they don't want to see HSR demand increase ever!

If we want to see HSR, then we have to be "outside" the other industries influences. Airlines & Freight. They are holding it all back.

Bombardier has built thousands of planes. Oh...and what else do they build? Rail Vehicles - Trains, Metros, Monorails and Locomotives - Bombardier (http://www.bombardier.com/en/transportation/products-services/rail-vehicles.html)

Boeing has released many reports over the last few years that support intermodal solutions that combine air and HSR.

Exactly, not to mention that people do actually use the Heartland Flyer right now as I'm sure they would regular service between OKC and Tulsa. People are starting to see the benefits of rail travel over at least driving. I used to be in the group that thought the heartland flyer was pointless, but a few trips have changed that for me. It's never been completely full when I've ridden it outside of OU/TX weekend but has always had a pretty decent amount of people on it depending on the day. I love my truck as much as the next guy but it's nice to take a break every once and awhile on frequently traveled routes like I-35 and I-44. Besides working, the train is usually pretty comfortable...not a bad place to take a nap.

If they could improve the schedule, increase speeds some, and allow me convenient connections to the airports - I would be able to to be based out of Dallas for work and just commute on the train each day. I would have no problem doing an hour and a half commute on a train that I can either nap on, get some more work done, etc.

I know people that have commuted to/from Tulsa from/to OKC for years and have thought if there are people willing to drive 4 hours a day round trip to get to/from OKC, they'd be willing to do that same thing going to/from Dallas on a fast train...

I know people that have commuted to/from Tulsa from/to OKC for years and have thought if there are people willing to drive 4 hours a day round trip to get to/from OKC, they'd be willing to do that same thing going to/from Dallas on a fast train...Tulsa is like an hour drive, sometimes and an hour and a half.... Dallas is about 2 1/2 to 3 hours.

I know people that have commuted to/from Tulsa from/to OKC for
years and have thought if there are people willing to drive 4 hours a
day round trip to get to/from OKC, they'd be willing to do that same
thing going to/from Dallas on a fast train...
To a point, yes. I've noticed that people will only pay what appears
to be and exuberant amount of money if the trip will prevent them
from losing an exuberant amount of money.

Mom and Pop ain't gonna spend anything near $75 apiece for a
trip to T-Town and back. If in fact $75 is for a round trip ticket. Hell,
Greyhound is less expensive and can get them there for @ $45.

Except for being noticed what's the purpose of spending twice as
much and getting there later?

To a point, yes. I've noticed that people will only pay what appears
to be and exuberant amount of money if the trip will prevent them
from losing an exuberant amount of money.

Mom and Pop ain't gonna spend anything near $75 apiece for a
trip to T-Town and back. If in fact $75 is for a round trip ticket. Hell,
Greyhound is less expensive and can get them there for @ $45.

Except for being noticed what's the purpose of spending twice as
much and getting there later?

Depends. It all depends. My 8 year old nephew loves trains. Thinks they're awesome. I might buy a few tickets just to take him on a fun trip. How many other uncles are out there who are looking for something like that? How many people (who aren't driving for whatever reason) wouldn't consider using a bus but would consider riding a train? Even if it is just one in a thousand people, that might be enough to support a route like this.

Right now this city may be on the wrong side of economies of scale. Trains may not be the fastest, or the cheapest, mode of transportation we have available. We'd need a lot more routes and a lot more passengers before most people would consider using them regularly. But that doesn't mean there aren't people who will spend that kind of money for that kind of service. The more attractions we get downtown, and the better our public transportation system becomes, the more people will consider it a viable option. If someone could take the train from Tulsa, and then be able to go see any of the attractions they'd normally want to see in OKC, and then go back to Tulsa, all without ever needing a car (thanks to our future awesome streetcar), it may be worth it to leave the car behind and take the train.

I drive an F-150. I probably spend right more than $75 to go to Tulsa and back in gas and tolls. If I could kick back and sleep instead of driving all that way, and was able to get around Tulsa quickly and easily once I got there? Sounds good to me.

Thanks for shedding some light to an airline employee...I never would have understood that otherwise. :rolleyes:



Bombardier has built thousands of planes. Oh...and what else do they build? Rail Vehicles - Trains, Metros, Monorails and Locomotives - Bombardier (http://www.bombardier.com/en/transportation/products-services/rail-vehicles.html)

Boeing has released many reports over the last few years that support intermodal solutions that combine air and HSR.

Yes, I knew that. Your connection w/ the airline industry is why you feel the best "next step" for OKC is what the ailine industry will provide us. The airline industry is providing OKC w/ less flights @ more cost / with less connections & fewer options. OKC will not get a HUB w/ 29 gates. LIke you said before, we would need to have aprox. 75 gates which would be a great cost to OKC ( 3x $$$ ). ...so the airport is NOT our answer.

Boeing released reports for the PR portion of the quarterly statements. That big bear will not be investing in the HSR community at all. That is not their intention.

Again, what do you propose we do? Enough with the conjecture. Share your realistic ideas. I want to hear them. The city of Oklahoma city cannot reasonably be expected to build and own high speed rail lines and equipment for the purpose of people "passing through" OKC. That would be no better than them flying over us.

Well, therer is a long answer to all of that, but I will make it brief... New Commerce. New Industires that are not currently in our region. Millions of new people coming into our city ( the may stay a nite / have a dinner / catch a Thunder game / ??? ) taking the "outside $" and injecting it directly into our local economy. A World Class HSR HUB in OKC, you bet!

Eastcoast / Westcoast Corporations may chose to open a regional office / operations in OKC....we are centrally located ( cost less to move commodities ; ie Amazon in Coffeyville, KS ). This is the next step for the US. ...or would you want KC to have this?

Tulsa is like an hour drive, sometimes and an hour and a half.... Dallas is about 2 1/2 to 3 hours.

:-) :-) :-) That explains why you like cars and highways so much, you like to go fast! :-) :-) :-)

In the hundreds if not thousands of times I've driven to Tulsa, going 80-85 in the 75 (and I have a pikepass so don't have to stop), I've never made it in an hour. Perhaps I'm doing something wrong? Hour and a half is the norm for me... and 3 hours is the norm for me to Dallas (without traffic).

But for the record, we're talking realistic driving and conditions to/from realistic places. Not everybody lives in Edmond and drives to South Tulsa and drives it on weekends when there's less traffic. If you drive from far south OKC to the Tulsa Airport area (where one of my commuting friends works) for example, you're dealing with traffic in both cities, both ways at times. It takes him just under two hours on a typical day. And he does this everyday. It doesn't even matter how long it takes YOU, he has daily datapoints to show real world nubmbers. Not that any of that matters. I'm just saying there are people who are doing it that would probably love not to if a fast train was available, that's all...

Yes, I knew that. Your connection w/ the airline industry is why you feel the best "next step" for OKC is what the ailine industry will provide us. The airline industry is providing OKC w/ less flights @ more cost / with less connections & fewer options. OKC will not get a HUB w/ 29 gates. LIke you said before, we would need to have aprox. 75 gates which would be a great cost to OKC ( 3x $$$ ). ...so the airport is NOT our answer.

Boeing released reports for the PR portion of the quarterly statements. That big bear will not be investing in the HSR community at all. That is not their intention.

What? Where and when have I ever said such a thing. I think my position on the OKC air hub thing has been very clear on this board for years - LONG before you ever showed up. Now you are just making stuff up to justify this crazy nonsensical post of yours. So exactly what did you know since what you posted is factually wrong? Or are you finally admitting that the "facts" you are basing your positions on actually inaccurate and you know that?

What? Where and when have I ever said such a thing. I think my position on the OKC air hub thing has been very clear on this board for years - LONG before you ever showed up. Now you are just making stuff up to justify this crazy nonsensical post of yours. So exactly what did you know since what you posted is factually wrong? Or are you finally admitting that the "facts" you are basing your positions on actually inaccurate and you know that?

No. I was thinking it was you that said we needed in the range of 75 gates if we want to be of interest to the airline HUB conversation?

This will only be a flash in the pan. I don't believe it will last long.

No. I was thinking it was you that said we needed in the range of 75 gates if we want to be of interest to the airline HUB conversation?

Never have said that. I'd invite you to visit the aviation threads to accurately get my position on such matters.

Never have said that. I'd invite you to visit the aviation threads to accurately get my position on such matters.

Venture, what would it take for OKC to get an airline HUB & be a major piece to the airline industry?

Venture, what would it take for OKC to get an airline HUB & be a major piece to the airline industry?

Nothing. It isn't going to happen.

Nothing. It isn't going to happen.

Exactly. Since it has not happened yet it never will.

Nothing. It isn't going to happen.

why not?

why not?

Go read the 2013 Commercial Aviation thread...we discussed it at great length many times. I'm not repeating it all again in a thread that would be completely off topic.

He has answered this question... seems like half a dozen times in other places on this forum...

He has answered this question... seems like half a dozen times in other places on this forum...

I wanted you to post it. Venture, you are 100% correct. OKC is NOT going to ever get a HUB / or be anything major at the airport. The cost are escalating, the flights are fewer, and we are too close to DFW.

This why we MUST look to being a HSR HUB. It is the logical next step.

I wanted you to post it. Venture, you are 100% correct. OKC is NOT going to ever get a HUB / or be anything major at the airport. The cost are escalating, the flights are fewer, and we are too close to DFW.

This why we MUST look to being a HSR HUB. It is the logical next step.

Please tell me you are just here to troll, because your posts make no sense 99% of the time and the remaining 1% are just absurb trolls. You have no point or have been extremely poor at making it - maybe its time to slow down and actually consider what is being posted. Again, this is not the aviation thread so stop taking it off topic.

Now your HSR hub you are thinking isn't logical. I've seen ONE proposal that has even suggested any connection to the west coast. None of the dozens of other proposals out there include connecting HSR from the Central US to the West coast. Upgrades to the rails through the Rockies are going to make it pretty expensive.

Start supporting your statements with something of substance - you haven't yet.

I wanted you to post it. Venture, you are 100% correct. OKC is NOT going to ever get a HUB / or be anything major at the airport. The cost are escalating, the flights are fewer, and we are too close to DFW.

This why we MUST look to being a HSR HUB. It is the logical next step.

No, it's not.

No, it's not.

Venture just said it IS logical. ...post just above you.

A girl I work with lives in Tulsa and drives in every morning. Think she leaves around 2am to get here by 330am for her 4am shifft.

A girl I work with lives in Tulsa and drives in every morning. Think she leaves around 2am to get here by 330am for her 4am shifft.

Why not just move here.

why not?
We could have 200 gates and it wouldn't matter. The airlines aren't looking to establish any new hubs.

We could have 200 gates and it wouldn't matter. The airlines aren't looking to establish any new hubs.

Exactly. That is my point. This is why OKC should place its future in being a HSR HUB.

Get ahead of Dallas & Kansas City as a major role in the natural direction of mass transit.

A hub and spoke system makes no sense with rail anyway. Rail by it's nature of needing the "rail" part almost has to be point to point.

They posted on FB today that they only have 76 tickets left of the 900.

Maybe the people do want rail....

They posted on FB today that they only have 76 tickets left of the 900.

Maybe the people do want rail....

That is awesome!!!!

They posted on FB today that they only have 76 tickets left of the 900.

Maybe the people do want rail....

Good to hear, given the locations it was a little bit of a worry how much of a response they would get but hopefully this will give them more reason to continue on and go through the red tape to extend it into OKC's & Tulsa's downtowns

They posted on FB today that they only have 76 tickets left of the 900.

Maybe the people do want rail....

Uber folk .... take heed, for behold, to the east, a new market is born.

Exactly. That is my point. This is why OKC should place its future in being a HSR HUB.

Get ahead of Dallas & Kansas City as a major role in the natural direction of mass transit.

No, that's a silly point. As mentioned previously, there won't be HSR hubs. It will be a an origin and destination system if and when it happens. OKC could spend $5billion on HSR and it won't be a hub for it.

No, that's a silly point. As mentioned previously, there won't be HSR hubs. It will be a an origin and destination system if and when it happens. OKC could spend $5billion on HSR and it won't be a hub for it.

Granted even the most optimistic HSR projections does not warrant more than a normal station in OKC, if it is built as a network there will be hubs, plans otherwise would have to be ignoring well documented experience of network operations and efficency to think otherwise

I think regional HSR will have hubs, but OKC won't be one. At best, OKC will be connection point between HSR hubs so if a person wanted to travel cross country via HSR they could. I could see Dallas being a HSR hub that connects OKC-Houston-San Antonio-Austin--Ft Worth. A second hub out of Kansas City would connect St Louis-Omaha-Tulsa-Wichita-Topeka-Des Moines-OKC. OKC would be served by both the Dallas and Kansas City hubs which would allow thru passengers to connect in OKC. If a third hub was in Chicago it would connect with both St Louis and Des Monies so if someone from OKC wanted to go to Chicago they could connect to the Chicago system in either Des Moines or St Louis.

Granted even the most optimistic HSR projections does not warrant more than a normal station in OKC, if it is built as a network there will be hubs, plans otherwise would have to be ignoring well documented experience of network operations and efficency to think otherwise

Probably true, but only places like Chicago, New York, LA, etc that are already rail hubs because of their population.

Unless I'm going to make a million dollar deal I can't think of a reason to
spend over $50 for a one way ticket to Tulsa. Good grief, procuring an
airplane and taking a limo service makes more sense. Of course I'd gladly
take the train for a $20 round trip with the option of returning on another
day. That makes far more sense.

This isn't so much a commuter/transportation option as it is an excursion train. I look at it as kind of a limited test run. They can check the track, verify the trip time, gauge passenger comfort, etc... You can guess at a lot of stuff but until you have equipment rolling down the track with people aboard you never know for sure.

I think regional HSR will have hubs, but OKC won't be one. At best, OKC will be connection point between HSR hubs so if a person wanted to travel cross country via HSR they could. I could see Dallas being a HSR hub that connects OKC-Houston-San Antonio-Austin--Ft Worth. A second hub out of Kansas City would connect St Louis-Omaha-Tulsa-Wichita-Topeka-Des Moines-OKC. OKC would be served by both the Dallas and Kansas City hubs which would allow thru passengers to connect in OKC. If a third hub was in Chicago it would connect with both St Louis and Des Monies so if someone from OKC wanted to go to Chicago they could connect to the Chicago system in either Des Moines or St Louis.

JTF, the regional traveler will have that as an option anyway. I'm referring to the larger volume, single destination traveler. The ones that will look to HSR as a primary alternative to air. If we provide them a single point for travel ( as OKC the center between All of the major routes) with LA - NYC / DC - SF / Chi - DFW / Portland - Orlando , this will give them the ability to travel the long distance in the least amount of stops w/ (1) in OKC. ie. Chi - LA / Orlando - SF. By using the I-40 plan, we are providing the furthest N. non-snow route. This route is the least amount of miles for All routes traveling long distance ( less the east coast I-95 NYC - Miami ).

JTF, the regional traveler will have that as an option anyway. I'm referring to the larger volume, single destination traveler. The ones that will look to HSR as a primary alternative to air. If we provide them a single point for travel ( as OKC the center between All of the major routes) with LA - NYC / DC - SF / Chi - DFW / Portland - Orlando , this will give them the ability to travel the long distance in the least amount of stops w/ (1) in OKC. ie. Chi - LA / Orlando - SF. By using the I-40 plan, we are providing the furthest N. non-snow route. This route is the least amount of miles for All routes traveling long distance ( less the east coast I-95 NYC - Miami ).

You'll never get anyone to vote for the level of investment necessary without them already having experience with rail. Period. You're talking about billions of dollars to create a HSR system in Oklahoma. That won't pass if the voters here have never been on a train. That's just the way it is.

Now, if we have a functional commuter or light rail system in place, and people have been using it for several years and believe in it, you'd be much more likely to get support to establish HSR connections throughout the state.

There isn't going to be a single nationwide HSR network. There are going to be 8 or 9 regional networks with integration points on the periphery of each.

...and if we have this HSR Hub here in OKC, it keeps the traveler from going too far S into Dallas to reach up to NY & Chi. ...it keeps the FL bound traveler from going to far N. by being in KC. Thus, OKC provides less cost, by having a single Rail corridor from E - W / W - E / N - S / NW - SE / NE - SW.

If OKC is the central hub for HSR, it takes that hassel out of travel for the long-distance traveler. Thus, making it viable for use. ....freight becomes the shortest points between two distances for many ( ie. Amazon / Macy's ) that are looking to keep their unit cost at the lowest possible, and easier to manage.

There isn't going to be a single nationwide HSR network. There are going to be 8 or 9 regional networks with integration points on the periphery of each.

ok, so how does the LA - NYC traveler get to their destination in a regional only system?

ok, so how does the LA - NYC traveler get to their destination in a regional only system?

By airplane. If you look at all the HSR proposals out there, I don't think any of them go through the Rockies.

http://www.vanalen.org/lasr/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/map_hsr_current-635x476.jpg

http://www.america2050.org/HSR-Network.png

http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/us-hsr-lines2.jpg

http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/1_1.png

See the trend?

Funny, when customers from LA ask the question, "Now why cant I take a HSR all the way to NYC?" ...or from Chicago "why cant I take a HSR to Dallas?" ... or from SF "why cant I take a HSR to Orlando?" ...see the trend.

Consumers drive markets. HSR will be the same.

..ok, now link them together. You get OKC in the middle of ALL of them. Yes, it is the NON-rockies route. Yes, it is a trend.

Why would an HSR train from NYC to LA want to stop in OKC?

JTF, how does the HSR traveler ( from LA ) get to NYC? This is the demand the big consumers will require of the HSR system. OKC is the link, it bridges the gap. It provides the least rail miles & less stops.

JTF, how does the HSR traveler ( from LA ) get to NYC? This is the demand the big consumers will require of the HSR system. OKC is the link, it bridges the gap. It provides the least rail miles & less stops.

I have not heard there is a demand for this. What is the demand? What would the cost be for this?

JTF, how does the HSR traveler ( from LA ) get to NYC? This is the demand the big consumers will require of the HSR system. OKC is the link, it bridges the gap. It provides the least rail miles & less stops.

But why stop in OKC? Wouldn't it blow through OKC the way it blows past every other city on the route. In fact, why would it even go through a city at all. It would be faster, safer, and cheaper if it avoided every town and city along the way. If the hub is only to change trains wouldn't North Platte, NE be a much better central hub location?

I did finally find one map with HSR coast to coast...

Note how it goes out of the Chicago rail hub, which is already well established, and cuts right across to Omaha and Denver. Just like airline routes, origination/destination demand is key. There already is a Chicago-Denver line (which continues on to California). So why wouldn't you route a cross country train on the existing line?

http://mediad.publicbroadcasting.net/p/michigan/files/201302/US-High-Speed-Rail-System-by-FirstCultural-2013-02-03.png

Yes, that is a map that showed how the "Big Demand" from LA to NYC could happen? I am very familar w/ this map & the question that was raised in regards to it. This was the answer to the "what do we do with Denver?" question. This map shows we have to spend (2) the rail miles for this to happen. A north corridor & south corridor. And, the North corrido goes through the rockies...ie slow speeds w/ high cost.

With a single route to OKC ( via I-40 existing infrastructure & commerce corridor East Coast to West Coast), it provides a single corridor for HSR. The best path. The least cost. Less stops. Central is the key word here.

Yes, that is a map that showed how the "Big Demand" from LA to NYC could happen? I am very familar w/ this map & the question that was raised in regards to it. This was the answer to the "what do we do with Denver?" question. This map shows we have to spend (2) the rail miles for this to happen. A north corridor & south corridor. And, the North corrido goes through the rockies...ie slow speeds w/ high cost.

With a single route to OKC ( via I-40 existing infrastructure & commerce corridor East Coast to West Coast), it provides a single corridor for HSR. The best path. The least cost. Less stops. Central is the key word here.

Now how about you go back and answer the questions posed to you.

Now how about you go back and answer the questions posed to you.

dentures, I will get you up-to-speed.... HSR joke !!!!!

The big demand is all the flyovers we have today in the West / East coast air corridor. But you know that, you are an airline guy. So you opinion regarding HSR may be "tainted" w/ the next direction of our travel needs. Here is the answer to the question. You said the LA - NYC traveler will use airlines. I see.

Cost are rising. Flights are less frequent. In OKC, we cant even get to some cities w/o taking that extra step in travel ( drive to Dallas ) example. Homeland security makes it where grandma doesnt want to see the grandkids because of the molesting she gets there in the "security check points". ...and OKC is never going to be a HUB for airlines.

HSR is the answer for OKC. We are the link between the coasts. A single non-snow route corridor through OKC. The bridge to N & S. The LA to NYC will travel less miles & fewer stops if they go through OKC.

But why stop in OKC? Wouldn't it blow through OKC the way it blows past every other city on the route. In fact, why would it even go through a city at all. It would be faster, safer, and cheaper if it avoided every town and city along the way. If the hub is only to change trains wouldn't North Platte, NE be a much better central hub location?

Commerce is a primary reason all travel corridors are selected. OKC can provide both. We are small enough to accomodate this project ( into our city ) and large enough to manage it. ie, large cities like Dallas & Kansas City are older & have a greater up-front cost for construction ( land cost ).