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

The juvenile name calling and 4th grade grammar makes me want to just stop reading your posts, but I'll go ahead and respond.


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.

This really doesn't make any sense. The big demand is all the flyovers? So are you saying the demand is with those O&D pax flying from the NYC area to the LA basin? Or is the demand with the pax in flyover country that normally don't get in on those routes? Two completely different situations here. Also, if we see a HSR option going from coast to coast, are we expecting that line to skip Philly, Pittsburgh, Columbus, Cincy, Louisville, St. Louis and Tulsa just go to get to OKC nonstop? Then another line from OKC that will route most likely south through Dallas and San Antonio before going west. If I'm a passenger wanting to get from NYC to LA quickly, I'm not taking a train.

The shortest path, especially since you are discussing using interstate right of ways to help put the rail on, is going to be along I-80 to I-76 to I-70 and then I-15 into LA. Total distance...2,792 miles. Which if the train would maintain 220 mph the entire way it would still be well over 12 hours in total trip time.


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.

Flights are less frequent in markets that don't justify high numbers. There is somewhere in the neighborhood of 40 daily nonstop flights from the NYC area airports to LAX. So for those people, even with the added delays at security and such, it is still going to be much faster and more convenient to fly. OKC you can get to anywhere you want in the world, but yes...you might have to take a flight down to Dallas first - driving is the persons option, but they certainly don't have to do so.


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.

HSR may very well be the answer for OKC to get ourselves connected to more markets. HSR is only going to be competitive with airline flights where the time factor can be equalized. We see this amazingly well in the Northeast with Acela able to do extremely well when competing against the shuttle services from New York to Boston and DC. For OKC it would probably work well on a line up to Denver, down to Houston and San Antonio or over to New Orleans. Outside of that it isn't really going to do much good as the travel times will start to become unfavorable.

The juvenile name calling and 4th grade grammar makes me want to just stop reading your posts, but I'll go ahead and respond.



This really doesn't make any sense. The big demand is all the flyovers? So are you saying the demand is with those O&D pax flying from the NYC area to the LA basin? Or is the demand with the pax in flyover country that normally don't get in on those routes? Two completely different situations here. Also, if we see a HSR option going from coast to coast, are we expecting that line to skip Philly, Pittsburgh, Columbus, Cincy, Louisville, St. Louis and Tulsa just go to get to OKC nonstop? Then another line from OKC that will route most likely south through Dallas and San Antonio before going west. If I'm a passenger wanting to get from NYC to LA quickly, I'm not taking a train.

The shortest path, especially since you are discussing using interstate right of ways to help put the rail on, is going to be along I-80 to I-76 to I-70 and then I-15 into LA. Total distance...2,792 miles. Which if the train would maintain 220 mph the entire way it would still be well over 12 hours in total trip time.



Flights are less frequent in markets that don't justify high numbers. There is somewhere in the neighborhood of 40 daily nonstop flights from the NYC area airports to LAX. So for those people, even with the added delays at security and such, it is still going to be much faster and more convenient to fly. OKC you can get to anywhere you want in the world, but yes...you might have to take a flight down to Dallas first - driving is the persons option, but they certainly don't have to do so.



HSR may very well be the answer for OKC to get ourselves connected to more markets. HSR is only going to be competitive with airline flights where the time factor can be equalized. We see this amazingly well in the Northeast with Acela able to do extremely well when competing against the shuttle services from New York to Boston and DC. For OKC it would probably work well on a line up to Denver, down to Houston and San Antonio or over to New Orleans. Outside of that it isn't really going to do much good as the travel times will start to become unfavorable.

You said that very well for an airline guy. Like I said, your view is from an airline POV, not the consumers.

OKC being connected from the I-40 corridor is what makes sense for the HSR corridor to work through the OKC hub. Even and airline guy can see this one...(maybe not).

Let me throw this out for all the frequent airline travelers... "I'm sorry sir, but your flight is delayed". "My connection was late and that was the last flight out tonight, would you like the Holiday Inn Express or the Hampton Inn"...and here is your complimentary toothbrush. or, you can just wait until the morning in the hard plastic chair for 12 hrs, because that is the next flight out.

...I'm sorry, but we are waiting in line here. The tower has placed us 10th in line. We are just going to push away from the gate and wait a few hours.

This is a "day in the life" of the airline industry. It's just not business friendly anymore.

Let me throw this out for all the frequent airline travelers... "I'm sorry sir, but your flight is delayed". "My connection was late and that was the last flight out tonight, would you like the Holiday Inn Express or the Hampton Inn"...and here is your complimentary toothbrush. or, you can just wait until the morning in the hard plastic chair for 12 hrs, because that is the next flight out.

...I'm sorry, but we are waiting in line here. The tower has placed us 10th in line. We are just going to push away from the gate and wait a few hours.

This is a "day in the life" of the airline industry. It's just not business friendly anymore.

You are aware long distance trains are affected by weather as well right. You want to cruise into a hail storm at 200 mph? What happens to the HSR cantilever wire when it has 3 inches of ice hanging from it?

What if this was a passenger train with 300 people aboard and speeding along 200 mph?
a-smEEHYdGQ

This will slow HSR down.
uvbgq2Ni2uE

Ive taken a few trips on the Southwest Chief from Newton, KS to LA. All three times it was 4, 3, and 16 hours late. On the one that was 16 hours late it was because the crew was maxed out on work hours so the train had to stop in its tracks (literally) and get new crew in. Problem was it was in the middle of the painted desert and had to 4 wheel a new crew in. SMH

You are aware long distance trains are affected by weather as well right. You want to cruise into a hail storm at 200 mph? What happens to the HSR cantilever wire when it has 3 inches of ice hanging from it?

What if this was a passenger train with 300 people aboard and speeding along 200 mph?
a-smEEHYdGQ

This will slow HSR down.
uvbgq2Ni2uE

..and you are aware that when the Ariplanes engines malfunction @ 40,000 ft, they stall and crash & burn to the ground. Gravity & Fuel make all planes explode. 9 / 11.

I said I-40 is the furthest north ( NON-Snow) route......right.

..and you are aware that when the Ariplanes engines malfunction @ 40,000 ft, they stall and crash & burn to the ground. Gravity & Fuel make all planes explode. 9 / 11.

http://mrwgifs.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Seth-Cohen-Facepalm-Reaction-Gif.gif

Ive taken a few trips on the Southwest Chief from Newton, KS to LA. All three times it was 4, 3, and 16 hours late. On the one that was 16 hours late it was because the crew was maxed out on work hours so the train had to stop in its tracks (literally) and get new crew in. Problem was it was in the middle of the painted desert and had to 4 wheel a new crew in. SMH

I was waiting for a flight in O'hare, and they had a crew change that delayed us over night. I guess that movie about most all airline pilots being members of AA's is pretty close to reality.

..and you are aware that when the Ariplanes engines malfunction @ 40,000 ft, they stall and crash & burn to the ground. Gravity & Fuel make all planes explode. 9 / 11.

I said I-40 is the furthest north ( NON-Snow) route......right.

We better stop using ships as well because they sink at sea, or CNG vehicles because they use to explode, or any number of factors. Also, are you aware that when airplane (a-i-r-p-l-a-n-e-s) engines malfunction at cruise, they are shut down and the aircraft normally lands without incident. Mid air shutdowns are pretty rare, even more so to lose multiple engines, so having an engine go out doesn't equate crash and burn. Only a fool or drama queen jump right to the worst case scenario. Regardless, you are dodging the questions and points being made by myself and others.

..and you are aware that when the Ariplanes engines malfunction @ 40,000 ft, they stall and crash & burn to the ground. Gravity & Fuel make all planes explode. 9 / 11.

I said I-40 is the furthest north ( NON-Snow) route......right.

Crap - I just lost 12 IQ points and I think that comment gave me cancer.

Ive taken a few trips on the Southwest Chief from Newton, KS to LA. All three times it was 4, 3, and 16 hours late. On the one that was 16 hours late it was because the crew was maxed out on work hours so the train had to stop in its tracks (literally) and get new crew in. Problem was it was in the middle of the painted desert and had to 4 wheel a new crew in. SMHThat is not untypical of government of the type of regulations on industry.
The long distace trains to the west coast are so unprofitable they really should be closed down and have the money put to better use elsewhere.

I have read that its likely that in 2016 the SW Chief will be rerouted though Wichita, Alva, Woodward, Pampa and Amarillo. Some say this would cut hours off the current trip and probably add ridership?

Crap - I just lost 12 IQ points and I think that comment gave me cancer.

That made me literally LOL. :)

We better stop using ships as well because they sink at sea, or CNG vehicles because they use to explode, or any number of factors. Also, are you aware that when airplane (a-i-r-p-l-a-n-e-s) engines malfunction at cruise, they are shut down and the aircraft normally lands without incident. Mid air shutdowns are pretty rare, even more so to lose multiple engines, so having an engine go out doesn't equate crash and burn. Only a fool or drama queen jump right to the worst case scenario. Regardless, you are dodging the questions and points being made by myself and others.

hey dentures, JustTheFacts placed those videos of rail issues. I promptly reminded him of airline issues w/ gravity & fuel. Your airlines are subject to weather delays / icing on the wings / the airline industry invented the De-Icer.

That is not drama, that is a fact. That is not foolish, that is asking yourself the question, Do I want to get home alive today? ...bottom line dentures.

Crap - I just lost 12 IQ points and I think that comment gave me cancer.

...was that a 50% reduction ?

It's obvious OKvision is just troll, a very stupid one at that.

hey dentures, JustTheFacts placed those videos of rail issues. I promptly reminded him of airline issues w/ gravity & fuel. Your airlines are subject to weather delays / icing on the wings / the airline industry invented the De-Icer.

That is not drama, that is a fact. That is not foolish, that is asking yourself the question, Do I want to get home alive today? ...bottom line dentures.

Hmm, maybe this whole "dentures" name calling you have going is because I am older than you. I honestly can't see anyone over the age of 11 talk and type the way you do. Then again, many 11 year olds would be embarrassed at not being able to spell a lot of the words you miss. :)

Trains are subject to plenty of weather delays as well, then again...every mode of transportation is. I'm assuming you've never heard of rails buckling during the Summer heat or switching equipment malfunctioning after rain/snow/ice? Everything has risk associated with it.

Now, would you like to get back to discussing the topic or are we going keep going down the path of crazy town or whatever is going on inside that skull of yours.

Crap - I just lost 12 IQ points and I think that comment gave me cancer....was that a 50% reduction ?

Nope - you managed to wipe out the only 12 I had left.

Nope - you managed to wipe out the only 12 I had left.

...good one.

Self-deprecating humor is always a hit. Remind me to tell you some day about the first time I went snow skiing. It could be stand-up comedy material.

I'll see your snow skiing story and raise you a shart.

Topical: Amtrak trains heading to Chicago stranded in snow - CBS News (http://www.cbsnews.com/news/amtrak-trains-heading-to-chicago-stranded-in-snow/)

If you want to link them all together and make a hub, that'd be Denver for sure.

If it is HSR, Denver won't work w/ the Rockies.

Sid, why not OKC?

You said connect all of them together. I assumed you figured out how to cross the Rockies.


Why not OKC? Simple... Dallas. Dallas would act as a hub anyway. It's massive airport, existing rail infrastructure, and insane population centers surrounding it will ensure it ranks very high on any Hub list.

Second, if you are looking for something more central in the US, Denver is your city. It too has a major airport, rail infrastructure, and lots and lots of people. Like millions and millions more people.

I'm huge on thinking big but you can throw money away if you don't have at least a sliver of pragmatism. Same reason why Oklahoma won't be a major spaceport like our legislators wanted. We could throw lots of money at it but at the end of the day, companies don't want to locate here because from a rocket launch and orbit perspective, Oklahoma is a lousy location.

I'd much rather us invest those billions on making OKC a place with some of the greatest amenities in the nation. World-class healthcare, transit, and perhaps most importantly, schools. If we've got that kind of money to spend, that's where I'd vote to see it spent. A HSR hub would, in my opinion, but throwing money away. At least for a very, very, very long time.

Well, there are a couple of things to consider, when looking at Dallas as your primary location for a HSR HUB. The location is too far south for the groups in Chicago / NYC / etc. This streches the distance for anyone north half of the US. Dallas does have the Airport system in place to support the volume of passengers, but that is also the reason the DFW Airlines (will never allow) their business to be taken away by this great access to HSR, ..only a few miles away. The <direct> cost will be incredibly high because of the cost of real eastate & existing structures already in place. ( Sometimes size is a disadvantage).

Denver, HSR is not condusive to mountains. It does not allow for a High Speed Rating, thus no need for Denver wanting HSR.

Only south of the Rockies will there be a route that is rated for high-speed. This places it in the I-40 corridor. That is the furthest North Non-Snow route too. Location is everything in HSR, flat is better, less infrastructure to build through is a big plus. ( Old large cites are difficult & expensive for HSR)

I'm not saying OKC is a thriving city ( w/ millions ) that deserves to be the location for the HSR HUB, but the location OKC is in, makes it the perfect solution for all the HSR HUB requirements.

Well, I disagree with most of this. You're throwing out drawbacks. But these aren't drawbacks that can't be overcome and most importantly, ones that people with capital aren't willing to overcome. This will no doubt be a massive PPP. And people with money are going to go with the lower risk option. That's going to put it in Dallas or Denver for this part of the country.

Building a HSR through the mountains, is not a drawback that is simply never going to happen. Building a HSR through the mountains would be 1. The most expensive per mile anywhere in the US. 2. Once built, the curves & changes in elevations would only allow a speed rating of 50 mph (as the max). So Denver is 100 % out.

New, large scale endeavors ( New Airports / AFB / Runways ) are difficult to build in Manhattan, Boston , Chicago, LA, SF , and Dallas. This is not a drawback, but can be deal killer.

Denver, HSR is not condusive to mountains. It does not allow for a High Speed Rating, thus no need for Denver wanting HSR.

You are still going to be dealing with mountains in Arizona and New Mexico as well - not to mention crossing California regardless of what route you take.


Only south of the Rockies will there be a route that is rated for high-speed. This places it in the I-40 corridor. That is the furthest North Non-Snow route too. Location is everything in HSR, flat is better, less infrastructure to build through is a big plus. ( Old large cites are difficult & expensive for HSR)

I-40 a non-snow route?

Winter storm closes 180 miles of I-40 in Arizona - CNN.com (http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/18/us/winter-storm/)
Winter storm forces shutdown of I-40 - CBS 5 - KPHO (http://www.kpho.com/story/20353876/2nd-storm-brings-heavy-snow-i-40-closure)

Not snow...but high wind: Interstate 40 in Ariz. Re-Opens - weather.com (http://www.weather.com/travel/flagstaff-i-40-closed-20130408)

The whole idea behind a hub is to connect passengers wanting to continue on...therefore it must have a demand for it. HSR isn't going to be cheap ticket price wise - still less than an airline ticket I would imagine on most routes. However, you haven't addressed on why a person will spend 12+ hours traveling by HSR from NYC to LA versus the 5 hour flight (add maybe 1-3 additional hours on to that for security/bag claim delays) at what will likely be a much lower fare.

For me, long distance rail is very attractive for vacation excursions (read: land cruises) and seeing the country side - not for any time sensitive travel. However, if I want to go up to Chicago for the weekend I'll gladly hop on the HSR and enjoy the ride for a few hours while being able to sleep, eat, play on the laptop/tablet, or visit with those I'm traveling with. If I need to be in New York by a certain time though, I'm taking a plane.

Building a HSR through the mountains, is not a drawback that is simply never going to happen. Building a HSR through the mountains would be 1. The most expensive per mile anywhere in the US. 2. Once built, the curves & changes in elevations would only allow a speed rating of 50 mph (as the max). So Denver is 100 % out.

I-40 isn't exactly a straight stretch of road going through the mountains. Which is probably why this route isn't included in my HSR plans out there. Just too expensive to connect, or perhaps the demand is too low to warrant spending the money.


New, large scale endeavors ( New Airports / AFB / Runways ) are difficult to build in Manhattan, Boston , Chicago, LA, SF , and Dallas. This is not a drawback, but can be deal killer.

New airports are very rare to be built anymore. There are only a handful of new builds over the last decade or longer. New runways of course are more manageable but come at a higher cost of land acquisition. Acela has been pretty successful in competing against the airline shuttles flying BOS-NYC-WAS. I would imagine it'll do well in other similar corridors like OKC-DAL-HOU/SAT/AUS, SFO-SJC-LAX, SEA-PDX, CHI-TOL/DTW-CLE-PIT, JAX-MCO-MIA/FLL and similar. Cross country there is just too much land to cover and the price won't be attractive to the price sensitive consumer.

Building a HSR through the mountains, is not a drawback that is simply never going to happen. Building a HSR through the mountains would be 1. The most expensive per mile anywhere in the US. 2. Once built, the curves & changes in elevations would only allow a speed rating of 50 mph (as the max). So Denver is 100 % out.

Why are you only now beginning to allow reality to intrude on your Vision?

But in the Front Line mountain range, we can have a stop at the Unicorn farms?

Sigh. Are you just making this stuff up? You realize that much of the HSR in Japan involved going through extreem elevation changes. Sure, it's not cheap, but again, if I'm an investor, do I want to put my money in OKC and hope it works out or pay more per mile and go to a city with much higher ROIs.

I've said my peace on this. When it comes to raising the funds for a major hub in the middle of the country, OKC won't be on the list. Too close to Dallas and Denver, which are both better options.Gotthard Base Tunnel: AlpTransit Gotthard AG (http://www.alptransit.ch/en/project/gotthard-base-tunnel.html)

Sigh. Are you just making this stuff up? You realize that much of the HSR in Japan involved going through extreem elevation changes. Sure, it's not cheap, but again, if I'm an investor, do I want to put my money in OKC and hope it works out or pay more per mile and go to a city with much higher ROIs.

I've said my peace on this. When it comes to raising the funds for a major hub in the middle of the country, OKC won't be on the list. Too close to Dallas and Denver, which are both better options.

Sid, Japan is an Island and they have zero options regarding locations for HSR. The middle of the US is vastly open with multiple options. ...an apple vs orange.

OKC provides a viable option w/ the least cost per/mile ( up front ) for HSR HUB vs. Dallas. Also, when it comes to Ridership, the North Half of the US will not to go further south, if they don't have too. Dallas is not the only (investment community w/ a big voice).

Sid, Japan is an Island and they have zero options regarding locations for HSR. The middle of the US is vastly open with multiple options. ...an apple vs orange.

OKC provides a viable option w/ the least cost per/mile ( up front ) for HSR HUB vs. Dallas. Also, when it comes to Ridership, the North Half of the US will not to go further south, if they don't have too. Dallas is not the only (investment community w/ a big voice).

Okay, so you want to take Denver out of the equation. If you go south that also means you are eliminating Des Moines, Omaha, and Las Vegas. Now adding an additional 200 miles to the trip you are adding in St. Louis, Springfield, Tulsa, OKC, and Albuquerque. However, you still have the mountains to deal with in NM, AZ, and CA and also now the Ozarks in MO. There is a shorter route a bit further south that essentially joins up with I-76 and then I-70 in Southern PA. However, you not eliminate Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Toledo, and Chicago in exchange for Columbus, Dayton, and Indianapolis. Eliminating Chicago, IMO, is non-starter and will kill any deal. If you do that you might as well go nonstop NY to LA and eliminate any stops except for fuel.

So far though you still haven't justified that passengers will switch to take a 12+ hour journey by rail over a 5 hour flight.

Okay, so you want to take Denver out of the equation. If you go south that also means you are eliminating Des Moines, Omaha, and Las Vegas. Now adding an additional 200 miles to the trip you are adding in St. Louis, Springfield, Tulsa, OKC, and Albuquerque. However, you still have the mountains to deal with in NM, AZ, and CA and also now the Ozarks in MO. There is a shorter route a bit further south that essentially joins up with I-76 and then I-70 in Southern PA. However, you not eliminate Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Toledo, and Chicago in exchange for Columbus, Dayton, and Indianapolis. Eliminating Chicago, IMO, is non-starter and will kill any deal. If you do that you might as well go nonstop NY to LA and eliminate any stops except for fuel.

So far though you still haven't justified that passengers will switch to take a 12+ hour journey by rail over a 5 hour flight.

I'm sorry venture, I forgot you were still here. No, you are still Way Too Swayed By the Airlines to ever understand the needs of a consumer.

Wtf^^

Wtf^^

I think we got confirmation he has no interest in actually discussing this properly and will just attack and deflect any thought that counter his. Which is unfortunate.

I think we got confirmation he has no interest in actually discussing this properly and will just attack and deflect any thought that counter his. Which is unfortunate.

I put "it" on ignore a LOOOOOOOOOOOONG time ago BUT I still find myself clicking on the posts just to see what "nonsense" is spilled onto this forum, lol.

don't you guys get it, he is throwing out a plan to make sure everyone in the USA can get to OKC quick for the Olympics!

don't you guys get it, he is throwing out a plan to make sure everyone in the USA can get to OKC quick for the Olympics!

And to be sure they can admire that new office tower in far south Norman.

I'm sorry venture, I forgot you were still here. No, you are still Way Too Swayed By the Airlines to ever understand the needs of a consumer.

I am not swayed by the airlinies so I will say what he said since I agree with it. Okay, so you want to take Denver out of the equation. If you go south that also means you are eliminating Des Moines, Omaha, and Las Vegas. Now adding an additional 200 miles to the trip you are adding in St. Louis, Springfield, Tulsa, OKC, and Albuquerque. However, you still have the mountains to deal with in NM, AZ, and CA and also now the Ozarks in MO. There is a shorter route a bit further south that essentially joins up with I-76 and then I-70 in Southern PA. However, you not eliminate Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Toledo, and Chicago in exchange for Columbus, Dayton, and Indianapolis. Eliminating Chicago, IMO, is non-starter and will kill any deal. If you do that you might as well go nonstop NY to LA and eliminate any stops except for fuel.

So far though you still haven't justified that passengers will switch to take a 12+ hour journey by rail over a 5 hour flight.

I think some of you are missing what OKVision4U is saying. He isn't saying Denver shouldn't have HSR access. He is just saying that it doesn't make a good location for a transcontinental HSR hub. Building west out of Denver is so expensive and difficult that I-70 was just completed a few years ago.

I think some of you are missing what OKVision4U is saying. He isn't saying Denver shouldn't have HSR access. He is just saying that it doesn't make a good location for a transcontinental HSR hub. Building west out of Denver is so expensive and difficult that I-70 was just completed a few years ago.

He would actually have to be clear in his posts first for us to get that. Not saying there ever will be a HSR hub, but wouldn't Kansas City or St. Louis make a much better choice?

He would actually have to be clear in his posts first for us to get that. Not saying there ever will be a HSR hub, but wouldn't Kansas City or St. Louis make a much better choice?

KC is what I was thinking orignally if you are talking the center of the country, that is it. And you have more direct access to Chicago without having to go as far north. Also, it is directly west on I-70 from Denver. It could be the center then it would go southwest to Wichita to OKC, Dallas, Austin, SA, Houston, etc.

If you're going this far south, might as well go thru Dallas and have a potential 6,700,000 riders, and closer access to San Antonio, Houston, and Austin, giving you an extra 10,000,000 or so riders within an hour or less HSR distance. Also add in OKC within an hour and a half and you have an additional 1 million riders.

If you're going this far south, might as well go thru Dallas and have a potential 6,700,000 riders, and closer access to San Antonio, Houston, and Austin, giving you an extra 10,000,000 or so riders within an hour or less HSR distance. Also add in OKC within an hour and a half and you have an additional 1 million riders.

But Novision doesn't like that route...

KC & SL seem too close to Chicago to be a major HSR hub, maybe some transfers but looking at city sizes and distances there is just more opportunity east of the Mississippi River for hubs in the forseable future.

Like it or not, HSR will mimick the current air travel routes and hubs.

The airlines have a ton of data on markets. They know where people want to go and at what price they want to do it. You can transpose air passenger data to a rail level. You can look and see Dallas to Houston has on average XX people who pay to fly between the two cities, and what they want to pay to do it. You would build your HSR infrastructure in proven markets, not guess work.

For example OKC-Denver would be a perfect HSR market. Accesses denver from the east, so no mountains. No direct highways, and air data shows about 500 people per day travel between the two cities (not counting connecting, so we know quite a few business and leisure travelers take flights to get to Denver). Could tag Dallas on to the route. Dallas-OKC-Denver. That route would be successful and be used quite a bit by many.

Like it or not, HSR will mimick the current air travel routes and hubs.

The airlines have a ton of data on markets. They know where people want to go and at what price they want to do it. You can transpose air passenger data to a rail level. You can look and see Dallas to Houston has on average XX people who pay to fly between the two cities, and what they want to pay to do it. You would build your HSR infrastructure in proven markets, not guess work.

For example OKC-Denver would be a perfect HSR market. Accesses denver from the east, so no mountains. No direct highways, and air data shows about 500 people per day travel between the two cities (not counting connecting, so we know quite a few business and leisure travelers take flights to get to Denver). Could tag Dallas on to the route. Dallas-OKC-Denver. That route would be successful and be used quite a bit by many.

That route would be packed in the winter for everyone wanting to go up for skiing/snowboarding in the winter. Avoid the hassle of having to take your equipment through the airport and it would be a winner.

That route would be packed in the winter for everyone wanting to go up for skiing/snowboarding in the winter. Avoid the hassle of having to take your equipment through the airport and it would be a winner.

You have forgotten that everyone will be here practicing in our indoor snow skiing facililty.
We will be hosting the Summer AND Winter Olympics.

You have forgotten that everyone will be here practicing in our indoor snow skiing facililty.
We will be hosting the Summer AND Winter Olympics.

Nooooo...we'll host the Winter Olympics but people will need to take the HSR to the venues (to DEN) to actually watch the competition. Then return to OKC for any ceremonies.

I was thinking since we were the HSR hub, that we would have intercontinental direct service to Dubai for the use of their indoor ski facility. The rest of the events would be held here?

But Novision doesn't like that route...

Having the correct location for a HSR HUB is not about gaining addtional ridership. It is about linking the other regional systems in a way that is most beneficial to the W to E / N to S systems.

If you look at the requirements for HSR, you will see that flat is better, open is better, less congestion is better. Then simply link all other these regional systems in a (Single Line Only ), then OKC is the fit.

The Texas volume of riders will already be included in the system, they just need to get (linked) at a central location too. OKC is centered. Flat, and not too big. It works.

You have forgotten that everyone will be here practicing in our indoor snow skiing facililty.
We will be hosting the Summer AND Winter Olympics.

...see, now you won't be bored.

Having the correct location for a HSR HUB is not about gaining addtional ridership. It is about linking the other regional systems in a way that is most beneficial to the W to E / N to S systems.

If you look at the requirements for HSR, you will see that flat is better, open is better, less congestion is better. Then simply link all other these regional systems in a (Single Line Only ), then OKC is the fit.

The Texas volume of riders will already be included in the system, they just need to get (linked) at a central location too. OKC is centered. Flat, and not too big. It works.

So you are saying that local originating passengers won't matter? If that's the case, put it in the middle of Kansas. Let's be honest here, any passenger hub operation requires strong local originating traffic to support the hub. All existing rail and air hubs right now are examples of this. There is a reason why there are major Amtrak facilities in Chicago, New York, and Washington. There is a reason why airline hubs are closed in cities with low local originating traffic (Memphis, Cincinnati, St. Louis). You can't base the entire system on connecting traffic or you'll never make money.

If flat is better, why would you even come into Oklahoma from the east? You are fighting the Ozarks all the way through MO and AR. Whereas if you go from Chicago down through Iowa and Kansas, you avoid all of that. I know you love to mock those of us in the aviation industry but lets be honest...it is one based on the rail industry. There is a reason why all of our labor agreements are governed by the Railway Labor Act.

We first need to get HSR off the ground and deployed first. At the rate we are going it is still going to be 30 years before we even look at connecting the east and west networks by rail.

Sure, operationally speaking, the most efficient spot would be the best.

But, at the same time, you have to have people to ride it. So you have to balance ridership potential with operational efficiency. we could have a HSR shooting across the flat desert. but no one to ride it, but boy would we have a flat and efficient system.....

This is what I was afraid of - that I would actually start to understand what OKVision4U is saying (even if I don't necessarily agree with it). Here is what I think he is saying.

For transcontinental HSR travel there is a long physical barrier running north/south - the Rocky Mountains which will cost a lot of money to over-come and will cause the train to go slower. The most economical way around is to go south. This route provides the least amount of mountain passes and receive much less snow than any route north. If you go all the way south to Dallas you start having exponentially high land acquisition and construction costs to get north, south, east, and west lines into metro Dallas. Dallas will still have HSR but if someone in Dallas wants to go to LA they will need to connect to an west bound train in OKC. Likewise, if the want to go to any point east they will need to connect to an east bound train in OKC.

Essentially what he is saying that the Rockies create a choke point and he thinks OKC should be the eastern hub of that choke point (and maybe Las Vegas is the western hub). So all transcontinental trains from the east would converge in OKC, pass through the choke point to Las Vegas, and then branch off to Phoenix, LA, San Fran, Portland, Seattle, etc.... Trains from the west would all converge in Las Vegas, pass through the choke point to OKC, and then branch off to Houston, Chicago, DC, New York, Atlanta, etc...

For freight we have similar situation here in Florida. Nearly every train that enters the State of Florida has to pass through a section of track called the Folkston Funnel (which is just across the boarder in Georgia). It doesn't matter if the train is going to/from Jacksonville, Miami, Orlando, or Tampa - it pass through the Folkston Funnel.

http://www.folkston.com/trains/trains.htm

Having the correct location for a HSR HUB is not about gaining addtional ridership. It is about linking the other regional systems in a way that is most beneficial to the W to E / N to S systems.

If you look at the requirements for HSR, you will see that flat is better, open is better, less congestion is better. Then simply link all other these regional systems in a (Single Line Only ), then OKC is the fit.

The Texas volume of riders will already be included in the system, they just need to get (linked) at a central location too. OKC is centered. Flat, and not too big. It works.

In order to gain a High Speed Rating of 300 mph, these are (part) of the requirements.

This is what I was afraid of - that I would actually start to understand what OKVision4U is saying (even if I don't necessarily agree with it). Here is what I think he is saying.

For transcontinental HSR travel there is a long physical barrier running north/south - the Rocky Mountains which will cost a lot of money to over-come and will cause the train to go slower. The most economical way around is to go south. This route provides the least amount of mountain passes and receive much less snow than any route north. If you go all the way south to Dallas you start having exponentially high land acquisition and construction costs to get north, south, east, and west lines into metro Dallas. Dallas will still have HSR but if someone in Dallas wants to go to LA they will need to connect to an west bound train in OKC. Likewise, if the want to go to any point east they will need to connect to an east bound train in OKC.

Essentially what he is saying that the Rockies create a choke point and he thinks OKC should be the eastern hub of that choke point (and maybe Las Vegas is the western hub). So all transcontinental trains from the east would converge in OKC, pass through the choke point to Las Vegas, and then branch off to Phoenix, LA, San Fran, Portland, Seattle, etc.... Trains from the west would all converge in Las Vegas, pass through the choke point to OKC, and then branch off to Houston, Chicago, DC, New York, Atlanta, etc...

For freight we have similar situation here in Florida. Nearly every train that enters the state of Florida has to pass through a section of track called the Folkston Funnel (which is just across the boarder in Georgia. It doesn't matter if the train is going to Jacksonville, Miami, Orlando, or Tampa - it pass through the Folkston Funnel.

The Folkston Funnel: Train Watching in Folkston, Georgia! (http://www.folkston.com/trains/trains.htm)

Precisely. Thank you JTF. Yes, OKC is the key to linking these systems.

This is what I was afraid of - that I would actually start to understand what OKVision4U is saying (even if I don't necessarily agree with it). Here is what I think he is saying.

For transcontinental HSR travel there is a long physical barrier running north/south - the Rocky Mountains which will cost a lot of money to over-come and will cause the train to go slower. The most economical way around is to go south. This route provides the least amount of mountain passes and receive much less snow than any route north. If you go all the way south to Dallas you start having exponentially high land acquisition and construction costs to get north, south, east, and west lines into metro Dallas. Dallas will still have HSR but if someone in Dallas wants to go to LA they will need to connect to an west bound train in OKC. Likewise, if the want to go to any point east they will need to connect to an east bound train in OKC.

Essentially what he is saying that the Rockies create a choke point and he thinks OKC should be the eastern hub of that choke point (and maybe Las Vegas is the western hub). So all transcontinental trains from the east would converge in OKC, pass through the choke point to Las Vegas, and then branch off to Phoenix, LA, San Fran, Portland, Seattle, etc.... Trains from the west would all converge in Las Vegas, pass through the choke point to OKC, and then branch off to Houston, Chicago, DC, New York, Atlanta, etc...

Kerry...it's amazing what proper grammar and English can do to help make a point clear. ;)

While I see merit in that idea, I still think there are going to be marketing problems when you tell someone in Dallas they have to take a train north to OKC and then connect to a train west to Vegas that connects to a train going to Los Angeles.

This is a good read on pricing: http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2009/09/08/getting-the-price-right-how-much-should-high-speed-fares-cost/

Yes the fares are dated from a few years ago, but the congestion in the NE air space remains. Acela can get a premium because of the savings in travel time for someone. They aren't waiting 1-2 hours checking in/security at the airport before the flight. Then the hour flight which might be delayed due to congestion. They know they can get on the train and get there in a certain amount of time without many delays (not saying Amtrak is always on time).

For HSR to be successful in a market pair, it has to compete against air. Either by winning the battle on travel time or by winning it on fare. A DFW-OKC-LAS-LAX route is going to take much more time than flying, so it has to win on fare. However, what are the operating costs going to be at that point? Is there anyway it is going to be lower than the $178 you'll find now? The lowest fare on Acela is $152 for the value fare for NYC to WAS...one way.

This is where the pain points are going to be to do any kind of hub and spoke system with HSR.

Well, I for one don't see transcontinental HSR happening. I see regional hubs with common integration points on the edges. You could still travel across a lot of the country but you would have to switch trains so many times you would be better off flying.

Kerry...it's amazing what proper grammar and English can do to help make a point clear. ;)

While I see merit in that idea, I still think there are going to be marketing problems when you tell someone in Dallas they have to take a train north to OKC and then connect to a train west to Vegas that connects to a train going to Los Angeles.

This is a good read on pricing: Getting the Price Right: How Much Should High-Speed Fares Cost? « The Transport Politic (http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2009/09/08/getting-the-price-right-how-much-should-high-speed-fares-cost/)

Yes the fares are dated from a few years ago, but the congestion in the NE air space remains. Acela can get a premium because of the savings in travel time for someone. They aren't waiting 1-2 hours checking in/security at the airport before the flight. Then the hour flight which might be delayed due to congestion. They know they can get on the train and get there in a certain amount of time without many delays (not saying Amtrak is always on time).

For HSR to be successful in a market pair, it has to compete against air. Either by winning the battle on travel time or by winning it on fare. A DFW-OKC-LAS-LAX route is going to take much more time than flying, so it has to win on fare. However, what are the operating costs going to be at that point? Is there anyway it is going to be lower than the $178 you'll find now? The lowest fare on Acela is $152 for the value fare for NYC to WAS...one way.

This is where the pain points are going to be to do any kind of hub and spoke system with HSR.

Venture, if an airline guy can see the merit in this idea, then we must be on to something here. ;)

Venture, if an airline guy can see the merit in this idea, then we must be on to something here. ;)

Now how about reading and addressing the challenges I presented. So far you are ignoring anything negative. How are you going to overcome pricing/travel times vs. air travel issues that current rail runs into?