|
Title: Tulsa's exciting rail possibilities Post by: OurTulsa on July 20, 2007, 09:10:08 am http://www.ktul.com/news/stories/0707/440753.html
Very exciting!! While I think there is merit in looking at this investment as an alternative to rush hour traffic I am thinking more in terms of re-shaping metropolitan growth. Imagine the investment opportunities around rail stops. We could seriously rebuild communities around some of these lines. One of these lines parallels the west bank of the river and runs directly through Jenks. Can we say synergy with river development. It runs directly through the area owned by the City at 23rd/Jackson. We could potentially build an entire TOD around that rail station. Quick, someone call the Warrens back up and get the Channels back out. Just shift that energy a little west and I think we really have something special in the making. The line going to Owasso can be much more than their commuter line. It can serve north Tulsa as well as provide some serious accessibility to the region by linking our airport. I can't tell you how convenient it is to have a reliable transit option from an airport. Flying into St. Louis, Chicago, Boston, Newark, Portland, is so much easier for me because I can literally hop right onto the rail from the airport and get to many destinations. Cabs are fine but expensive. I really think this is an exciting prospect for our city and investment in our future. Forget the fact that our traffic is paltry compared to major metropolitan areas think of this as a redirect in the way we choose to shape our city. Another benefit, It has the potential to redirect very dense development away from our 'historic' midtown neighborhoods, although I still think that relatively dense infill is necessary and can be accomplished appropriately around some of our inner-city hoods like Brookside and Cherry St. River development: important. Transit options for the region: even more important! Message to KTUL: 40mil for a light rail line is peanuts, peanuts dudes. Especially when you consider the return on quality of life and investment potential. Title: Tulsa's exciting rail possibilities Post by: jackbristow on July 20, 2007, 09:24:24 am If it is truly as easy as they make it sound I would jump all over supporting this. I would take the train to work every day to get downtown from Jenks...recently named #43 best place to live in America by Money Magazine I might add...
This plus river development plus downtown revitalization paints an awesome future for this area...if only they would do something about the damn roads!!! Title: Tulsa's exciting rail possibilities Post by: Conan71 on July 20, 2007, 10:19:39 am Who would have known what was brewing behind closed doors at INCOG when I made this comment on the other rail thread:
"Maybe the horrible condition of our roads and our government's seeming indifference to the problem is a secret conspiracy to get us all on the rails." [;)] Wow, Tulsa may well become the first city in America with 20% sales tax with all these ambitious projects. Title: Tulsa's exciting rail possibilities Post by: mac on July 23, 2007, 08:47:22 am When I last visited Portland, Ore. I was amazed at the light rail system they have. You can travel from the baggage claim area of the airport to within two blocks of your downtown hotel for less than $2. Plus any transportation, light rail, bus or cable car, within a certain distance from downtown was free. How revolutionary!!! Everywhere we went the businesses were bustling AND they were rehabilitating old buildings!
Every city I have visited where there is mass transit there are little pockets of businesses thriving around the transit stops. What a concept. Title: Tulsa's exciting rail possibilities Post by: sgrizzle on July 23, 2007, 10:46:04 am I thought this was all mentioned before in incog public documents.
Title: Tulsa's exciting rail possibilities Post by: waterboy on July 24, 2007, 08:01:06 am Up and running within 5 years!? Not likely. Riverparks owns the line from Jenks to Tulsa along the base of Turkey Mtn. It took them years to get the track transferred to them. And do they want to do something novel like run a short entertainment line ala Eureka Springs or the Christmas Train? No, they intend to pull it up for...bike and running paths.
Five years won't even be enough time to find the owners and negotiate transfer much less repair the track and begin service. Title: Tulsa's exciting rail possibilities Post by: pfox on July 24, 2007, 08:50:52 am quote: TV reporters *shrugs*. 5 years under IDEAL conditions is what we told her. That certainly was a speculative statement, as she was pressing for a timeframe. That meant if it was totally locally funded, and construction began next year. That is not realistic, which we also mentioned, but she mysteriously left that part out. More likely, would be to have the first line completed in that timeframe, still not extremely likely, unless something should change. Point of clarification Waterboy. Riverparks does not own the track on the West Bank. UP owns the tracks and has a use agreement with TSU. UP also owns the BA to DT Tulsa line. Additionally, the multi-use trail (west bank extention to Turkey Mountain) is already being constructed, but not ON the track bed, but next to it, within the RR ROW. Title: Tulsa's exciting rail possibilities Post by: waterboy on July 24, 2007, 08:58:53 am quote: Thanks, my info was several years old from back when Bubenik was trying to work out something with UP. He said they wanted to put in a trail. Title: Tulsa's exciting rail possibilities Post by: Chris on July 24, 2007, 09:39:30 am Our roads are facing large amounts of repair just to get them to average status. Maybe if we invest in light rail some of the wear on the roads will be relieved. We could stop spending all our money on widening and repaving roads and give people a choice! At least let us vote on it!
Title: Tulsa's exciting rail possibilities Post by: sgrizzle on July 24, 2007, 01:14:02 pm I just hope they pit a mid/south tulsa transfer station. The WalMart at 41st&Memorial is close to I-44/The BA and is directly adjacent to the train tracks. Plus it has plenty of parking for park & ride options.
Title: Tulsa's exciting rail possibilities Post by: PonderInc on July 24, 2007, 01:17:21 pm Does INCOG have any information on its website about this rail plan? I looked and couldn't find anything. The Transportation Improvement Plan only mentions "rail" when talking about signage and street crossings, etc.
A recent article mentioned that it would take a billion dollars to fix the thousands of miles of city streets already under Tulsa's control. And we spend hundreds of millions of dollars widening streets to reach the burbs. Commuter rail makes much more sense as a long-term investment. Reducing auto traffic on city streets will reduce maintenance costs and the need to widen streets. It would encourage more walkable, dense, mixed use development near rail lines. And it would help Tulsa stay out of ozone trouble. It would allow the average family to own fewer cars/household. Just think: owning one fewer car would save thousands of dollars a year (car payments, gas, insurance, tires, maintenance, etc). Title: Tulsa's exciting rail possibilities Post by: swake on July 24, 2007, 01:24:46 pm quote: A great deal of the damage to our roads is done by large trucks, and we have very low diesel taxes. We have tried to encourage trucking in Oklahoma for some unknown reason. We need to flip that. How about funding rail projects and have the local matching dollars come from diesel fuel taxes. That would discourage trucks without a local destination from entering Oklahoma. Lessen the ongoing damage from large trucks and provide an alternative to car traffic. Title: Tulsa's exciting rail possibilities Post by: Conan71 on July 24, 2007, 01:37:16 pm quote: Well-intentioned comment and good idea about the fuel taxes. However, most of the damage from heavy vehicles falls under the jurisdiction of ODOT through the Tulsa area. Still doesn't address deterioration of arterial streets. ODOT seems to at least be a little bit ahead of the city on keeping up roads and replacing/upgrading bridges. Title: Tulsa's exciting rail possibilities Post by: Conan71 on July 24, 2007, 01:39:05 pm quote: This, like the finite details of the river plan, City Hall, and Fairgrounds annexation is over the heads of us plebes. We don't need to know the details, they will eventually cram it down our throats like the TTEP and make us dislike it. Title: Tulsa's exciting rail possibilities Post by: Renaissance on July 24, 2007, 04:08:31 pm quote: Ahem . . . or else "they" post the plan on the Tulsa Transit website for public access. http://www.tulsatransit.org/news-info/commuter-rail-study/ Read. Think. THEN post. Title: Tulsa's exciting rail possibilities Post by: pfox on July 24, 2007, 04:14:52 pm quote: Not yet...what is being studied are which of the exsisting rail lines have potential as passenger rail corridors, and which of those merit more in depth analysis, e.g. the Broken Arrow corridor. Tulsa Transit is pursuing federal funding for what is called Alternatives Analysis, which is a requirement to qualify for federal funding for capital costs of implementing a rail corridor. Outside of the BA line, we are not at this time conducting an Alternatives Analysis on any other line, but there are at least two more that probably merit further study. I can tell you this, I think there have been some very insightful comments so far in this thread regarding how our long term transportation investments should change. I anticipate expanding public involvement in this effort sooner rather than later. FYI. Title: Tulsa's exciting rail possibilities Post by: swake on July 24, 2007, 04:25:42 pm quote: ODOT is ahead of the city? No way, the worst roads are all highways, the IDL and I-44 at US75 come to mind. And, I would assume that ODOT through INCOG would be the local funding mechanism as we are talking about crossing city and county lines on these rail lines. And, in any case, I don't know that cities can levy fuel taxes. Title: Tulsa's exciting rail possibilities Post by: Conan71 on July 24, 2007, 04:37:23 pm Looking at recent improvements and maintenance to I-44 east of the river, I think ODOT has the city beat.
Looking at I-44 at 75 and the B.A. Expressway/IDL, they all suck. 75 south of the river to the Creek is in pretty good shape. Title: Tulsa's exciting rail possibilities Post by: Conan71 on July 24, 2007, 04:38:37 pm quote: Requires too much reading and thought. PI said there was no info on the INCOG site. Odd, considering they are in the middle of it. I guess we were supposed to figure out MTTA had it by osmosis. Title: Tulsa's exciting rail possibilities Post by: Double A on July 24, 2007, 10:17:04 pm I think we should bring back car inspection stickers to fund personal/fleet zero emission vehicle incentives and passenger rail transit in the state. It's a win-win, IMO, because we'll be getting the junkers off the road and it might help to keep Tulsa and OKC off the dirty air list(the rain this year has been a real blessing in this struggle). 25 or 30 bucks a year sounds pretty reasonable to me.
Title: Tulsa's exciting rail possibilities Post by: Chris on July 24, 2007, 10:54:23 pm quote: Sounds good to me! Title: Tulsa's exciting rail possibilities Post by: Rowdy on July 25, 2007, 05:22:28 am I was glad to see us get rid of the inspection stickers. Then, every Joe out there brought out there smog machines and made me KACK like a cat with a furball. Let's bring the smog inspections back.
Title: Tulsa's exciting rail possibilities Post by: sgrizzle on July 25, 2007, 06:28:35 am Car inspections in OK were a joke before. I could set my car on fire and still get it passed. Plus, the state was only getting about $1 back which was barely keeping the program afloat.
Title: Tulsa's exciting rail possibilities Post by: waterboy on July 25, 2007, 07:32:41 am quote: I agree they were preposterous. Even the inspection sites often refused to do them. What if inspections were patterned off of what Arizona and Ca. do? A lot of smog pumpers are kept in garages or re-tuned which would affect us collectible car lovers, but there could be exemptions and clarifications. Could it be locally administered with revenue to the metro? Title: Tulsa's exciting rail possibilities Post by: sgrizzle on July 25, 2007, 08:32:37 am California's standards are way to high. With any standard you set, you will leave some people, generally lower income, without transportation. I would suggest something radically different like replacing license plate decals with "vehicle safety and licensing" checks every year or 6 months. Combine the license plate process with inspection, checking for valid insurance and driver's license. Failure to keep any of it up to date would result in potential seizure of the vehicle. I think it's just silly to have two sets of stickers and two places to keep track of what's up to date.
Title: Tulsa's exciting rail possibilities Post by: Double A on July 25, 2007, 06:01:32 pm quote:It is extremely likely that we will know exactly what that is like in the not too distant future if we don't take some serious steps to reverse the damage done by our destructive, lustful, lifestyles of image and denial powered by infernal destruction engines. WE CANNOT AFFORD TO BE ON THE DIRTY AIR LIST. All the regressive "econocomic" development sales taxes, tax increment finance districts and bond indebtedness in the world won't be able to save Tulsa. Ozone Alerts will not(are not) going to cut it. Tulsa needs an intervention. (http://i131.photobucket.com/albums/p315/TYProle/thtulsa_book_cover_200w.jpg) Title: Tulsa's exciting rail possibilities Post by: pfox on July 30, 2007, 02:24:56 pm Listen to this...Why having a variety of transportation options is good for your city.
Portland, of course. Portland transit system saves money for Portlanders: The Green Dividend (http://"http://smartcityradio.fluidhosting.com/2007/07-July/071907_SmartCity.mp3") Title: Tulsa's exciting rail possibilities Post by: Vision 2025 on July 31, 2007, 08:53:03 am quote: Wrong. Title: Tulsa's exciting rail possibilities Post by: waterboy on July 31, 2007, 09:06:01 am quote: Already been corrected and acknowledged sir. Do try to keep up. Title: Tulsa's exciting rail possibilities Post by: booWorld on January 27, 2008, 01:05:56 pm quote: Finding information on these types of studies online is very difficult and frustrating for me. I think INCOG ought to post them on their website or provide clear, direct links to other websites. I've gone to INCOG in person to pick up actual printed copies of reports and maps, but I'd prefer to have the option of looking at the studies online. Side note: Pat Treadway has been pushing hard for the updated Comprehensive Plan to be available electronically. That would be wonderful for those of us who actually want to be involved in the planning process for Tulsa. Title: Tulsa's exciting rail possibilities Post by: White Choc Hot Choc on January 29, 2008, 10:33:15 am I'll tell you what...If they serve white chocolate, hot chocolate, or any kind of hot chocolate for that matter, on that train, I will ride that motherscratcher day and night.
Title: Tulsa's exciting rail possibilities Post by: booWorld on January 29, 2008, 10:43:53 pm Mmmmmmmm...... [:P]
"When you only have two pennies left in the world, build a fountain in the middle of the intersection of Fifth and Main with one, and build a fountain in the middle of the intersection of Fifth and Main with the other." ~DTU proverb Title: Tulsa's exciting rail possibilities Post by: T-TownMike on January 31, 2008, 02:41:31 pm Rail helps tie districts together. I love driving my car, but I can easily imagine hoppin' the train and going into downtown for an evening out with the family, maybe see several parts of the metro over the course of a weekend. I also like that rail can help get the masses to parts of the city that they otherwise wouldn't bother to travel to. The projected $45 million is peanuts. I wish Tulsans would start looking at projects like this as growth opportunities.
Title: Tulsa's exciting rail possibilities Post by: Oil Capital on January 31, 2008, 02:52:46 pm quote: The "projected $45 million cost" will not provide us with a rail system that would allow you to hop on a train "going into downtown for an evening..." If you read the "study", you will see that the system that would be provided for that $45 million investment would provide two trains inbound in the morning, two trains outbound in the evening. That's it. It would basically provide service only for going to and from work, and only for people working pretty much the standard 8-5 shift. Title: Tulsa's exciting rail possibilities Post by: Renaissance on January 31, 2008, 05:24:17 pm I love that your suspicion of city government runs so deep that you put the word "study" in quotation marks--as if to suggest that it is propagandistic or not based in reality.
Title: Tulsa's exciting rail possibilities Post by: Oil Capital on January 31, 2008, 08:17:58 pm quote: That's because I have very strong doubts about that study. I've mentioned some of the issues in other threads and would be happy to expound further, if you are interested. But just one quick thing that arouses suspicion... the seeming unavailability of the appendices so we could see what their ridership projections are based on. Title: Tulsa's exciting rail possibilities Post by: si_uk_lon_ok on February 01, 2008, 02:03:20 am quote: You right you have raised your suspicions in other threads before. You also asked for proof, examples and studies for loads of points people were making and once they were provided you questioned my professionalism. In fact your personal attacks after demanding these BS studies lead to the thread being locked Bates phones it in again: Transit (http://"http://www.tulsanow.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=8470&whichpage=9") If you have proper suspicions you should just say what they are rather than snark in a corner. These companies that produce these reports spend hundreds of man hours producing these reports and have people with decades of experience producing them. Each report stakes the reputation of the company and the expertise of the people who wrote it, these numbers aren’t plucked out of the air and scribbled on the back of a napkin. There are occasions where people won’t be showed the appendixes. Sometimes this is due to there sheer size and other times they are model outputs that are indecipherable to anyone who doesn’t know the program used. There are occasions where the appendixes are hundreds and hundreds of pages of information that are of zero use to the general public. Title: Tulsa's exciting rail possibilities Post by: Oil Capital on February 01, 2008, 09:02:30 am quote: You have GOT to be kidding. Show me any examples from that thread of anything approaching "proof, examples and studies for loads of points people were making". Nobody, including you, could be bothered with anything like that. You were more interested in silencing any questioners. (For example, Nobody has managed to provide a single example of any TOD developed around a commuter station in a system such as the one proposed for Tulsa.) I'll be back shortly with specific issues with the "study", just in case anyone is actually interested in a critical, reasoned analysis. Title: Tulsa's exciting rail possibilities Post by: Oil Capital on February 01, 2008, 09:43:30 am I mentioned one issue with the ridership projections in the earlier thread. That is, it seems logical to this layman, that the starting point for a transit ridership estimate should be the current transit ridership. Tulsa Transit runs express buses from Broken Arrow to downtown. How many people take advantage of that service? The study completely ignores that. (I acknowledge there is a preference for rail, so the bus ridership is only a starting point. But it seems like such an obvious starting point that it would be malpractice to ignore it.)
Here's another (smaller) issue with the ridership projections: They are based on the assumption of greater density of housing in both downtown Tulsa and downtown Broken Arrow, not as a result of rail but as a result of such developments as Global Development's East Village development... A huge issue with the ridership projections: "The first ridership estimate was done with a linear regression based on population density, route miles of system, and median income for 21 cities with similar rail transit." (Of course, you have to see the appendix to find out what those cities are.) The problem is, there are not 21 commuter rail transit systems in cities similar to Tulsa. If you start with bad assumptions, you are likely to get bad results. According to the American Public Transportation Association (the studies cited source), there are exactly 21 existing commuter rail systems. These include Alexandria, VA (Washington DC) Baltimore Boston Chesterton IN (Chicago) Chicago Dallas Los Angeles NYC Newark Oceanside, CA (San Diego) Philadelphia Pompano Beach FL (Miami/Ft Lauderdale) San Carlos, CA (Bay Area) Seattle Stockton, CA (Bay Area) It strikes me that basing a ridership study for rail in Tulsa in any way on ridership in such cities as New York, Chicago, LA, the Bay Area, etc etc is fundamentally unsound. Several of the systems on the list that are in cities somewhat more comparable to Tulsa (eg ABQ, Nashville) are very new and likely did not have reliable data, especially at the time the study was done. (ABQ's system's ridership has had rather large drops in its ridership.) Title: Tulsa's exciting rail possibilities Post by: Renaissance on February 01, 2008, 10:05:30 am It is all conjecture.
There are inherent risks in being an early adopter, whether you are a technophile buying the first Betamax player (d'oh!), or Cleveland building retro Jacobs Field in (gasp) downtown. I think what you're seeing here is risk tolerance--many members on this forum are hungry for the reward of being one of the first smaller cities to adopt commuter rail, and will accept the risk involved. The alternative is to watch and wait as other comparably-sized cities invest in commuter rail, and then use the more successful examples as models for our own system. In my opinion, this is a prudent, losing strategy. Tulsa too often is a wait-and-see city that is perpetually behind the curve in implementing new management ideas (form based codes), infrastructure (street situation), and public amenities (Aquarium, stadium). This behavior negatively affects the image of the city and hurts population growth and ability to attract new business. With this backdrop, and this forum being full of self-identified Tulsa partisans, the possibility of being an early adopter of rail transit among smaller cities is exciting. It's the sort of move that, combined with other efforts, could improve on Tulsa's "back of the pack" image among peer cities. When was the last time Tulsa was a model for much of anything? I'm sure we're doing something innovative, but I don't know what it is. Anyway, just wanted to acknowledge that there is speculation involved with this project. I don't have the cynicism of "Oil Capital," so I don't view this as some sort of ploy. I just see it as an honest effort by INCOG and Tulsa Transit to be innovative with transit systems. And it will be interesting to see how far it gets. Title: Tulsa's exciting rail possibilities Post by: TheArtist on February 01, 2008, 10:06:31 am Why are you all still talking about the BA line? I thought the focus the city was taking was now on the Jenks to Downtown line?
Title: Tulsa's exciting rail possibilities Post by: Chicken Little on February 01, 2008, 10:06:59 am Here's an example (http://"http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/classifieds/news/homecenter/condos/stories/011108dnbustods.29812b1.html") of a $750 million TOD being built around a DART stop in Dallas. Similar links were provided in the previous thread.
The Red Line runs from 4 am to midnight, hourly, with runs on the half-hour during peak commuter times. First, since you've already called DART a commuter system, you'll have to now explain why it isn't. Good luck getting past this jumbled mess you have created. Even if there is a substantive difference between a commuter rail and other forms of interuban rail transit, it's a tranisotry distinction at best. DART used to be geared towards commuters, with large parking lots surrounding lonely stations. But they have evolved and the development community is evolving, too. Title: Tulsa's exciting rail possibilities Post by: si_uk_lon_ok on February 01, 2008, 10:09:56 am quote: I don’t think it would be unsound to ignore an existing service if it was different. In fact trying to calculate the usage for rail by looking at bus patronage would likely be unsound. Rail and buses are too different in this case for a link between the two to be made. It would be better looking at the overall demand for trips between the two cities. The point of the linear regression is not to compare Tulsa with New York. Firstly, a good regression analysis also requires as many comparisons as possible. Secondly, the point of the regression analysis is to find the link between population density, route miles of system, and median income then having worked out the correlation between the two see how Tulsa fits into this. It would be much worse to attempt a regression analysis based on only a few cities. If they have created a regression model, you are unlikely to see it. They require a hell of a lot of work to do and if they showed you how they had done it there would be nothing stopping me using that regression to do reports for ever city in America that wanted rail. You are doing the same thing that you did in the last thread. You are asking for data and reports to refute accusations you are making about possible public transport schemes, while providing no evidence to back up your claims that public transport would not work. Title: Tulsa's exciting rail possibilities Post by: Oil Capital on February 01, 2008, 11:36:33 am quote: Please read more carefully. I have NEVER said public transport will not work. I am just raising logical criticisms of this study. I understand the concept of regression analysis and, generally speaking, the more input the better. HOWEVER, that does not negate the fact that commuter rail systems in NYC, Chicago etc etc are completely incomparable to anything that is or could be planned for Tulsa, and bad input leads to bad results (garbage in/garbage out). (Unless they attempt to adjust for the differences in traffic conditions (congestion) and the differences in infrastructure at the destination (parking cost and availability and the convenience and availability of "last mile" connectivity (either on foot or other mode of transportation). The study apparently did none of this.) To illustrate the problem with this, here's an example: If one lives on Long Island, where the choices are (a) drive 1.5 hours to Manhattan and pay unimaginable dollars for parking (assuming one can even find a parking space), or (b) ride LIRR for 45 minutes and either walk to the office or hop on a subway for a quick ride to the office, most people are going to opt for the rail. The choices for Broken Arrow-ites are more like: (a) drive 20 minutes to a relatively cheap and convenient parking spot, or (b) ride the train for 30 minutes and then take a possibly long walk to my office. Given those choices, most people are going to stay with their car. The failure to adjust for the traffic and infrastructure differences is fatal. How can it possibly be "unsound" to look at current usage of existing mass transit when studying mass transit? I recognize that rail and bus are different (and said as much in my post). But they could surely do a regression analysis to adjust for the widely-known rail bias. The current bus system is far more comparable to commuter rail than is driving in a sole-occupant car. (And its more comparable to the planned rail than is the Long Island Railroad or Chicago's Metra.) I grant you that looking at the overall demand for trips between downtown Tulsa and downtown Broken Arrow would be useful as well. But I don't think they bothered gathering that information either, did they? Title: Tulsa's exciting rail possibilities Post by: Oil Capital on February 01, 2008, 11:49:12 am quote: Yes, and just as in the other thread, DART is still NOT commuter rail. No matter how badly you insist on denying the reality there is a difference between a DART-type Light rail system and a commuter rail system, especially of the type proposed here. (And where did I say DART was commuter rail?) And, you need to check your facts. I guess by saying the red line runs once per hour and 1/2 hour during rush hour, you hoped to make it seem more similar to the BA-Tulsa line. However the truth is that the DART Red Lines runs roughly every 10 minutes during peak periods, every 20 minutes the rest of the day, stopping at the Park Lane Station (the site of the TOD you cited) roughly 172 times per day , versus the 4 times per day the Tulsa-BA train would stop at each of the stations. http://www.dart.org/schedules/w600so.htm Title: Tulsa's exciting rail possibilities Post by: si_uk_lon_ok on February 01, 2008, 11:54:12 am quote: There is no way that the ‘garbage in garbage out’ analogy works in this instance. If you understand the regression analysis theory you’ll know that Tulsa is not being compared to these cities its being compared to a formula. As the regression takes into account population density and route miles of system the impact on larger cities is factored in. Tulsa is not being compared to NY, the regression analysis does not do this. If the service offered does not compare with the new service you have to work from scratch. I think the vast majority of people using the new service would be taken from cars, therefore it is important to compare the train to the car rather than the bus, to do otherwise I feel would indeed be unsound. You will may never know what’s in those appendixes. The simple matter is that a company with skilled people did this study probably in a style that has been robustly checked by multiple transport planner and transport engineers. If there was an issue with it, it would be pointed out. I think you rate yourself rather highly if you think you can pull apart a report that took hundreds of man hours and used a wealth expertise in a coffee break. Title: Tulsa's exciting rail possibilities Post by: Chicken Little on February 01, 2008, 11:57:38 am Other Transit Oriented Developments around "Commuter" rail...from your list:
"TOD times five: How the subway revived a Virginia suburb" (http://"http://www.newurbannews.com/MarketCommons.html") "A Slew Of TODs In Works For Baltimore" (http://"http://www.planetizen.com/node/18531") four TODs on "surplus property" that MBTA owns in Boston (http://"http://www.mbta.com/about_the_mbta/t_projects/projects_tod/") four TODs in Chicago (http://"http://www.ncbg.org/transit/tod.htm") Dallas (covered many times) "Transit-Oriented Development Takes Hold in Los Angeles" (http://"http://www.uli.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Home&CONTENTID=10834&TEMPLATE=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm") I'll look up more. Point is, every place on your list of communter rail systems is working on Transit Oriented Development. Title: Tulsa's exciting rail possibilities Post by: Chicken Little on February 01, 2008, 12:02:44 pm quote:You provided us with a list of commuter rail lines. Dallas was among them. Why did you do that? You're persnickety when you want to be, and filled with conjectural nonsense at other times. You are not furthering the discussion. You've lost on every point, on every front. It's not because you can't argue, it's because your position is really indefensible. Title: Tulsa's exciting rail possibilities Post by: Oil Capital on February 01, 2008, 12:04:02 pm quote: I don't know that I can. But I do know that I can ask reasonable, logical questions when I see red flags. I am not one who wants to live in a society where we just blindly accept every study thrown out by a government agency. Sorry, just because a "transport planner" writes down some numbers does not put it beyond question. Here are some interesting, actual numbers that are part of why I see red flags. One of the few cities that is actually somewhat comparable to Tulsa that has started commuter rail is Albuquerque. They have a system 3 times as long as the Tulsa-BA route, with about twice as many stations, with 4 times the frequency of service (and some service all day and into the night) and they carry 2,000 passengers a day. The low-end projection from our study is 2,200 passengers per day. Something is not adding up. Title: Tulsa's exciting rail possibilities Post by: Oil Capital on February 01, 2008, 12:06:00 pm quote: cool your jets cowboy. and check your facts. I listed Dallas because Dallas has a commuter rail service called the Trinity Rail Express. It is separate from DART runs between Dallas and Fort Worth. Now, which point did I lose on? Title: Tulsa's exciting rail possibilities Post by: Chicken Little on February 01, 2008, 12:12:32 pm quote:That commuter rail won't spur development, Cappy. Or that there's a meaningful distinction between commuter rail and other forms of intraurban rail anyway. Once the line is established, the frequency of the trains can change according to any number of factors. Show us. Do some typy-typy on the internet and disprove either of these points. Title: Tulsa's exciting rail possibilities Post by: Oil Capital on February 01, 2008, 12:12:35 pm quote: Again, you need to check your facts. Perhaps it has escaped your notice that most cities that have commuter rail also have subways or light rail. In a quick perusal of your postings, I found reference to one possible TOD near a commuter rail station. That was in Chicago suburbs near Metra stations. The reference merely said that Metra is working with suburbs to create mixed-use development around Metra stations. I don't know if any of that has actually happened or not. But even if it has..., the proposed Tulsa-BA line is about as similar to Metra as the Tulsa bus system is to Chicago's bus system. Find a TOD around a commuter rail that has trains stopping 4 times a day. Title: Tulsa's exciting rail possibilities Post by: Chicken Little on February 01, 2008, 12:17:26 pm Oh, I get it. I prove a point. You say something that suits your fanciful position, and that's supposed to change our minds. Phooey.
Do your own leg work. Make a point. Title: Tulsa's exciting rail possibilities Post by: Oil Capital on February 01, 2008, 12:22:47 pm quote: The meaningful distinction is frequency of service. That is why I have been arguing all along that the Tulsa system, as proposed, will not spur significant TOD. That is why I have asked repeatedly for examples of TOD around stations in commuter rail systems similar to the one proposed for Tulsa. So far, I have not found any. And neither have you. Again, the list you posted a few minutes ago was comprised almost exclusively of developments around subway (non-commuter-rail) stations. The only possible ones around commuter rail stations were near stations in systems that are the functional equivalent of a subway, because of the frequency of service and all-day service, neither of which are planned for Tulsa-BA Yes, it is possible, that once established, the frequency could be increased. (But of course we have some pretty huge hurdles doing so, not the least of which is that there is only one set of tracks, so establishing 2-way service would be very expensive, and not currently in anyone's plans.) So, in short, if you are talking about possible TOD 25-50 years down the road, you could be right, but of course, we weren't talking about that. We are talking about what we can reasonably expect to be the result of this proposed rail line in the relatively near future. Title: Tulsa's exciting rail possibilities Post by: Oil Capital on February 01, 2008, 12:24:29 pm quote: Okay, here's some legwork and a more explicit point: "TOD times five: How the subway revived a Virginia suburb" -- As noted in your own headline, this TOD is around subway stations, not commuter rail. "A Slew Of TODs In Works For Baltimore" -- This TOD is around Baltimore's subway stations, not commuter rail. four TODs on "surplus property" that MBTA owns in Boston -- Again, MBTA is Boston's subway/light rail system, not commuter rail. four TODs in Chicago -- Three of the four are around CTA stations (not commuter rail). The fourth discusses possible developments around Metra commuter rail stations. Metra runs a commuter rail system that is the functional equivalent of a subway, with all-day, very frequent service (in fact, more frequent than many light rail systems Dallas (covered many times) -- Yes, and you keep getting it wrong. There is DART rail (which has spawned some TOD and there is the TRE commuter rail, which has not). "Transit-Oriented Development Takes Hold in Los Angeles" -- I think this was all on non-commuter-rail stations as well. Sorry, man. You didn't prove a point at all. You posted a list of TODs around subway and light-rail stations to prove that there is TOD around commuter rail stations in systems similar to the one planned for Tulsa? Try again. Please, I'm eager to see examples of TOD around a commuter rail station where the trains stop 4 times a day. I've looked and looked, to no avail. Title: Tulsa's exciting rail possibilities Post by: Chicken Little on February 01, 2008, 12:48:31 pm quote:Circular reasoning. A commuter rail is a commuter rail because because it is a commuter rail. Was DART built to serve dense portions of Dallas? No, because outside of the core they didn't exist. It was built as a park-n-ride system to serve commuters. And now it has evolved into a catalyst for dense development with ample users within walking distance. There are literally dozens of examples of this happening from coast to coast. But, apparently, because Tulsa is proposing a commuter rail it won't happen here. Why? Because it's a commuter rail. Circuitous nonsense. Title: Tulsa's exciting rail possibilities Post by: Oil Capital on February 01, 2008, 01:04:21 pm quote: As I said above, frequency of service is the distinction. Anyone who cares to read my postings with any care at all will see that I have not said it won't happen in Tulsa because it is commuter rail, but that it won't happen in Tulsa because it is commuter rail of a certain type (ie, infrequent, rush hour only, service.) IF it eventually evolves into a frequent, all-day service, THEN, and only then, is it likely to spur TOD. (and FWIW, you are giving the wrong impression of the history of the DART red line. They did not start out with an infrequent, rush-hour-only service and then evolve into frequent, all-day service. That system has been a light-rail, frequent, all-day service from the start... hence the TOD) And of course I never said or implied anything like "commuter rail is a commuter rail because because [sic] it is a commuter rail". Title: Tulsa's exciting rail possibilities Post by: Chicken Little on February 01, 2008, 01:29:40 pm quote:Wait...[}:)]! If it runs more often it's no longer a commuter rail, but it can't run more often because...why? Because it wouldn't be a commuter rail anymore? quote:That's exactly what you are saying. Here's a proposal for a rail system before us that will work today. Once operational, it can grow and evolve into an all-day service and an entirely new and beneficial development pattern for Tulsa. It is already happening in dozens of cities. You are basing your case on a transitory distinction that really matters only to you. That, somehow, a commuter rail can only be a commuter rail, that infrequent service cannot be increased because it would therefore no longer be infrequent. Circular reasoning.[}:)] Title: Tulsa's exciting rail possibilities Post by: si_uk_lon_ok on February 01, 2008, 02:12:15 pm quote: The thing is you point out the flaws in a regression model, then you show that you don’t actually know how one works. You question the ability of these companies to write a report, but don’t understand the methodology behind it. I don’t have a problem with people questioning things, but if people don’t have enough knowledge to properly debate something it descends rather quickly to madness. Just look at non-engineers discussing how the twin towers fell for instance. If the regression took into account population density, journey time and income it could well be that Tulsa could expect those numbers. The company that wrote this report, would not lie about the results, it has no reason to do so. The report only cost $90k that’s not enough for any company to sell its integrity for. Title: Tulsa's exciting rail possibilities Post by: Oil Capital on February 01, 2008, 03:12:45 pm quote: Again, read more carefully and post less. I of course said nothing like what you are attributing to me. I never said it could never run more often and evolve into a two-way, all-day, frequent train service. I only said that is NOT what is planned and what is currently planned will not cause significant TOD (no mattter how badly you want to believe it will). I alluded to the possibility that over a period of many years,it could perhaps evolve into a two-way, all-day, frequent service, but again, nobody is planning that or has studied that. And again, that would be massively more expensive because it would require huge infrastructure investment that the current plan does not (like laying an entire additional set of tracks between BA and downtown Tulsa, almost certainly requiring additional right-of-way). It would also require the complete removal of freight traffic from the current tracks, something that may or may not even be possible, whatever the cost. If you can find a rail line that stops at stations 4 times a day that has spurred any significant TOD, I would love to see it. That is all I have ever been arguing. That THIS line, operating in THIS manner will not spur significant TOD. I have never argued or even implied that it is impossible for all time to develop a rail line in Tulsa that might some day in the future evolve into a system that might support TOD. Title: Tulsa's exciting rail possibilities Post by: Oil Capital on February 01, 2008, 03:16:15 pm quote: Aye aye, commandante. We will not question the experts. We will not question the studies handed down by our superiors. Ours is not to question. Ours is to follow like sheep. How about those real world numbers from ABQ? Any thoughts on those? Title: Tulsa's exciting rail possibilities Post by: si_uk_lon_ok on February 01, 2008, 03:31:34 pm quote: I’m saying that there are somethings in life that a 'can do' attitude doesn’t cut the mustard such as dentistry, building suspension bridges and statistical analysis. Title: Tulsa's exciting rail possibilities Post by: Oil Capital on February 01, 2008, 04:14:44 pm Here are some more actual real-world numbers. Just some additional food for thought.
Nashville has a commuter rail somewhat similar to what is planned here (but twice as long 50% more station, 50% more runs each day, and of course a much larger, faster growing, and congested metropolitan area). The first year ridership projected by their team of experts. 1,300. Actual ridership at the peak last summer: 640. No reason at all to question a 2,200 projection for Tulsa... no reason at all... ;-) Title: Tulsa's exciting rail possibilities Post by: Oil Capital on February 01, 2008, 04:25:25 pm Duplicate Post. Sorry.
Title: Tulsa's exciting rail possibilities Post by: Chicken Little on February 01, 2008, 04:47:24 pm quote:Oh, but you have...repeatedly. You're slipping on your own eely arguments. When you say, "over a period of many years, it could perhaps evolve...", are you speaking from experience? Are you presenting ANYTHING in support of this supposition? Of course not. If I may borrow from your book and apply some circular reasoning, you can't provide evidence, because it would then no longer be supposition. How many is many? Two years? Twenty? More conjecture. At exactly what point must we take the leap from running trains more frequently into this "massive" infrastructure investment? 'Cause if it happens before "many", I guess we'd be in trouble. Yeah, I see your point now. And how much extra right-of-way is needed? Your near certainty leads me to believe that you have thought about it. Would it cut into one lane on the BA...or perhaps zero? Or maybe six lanes? Or twenty-three? At what point does 2-3 freight trains a day (according to the study) become a problem? At the point you say so? Airtight, man. Airtight. Title: Tulsa's exciting rail possibilities Post by: Oil Capital on February 01, 2008, 05:09:49 pm quote: You have more or less proved my argument by your ranting and twisting and ultimate failure to come up with a single example of TOD around a station of a rail system where the trains stop 4 times a day. Your posting of the list of TODs was especially helpful in that it essentially proved my point that TOD occurs around rail stations where there is frequent, all-day, two-way service, and none to be found where those elements do not exist. Thank you for your efforts. Title: Tulsa's exciting rail possibilities Post by: Renaissance on February 01, 2008, 05:37:29 pm This is beyond wearisome. Rail is costly but there are collateral benefits including potential (not proven) development, a lightened load on the roads, and a direct commuter link from the central business district to populations.
Stop trying to convert the believers. Ignore the nitpickers and move on. Title: Tulsa's exciting rail possibilities Post by: Oil Capital on February 01, 2008, 06:07:51 pm quote: Again, please read more carefully. I have not posted anything anti-rail. No one has questioned that rail is expensive or that it has collateral benefits But we really should be looking at it carefully and with well-reasoned estimates in order to come up with reasonably accurate estimates of both the costs and the collateral benefits. I have merely questioned the ridership forecasts in the study, and I very much doubt the potential for TOD arising from the proposed rail system. It's possible that this line might be a good idea even if the numbers are wrong and even without any TOD resulting from it. That is a fair discussion. As you suggested, some people just want to believe and so they do... Title: Tulsa's exciting rail possibilities Post by: si_uk_lon_ok on February 02, 2008, 03:06:51 am quote: There have been well reasoned estimates involved and they have come up with those figures. It is you who with no knowledge in regression analysis and lacking all the facts have decided not to believe the data in front of you. You want to disbelieve and have decided to. You don’t have knowledge nor a $90k report to back up your position, but you’ve decided to be stubborn in your disbelief. Title: Tulsa's exciting rail possibilities Post by: Chicken Little on February 02, 2008, 11:17:18 am quote:No, your argument is leaky. According to your own logic, the study recommends a passenger train "of a certain type" that will not attract transit-oriented development. That "type" is a commuter rail that runs four times a day. Presume for a moment that I'd buy that. I don't, because development is happening around passenger rail stops across the country. TOD is no longer an accidental pattern, it's conscious growth strategy for cities, even in cities in the West that have grown up around the car. There's a substantial body of evidence that TOD is, as the Dallas article I posted says, the "iPod" of the development community. Not a fad, but a paradigm shift in the way we develop. You have provided no real reason why it couldn't happen here. But presume I swallowed your argument. Then your entire argument hinges on that the belief that the proposed train can only run four times a day. That's a transitory distinction at best. The train can run more than that. Service levels can be increased based on demand, or choice, or both. By your own definition it would no longer be a "commuter train". And by your own admission, TOD could then happen. Your argument, on your terms, unravels completely. I think you've lost. You have never allowed for change over time, which perhaps also explains your problems with regression analysis. Doubting change is perhaps an instinctual trait, if not the very definition, of a small "c" conservative. Or maybe it's because you are a lawyer. You help people sort out the past, not the future. That's a job for people like Si. Isaac Asimov said, "The only constant is change." I tend to believe that. And I believe that we can infer from our past, and from the past and present of others. We can come up with reasonable predictions worthy of public investment. Forecasting may not be your bailiwick, but that doesn't mean it doesn't happen. Are you as skeptical about the insurance industry? stock market? There's always risk. But, without some understanding of tomorrow, we'd never have planted crops. We'd still be hunting and gathering. You can keep saying, "I don't believe in the future", but that doesn't mean we have to listen. Title: Re: Tulsa's exciting rail possibilities Post by: SXSW on April 05, 2009, 04:03:55 pm I like the following existing corridors for future light rail or commuter rail in and around Tulsa IF the suburbs served (Jenks, Owasso, BA) shouldered part of the costs to create a regional rail network. I would hope it would be more of a Tulsa County initiative than just Tulsa.
Tulsa County Rail (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v316/bg918/tulsalightrail.jpg) Downtown Tulsa Streetcar (starter loop) that connects to light rail (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v316/bg918/tulsa-1.jpg) Title: Re: Tulsa's exciting rail possibilities Post by: TheArtist on April 05, 2009, 05:02:54 pm Sounds great.
But you know with rail we are gonna run into the "well I dont want to fund rail" "its not governments job to fund rail" "I am a suburb why do I want to fund rail in or to Tulsa" etc. We are already getting that from Owasso for the rail to OKC thing. I got some questions for those smarter than me,,, few that there may be. I noticed in the "Economic stimulus package" we sent out, on our list was a hundred thou or so to study widening the highway to Owasso. Now, is this city thinking about rail or not? Are we going to consider putting money into widening the highways to the suburbs over having rail? Sure sounds like it when your asking for thousands of dollars to start doing so. When its costing 100mill a mile to widen the last leg of I44, are we really putting off serious discussion of rail for the 14 miles to BA or all the way to Owasso? Are we we going to continue spending money on the process for widening the highways and not on rail? Looks like it. I say we dont need to be widening any more highways, especially to areas where we could be doing rail. Where it would be logical to put rail IF we were to ever do so. Are we going to ever do rail or not? The question I have is WHY ON EARTH did we ask for thousands of dollars to start the design process to widen the highway to Owasso! Especially when its the Owasso dude who is one of the guys who has been against Tulsa getting high speed rail or rail moneys! Who had the power and authority to put that on Tulsas list of "Economic stimulus" needs? The city aka the mayor and council, or the county, or INCOG? Who decides what gets widened and when? I would have not put that in the stimulus package and used that as leverage against the moron in Owasso. I would have said,,, Oh you want a highway widened to Owasso? Hmm? You want it studied? hmmm? Seems we dont have money to study that, and wont, but boy we would sure like to get some rail started in Tulsa... hint hint, clue clue. If them damned suburbs want the highways widened that go to them, they should sure as heck not be dissing Tulsas desire for rail. And Tulsa should not be putting in any funding requests to do so either. People keep saying we should work with the suburbs. But when its those very suburbs who are trying to stop our dams or rail. We should not be helping them do things that we see would be contrary to what we want. We should want a rail line to Owasso, not widening the highway to Owasso. And we should do everything in our power to block it, especially if they are going to block what we want. Just letting them block what we want and giving them what they want is stupid. Title: Re: Tulsa's exciting rail possibilities Post by: SXSW on April 05, 2009, 08:03:21 pm Connecting the suburbs to downtown is key for the longterm future of downtown, and the longterm growth of downtown Tulsa as the heart of the metro for office space, entertainment, and eventually restaurants and retail. The streetcar is just as important though for connecting the different districts of downtown. Tulsa should follow Portland's lead and bring suburban communities into downtown via rail but also serve the urban neighborhoods and downtown area with streetcar lines.
Title: Re: Tulsa's exciting rail possibilities Post by: godboko71 on April 05, 2009, 08:51:56 pm People keep saying we should work with the suburbs. But when its those very suburbs who are trying to stop our dams or rail. We should not be helping them do things that we see would be contrary to what we want. We should want a rail line to Owasso, not widening the highway to Owasso. And we should do everything in our power to block it, especially if they are going to block what we want. Just letting them block what we want and giving them what they want is stupid. So we are so petty as to lower ourselves to there "level?" Does not working with the suburbs help our cause any more then they being "against us?" The answer is simple, no and heck no. Why? Because an interconnected city means more people spend money is more areas, both sides right now are looking at the small picture, the suburb sees the connection as taking money away from then as people do more in the city core, the city core sees it in two ways, one where more people come and spend there money but less live there, why live in the icky city if you can live in the suburb, while the other sees both sides. The truth is it will balance out, some urbanits will want a weekend away from home and will go to one of the many destination burbs instead of one of our own districts, where the suburbanite wife comes into downtown to have lunch with her husband (work) and three kids (private school in city core.) A well connected city and communities support each other because they have to but because it betters us all. What we need in this region is leaders that don't let there own personal lifestyle choices dicktate there actions, but instead look at the bigger picture. So please instead of getting down to there level, lets help educate everyone that if each part of the city does better and has better services EVERYONE benefits. Title: Re: Tulsa's exciting rail possibilities Post by: Composer on April 05, 2009, 09:28:17 pm Good point Artist. I do know some people in Broken Arrow's leadership who would like the rail line from Broken Arrow to Tulsa and I know Broken Arrow would help fund it.
Title: Re: Tulsa's exciting rail possibilities Post by: Red Arrow on April 05, 2009, 10:05:31 pm There are probably several reasons why people are ready to spend public money on roads but not rail.
They "remember" that the rail roads were built with private money. They forget about all the right of way deals and free land that were provided to build those rail roads. Passenger rail is pretty much publicly funded but the freight lines are still private. A lot of the roads between cities near the east coast were originally privately funded toll roads. Many of them were purchased by the states what is now a long time ago, prior to most of our acutal memories. What most of us (except here in Tulsa) remember are free publicly funded roads. There are actually a significant number of toll roads around the US. Title: Re: Tulsa's exciting rail possibilities Post by: Oil Capital on April 25, 2009, 08:05:29 am <blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Oil Capital</i> You have more or less proved my argument...<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">No, your argument is leaky. According to your own logic, the study recommends a passenger train "of a certain type" that will not attract transit-oriented development. That "type" is a commuter rail that runs four times a day. Presume for a moment that I'd buy that. I don't, because development is happening around passenger rail stops across the country. TOD is no longer an accidental pattern, it's conscious growth strategy for cities, even in cities in the West that have grown up around the car. There's a substantial body of evidence that TOD is, as the Dallas article I posted says, the "iPod" of the development community. Not a fad, but a paradigm shift in the way we develop. You have provided no real reason why it couldn't happen here. But presume I swallowed your argument. I'm afraid I had overlooked CL's last "response". Please allow some clean-up. You keep posting this "argument" about TOD happening at rail stations all over the country. Of course, there is no particular reason that TOD "couldn't" happen here, if and when we develop rail systems similar to those around which TOD is being developed around the country. I have indeed provided reasons it wont' happen here, with the system that has been proposed for the BA corridor. NONE of that TOD has been near stations of rail systems remotely similar to what has been proposed here. You keep showing us articles about the TOD springing up around Dallas's DART station and lists of TOD springing up by rail systems that are completely and utterly irrelevent. Again, EVERY SINGLE ONE of the TOD's you have shown us have been around systems that have frequent, all-day, bi-directional service. If you can show me even ONE TOD (that is not HEAVILY subsidized) near a commuter rail station with one-way, infrequent, VERY limited service, I will re-consider. Until then, not so much. You have provided the evidence but apparently so badly want to believe otherwise that can't see that the TOD's you are looking at are springing up around systems that have almost no similarity to what is proposed here. <blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"> Then your entire argument hinges on that the belief that the proposed train can only run four times a day. That's a transitory distinction at best. <b>The train can run more than that.</b> Service levels can be increased based on demand, or choice, or both. By your own definition it would no longer be a "commuter train". And by your own admission, TOD could then happen. Your argument, on your terms, unravels completely. No, my entire argument is based on what the study recommended. Sure, it's a transitory distinction. But it is the topic of the discussion. Sure, eventually, in some imaginary never-never land, the commuter rail could expand service to a bi-directional, frequent, all-day service. Then we're talking about a totally different kind of system for the BA corridor and there would likely be real possibilities for TOD. But nobody is proposing that kind of system, recommending that kind of system, or even suggesting this will become that kind of system. The study recommends what it recommends and says that a very limited one-way commuter service from BA to downtown Tulsa is feasible. That's all. And that is all I have ever said will NOT cause the development of TOD. (BTW, I know these facts really displease you, but they are nonetheless facts. Part of the reason the study recommends such limited service as being all that is feasible is because of the single track that is owned and used by the freight railroads. Much more service would require huge capital expenditures. Read the study if you can stand it.) <blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"> I think you've lost. You have never allowed for change over time, which perhaps also explains your problems with regression analysis. Doubting change is perhaps an instinctual trait, if not the very definition, of a small "c" conservative. Or maybe it's because you are a lawyer. You help people sort out the <i>past</i>, not the future. That's a job for people like Si. Isaac Asimov said, "The only constant is change." I tend to believe that. And I believe that we can infer from our past, and from the past and present of others. We can come up with reasonable predictions worthy of public investment. Forecasting may not be your bailiwick, but that doesn't mean it doesn't happen. Are you as skeptical about the insurance industry? stock market? There's always risk. But, without some understanding of tomorrow, we'd never have planted crops. We'd still be hunting and gathering. You can keep saying, "I don't believe in the future", but that doesn't mean we have to listen. You want to focus on allowing for change but seem incapable of focusing on the here and now and what has actually been proposed. All I have ever said is that THIS system, as proposed, will not cause the development of TODs. Your own "evidence" rather proves my point. If and when an urban rail system with bi-directional, all-day, frequent service is built, of course it will encourage TODs. But again, that is NOT what has been proposed and recommended for the BA corridor. And again, here is the entire list of TODs that you and I have been able to find around commuter rail stations in systems similar to what has been proposed for the BA corridor: Title: Re: Tulsa's exciting rail possibilities Post by: Transport_Oklahoma on September 17, 2009, 12:58:42 pm Oklahoma City MAPS 3 plan out today. Includes $130 million for 5-6 mile streetcar line plus other possibilities.
Vote will be December 8th, 2009. Title: Re: Tulsa's exciting rail possibilities Post by: Transport_Oklahoma on December 08, 2009, 09:52:55 pm And the voters approved MAPS 3 tonight with the streetcar.
http://www.yesformaps.com/streetcars.html (http://www.yesformaps.com/streetcars.html) Title: Re: Tulsa's exciting rail possibilities Post by: TheArtist on December 08, 2009, 10:57:58 pm We cant have anything like that. We have potholes and wasteful government.
Title: Re: Tulsa's exciting rail possibilities Post by: SXSW on December 09, 2009, 04:00:50 pm Once OKC has a concrete plan to build streetcars you will see a plan developed for Tulsa. I imagine some kind of streetcar/rail will be a part of Vision 2025 Part 2 when that happens in a couple years. But will Tulsa pass a sales tax initiative for it like OKC just did? I would hope so.
Title: Re: Tulsa's exciting rail possibilities Post by: Conan71 on December 09, 2009, 04:12:24 pm Once OKC has a concrete plan to build streetcars you will see a plan developed for Tulsa. I imagine some kind of streetcar/rail will be a part of Vision 2025 Part 2 when that happens in a couple years. But will Tulsa pass a sales tax initiative for it like OKC just did? I would hope so. It's fascinating that even though only about 90 miles of Turnpike separate Tulsa and OKC they could not be more different in our attitudes and goals. I seriously doubt a street car line in Tulsa will be a huge priority when it will come time for a V-2025 two. Perhaps commuter lines from the suburbs to Tulsa. There's so much competition between Tulsa and our neighboring municipalities, I think it's going to get harder to get major projects done for Tulsa on a county-wide basis as the voter rolls keep growing in Jenks, BA, Bixby, and Owasso. I hope I'm wrong, but I really do fear the individual sales tax needs of those growing cities will usurp a county-wide spirit of growth. To my knowledge MAPS is strictly an OKC municipal initiative, not county-wide. Title: Re: Tulsa's exciting rail possibilities Post by: Red Arrow on December 09, 2009, 08:29:39 pm There's so much competition between Tulsa and our neighboring municipalities, I think it's going to get harder to get major projects done for Tulsa on a county-wide basis as the voter rolls keep growing in Jenks, BA, Bixby, and Owasso. I hope I'm wrong, but I really do fear the individual sales tax needs of those growing cities will usurp a county-wide spirit of growth. There's plenty of attitude, both ways, to go around. I believe anything that gets presented for a county wide vote will need to have expenditures outside the Tulsa city limits. Being a bit of a rail fan, I would like to see the streetcar (trolley where I grew up) return to Tulsa. In order to get it, a commuter rail project to the suburbs will need to accompany it if it is on a county wide vote. Title: Re: Tulsa's exciting rail possibilities Post by: Conan71 on December 09, 2009, 09:55:59 pm There's plenty of attitude, both ways, to go around. I believe anything that gets presented for a county wide vote will need to have expenditures outside the Tulsa city limits. Being a bit of a rail fan, I would like to see the streetcar (trolley where I grew up) return to Tulsa. In order to get it, a commuter rail project to the suburbs will need to accompany it if it is on a county wide vote. Hopefully, there was an important lesson learned on the River Tax. The county was feeling good and smug after getting Vision 2025 passed that they were the proper venue for any large community enhancement tax packages from that point on since Tulsa had failed as a city a couple of times to get it's own enhancement package passed. The exact reason V-2025 passed was that every community in Tulsa county got something, and virtually every demographic group as well. Entertainment, education, YMCA's, community centers, the BOK Center, civic center improvements, etc. I agree with what you are saying here, there have to be street-front projects in Sperry, Owasso, Jenks, Sand Springs, BA, Bixby, etc. in order for V-2025 to be extended. I was not a supporter of the original vote, but I've come to appreciate what all that has bought in the way of improvements and enhancements throughout Tulsa County. My company has benefitted as a vendor on some projects. I shudder to think what Tulsa would look like right now if not for that package. Title: Re: Tulsa's exciting rail possibilities Post by: SXSW on December 10, 2009, 11:47:25 am There's plenty of attitude, both ways, to go around. I believe anything that gets presented for a county wide vote will need to have expenditures outside the Tulsa city limits. Being a bit of a rail fan, I would like to see the streetcar (trolley where I grew up) return to Tulsa. In order to get it, a commuter rail project to the suburbs will need to accompany it if it is on a county wide vote. If it's a county vote then yes probably the commuter line to BA would be a part of the proposal package along with an urban streetcar in the downtown/midtown area. That and some of the items from the failed river proposal, plus capital projects for higher education at OSU-Tulsa, OU-Tulsa, TCC and for park improvements/additional jogging and bike trails throughout the county. Title: Re: Tulsa's exciting rail possibilities Post by: Conan71 on December 10, 2009, 12:57:52 pm If it's a county vote then yes probably the commuter line to BA would be a part of the proposal package along with an urban streetcar in the downtown/midtown area. That and some of the items from the failed river proposal, plus capital projects for higher education at OSU-Tulsa, OU-Tulsa, TCC and for park improvements/additional jogging and bike trails throughout the county. I'll take more bike trails for $1000 Alex!!! It would be awesome if they completed a loop around the area or from NSU that could wind up back in downtown or on out to Skiatook. As it is now, 31st & Riverside to NSU and back is a 50 miler. The drag with that is all the darn road crossings. Title: Re: Tulsa's exciting rail possibilities Post by: SXSW on December 10, 2009, 01:37:53 pm I'll take more bike trails for $1000 Alex!!! It would be awesome if they completed a loop around the area or from NSU that could wind up back in downtown or on out to Skiatook. As it is now, 31st & Riverside to NSU and back is a 50 miler. The drag with that is all the darn road crossings. Or complete the river trails master plan that would extend the trails along the river banks north/west of the 11th/244 bridge all the way to the Hwy 97 bridge in Sand Springs at the north end and extend the east/west bank trails that end at the Creek Turnpike south/east to the Memorial/Hwy 64 bridge in Bixby. Now that would be an awesome trail network, entirely along the river with very few road crossings along its entire length. That and funding for the north extension of the Midland Valley Trail from Skiatook through the Osage Hills to Pawhuska, and if the Gilcrease Expwy. is ever built a trail along its length connecting the river trail to the MV, could all be a part of a Vision 2025-like county package. OKC's MAPS 3 includes a ton of money for bike trail and sidewalk projects. Title: Re: Tulsa's exciting rail possibilities Post by: Conan71 on December 10, 2009, 01:46:46 pm Or complete the river trails master plan that would extend the trails along the river banks north/west of the 11th/244 bridge all the way to the Hwy 97 bridge in Sand Springs at the north end and extend the east/west bank trails that end at the Creek Turnpike south/east to the Memorial/Hwy 64 bridge in Bixby. Now that would be an awesome trail network, entirely along the river with very few road crossings along its entire length. That and funding for the north extension of the Midland Valley Trail from Skiatook through the Osage Hills to Pawhuska, and if the Gilcrease Expwy. is ever built a trail along its length connecting the river trail to the MV, could all be a part of a Vision 2025-like county package. OKC's MAPS 3 includes a ton of money for bike trail and sidewalk projects. The Katy is sufficient for getting out to Sand Springs though there are lots of road crossings, and Avery Drive or the Old North Road WNR routes are both ways to get to SS now, though it puts you on the road with cars which I'm comfortable with these days, though it's somewhat more comforting to be on a trail away from traffic. I'm with you 100% on extending the trail on down riverside to the South though. I can't really see the Midland getting expanded north of Skiatook on a V-2025 package since that winds up in Osage County. I'm not sure what kind of state funds would have to be tapped for that. Title: Re: Tulsa's exciting rail possibilities Post by: rdj on December 10, 2009, 03:05:01 pm As much as I love the BOk Center and a few other Vision 2025 projects I think it was miles wide and inches deep. The promoters of the river tax were very aware of that fact and hoped to be able to gain county wide support. Obviously they didn't.
Title: Re: Tulsa's exciting rail possibilities Post by: SXSW on December 10, 2009, 03:30:33 pm I can't really see the Midland getting expanded north of Skiatook on a V-2025 package since that winds up in Osage County. I'm not sure what kind of state funds would have to be tapped for that. Very true. Maybe the Midland's south extension then? http://www.tulsanow.org/forum/index.php?topic=14292.0 (http://www.tulsanow.org/forum/index.php?topic=14292.0) And while the KATY and Avery are decent ways to go west, a continuation of the river bank trails would be better (and more widely used). The southern extension should happen first though, it has tons of potential to get the suburban types in that area of the county on their feet and bikes along the river. Title: Re: Tulsa's exciting rail possibilities Post by: SXSW on December 14, 2009, 04:20:11 pm I've posted this before but it shows how different forms of rail can converge downtown with most of the existing right of way and infrastructure already in place. There are two things I would change:
1. The streetcar wouldn't be able to cross the freight tracks at-grade on Elgin. Either a bridge is built here and the streetcar goes over the tracks or the line is shifted to the west and goes over the tracks at Detroit. 2. Instead of bringing commuter rail lines along the freight corridor between 1st and Archer bring them into downtown along 3rd which would become a downtown transit corridor between the Convention Center/BOK Center and Blue Dome. There would still be one car lane in each direction but on-street parking would be eliminated along 3rd and tracks/center platforms would be built with stops at Houston/Convention Center, Denver/BOK Center, Boulder (southbound streetcar), Cincinnati/PAC (northbound streetcar), Elgin/Blue Dome District, and Greenwood/East End. It would be similar to the colored map below but with more stops downtown. Your thoughts? (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v316/bg918/tulsa-1.jpg) (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v316/bg918/tulsalightrail.jpg) Transit corridor in the center of 3rd through downtown similar to this setup in Denver: (http://www.krischeconstruction.com/large_images/rtd2_lg.jpg) Title: Re: Tulsa's exciting rail possibilities Post by: Conan71 on December 14, 2009, 04:24:55 pm Does anyone have an overlay map of the original street car or rail alignments through the city, or has one been posted here before they would kindly link to? Thanks!
Title: Re: Tulsa's exciting rail possibilities Post by: MichaelBates on December 15, 2009, 01:01:03 am I put together a Google Earth KMZ file with the routes of the Tulsa Street Railway, Oklahoma Union Traction Co., and Sand Springs Railroad. I'm not sure how to embed it all here, but I've got it posted, along with a snapshot of the central Tulsa portion of the routes, on BatesLine.
Tulsa streetcar and interurban lines in Google Maps (http://www.batesline.com/archives/2009/12/tulsa-streetcar-and-interurban-l.html) Title: Re: Tulsa's exciting rail possibilities Post by: Conan71 on December 15, 2009, 09:53:50 am I put together a Google Earth KMZ file with the routes of the Tulsa Street Railway, Oklahoma Union Traction Co., and Sand Springs Railroad. I'm not sure how to embed it all here, but I've got it posted, along with a snapshot of the central Tulsa portion of the routes, on BatesLine. Tulsa streetcar and interurban lines in Google Maps (http://www.batesline.com/archives/2009/12/tulsa-streetcar-and-interurban-l.html) How did you know I was conjuring you, Michael? Thanks, I figured you might have something like that! Title: Re: Tulsa's exciting rail possibilities Post by: SXSW on December 15, 2009, 11:12:45 am Thanks Michael. I know you can still see where the tracks ran on some streets in midtown, does anyone have any examples of where you can see this? I may try to trace these routes with my bike sometime and see what I come up with.
Title: Re: Tulsa's exciting rail possibilities Post by: MichaelBates on December 15, 2009, 11:25:04 am Thanks Michael. I know you can still see where the tracks ran on some streets in midtown, does anyone have any examples of where you can see this? I may try to trace these routes with my bike sometime and see what I come up with. Asphalt cracks that may reveal the presence of tracks beneath (or at least the track bed) can be seen on Archer downtown (east of Elgin, you can see where the Sand Springs RR tracks swung north to pass behind buildings on the west side of Greenwood) and on Quincy Ave. You can see a single set of track cracks fan out to a double track between 8th and 10th on Quincy. I posted some photos of trolley track cracks (http://www.batesline.com/archives/2009/03/mdb05175.html) a while back. Title: Re: Tulsa's exciting rail possibilities Post by: Red Arrow on December 15, 2009, 11:25:49 am I put together a Google Earth KMZ file with the routes of the Tulsa Street Railway, Oklahoma Union Traction Co., and Sand Springs Railroad. I'm not sure how to embed it all here, but I've got it posted, along with a snapshot of the central Tulsa portion of the routes, on BatesLine. Tulsa streetcar and interurban lines in Google Maps (http://www.batesline.com/archives/2009/12/tulsa-streetcar-and-interurban-l.html) Thanks. I started working on doing a map from "When Oklahoma Took the Trolley". I couldn't figure out the last segment of the OUT spur to Owen Park. Title: Re: Tulsa's exciting rail possibilities Post by: MichaelBates on December 15, 2009, 05:18:42 pm Thanks. I started working on doing a map from "When Oklahoma Took the Trolley". I couldn't figure out the last segment of the OUT spur to Owen Park. That's based on the 1918 "birds' eye" view of Tulsa. (http://www.historicmapworks.com/Map/US/51571/Tulsa+1918+Bird+s+Eye+View+17x36/) Title: Re: Tulsa's exciting rail possibilities Post by: Red Arrow on December 15, 2009, 05:27:33 pm That's based on the 1918 "birds' eye" view of Tulsa. (http://www.historicmapworks.com/Map/US/51571/Tulsa+1918+Bird+s+Eye+View+17x36/) I was trying to find either that or about a 1915 to 1920 city street map. I wasn't successful. Thanks Title: Re: Tulsa's exciting rail possibilities Post by: stageidea on December 30, 2009, 06:17:49 pm I am not sure if this is the correct Tulsa "Rail" discussion but I found it interesting that out of the eight billion offered for rail development/service fifty-seven billion so far has been requested by states.
North Carolina and Virgina ask for North Carolina and Virginia Ask for $5 Billion for High-Speed Rail (but Not the Only Ones) http://cleantechnica.com/2009/12/30/north-carolina-and-virginia-ask-for-5-billion-for-high-speed-rail-but-not-the-only-ones/ (http://cleantechnica.com/2009/12/30/north-carolina-and-virginia-ask-for-5-billion-for-high-speed-rail-but-not-the-only-ones/) Title: Re: Tulsa's exciting rail possibilities Post by: stageidea on January 26, 2010, 11:20:21 am New Article in Wired on the subject:
http://www.wired.com/magazine/2010/01/ff_fasttrack/ Title: Re: Tulsa's exciting rail possibilities Post by: Patrick on January 26, 2010, 11:41:33 am Thanks Michael. I know you can still see where the tracks ran on some streets in midtown, does anyone have any examples of where you can see this? I may try to trace these routes with my bike sometime and see what I come up with. FYI in case you wanted to do this. If you have an iPhone or Android device, there is a 'Google Tracks' app that uses GPS and records your route (time, speed, altitude, etc) and uploads it to your Google MyMaps account (part of Google Maps). My wife and I use it to track our bike rides. Title: Re: Tulsa's exciting rail possibilities Post by: dsjeffries on January 28, 2010, 09:25:26 am Well, we struck out. No funding made its way to Oklahoma.
List of funded projects: http://www.whitehouse.gov/files/documents/100128_1400-HSRAwards-Summary_FRA%20Revisions.pdf (http://www.whitehouse.gov/files/documents/100128_1400-HSRAwards-Summary_FRA%20Revisions.pdf) Tulsa World article:http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=16&articleid=20100128_13_0_WASHIN499939 (http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=16&articleid=20100128_13_0_WASHIN499939) Quote White House to dole out $8 billion in rail grants By JOAN LOWY Associated Press Writer Published: 1/28/2010 6:43 AM Last Modified: 1/28/2010 6:43 AM WASHINGTON — High-speed rail projects in California, Florida and Illinois are among the big winners of $8 billion in grants to be announced Thursday by the White House — the start of what some Democrats tout as a national rail-building program that could rival the interstate highways begun in the Eisenhower era. Thirteen rail corridors in 31 states received funds. The White House, which supplied a list of the grants to reporters late Wednesday, billed the program as "high-speed rail," but only the California project calls for trains with maximum speeds exceeding the 200 mph achieved by some trains in Europe and Asia. Some of the money will go toward trains with top speeds of 110 mph, while others — such as the $400 million allotted to Ohio to connect Cleveland, Columbus, Dayton and Cincinnati by rail — will go toward trains traveling no faster than 79 mph. President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden are expected to pitch the program as a boost to the economy at a town hall meeting Thursday in Tampa, Fla. A half-dozen Cabinet members and other senior administration officials were scheduled to fan out across the country for rail events Thursday and Friday. The White House said rail projects will create or save thousands of jobs in areas like track laying, manufacturing, planning, engineering and rail maintenance and operations. Except for Amtrak's Acela line between Boston and Washington, there are no high-speed trains in the U.S. and no domestic high-speed rail industry. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood and members of Congress have acknowledged they expect much of the expertise and equipment to be supplied by foreign companies. Congress set aside the $8 billion as part of the economic recovery plan enacted last year. The money is just a start. Last year, Obama asked Congress in his budget request for an additional $1 billion a year for five years. Congress for this year approved another $2.5 billion that remains to be awarded. And Obama is expected to ask for yet more rail funds when his budget is unveiled next week. Also, LaHood has hinted that some of the $1.5 billion allotted in the stimulus plan for discretionary transportation projects may go toward high-speed rail. Japan launched the first high-speed trains in 1964, and France and other European countries followed in the 1980s and 1990s. China has announced plans to expand its high-speed rail system to a network of more than 16,000 miles by the year 2020 and has spent more than $50 billion. Projects awarded the largest grants include: — California: $2.3 billion to begin work on an 800-mile-long, high-speed rail line tying Sacramento and the San Francisco Bay area to Los Angeles and San Diego. — Florida: $1.25 billion to build a rail line connecting Tampa on the West Coast with Orlando in the middle of the state, eventually going south to Miami. — Illinois-Missouri: $1.1 billion to improve a rail line between Chicago and St. Louis so that trains travel up to 110 mph. — Wisconsin: $810 million to upgrade and refurbish train stations and install safety equipment on the Madison-to-Milwaukee leg of a line that stretches from Minneapolis to Chicago. — Washington-Oregon: $590 million to upgrade a rail line from Seattle to Portland, Ore. — North Carolina: $520 million for projects that will increase top speeds to 90 mph on trains between Raleigh and Charlotte and double the number of round trips. By spreading the $8 billion among so many states, Obama is ignoring the advice of transportation experts and high-speed rail advocates who said the best way to build continuing political support for the program would be to concentrate on two or three grants large enough to get a high-speed line up and running. Once that happens, they reasoned, other parts of the country would lobby for more money to build their own lines. "We can't try to touch as many political bases as we can with that money. We have got to do major projects," Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell said in a recent interview. Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., disagreed. "You really have to look at local and regional approaches to create the political will to expand the program," he said. Title: Re: Tulsa's exciting rail possibilities Post by: TheTed on January 28, 2010, 09:40:57 am Every time we have a winter storm, I'm reminded of how pathetic our transportation infrastructure is. If we had commuter and/or intercity rail, at least we'd have something that wouldn't be crippled by weather.
Imagine how many people would be taking the train in from BA today or how many would be taking Amtrak because most of the flights are cancelled. Title: Re: Tulsa's exciting rail possibilities Post by: stageidea on January 28, 2010, 10:56:59 am (http://cleantechnica.com/files/2010/01/vision-for-high-speed-rail-united-states-of-america.jpg)
We somehow ended up on the map even though we didn't receive any funding. High-Speed Rail for the US, Finally! (cleantechnica.com) http://cleantechnica.com/2010/01/28/high-speed-rail-for-the-us-finally/ Title: Re: Tulsa's exciting rail possibilities Post by: OurTulsa on January 28, 2010, 11:03:09 am I don't remember and can't make the time right now to shuffle through previous posts but has Oklahoma committed any resources to a rail extension or high speed improvements to the existing connection. Until we are committed as a state to upgrading the lines the feds will continue to ignore us. We'll be one of the last legs upgraded and unless we step up on our own it certainly won't happen before Texas gets their piece of the pie.
That said I'm glad to see our country get serious about passenger rail again. Wish we were a swing state like Ohio and Florida or had our $heet together like Cali. - maybe we would have had some consideration. Title: Re: Tulsa's exciting rail possibilities Post by: stageidea on January 28, 2010, 11:05:54 am Isn't there still 2.5 billion in funds to be spent by congress this year. I am guessing we have very little shot at those funds.
Title: Re: Tulsa's exciting rail possibilities Post by: OurTulsa on January 28, 2010, 11:08:35 am (http://cleantechnica.com/files/2010/01/vision-for-high-speed-rail-united-states-of-america.jpg) We somehow ended up on the map even though we didn't receive any funding. High-Speed Rail for the US, Finally! (cleantechnica.com) http://cleantechnica.com/2010/01/28/high-speed-rail-for-the-us-finally/ That's the vision and has been for some time - as far as I can remember Tulsa's always been on that map. What I don't understand is why the vision stops at Tulsa. Why not connect through to either KC or St. Louis. Same question with Louisville. Why stop there. Why not continue south to Nashville and then connect to Atlanta. That one seems even more odd than the stop at Tulsa. So to get from Chicago to the SE you have to go all the way around this hole in the ground called Tennessee? Did a massive mountain range pop up there when I wasn't looking. Isn't there still 2.5 billion in funds to be spent by congress this year. I am guessing we have very little shot at those funds. there is more to come. The feds are talking about even more available in the current Jobs bill but we don't have our crap together and we're not a political swing state. I'm sure our state reps aren't out there fighting for rail resources either - too busy upholding our values, loving freedom, fighting global warming monsters, taking a stand on gov't spending and blah blah blah. Title: Re: Tulsa's exciting rail possibilities Post by: SXSW on January 28, 2010, 12:49:11 pm ^ I agree, it makes the most sense for a Dallas-OKC-Tulsa line to connect with Springfield and St. Louis where it continues to the Midwest hub of Chicago. That would mean Tulsa would be on the link between the Midwest and Texas which would be great for this city.
Title: Re: Tulsa's exciting rail possibilities Post by: dsjeffries on January 28, 2010, 12:59:46 pm I can hear the Tulsa Boosters now, "Tulsa's got its train back, so get on the track! Come to Tulsa and see where it's at!"
Title: Re: Tulsa's exciting rail possibilities Post by: TheArtist on January 28, 2010, 02:54:23 pm Well, we struck out. No funding made its way to Oklahoma. Hate to say it... Ok, actually I don't, but "I told ya so". I think it was absolutely absurd and delusional to think we have what it takes to get any funding. The next "I told ya so" will be the line that Oklahoma builds up to Newton bypassing Tulsa. We could get some funding from the state to help our own inner city rail projects... IF we played our cards right. But I seriously doubt Tulsa will do that. Tulsa will holler about getting the rail line to go through Tulsa (and holler about only that line, while not using this situation as a bargaining chip to get inter city rail funding), but the state wont be able to afford the line through Tulsa and will go with the far, far, far, cheaper line up to Newton. Title: Re: Tulsa's exciting rail possibilities Post by: we vs us on January 28, 2010, 03:30:05 pm Hate to say it... Ok, actually I don't, but "I told ya so". I think it was absolutely absurd and delusional to think we have what it takes to get any funding. The next "I told ya so" will be the line that Oklahoma builds up to Newton bypassing Tulsa. We could get some funding from the state to help our own inner city rail projects... IF we played our cards right. But I seriously doubt Tulsa will do that. Tulsa will holler about getting the rail line to go through Tulsa (and holler about only that line, while not using this situation as a bargaining chip to get inter city rail funding), but the state wont be able to afford the line through Tulsa and will go with the far, far, far, cheaper line up to Newton. I have to second this. There was just no compelling reason to believe that we'd be in the first round of federal funding. We're a third tier city in a minor red state outside of a major commercial corridor. I hate to say this but we're not a major economic destination and we're not on the way to anywhere in particular. That they want to include us -- eventually -- as a spur for one of the regional systems is great in and of itself, but it's gonna be one of those things that might get done by 2020 or 2030, maybe, if we mind our P's and Q's and lobby for it like our hearts were in it. Oh, and somehow pony up some serious state matching funds. Title: Re: Tulsa's exciting rail possibilities Post by: Conan71 on January 28, 2010, 03:56:26 pm I have to second this. There was just no compelling reason to believe that we'd be in the first round of federal funding. We're a third tier city in a minor red state outside of a major commercial corridor. I hate to say this but we're not a major economic destination and we're not on the way to anywhere in particular. Sure we are. I-44 is a vital drug-trafficking and human smuggling route. Did you not know this? ;) As far as the Map Our Tulsa posted, why would Tulsa not be a logical mid way on a Kansas City to Dallas line. That almost makes too much sense. Especially since there's a railroad R.O.W. which parallels 169, I believe all the way up to KC. Something makes me think there's got to be another line to Omaha or Des Moines. Title: Re: Tulsa's exciting rail possibilities Post by: SXSW on January 28, 2010, 04:19:26 pm Tulsa is along a potential Dallas-St. Louis-Chicago route. We can be a major stop on the line that connects the Midwest to Texas if we lobby for it. There are two other routes that could be chosen over us: Dallas-OKC-KC-St. Louis and Dallas-Little Rock-St. Louis. We need to make sure we are ready for the next round of funding. Getting the I-244 bridge built (see thread http://www.tulsanow.org/forum/index.php?topic=13740.0 (http://www.tulsanow.org/forum/index.php?topic=13740.0)) with its high speed rail line right-of-way is an important step in the right direction.
Title: Re: Tulsa's exciting rail possibilities Post by: BKDotCom on January 30, 2010, 08:52:20 pm TW Article (http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=16&articleid=20100129_16_A11_WASHIN26077):
High-speed plan derailed Federal funds won't be coming to Tulsa or the state, but ODOT says the process was still useful. By JIM MYERS World Washington Bureau Published: 1/29/2010 2:23 AM Last Modified: 1/29/2010 4:30 AM WASHINGTON — Oklahoma was shut out Thursday in its bid for construction funds from the Obama administration to be part of the first nationwide program for high-speed passenger rail service. The Oklahoma Department of Transportation expressed disappointment in not receiving any of the $2 billion it requested to improve and expand existing rail service in the state and restore passenger service to Tulsa. "However, the department acknowledges the great demand across the nation for the grant money," ODOT's statement read. "The federal application process was certainly time well spent and has allowed ODOT to gain a better understanding of high-speed rail corridors and needs and to prepare for future development." ODOT again cited an agreement to provide as much as $125,000 to help Kansas fund a study on the corridor running from Kansas City south to Wichita and on to Oklahoma City and Fort Worth. Currently, the Heartland Flyer provides passenger service between Oklahoma City and Fort Worth. Like ODOT, Oklahoma Rail President Matthew Dowty, who advocates for passenger rail service, looked toward the future. "Though we would have preferred to see an award in this round for construction in Oklahoma, we still see this as a win for the state," he said. "Significant engineering and environmental work necessary to win future rounds of awards has been completed." In its announcement, the Obama administration awarded $8 billion in stimulus funds for projects across the country. "Through the Recovery Act, we are making the largest investment in infrastructure since the Interstate Highway System was created," President Barack Obama said in a statement. "That investment is how we can break ground across the country, putting people to work building high-speed rail lines, because there's no reason why Europe or China should have the fastest trains when we can build them right here in America." Examples of projects chosen for the highly competitive grant money include as much as $1.25 billion to develop a new high-speed rail corridor between Tampa and Orlando, Fla., and as much as $2.25 billion for California's plans to connect Los Angeles and San Francisco. Among other projects selected were those from Missouri, Ohio, Illinois, Virginia and New York. Title: Re: Tulsa's exciting rail possibilities Post by: patric on January 31, 2010, 10:24:36 am ^ I agree, it makes the most sense for a Dallas-OKC-Tulsa line to connect with Springfield and St. Louis where it continues to the Midwest hub of Chicago. That would mean Tulsa would be on the link between the Midwest and Texas which would be great for this city. +1. Having to go from Tulsa to Chicago via DFW is absurd, and potential riders would just drive I-44 instead. Connecting Tulsa to St Louis would have made much more sense. Much of that route already has rail ROW. Title: Re: Tulsa's exciting rail possibilities Post by: TheTed on January 31, 2010, 11:19:13 am +1. Having to go from Tulsa to Chicago via DFW is absurd, and potential riders would just drive I-44 instead. It's far from ideal, but Amtrak has a bus that goes from OKC-Tulsa-Kansas City in the middle of the night, connecting with the Southwest Chief in Kansas City, which goes to Chicago.Connecting Tulsa to St Louis would have made much more sense. Much of that route already has rail ROW. I've driven to KC to catch the train to Chicago before. It's only 8 hours from KC-Chicago on that line, which is relatively fast for Amtrak. I've also driven to St. Louis to catch a train to Chicago. Beats driving all the way, and you can usually find free parking in smaller cities like KC and St. Louis, where you'd be paying a princely sum to park your car in downtown Chicago. Rail connections become more important every year. It seems we've lost most of our flights from TIA to St. Louis, and I can imagine the trend of the Tulsa airport getting more expensive and with fewer flights to fewer places will only continue. Title: Re: Tulsa's exciting rail possibilities Post by: Red Arrow on January 31, 2010, 11:29:34 am I've driven to KC to catch the train to Chicago before. It's only 8 hours from KC-Chicago on that line, which is relatively fast for Amtrak. I've also driven to St. Louis to catch a train to Chicago. Beats driving all the way, and you can usually find free parking in smaller cities like KC and St. Louis, where you'd be paying a princely sum to park your car in downtown Chicago. Kind of a long distance Park-and-Ride. Title: Re: Tulsa's exciting rail possibilities Post by: Red Arrow on January 31, 2010, 11:32:00 am We're a third tier city in a minor red state outside of a major commercial corridor. How do you ever expect to turn the state purple with an attitude like that? Title: Re: Tulsa's exciting rail possibilities Post by: we vs us on January 31, 2010, 12:22:50 pm How do you ever expect to turn the state purple with an attitude like that? It's long lost, my friend, long lost. Red it has been and red it shall stay. The sad part is for our loyalty we get relatively little. EDIT: And actually to clarify a bit, I mean "third tier" in comparison to, say Dallas or Chicago as first tier, and Kansas City and St Louis and Oklahoma City as second tier and us, Little Rock, and Wichita, etc as third tier. And our commercial corridor, while maybe regionally important, doesn't really fall within the sphere of influence of one of those first tier cities. If we were, say, Milwaukee, or Austin, it might be different. But we're pretty far from any of those major hubs. Title: Re: Tulsa's exciting rail possibilities Post by: Red Arrow on January 31, 2010, 06:04:33 pm It's long lost, my friend, long lost. Red it has been and red it shall stay. The sad part is for our loyalty we get relatively little. EDIT: And actually to clarify a bit, I mean "third tier" in comparison to, say Dallas or Chicago as first tier, and Kansas City and St Louis and Oklahoma City as second tier and us, Little Rock, and Wichita, etc as third tier. And our commercial corridor, while maybe regionally important, doesn't really fall within the sphere of influence of one of those first tier cities. If we were, say, Milwaukee, or Austin, it might be different. But we're pretty far from any of those major hubs. I actually agreed with most of your post. I just objected to the idea that since we are a red state that we deserve to get punished. You may think that we do, I just object to it. Also, the exercise of trying for the money will make us better prepared if/when there is a next time. Title: Re: Tulsa's exciting rail possibilities Post by: we vs us on January 31, 2010, 07:41:08 pm I actually agreed with most of your post. I just objected to the idea that since we are a red state that we deserve to get punished. You may think that we do, I just object to it. I don't believe we deserve punishment for being a red state. I do believe that, politics being what it is, we're going to find ourselves on the lower end of a Democratic President's priority list. If the GOP believed in investing in infrastructure, I'd expect us to be at the top of their priority list. EDIT: But yes, I think we're in agreement. ;) Title: Re: Tulsa's exciting rail possibilities Post by: Red Arrow on January 31, 2010, 08:24:47 pm I don't believe we deserve punishment for being a red state. I do believe that, politics being what it is, we're going to find ourselves on the lower end of a Democratic President's priority list. If the GOP believed in investing in infrastructure, I'd expect us to be at the top of their priority list. EDIT: But yes, I think we're in agreement. ;) I have to admit that rail is not the top priority for infrastructure among many on the right side of the fence. Title: Re: Tulsa's exciting rail possibilities Post by: stageidea on February 04, 2010, 09:26:26 am Tulsa hasn't missed the train yet, state says
Read more from this Tulsa World article at http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=16&articleid=20100204_16_A9_WASHIN269572 (http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=16&articleid=20100204_16_A9_WASHIN269572) Title: Re: Tulsa's exciting rail possibilities Post by: SXSW on February 04, 2010, 10:53:58 am Tulsa hasn't missed the train yet, state says Read more from this Tulsa World article at http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=16&articleid=20100204_16_A9_WASHIN269572 (http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=16&articleid=20100204_16_A9_WASHIN269572) If we are awarded the TIGER funds, which should be announced in the coming weeks, they can begin work on the new I-244 bridge which is critical for high speed rail and also commuter rail. Title: Re: Tulsa's exciting rail possibilities Post by: we vs us on February 08, 2010, 09:29:17 am We're not the only ones in the region who'd benefit from a line out of KC: (http://sbj.net/main.asp?SectionID=18&SubSectionID=23&ArticleID=86291)
Quote Councilman pushes Springfield into rails race Passenger service to Springfield is a long way off, but discussions are brewing Jennifer Muzinic Reporter Springfield leaders are dusting off an old playbook and beginning what could turn out to be a very, very long game. The prize: a passenger rail system that would connect Springfield to Kansas City, St. Louis and Tulsa. In the wake of an announcement that the state of Missouri will receive $31 million in federal stimulus money to improve passenger rail service between St. Louis and Kansas City, city leaders have met with Missouri Department of Transportation to find out how to put a southwest Missouri corridor on the government’s radar. “Right now, (stimulus money) is headed to Missouri, primarily to the connection between Kansas City and St. Louis. We know at some point, there’s going to be a connection to the south,” said City Councilman Dan Chiles, who is championing the push for a passenger corridor through Springfield. “We want to make sure Springfield can make an argument when that happens.” Down the line Chiles has the ears of Springfield Mayor Jim O’Neal and City Manager Greg Burris, but each recognizes they’re entering a long-range discussion. “We’re at the top of the first inning of a very long game,” Burris said. MoDOT Multimodal Director Brian Weiler said such passenger rail discussions already have gone on for decades. “There have been multiple studies and multiple efforts,” Weiler said. Since 1996, the nine-state Midwest Regional Rail Initiative has been planning a 3,000-mile passenger rail system using Chicago as a hub, Weiler said. And Missouri nabbed its $31 million slice of an $8 billion pie – money the U.S. government earmarked for its High-Speed Intercity Passenger Rail program – by submitting applications that stemmed from three years of planning, Weiler said. Even though the grant money comes from the high-speed rail fund, it won’t actually go to install a high-speed rail system, according to MoDOT. It will lay the groundwork for high-speed services by helping with improvements Missouri already was making to the passenger line between Kansas City and St. Louis. “When the administration announced there was money for the high-speed rail program, that work became the basis for our application,” Weiler said. Chiles said a passenger transit system that would share existing freight lines in Missouri – owned by the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway – would need to be established before high-speed rail travel through southwest Missouri is considered. For its part, BNSF would not propose or pursue an arrangement with a passenger rail service, said BNSF General Director of External Relations Steve Forsberg. Shared freight and passenger lines are not uncommon, however. “Commuter trains have been operating on freight rights of way since the 1860s,” Forsberg said, pointing out that BNSF is willing to share rights of way if passenger services are willing to pay their share of capital expenses. “That’s critical, the cost of capital. Even the most successful commuter rails in Europe and Japan, the ones that are turning a profit, haven’t earned enough to cover the cost of building their infrastructures.” Roll it out A first step for Springfield would be to study ways to fund a passenger rail connecting Springfield to existing services in St. Louis, Kansas City and Tulsa, Chiles said. A 2007 study determined that Amtrak passenger service between Springfield and St. Louis wasn’t economically feasible. Chiles contends those results are outdated. “That study assumed we had an unlimited amount of money to spend, certain congestion patterns, a certain economy in place, certain fuel prices. That’s all changed,” he said. City manager Burris is less optimistic about the changes since 2007, pointing out that the Amtrak study found making use of existing rail lines would cause a six-hour ride to St. Louis. Chiles disagrees, saying investment could speed travel time. New data could resolve that difference of opinion. Chiles is proposing a second study, in the event a passenger service through Springfield moves forward, that would examine a link between that service and high-speed rail hubs in Chicago and Dallas. However, study funding is unknown at this time, and Burris said the city hasn’t discussed helping to cover the cost of a study. “There are a lot of unknowns,” said Tim Conklin, director of the Ozarks Transportation Organization, whose board of directors is anxiously watching how the Kansas City-St. Louis passenger rail project progresses. OTO hasn’t committed to any research work. “A lot of additional work can be done in that area, through a joint effort between the state and local parties, looking at what needs to be developed and how to pay for it,” Conklin added. For that matter, the city of Springfield hasn’t officially made a commitment to further pursue passenger rail service, either. Chiles has placed the issue among the city’s 2010 legislative priorities, which are up for a vote at the Feb. 8 council meeting. Once he gets council’s endorsement, Chiles said the next step would be to put together an informal group to research the idea. Title: Re: Tulsa's exciting rail possibilities Post by: rwarn17588 on February 08, 2010, 09:47:33 am We're not the only ones in the region who'd benefit from a line out of KC: (http://sbj.net/main.asp?SectionID=18&SubSectionID=23&ArticleID=86291) Y'know, that's an interesting wrinkle to the rail argument. I know that KC, Dallas, St. Louis and the other usual suspects are always mentioned in expansion of rail. But I think Springfield, Mo., is the wild card that might actually get this thing done and it be beneficial to Tulsa. Springfield is the third-largest city in Missouri, and it's been growing fast for decades. Forward-looking planners might consider more of an I-44 route for rail because of this, even though it's no picnic building such infrastructure through the Ozarks. Title: Re: Tulsa's exciting rail possibilities Post by: we vs us on February 08, 2010, 10:11:21 am It also points up the obvious: that especially for new rail infrastructure, the argument has to be regional. And that regional partners don't necessarily have to be first tier cities.
Title: Re: Tulsa's exciting rail possibilities Post by: SXSW on February 08, 2010, 11:03:59 am Y'know, that's an interesting wrinkle to the rail argument. I know that KC, Dallas, St. Louis and the other usual suspects are always mentioned in expansion of rail. But I think Springfield, Mo., is the wild card that might actually get this thing done and it be beneficial to Tulsa. Springfield is the third-largest city in Missouri, and it's been growing fast for decades. Forward-looking planners might consider more of an I-44 route for rail because of this, even though it's no picnic building such infrastructure through the Ozarks. Springfield is actually a pretty nice city and you're correct in that it has been growing steadily for the past decade primarily due to its expanding public university Missouri State (formerly SW Missouri State) which is the second largest in the state with 21,000 students. Connecting St. Louis to Springfield and then to Tulsa and on to OKC and Dallas would be the missing link between the Midwest and Texas for HSR. Title: Re: Tulsa's exciting rail possibilities Post by: TURobY on February 15, 2010, 10:16:54 am Detroit Philanthropists Fund M1 light rail for Motor City
http://money.cnn.com/2010/02/15/smallbusiness/detroit_m1_light_rail/index.htm?source=cnn_bin&hpt=Sbin (http://money.cnn.com/2010/02/15/smallbusiness/detroit_m1_light_rail/index.htm?source=cnn_bin&hpt=Sbin) Some philathropists in Detroit have decided to step up and fund the initial phase of light rail development in Detroit. I appreciate the generosity of our philanthropists, and would love to encourage them to make similar investments like this in our city. Title: Re: Tulsa's exciting rail possibilities Post by: Conan71 on February 15, 2010, 02:26:43 pm Y'know, that's an interesting wrinkle to the rail argument. I know that KC, Dallas, St. Louis and the other usual suspects are always mentioned in expansion of rail. But I think Springfield, Mo., is the wild card that might actually get this thing done and it be beneficial to Tulsa. Springfield is the third-largest city in Missouri, and it's been growing fast for decades. Forward-looking planners might consider more of an I-44 route for rail because of this, even though it's no picnic building such infrastructure through the Ozarks. Hmmm, one thing which might help even more would be to get a corridor between Branson and S'field incorporated into that for tourism, maybe even going on further south to Eureka Springs. Title: Re: Tulsa's exciting rail possibilities Post by: JoeMommaBlake on February 23, 2010, 07:47:24 pm Interesting rail article comparing rail in China to rail in the U.S.
http://www.dailyfinance.com/story/chinas-trains-are-better-than-americas-and-thats-a-good-t/19366122/?icid=main|aim|dl4|link3|http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dailyfinance.com%2Fstory%2Fchinas-trains-are-better-than-americas-and-thats-a-good-t%2F19366122%2F There are some really interesting points that hadn't occurred to me. Title: Re: Tulsa's exciting rail possibilities Post by: Transport_Oklahoma on February 24, 2010, 05:31:53 am Quote “That study assumed we had an unlimited amount of money to spend, certain congestion patterns, a certain economy in place, certain fuel prices. That’s all changed,” he said. Surely what he really said or meant to say was that the 2006 study assumed there would be almost NO money to spend on track upgrades. I am familiar with that study and that was an assumption going in. There were no federal matching funds available in 2006. That is why Amtrak assumed a nearly six hour travel time between STL and SGF. The existing railroad through there will never support travel times as a quick as Interstate 44, except maybe in winter weather. It just has too many curves. Nevertheless, a segment of the travel market will trade some speed for rail's other benefits. Also, if you look at the line as an extension of the ORD-STL (Chicago-Saint Louis) high speed corridor (110 mph), the overall average speed comes up. If Missouri moves on this, Oklahoma should be ready to partner with them and get the line at least to Tulsa. Title: Re: Tulsa's exciting rail possibilities Post by: stageidea on March 01, 2010, 10:34:55 am 83% of Americans Think More Money Should Go to High Speed Rail
http://cleantechnica.com/2010/02/28/88-of-americans-like-high-speed-rail/ (http://cleantechnica.com/2010/02/28/88-of-americans-like-high-speed-rail/) Well, at least we are not the only ones hopeful. Title: Re: Tulsa's exciting rail possibilities Post by: nathanm on March 01, 2010, 01:53:30 pm 83% of Americans Think More Money Should Go to High Speed Rail I wonder if that is largely due to the circus that is airline security these days.http://cleantechnica.com/2010/02/28/88-of-americans-like-high-speed-rail/ (http://cleantechnica.com/2010/02/28/88-of-americans-like-high-speed-rail/) Well, at least we are not the only ones hopeful. Title: Re: Tulsa's exciting rail possibilities Post by: stageidea on March 15, 2010, 10:09:08 am Well, we can't get a train to Tulsa but they can build the biggest train line of them all.
http://cleantechnica.com/2010/03/13/china-wants-to-connect-its-high-speed-rail-to-europe-largest-infrastructure-project-in-history/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+cleantechnica%2Fcom+%28CleanTechnica%29&utm_content=Google+Reader (http://cleantechnica.com/2010/03/13/china-wants-to-connect-its-high-speed-rail-to-europe-largest-infrastructure-project-in-history/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+cleantechnica%2Fcom+%28CleanTechnica%29&utm_content=Google+Reader) Title: Re: Tulsa's exciting rail possibilities Post by: nathanm on March 15, 2010, 04:12:10 pm Well, we can't get a train to Tulsa but they can build the biggest train line of them all. It helps that they have trillions of dollars of our money to use for these things. If we still made things here other than risky and complex derivatives, we might have some of our money, too. :PTitle: Re: Tulsa's exciting rail possibilities Post by: stageidea on March 16, 2010, 09:04:51 am No doubt, I had same discussion with some family members this morning.
Title: Re: Tulsa's exciting rail possibilities Post by: TheTed on March 17, 2010, 10:29:18 am We've apparently lost our Amtrak bus service. You could get on Amtrak.com and book travel to/from Tulsa. I believe it was served with a Jefferson Lines bus that stopped at the downtown bus depot and took you to the train in Kansas City or the one in OKC.
The idea of a middle of the night bus ride was not exactly appealing, but some type of connection to our nation's train system is better than nothing. Title: Re: Tulsa's exciting rail possibilities Post by: Red Arrow on March 17, 2010, 10:40:18 am We've apparently lost our Amtrak bus service. You could get on Amtrak.com and book travel to/from Tulsa. I believe it was served with a Jefferson Lines bus that stopped at the downtown bus depot and took you to the train in Kansas City or the one in OKC. The idea of a middle of the night bus ride was not exactly appealing, but some type of connection to our nation's train system is better than nothing. Any idea on the number of people using the service? Title: Re: Tulsa's exciting rail possibilities Post by: patric on December 15, 2010, 07:40:53 pm The I-244 bridge over the Arkansas River unveiled:
Title: Re: Tulsa's exciting rail possibilities Post by: Conan71 on December 15, 2010, 08:36:44 pm The I-244 bridge over the Arkansas River unveiled: Is that after 20 years of service? Where's the smoking skid marks? Title: Re: Tulsa's exciting rail possibilities Post by: nathanm on December 15, 2010, 08:45:56 pm I especially like the person standing to the right on the pedestrian bridge area looking confused.
Title: Re: Tulsa's exciting rail possibilities Post by: we vs us on December 15, 2010, 08:53:48 pm I like the luxuriously deep Arkansas River.
Title: Re: Tulsa's exciting rail possibilities Post by: Conan71 on December 15, 2010, 09:02:28 pm I like the luxuriously deep Arkansas River. And they were somewhat honest in representing the color of the water. Title: Re: Tulsa's exciting rail possibilities Post by: dbacks fan on December 15, 2010, 09:14:41 pm Soooo, in thirty some years when the road decking starts to crumble, it'll be dropping on trains and a pedestrian bridge.
Title: Re: Tulsa's exciting rail possibilities Post by: SXSW on December 15, 2010, 09:21:58 pm patric, where did you find that? The concept is cool but it needs more style. Hopefully this is a work-in-progress.
Title: Re: Tulsa's exciting rail possibilities Post by: dbacks fan on December 15, 2010, 09:45:02 pm patric, where did you find that? The concept is cool but it needs more style. Hopefully this is a work-in-progress. http://www.okladot.state.ok.us/meetings/a2010/100429/i-244presentation.pdf (http://www.okladot.state.ok.us/meetings/a2010/100429/i-244presentation.pdf) This also goes into the possible high speed rail from Tulsa to OKC to D/FW as well as Little Rock to Texarkana to D/FW and then a continuation from D/FW to Austin to San Antonio. Title: Re: Tulsa's exciting rail possibilities Post by: Red Arrow on December 15, 2010, 10:11:15 pm The I-244 bridge over the Arkansas River unveiled: That'll teach us to only fund half a bridge. Title: Re: Tulsa's exciting rail possibilities Post by: SXSW on December 27, 2010, 11:26:58 am Saw this article in the TW about INCOG developing a transit plan for the metro and gathering public input over the next few months before presenting the plan in the summer. There is a kick-off presentation and open house at the TCC Center for Creativity on Jan. 19 if anyone is interested. The mayor of Charlotte will be there to discuss how light rail was built in his sprawly Southern city and how it has spurred new development. I'm hoping this type of dialogue is the precursor to developing a streetcar and/or light rail plan so that when the next V2025 comes along it is heavily transit-based and lots of the planning has already been done. OKC passed MAPS 3 which will build a streetcar line but little of the planning had been done so actual construction is still several years away.
http://www.transitsystemplan.org/website/Home.aspx (http://www.transitsystemplan.org/website/Home.aspx) http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=16&articleid=20101227_16_A1_JamesW213304 (http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=16&articleid=20101227_16_A1_JamesW213304) Title: Re: Tulsa's exciting rail possibilities Post by: Townsend on January 14, 2011, 04:50:58 pm Again:
Local and State Leaders Look At Passenger Rail Service http://www.ktul.com/Global/story.asp?S=13846681&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter (http://www.ktul.com/Global/story.asp?S=13846681&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter) Title: Re: Tulsa's exciting rail possibilities Post by: TheArtist on January 14, 2011, 08:38:38 pm Again: Local and State Leaders Look At Passenger Rail Service http://www.ktul.com/Global/story.asp?S=13846681&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter (http://www.ktul.com/Global/story.asp?S=13846681&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter) I am completely and utterly against it. TOTAL waste of money. It will NOT bring in more dollars. We could better use the funds encouraging more density in and around downtown and for various mass trainsit options IN town, not between OKC and Tulsa. That would more likely spur growth here than some slow line between Tulsa and OKC. There are probably more local people likely to use a line from BA or Jenks to Tulsa and back each day than would use one going from OKC to Tulsa and back. And it could be used to help us improve our density, pedestrian friendlieness, spur some TOD development, etc. And I am not even completely convinced on that, but Tulsa to OKC, nooooooo way. If anything it will flop and become an expense that will be a rallying cry against any efforts for commuter rail in town. Title: Re: Tulsa's exciting rail possibilities Post by: patric on January 15, 2011, 01:34:03 am 2 1/2 hours to OKC isnt exactly exciting. 40 minutes would be, though...
Title: Re: Tulsa's exciting rail possibilities Post by: waterboy on January 15, 2011, 09:17:22 am I am completely and utterly against it. TOTAL waste of money. It will NOT bring in more dollars. We could better use the funds encouraging more density in and around downtown and for various mass trainsit options IN town, not between OKC and Tulsa. That would more likely spur growth here than some slow line between Tulsa and OKC. There are probably more local people likely to use a line from BA or Jenks to Tulsa and back each day than would use one going from OKC to Tulsa and back. And it could be used to help us improve our density, pedestrian friendlieness, spur some TOD development, etc. And I am not even completely convinced on that, but Tulsa to OKC, nooooooo way. If anything it will flop and become an expense that will be a rallying cry against any efforts for commuter rail in town. Your view is surprising to me having read some of your other posts. I wonder if it comes from your hatred, distrust and jealousy of OKC? Maybe deserved, but not productive for us. Downtown density and passenger train service to OKC are both achievable and synergistic. Making it easier to travel between a larger metro to a smaller metro benefits both. You think people in the sprawling OKC area would not be interested in a leisurely train ride to visit the Blue Dome, Pearl, Brady and River districts? Of course they would. Driving the Turnpike is a laborious chore and increasingly congested with trucking. Its faster mainly because everyone exceeds speed limits, but its constantly in a state of repair somewhere. It will always take about 1 1/2 hours to travel to the middle of OKC. But you can increase the speed of a rail system over time as well as the convenience of its station locations. It will in fact spur development around those locations. It would also stimulate the perception of the public that it is a viable alternative to driving/parking and thus increase the likelihood of the acceptance of mass transit within the metro. That will lead to increased densities and more walkable neighborhoods. Lastly, consider this. Fuel availability issues (as well as water) will be THE issues in the coming decades. Having an alternative, and vastly more fuel efficient, rail transport system between the two metros means an uninterrupted supply route when trucks are too expensive to operate at the demands we put on them now. Here is a concrete example. Retailers, both brick/mortar and internet, rely on the trucking industry to deliver within 24/48 hours right now. You can order a desk from Staples and have it delivered the next day because it likely comes up 35 from Dallas, thru OKC and out to Tulsa. 24 hours! When fuel costs spike, there are fuel surcharges and increased shipping times because they are locked into that delivery system. At some point it becomes unsustainable. However, having the option to ship on existing rail lines from Dallas to OKC keeps them in the loop but might cut us out. Our rail lines are mostly heavy freight and petrochemical oriented. We should support any effort to modernize this state and the two metros are the only chance to do so. It certainly won't be Pawnee county that leads the way! Title: Re: Tulsa's exciting rail possibilities Post by: SXSW on January 15, 2011, 11:04:24 am I would love to see a rail link to OKC. I would use it a few times a year, and even more if it was an extension of the Heartland Flyer so after stopping in downtown OKC it would go to Norman.
Title: Re: Tulsa's exciting rail possibilities Post by: DTowner on February 16, 2011, 02:25:00 pm Florida Governor has declined the feds $2.4 Billion for high speed rail in Florida. Among the reasons, he cites the high likelihood of huge costs overruns that must be covered by the state, huge operating subsidies longterm that must be covered by the state and the overly optimistic ridership estimates that are nearly equal to the ridership numbers of the Acela train in the densely populated northeast corridor.
Here is his statement: http://www.flgov.com/2011/02/16/florida-governor-rick-scott-rejects-federal-high-speed-rail/ Title: Re: Tulsa's exciting rail possibilities Post by: Townsend on February 16, 2011, 02:31:33 pm Florida Governor has declined the feds $2.4 Billion for high speed rail in Florida. Among the reasons, he cites the high likelihood of huge costs overruns that must be covered by the state, huge operating subsidies longterm that must be covered by the state and the overly optimistic ridership estimates that are nearly equal to the ridership numbers of the Acela train in the densely populated northeast corridor. Here is his statement: http://www.flgov.com/2011/02/16/florida-governor-rick-scott-rejects-federal-high-speed-rail/ Bring that $2.4 billion our way. Heck yes. We'll default on any overrun and be proud of it. Oklahoma's motto would be "Bail us out, bail us out, bail us out. We're too big to fail...OK?" Title: Re: Tulsa's exciting rail possibilities Post by: nathanm on February 16, 2011, 02:44:43 pm Republican governors seem to be cutting off their noses a lot lately.
Title: Re: Tulsa's exciting rail possibilities Post by: Transport_Oklahoma on February 16, 2011, 03:25:18 pm Reminder-state rail plan hearing tonight (Feb. 16, 4:30-7pm).
5202 S Hudson Ave LaFortune Community Center Title: Re: Tulsa's exciting rail possibilities Post by: Conan71 on February 16, 2011, 03:29:31 pm Republican governors seem to be cutting off their noses a lot lately. How is it cutting off your nose if you can see the program is going to unnecessarily saddle his state with cost over-runs? Just because a governor refuses federal money doesn't mean they are "cutting off their nose" especially when there are strings attached which could penalize a state's citizens. A Tampa to Orlando line doesn't make much sense. Are there that many people who commute daily between those two cities? I could see a high speed rail all up the densely-populated east coast of Florida making a whole lot more sense. The only major outpost between Tampa and Orlando is Lakeland and it's not a big city nor a major destination. His reasoning is sound based on good historical data. He also indicates Florida could better invest in other infrastructure projects which will lead to growth: "Historical data shows capital cost overruns are pervasive in 9 out of 10 high speed rail projects and that 2/3 of those projects inflated ridership projections by an average of 65 percent of actual patronage. It is projected that 3.07 million people will use the train annually. Keep in mind that Amtrak’s Acela train in Washington, D.C., Boston, Philadelphia, New York and Baltimore only had 3.2 million riders in 2010. And that market’s population is 8 times the size of the Tampa/Orlando market. President Obama’s high-speed rail program is not the answer to Florida’s economic recovery. We must make investments in areas where we will get a return for the shareholders – Florida’s taxpayers. Rather than investing in a high-risk rail project, we should be focusing on improving our ports, rail and highway infrastructure to be in a position to attract the increased shipping that will result when the Panama Canal is expanded when the free trade agreements with Colombia and Panama are ratified and with the expansion of the economies of Central and South America. By capturing a larger share of containerized imports entering our seaports, expanding export markets for Florida businesses and emerging as a global hub for trade and investment we can create up to an additional 143,000 jobs according to a recent chamber of commerce study." Title: Re: Tulsa's exciting rail possibilities Post by: nathanm on February 16, 2011, 03:53:40 pm He's just replacing one set of made up numbers with another, only the second set doesn't involve someone giving his state billions of dollars.
Title: Re: Tulsa's exciting rail possibilities Post by: Conan71 on February 16, 2011, 03:55:13 pm He's just replacing one set of made up numbers with another, only the second set doesn't involve someone giving his state billions of dollars. He's citing pretty solid examples, Nathan. Title: Re: Tulsa's exciting rail possibilities Post by: nathanm on February 16, 2011, 03:57:09 pm He's citing pretty solid examples, Nathan. His examples of where the state should be spending money is made up. Also, comparing rail projects done in an inflationary environment where labor and materials costs are constantly increasing to one being done in an environment where that is not the case isn't exactly the best comparison to make. It completely ignores the larger picture. But that wasn't what I was talking about. ;)Title: Re: Tulsa's exciting rail possibilities Post by: Conan71 on February 16, 2011, 04:02:41 pm His examples of where the state should be spending money is made up. Also, comparing rail projects done in an inflationary environment where labor and materials costs are constantly increasing to one being done in an environment where that is not the case isn't exactly the best comparison to make. It completely ignores the larger picture. But that wasn't what I was talking about. ;) What, honestly, would be the upshot to a Tampa/Orlando route? Up and down the east coast of FLA makes much more sense. The route he's refusing crosses a pretty barren area. Not only that, Tampa is a minor cruise port so it's not like it's going to open up Disney World to a bunch of new tourists. It's called restraint. Just because you can doesn't mean you should. ;) Title: Re: Tulsa's exciting rail possibilities Post by: Hoss on February 16, 2011, 04:33:44 pm What, honestly, would be the upshot to a Tampa/Orlando route? Up and down the east coast of FLA makes much more sense. The route he's refusing crosses a pretty barren area. Not only that, Tampa is a minor cruise port so it's not like it's going to open up Disney World to a bunch of new tourists. It's called restraint. Just because you can doesn't mean you should. ;) Unless it's Marshall's beer. Ha! Got in my Marshall reference at 11 pages! Title: Re: Tulsa's exciting rail possibilities Post by: nathanm on February 16, 2011, 04:38:54 pm What, honestly, would be the upshot to a Tampa/Orlando route? Up and down the east coast of FLA makes much more sense. The route he's refusing crosses a pretty barren area. I take it you've never driven I-4 between Tampa and Orlando? ;)It's called a starter route. You try it out, see how it goes, and if it works, you can extend to Daytona and Jacksonville and eventually run that line along the I-95 corridor. (or along I-75 and Florida's Turnpike, which is also a regularly congested route in my experience) Title: Re: Tulsa's exciting rail possibilities Post by: nathanm on February 17, 2011, 11:55:12 pm And in other news: http://miamiherald.typepad.com/nakedpolitics/2011/02/25-florida-senators-rebuke-rick-scott-over-bullet-train.html
Looks like Florida might be getting that high speed rail after all.. Title: Re: Tulsa's exciting rail possibilities Post by: Townsend on March 01, 2011, 11:42:37 am Questions persist over timing of downtown OKC streetcar system http://newsok.com/questions-persist-over-timing-of-downtown-okc-streetcar-system/article/3544768 (http://newsok.com/questions-persist-over-timing-of-downtown-okc-streetcar-system/article/3544768) Title: Re: Tulsa's exciting rail possibilities Post by: ZYX on March 07, 2011, 03:27:33 pm Bridge was approved today, construction to begin soon!
http://m.newson6.com/LocalNewsStory.html?pid=2264&parenturl=http%3a%2f%2fkotv.com%2fapi%2fgetFeed.aspx%3fid%3d4%26date%3d20110304&itemurl=http%3a%2f%2fwww.newson6.com%2fglobal%2fstory.asp%3fS%3d14203108%26clienttype%3drssstory Title: Re: Tulsa's exciting rail possibilities Post by: rdj on March 07, 2011, 03:29:20 pm Tulsa World has renderings up.
Title: Re: Tulsa's exciting rail possibilities Post by: carltonplace on March 07, 2011, 04:00:05 pm Tulsa World has renderings up. Here is the picture and the linky to the story (http://www.tulsaworld.com/articleimages/2011/20110307_odoti244concept0303030307.jpg) http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=11&articleid=20110307_11_0_hrimgs892309 (http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=11&articleid=20110307_11_0_hrimgs892309) Title: Re: Tulsa's exciting rail possibilities Post by: ZYX on March 07, 2011, 04:28:19 pm I hope the final renderings are much better...
Title: Re: Tulsa's exciting rail possibilities Post by: Townsend on March 07, 2011, 04:42:33 pm I hope the final renderings are much better... In what way? Title: Re: Tulsa's exciting rail possibilities Post by: ZYX on March 07, 2011, 04:48:40 pm In what way? In ways that the bridge will look more than just barely functional. Add some color, lights, I don't know. It doesn't have to be a suspension bridge, I just want it to be a trademark for the city. That's all. Title: Re: Tulsa's exciting rail possibilities Post by: Townsend on March 07, 2011, 05:03:41 pm In ways that the bridge will look more than just barely functional. Add some color, lights, I don't know. It doesn't have to be a suspension bridge, I just want it to be a trademark for the city. That's all. I'm with you. That'd be a plus. Title: Re: Tulsa's exciting rail possibilities Post by: SXSW on March 07, 2011, 08:07:34 pm In ways that the bridge will look more than just barely functional. Add some color, lights, I don't know. It doesn't have to be a suspension bridge, I just want it to be a trademark for the city. That's all. I doubt those are the actual plans, but rather it just shows how the different components will come together on one bridge. For one thing the bridge will have 3 lanes and not 4 as depicted in the rendering. I'm still hoping for something like Minneapolis' I-35 bridge with a slick LED lighting scheme: (http://www.newsline.dot.state.mn.us/images/09/sep/i35bridge-night600.jpg) Title: Re: Tulsa's exciting rail possibilities Post by: carltonplace on March 08, 2011, 09:48:32 am In ways that the bridge will look more than just barely functional. Add some color, lights, I don't know. It doesn't have to be a suspension bridge, I just want it to be a trademark for the city. That's all. Agreed, that rendering is fugly...and that poor lady and all of the people on that train have no idea they are about to fall into the water. Hopefully we can make a $64M bridge look less like a $12M bridge. Title: Re: Tulsa's exciting rail possibilities Post by: Townsend on March 08, 2011, 10:07:53 am Hopefully we can make a $64M bridge look less like a $12M bridge. My guess would be it depends on how many people are still on the take. If less people take their cut, maybe we can get a nice bridge. Title: Re: Tulsa's exciting rail possibilities Post by: Red Arrow on March 08, 2011, 12:26:26 pm and all of the people on that train have no idea they are about to fall into the water. Don't forget vehicles on the top deck. Title: Re: Tulsa's exciting rail possibilities Post by: bacjz00 on March 09, 2011, 09:38:16 am I hope with this bridge they address the way that the Westbound IDL Ramp merges with the 244/75 South at the SW corner of the IDL. At the bottom of that ramp, the radius of the curved ramp steepens dramatically and very often I see vehicles fail to stay in the merge lane on the inside. Often they come out of their lane in front of vehicles traveling southbound on the West IDL leg headed toward 75 South.
Does anyone else see this as a problem that should be fixed? Title: Re: Tulsa's exciting rail possibilities Post by: OurTulsa on March 09, 2011, 12:05:37 pm The new bridge is needed and I'm glad that we have the forethought to build it to specs that will enable HSR someday. The pedestrian element makes me wonder though. That element will be entirely in shaddows the south view will be of the inbound deck. Are there plans to do away with the pedestrian elements on the existing SW Blvd. bridge or never-ever open the old Rt. 66 bridge to peds? Why incorporate this redundancy when there are much more pleasant existing crossings already in place there? I find it odd that I'd argue against pedestrian/bike accommodations but I don't see that ped component getting much use.
I any case, it's water under the bridge...already done. I wish we could embellish the bridge as well. Put a big gateway feature on the west bank side sayin' 'Ya'll Come Back Now.' Title: Re: Tulsa's exciting rail possibilities Post by: carltonplace on March 09, 2011, 12:30:54 pm Good point...where are they walking to? Most of the ped traffic is runners/bikers already using the 11th St bridge to get to the west trails.
I don't think I would want to use that dark tunnel to cross the river on foot or bike with noisy trains next to me and loud traffic above. I say kill that part of the bridge and use the money for some bling. Title: Re: Tulsa's exciting rail possibilities Post by: ZYX on March 09, 2011, 03:05:30 pm Good point...where are they walking to? Most of the ped traffic is runners/bikers already using the 11th St bridge to get to the west trails. I don't think I would want to use that dark tunnel to cross the river on foot or bike with noisy trains next to me and loud traffic above. I say kill that part of the bridge and use the money for some bling. I would support that measure. Title: Re: Tulsa's exciting rail possibilities Post by: SXSW on March 09, 2011, 04:58:27 pm I would support that measure. Too late now. Wish there could have been more public input sought. The ped/bike component makes no sense. They need to rehab the Avery Bridge for that purpose. I'm still wondering how involved the Kaiser Foundation is with this bridge. It was stated in a TW article over a year ago that the GKFF had hired an architect for the 244 bridge. I'm waiting for the "real" renderings from the architect to be released.. Title: Re: Tulsa's exciting rail possibilities Post by: Conan71 on March 09, 2011, 05:04:59 pm Too late now. Wish there could have been more public input sought. The ped/bike component makes no sense. They need to rehab the Avery Bridge for that purpose. I'm still wondering how involved the Kaiser Foundation is with this bridge. It was stated in a TW article over a year ago that the GKFF had hired an architect for the 244 bridge. I'm waiting for the "real" renderings from the architect to be released.. It's never too late until they start pouring concrete. Well okay, possibly some point in the engineering phase. There's really no need for the Avery bridge. The SW Blvd bridge is more than adequate and connects the trails. There's a slight hazard crossing over SWB to get to Newblock Park and beyond, but there's simply nothing to connect to on the west side of the river on that alignment other than the refinery and a void where bums sleep and hang out. There's no logical purpose nor connecting trails on the west bank at that alignment and I don't think there can be as it's nothing but refinery and rail yard property along the river and continuing to the south. Title: Re: Tulsa's exciting rail possibilities Post by: Conan71 on March 16, 2011, 08:44:29 am I hope with this bridge they address the way that the Westbound IDL Ramp merges with the 244/75 South at the SW corner of the IDL. At the bottom of that ramp, the radius of the curved ramp steepens dramatically and very often I see vehicles fail to stay in the merge lane on the inside. Often they come out of their lane in front of vehicles traveling southbound on the West IDL leg headed toward 75 South. Does anyone else see this as a problem that should be fixed? Not quite sure yet how the ramp will be addressed, all I know is it will be closed during construction and I believe it will be re-decked during that time. I did not hear that the radius will change. I kind of gather the original supports and girders will remain. Kirby Crow (Vision 2025 on TNF) spoke at a meeting at Tulsa Rowing Club last night. According to him, Manhattan will start work in late April and Manhattan was bidding a completion time of about 570 days. Also of note: a Zink Lake Dam rehab will take out the "drowning machine", will have provisions for a white water recreational park (that part looked really cool) starting above the dam and continuing to the south and would have "adjustable" current for varying skill levels and events. As well, the gate height will be 3 ft higher which will help maintain water in Zink Lake at all times. It was a great meeting, unfortunately I had to leave during the COT's presentation on potential west bank development. I wish I would have brought a note pad now, I had no idea how much great information would come out at the meeting. Hopefully Kirby will see this post and chime in to fill in the blanks. There's some great stuff on the horizon! Title: Re: Tulsa's exciting rail possibilities Post by: SXSW on March 16, 2011, 02:35:26 pm It was a great meeting, unfortunately I had to leave during the COT's presentation on potential west bank development. Hopefully that means enlarging Festival Park and higher density residential redevelopment of Westport. Any kind of retail on the west bank is a bad idea, and so are restaurants outside of maybe one or two max. Tulsa needs to stop spreading its retail/restaurant development too thin and concentrate on existing areas. More park/festival space, new boathouse, and residential is better suited for the west bank. If more restaurants are wanted build them along the east bank north of Blue Rose where at least they can create synergy with the Riverview neighborhood and downtown. Title: Re: Tulsa's exciting rail possibilities Post by: Conan71 on March 16, 2011, 03:21:24 pm Hopefully that means enlarging Festival Park and higher density residential redevelopment of Westport. Any kind of retail on the west bank is a bad idea, and so are restaurants outside of maybe one or two max. Tulsa needs to stop spreading its retail/restaurant development too thin and concentrate on existing areas. More park/festival space, new boathouse, and residential is better suited for the west bank. If more restaurants are wanted build them along the east bank north of Blue Rose where at least they can create synergy with the Riverview neighborhood and downtown. "New" boathouse is not likely any time soon unless it's written in as part of an overall development and paid for by said developer. According to the city, and I believe Kirby and Matt Myers echoed this as well that stakeholders like TRC and Oktoberfest must be a part of any discussions on west bank development. TRC has a lease through 2033 and TRC's attorney made it very clear last night there's no renegging on the lease without a protracted court fight which could delay development for years. IOW, developers have no choice but to play nice with those who presently enjoy the amenities of the west bank. The COT rep mentioned Branson Landing several times. I'm guessing that's still the sort of RFP they are seeking. Blech! They also mentioned (I think) the possibility of a land swap of sorts for the concrete plant. I'm sure some cash would still change hands one way or another. This is all really preliminary stuff and had I known how detailed the meeting would be, I would have been better prepared and planned on staying longer. Title: Re: Tulsa's exciting rail possibilities Post by: SXSW on March 16, 2011, 08:25:20 pm "New" boathouse is not likely any time soon unless it's written in as part of an overall development and paid for by said developer. According to the city, and I believe Kirby and Matt Myers echoed this as well that stakeholders like TRC and Oktoberfest must be a part of any discussions on west bank development. TRC has a lease through 2033 and TRC's attorney made it very clear last night there's no renegging on the lease without a protracted court fight which could delay development for years. IOW, developers have no choice but to play nice with those who presently enjoy the amenities of the west bank. The COT rep mentioned Branson Landing several times. I'm guessing that's still the sort of RFP they are seeking. Blech! They also mentioned (I think) the possibility of a land swap of sorts for the concrete plant. I'm sure some cash would still change hands one way or another. This is all really preliminary stuff and had I known how detailed the meeting would be, I would have been better prepared and planned on staying longer. Any kind of retail development on that side of the river is destined to fail, and also harm existing businesses in midtown and downtown. I'm not too worried because I don't think anything will happen over there for awhile, and by that time the GKFF might have already put together a plan for a riverfront park that would nix any plans for retail. This city needs to focus on its existing retail/restaurant districts and make them better and quit trying to do so many things at once. Title: Re: Tulsa's exciting rail possibilities Post by: Conan71 on March 16, 2011, 08:53:21 pm Any kind of retail development on that side of the river is destined to fail, and also harm existing businesses in midtown and downtown. I'm not too worried because I don't think anything will happen over there for awhile, and by that time the GKFF might have already put together a plan for a riverfront park that would nix any plans for retail. This city needs to focus on its existing retail/restaurant districts and make them better and quit trying to do so many things at once. Interesting you say that. That was one of my primary arguments against the 2007 river tax slush fund. Sales tax generated there would have largely cannibalized from other parts of Tulsa without it being a really compelling tourist destination to bring in money from outlying communities or out of state. As well, the momentum seems to be favoring downtown and the Brady at the moment. I realize developers are now addicted to any and all give aways cities and counties will give them to do developments like this, but honestly I really don't see a huge net sum gain to the tax base so I think it would be more prudent for the city to look at an RFP which doesn't demand millions in giveaways or a long term tif district. Title: Re: Tulsa's exciting rail possibilities Post by: TheArtist on March 16, 2011, 09:29:03 pm The only kind of retail I could see working is just one row of ground floor with living above. Not a lot of retail, but mainly 5 or 6 stories of living thats over ground floor offices, a restaurant or two, etc. I think enough people would gravitate over there to make a few things successful, but I also agree that trying to do a Branson Landing type development at this time is spreading things too thin. It would detract from what is happening downtown.
Basically I could see it as a quiet, yet urban area to live with an interesting collection of retail on the ground floor. Perhaps a row of art galleries, antique stores, a bookstore, a coffee shop, a cafe, etc. A little bit o Paris on the river. If anything is a hit and takes off,,, great. Otherwise its a nice quiet stroll and a place to live with a great view. But to try and make it a destination with lots of businesses and such,,, I just don't see it at this time. Put the retail spaces in and let it evolve and count yourself as lucky if something really takes off, but don't think thats the raison d'etre. The other thing that might make something work a little better than the RiverWalk, is to have it directly fronting river, not have it set so far back. You can't really enjoy the water at the RiverWalk. Though one thing that area of Tulsa would definitely have that the RiverWalk lacked is a great view. The Jenks Bridge aint all that and a flat, low lying landscape of trees opposite the river like in Jenks, leaves much to be desired as well. Title: Re: Tulsa's exciting rail possibilities Post by: SXSW on March 17, 2011, 09:30:17 am The only kind of retail I could see working is just one row of ground floor with living above. Not a lot of retail, but mainly 5 or 6 stories of living thats over ground floor offices, a restaurant or two, etc. I think enough people would gravitate over there to make a few things successful, but I also agree that trying to do a Branson Landing type development at this time is spreading things too thin. It would detract from what is happening downtown. Basically I could see it as a quiet, yet urban area to live with an interesting collection of retail on the ground floor. Perhaps a row of art galleries, antique stores, a bookstore, a coffee shop, a cafe, etc. A little bit o Paris on the river. If anything is a hit and takes off,,, great. Otherwise its a nice quiet stroll and a place to live with a great view. But to try and make it a destination with lots of businesses and such,,, I just don't see it at this time. Put the retail spaces in and let it evolve and count yourself as lucky if something really takes off, but don't think thats the raison d'etre. The other thing that might make something work a little better than the RiverWalk, is to have it directly fronting river, not have it set so far back. You can't really enjoy the water at the RiverWalk. Though one thing that area of Tulsa would definitely have that the RiverWalk lacked is a great view. The Jenks Bridge aint all that and a flat, low lying landscape of trees opposite the river like in Jenks, leaves much to be desired as well. Very true, but you also have low income housing and factories nearby. Not that condusive to upscale retail and loft apartments. Perfect for a larger park though. Title: Re: Tulsa's exciting rail possibilities Post by: DTowner on March 17, 2011, 02:40:14 pm Interesting you say that. That was one of my primary arguments against the 2007 river tax slush fund. Sales tax generated there would have largely cannibalized from other parts of Tulsa without it being a really compelling tourist destination to bring in money from outlying communities or out of state. As well, the momentum seems to be favoring downtown and the Brady at the moment. I realize developers are now addicted to any and all give aways cities and counties will give them to do developments like this, but honestly I really don't see a huge net sum gain to the tax base so I think it would be more prudent for the city to look at an RFP which doesn't demand millions in giveaways or a long term tif district. I think this is an excellent articulation of concerns I've had for a while about "river development", but could never fully or clearly form in my mind. We've got some good things starting to happen down town and Cherry Street and Brookside continue to improve. Absent a large surge in population growth, we just need to keep on keeping on with what we're doing. The west bank as a park/festival ground is just fine in the short term and maybe even long term. Unfortunately, mayors and others don't get relected on the slogan of keep on keeping on. Title: Re: Tulsa's exciting rail possibilities Post by: Conan71 on March 17, 2011, 03:27:50 pm I think this is an excellent articulation of concerns I've had for a while about "river development", but could never fully or clearly form in my mind. We've got some good things starting to happen down town and Cherry Street and Brookside continue to improve. Absent a large surge in population growth, we just need to keep on keeping on with what we're doing. The west bank as a park/festival ground is just fine in the short term and maybe even long term. Unfortunately, mayors and others don't get relected on the slogan of keep on keeping on. Great minds think alike. I'm on board for green space and improved festival grounds. I'd hate to sacrifice a great public recreational area for the sake of a retail district on that stretch. Our River Parks are a true asset to the city and I think it makes it improves the livability factor greatly here. If they want retail on a stream, do it along the Elm Creek alignment in east or south downtown. Title: Re: Tulsa's exciting rail possibilities Post by: SXSW on March 17, 2011, 04:20:30 pm Great minds think alike. I'm on board for green space and improved festival grounds. I'd hate to sacrifice a great public recreational area for the sake of a retail district on that stretch. Our River Parks are a true asset to the city and I think it makes it improves the livability factor greatly here. If they want retail on a stream, do it along the Elm Creek alignment in east or south downtown. Or Crow Creek in Brookside. Or Elm Creek (the canal portion) along 6th St in the Pearl. Focus on our existing areas that need work. Leave the west bank concrete plant as green space. Tulsa needs a larger urban festival park and this is the perfect opportunity to create that. Not many cities have such a park space in the location we do with the same views/access...Austin is one of them and their park attracts all sorts of events.. Title: Re: Tulsa's exciting rail possibilities Post by: tulsabug on March 17, 2011, 11:09:03 pm Very true, but you also have low income housing and factories nearby. Not that condusive to upscale retail and loft apartments. Perfect for a larger park though. Riverside would be so much better if all the apartments would be razed and replaced with upscale lofts - sure wouldn't hurt if the neighborhoods would start sprucing up their houses too. It's just a shame that Tulsa's greatest natural asset looks like Turley. / Yea, I'm sure I'll get flamed for that one on the Turleynow.org forum.... Title: Re: Tulsa's exciting rail possibilities Post by: SXSW on March 18, 2011, 07:41:47 am Riverside would be so much better if all the apartments would be razed and replaced with upscale lofts - sure wouldn't hurt if the neighborhoods would start sprucing up their houses too. It's just a shame that Tulsa's greatest natural asset looks like Turley. / Yea, I'm sure I'll get flamed for that one on the Turleynow.org forum.... What areas are you talking about - 41st to I-44? I agree there needs to be redevelopment of the area along Riverside north of the 21st St bridge, and there is a plan for eventual redevelopment of the Crow Creek apartments and Blair property near 31st. Title: Re: Tulsa's exciting rail possibilities Post by: tulsabug on March 21, 2011, 02:22:05 am What areas are you talking about - 41st to I-44? I agree there needs to be redevelopment of the area along Riverside north of the 21st St bridge, and there is a plan for eventual redevelopment of the Crow Creek apartments and Blair property near 31st. I like the Blair house and all of it's nice open land - that needs to stay. But I'd ditch all of the apartments along Riverside - nice or not - replace them with some nice condos or loft-style brick housing that all faces the river. And some general sprucing up of the housing starting at around 60th and all the way down. Maybe put some sort of standards in though I know that really isn't possible. Too many of those houses are just rundown. I'm actually surprised some developer hasn't bought up most of those houses and replaced them with something nicer, especially with how cheap they all would sell for. I like the post-war housing and am all for keeping it, but too many of those just look like they are teetering on crackhouses. Sorry - just playing SimCity with Riverside... Title: Re: Tulsa's exciting rail possibilities Post by: Red Arrow on March 21, 2011, 05:18:36 am I'm actually surprised some developer hasn't bought up most of those houses and replaced them with something nicer, especially with how cheap they all would sell for. That's prime for redevelopment. Probably won't go cheap. Title: Re: Tulsa's exciting rail possibilities Post by: SXSW on March 21, 2011, 09:04:45 am And some general sprucing up of the housing starting at around 60th and all the way down. The Crow Creek apartments redevelopment should be a good improvement for the Riverside corridor, and could lead to other development. I don't know if it's part of the streets master plan or not, but Riverside Dr needs to be resurfaced from 61st north. I would also like to see the median, currently crumbling concrete, raised and filled with trees like it is south of I-44. This would only be from I-44 to 31st (where the median ends) but would make that stretch a lot nicer. They could install the curbs while resurfacing like they recently did from 71st to 61st. Up With Trees could supply the trees if the city creates the median for them. Title: Re: Tulsa's exciting rail possibilities Post by: Teatownclown on December 27, 2011, 11:30:31 am http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2078781/Faster-speeding-bullet-China-unveils-new-super-speed-train-hit-300mph---100mph-quicker-bullet-trains.html
we suck..... Title: Re: Tulsa's exciting rail possibilities Post by: dbacks fan on December 27, 2011, 01:21:34 pm ^^^thanks captain obvious.
Title: Re: Tulsa's exciting rail possibilities Post by: AquaMan on December 27, 2011, 01:50:19 pm Obviously they don't follow the advice or our CPA's, transportation experts and internet experts. Rail simply isn't economical, our suburban car driven culture will never accept it and is merely a boondoggle for politically connected insiders. I have heard that my whole life and now that other cities and countries are successfully providing the service....I'm sure we'll keep hearing it.
I love to remember what city "leaders" told Tulsa inhabitants at the turn of the 20th century. You can't build a bridge across the Arkansas River. Then someone did and they wouldn't allow them to keep it. Even the Corps of Engineers said it was improbable to manage the Arkansas river with dams as early as the late 1800's. Always question the status quo and its expert sources. Title: Re: Tulsa's exciting rail possibilities Post by: Gaspar on December 27, 2011, 02:59:50 pm I think a train system is an excellent possibility for us, but first, we need to be able to fill a bus. If we can't manage, promote, and operate a bus system efficiently, then perhaps we are not ready for rail.
Nationally, we don't have a culture that supports high-speed rail yet. Sure, some of our more dense cities seem to be better candidates, but not much else. I don't know if it is the government's subsidization of Amtrack or if it is the business model itself that is flawed. The one determining factor seems to be population density. Rail works in dense environments where ownership and operation of private means of transportation is prohibitive. China has a little different culture. They need such rail projects, and have no problem fully utilizing them. They can also get 4,000 people to live in a 400,000 square foot apartment building with community bath and restroom facilities. Very efficient folks. Title: Re: Tulsa's exciting rail possibilities Post by: TheArtist on December 27, 2011, 05:27:02 pm Pedestrian friendly and transit friendly are the same thing. Because of our current zoning laws,,,, Efficient, cost effective mass transit is illegal in Tulsa.
Title: Re: Tulsa's exciting rail possibilities Post by: Red Arrow on December 27, 2011, 06:26:38 pm I think a train system is an excellent possibility for us, but first, we need to be able to fill a bus. That depends somewhat on who you expect to ride the train/trolley. See the facts and myths sections. www.lightrailnow.org Title: Re: Tulsa's exciting rail possibilities Post by: Townsend on December 28, 2011, 08:36:50 am http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2078781/Faster-speeding-bullet-China-unveils-new-super-speed-train-hit-300mph---100mph-quicker-bullet-trains.html we suck..... http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-16345592 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-16345592) Quote China bullet train crash 'caused by design flaws' China's cabinet has received the official report into the crash Continue reading the main story A bullet train crash which killed 40 people in China in July was caused by design flaws and sloppy management, the Chinese government says. Almost 200 people were injured in the crash near the south-eastern city of Wenzhou. "Missteps" by 54 officials led to the disaster, the long-awaited official report says. The crash led many Chinese to accuse the government of putting development and profit before safety. It also triggered a wave of popular anger against officials who were accused of trying to cover up the seriousness, and causes, of the crash. Title: Re: Tulsa's exciting rail possibilities Post by: AquaMan on December 28, 2011, 08:56:24 am That depends somewhat on who you expect to ride the train/trolley. See the facts and myths sections. www.lightrailnow.org That is a good link. Especially the facts and myths at the bottom of the page. Tulsa doesn't have to have a high speed, bullet train. Just some progression towards admission that more roads and road repair is not the best answer for travel in the next century would put us on a different track. The idea that the need for LRT is dependent upon, or competitive with, a fully utilized bus system is one of those myths. Title: Re: Tulsa's exciting rail possibilities Post by: nathanm on December 28, 2011, 09:09:08 am The idea that the need for LRT is dependent upon, or competitive with, a fully utilized bus system is one of those myths. Ideally, they serve difference constituencies within the group of people who need transportation. Off-street rail moves a person a few miles or more. The bus and/or trolley gets them from that point to a short walk to their destination. They're complementary not competitive. Each improves the ridership and utility of the other. Title: Re: Tulsa's exciting rail possibilities Post by: Red Arrow on December 28, 2011, 09:20:30 am Ideally, they serve difference constituencies within the group of people who need transportation. Off-street rail moves a person a few miles or more. The bus and/or trolley gets them from that point to a short walk to their destination. They're complementary not competitive. Each improves the ridership and utility of the other. The point is that just because our buses are only half full does not lead to a proper conclusion that any form of rail transit will necessarily fail. Title: Re: Tulsa's exciting rail possibilities Post by: carltonplace on December 28, 2011, 11:11:08 am I would rather see short transit nodes in midtown rather than high speed or commuter rail. Brookside to Downtown, to TU, to Cherry St, etc.
Title: Re: Tulsa's exciting rail possibilities Post by: Red Arrow on December 28, 2011, 12:01:28 pm I would rather see short transit nodes in midtown rather than high speed or commuter rail. Brookside to Downtown, to TU, to Cherry St, etc. Commuter rail could work with Park & Ride in BA and with some kind of circulator system (even buses) downtown. See the New Mexico Railrunner. http://nmrailrunner.com/ I believe a downtown circulator system (rail preferred) is a prerequisite for high speed rail. People coming to town will not want to get a taxi for everyplace they want to go. Taxis may not always be accommodating. I remember going to the NYC Boat Show a few years in the 60s. We drove to a Park & Ride on the NJ side and took the bus to the city. Getting to the Boat Show was no problem as the bus let us off very close to the show but going to dinner was a bit different. There were 5 of us and the taxis were only allowed to take 4. The first year my sister was still small enough that one taxi said pile in. The next year we had to walk. Title: Re: Tulsa's exciting rail possibilities Post by: Oil Capital on December 29, 2011, 11:30:07 pm Commuter rail could work with Park & Ride in BA and with some kind of circulator system (even buses) downtown. See the New Mexico Railrunner. http://nmrailrunner.com/ . The Railrunner is not particularly strong evidence that a Tulsa -Broken Arrow commuter rail would be successful. First, because one has to have a pretty low bar for judging success to consider the The Railrunner, with its average weekday boardings of 4,500 on a system of 97 miles of track and 13 stations to be a success worth emulating; and Second, because the 97 mile Railrunner with 13 stations, that goes all the way to Santa Fe, has little in common with the possible Tulsa-BA commuter rail, with approximately 15 miles and maybe 4 stations (not to mention that Tulsa has less traffic congestion). Title: Re: Tulsa's exciting rail possibilities Post by: dsjeffries on April 30, 2012, 03:38:49 pm http://www.koco.com/news/30977173/detail.html (http://www.koco.com/news/30977173/detail.html)
OKLAHOMA CITY -- A passenger train running between Tulsa and Oklahoma City could soon be a reality. Rick Wescott is the head of an advisory board looking at the issue. Wescott said if legislators approved the plan it would only take three years for service to begin. Now, a private company wants to help link the two cities. Wescott says they could do it by turning an existing rail line into a passenger railway. "I talked to a private company a couple of weeks ago, who interestingly enough would be willing to pay to rehabilitate the existing line that the state owns, and also pay to put the rolling stock on the rail and pay to operate the service, all at their cost, at no cost to the taxpayers," said Wescott. Wescott won't name the company yet, but does say they claim the project would only take six months. The task force examining the railroad expects to release a final report by the end of the year. ____________________________________ And this from KJRH: http://www.kjrh.com/dpp/news/local_news/private-company-interested-in-tulsa-to-okc-passenger-rail-service TULSA - A private company has expressed interest in bringing passenger rail service between the state's two largest cities, according to a member of an advisory board looking into the issue. Linking Tulsa and Oklahoma City by passenger rail is often met with a lot of skepticism, mainly because the idea has been tossed around for years. Yet, nothing has ever taken off. Former Tulsa City Councilor Rick Westcott said despite the skepticism, passenger rail between the two cities is really not as far out as it would seem. Wescott says if a plan were approved by the legislature, it would take no more than three years for service to begin. "If anybody tells us it's going to take more than three years, they don't have all their facts," said Westcott. Westcott is chairman of the board that advises the state task force studying this issue. Westcott says a private company has expressed interest in developing a passenger rail line between the two metropolitan areas. He says they would do it by turning an existing rail line that transports freight into one that could transport passengers. "I talked to a private company a couple of weeks ago, who interestingly enough would be willing to pay to rehabilitate the existing line that the state owns, also pay to put the rolling stock on the rail and pay to operate the service, all at their cost, at no cost to the taxpayers," said Westcott. Westcott says the company told him they could have it all done in about six months. Westcott did not want to identify the company because he said he did not want to jeopardize any potential negotiations between the company and the state. The task force studying this issue was created in 2011 in a bill authored by State Sen. Brian Crain, R-Tulsa. Like Westcott, Crain believes passenger rail service would be in Tulsa's interest. "We need to start thinking about 50 years from now, 60 years from now," said Crain. "What is it that we need to have in Tulsa in order to allow people to come and go in our community, to do business, to live, to enjoy the adventure of being in Tulsa?" The task force is expected to release its final report by the end of the year, although Crain said it could ask for more time if necessary. Title: Re: Tulsa's exciting rail possibilities Post by: LandArchPoke on April 30, 2012, 04:41:12 pm I would be really curious what the speed of this line would be... since they are just wanting to refurbish the line I doubt it will run much faster than 50-60 mph. If they really want successful rail transit between the cities a major overhaul of this corridor needs to happen, or even picking a different route to connect to Oklahoma City. I just hope this doesn't turn into the state giving large tax breaks to a private company, and then in two years this becoming a financial mess and the state taking it over or just killing rail transit to Tulsa in general again.
Title: Re: Tulsa's exciting rail possibilities Post by: DTowner on May 01, 2012, 11:29:08 am I would be really curious what the speed of this line would be... since they are just wanting to refurbish the line I doubt it will run much faster than 50-60 mph. If they really want successful rail transit between the cities a major overhaul of this corridor needs to happen, or even picking a different route to connect to Oklahoma City. I just hope this doesn't turn into the state giving large tax breaks to a private company, and then in two years this becoming a financial mess and the state taking it over or just killing rail transit to Tulsa in general again. Is it better to get some sort of rail line up and running or wait for the long and expensive dream of high speed rail? While there is always risk that a slower line might fail in part due to longer travel time, it would at least offer the opportunity to get some type of rail going with which Oklahomans could experience the advantages of rail travel between Tulsa and OKC. One of the problems with selling rail (and other public transportation) in Oklahoma is that many have never experienced it and it is not what they are accustomed to using. Incremental steps are important. Title: Re: Tulsa's exciting rail possibilities Post by: AquaMan on May 01, 2012, 11:36:08 am If it did 60 mph it would be comparable to the average Turnpike speed when adjusted for: road repairs, accidents, weather, rest stops, and traffic. No matter how fast you drive those factors usually results in a 60-65mph average for the trip. On a train those items are not as relevant. Of course there may be stops along the way for Stroud etc.
Bring on this train! I don't care about its speed. I hope they have drive on rail cars so that I won't have to rent a car in OKC and that it connects to Dallas/Ft Worth. Title: Re: Tulsa's exciting rail possibilities Post by: Townsend on May 01, 2012, 11:38:36 am Bring on this train! I don't care about its speed. I hope they have drive on rail cars so that I won't have to rent a car in OKC and that it connects to Dallas/Ft Worth. If there's a non-stop to DFW, I'd jump on. Title: Re: Tulsa's exciting rail possibilities Post by: TheTed on May 01, 2012, 11:47:43 am Realistically, I don't see any way it competes with driving in terms of time. Two hours is probably the best case scenario.
But the thing that people fail to take into account in the comparison, is that the time factor is not apples to apples. You drive and you have to be awake, alert, sober, concerned with t-storms, snow, etc. That's where the train hooks me, the fact that I can get on a train at midnight and not have to stay awake or refrain from having a beer or three. Plus it's just relaxing. You can just disengage your brain and stare out the window. And based on every other rail line in this country (with the exception of amtrak's auto train from dc-fla) there would be stops and there wouldn't be car carriers. That's just pie in the sky at this point. Title: Re: Tulsa's exciting rail possibilities Post by: Red Arrow on May 01, 2012, 11:51:43 am If it did 60 mph it would be comparable to the average Turnpike speed when adjusted for: road repairs, accidents, weather, rest stops, and traffic. No matter how fast you drive those factors usually results in a 60-65mph average for the trip. On a train those items are not as relevant. Of course there may be stops along the way for Stroud etc. Bring on this train! I don't care about its speed. I hope they have drive on rail cars so that I won't have to rent a car in OKC and that it connects to Dallas/Ft Worth. I've flown over a lot of that track in my Cessna. It will be lucky to average 60 mph, even if the track is in good shape due to the number of towns it goes through and the radius of many of the turns. I doubt it would be able to compete time-wise with the Turner Turnpike. On the other hand, not putting up with the turnpike, riding instead of driving etc could be fun. Drive on rail cars would be good since OKC is about the same as Tulsa for public transit. Title: Re: Tulsa's exciting rail possibilities Post by: Conan71 on May 01, 2012, 12:00:14 pm If it did 60 mph it would be comparable to the average Turnpike speed when adjusted for: road repairs, accidents, weather, rest stops, and traffic. No matter how fast you drive those factors usually results in a 60-65mph average for the trip. On a train those items are not as relevant. Of course there may be stops along the way for Stroud etc. Bring on this train! I don't care about its speed. I hope they have drive on rail cars so that I won't have to rent a car in OKC and that it connects to Dallas/Ft Worth. I did it bi-weekly for 2 1/2 years. 1:30 to 1:40 for a 110 mile drive, door-to-door, including stop lights once off the interstate. I can think of perhaps two or three wrecks that whole time which slowed traffic and two of those were during the Christmas snow storm of ’09. That was going to be a four hour drive no matter what. Not only that, my car was where I wanted it when I got there. Such a line at 50-60 MPH would be great for recreational purposes and perhaps business in close proximity to the terminals unless there’s simple and speedy mass transit on the other end. If they did have a car-carrier you’d likely wait another 20 minutes on each end getting your car loaded and unloaded- my guess on time? 4 hours one way. I’d just as soon drive. Westcott seems brighter than to be taken in by claims of a private company who says they can do a track rehab in six months and not require one penny from the state or feds. Unless it’s an established railroad like BNSF, he got a load of smoke blown up his nether regions. This reminds me of the huckster who was going to build a fully-enclosed NASCAR track up by Vinita. I don’t see any near term profitability on such a line, especially with fares which would compete with the cost of driving- let’s face it, 99% of people don’t consider wear, tear, upkeep, and a fraction of their car payment in considering their net cost. "What’s the gas going to cost me?" If the company can do it, tell them to put their money where their mouth is. I suspect the rail ROW is owned by the railroads or the feds, so it’s not as easy as it sounds. Title: Re: Tulsa's exciting rail possibilities Post by: AquaMan on May 01, 2012, 12:23:08 pm I did it bi-weekly for 2 1/2 years. 1:30 to 1:40 for a 110 mile drive, door-to-door, including stop lights once off the interstate. I can think of perhaps two or three wrecks that whole time which slowed traffic and two of those were during the Christmas snow storm of ’09. That was going to be a four hour drive no matter what. Not only that, my car was where I wanted it when I got there. Such a line at 50-60 MPH would be great for recreational purposes and perhaps business in close proximity to the terminals unless there’s simple and speedy mass transit on the other end. If they did have a car-carrier you’d likely wait another 20 minutes on each end getting your car loaded and unloaded- my guess on time? 4 hours one way. I’d just as soon drive. Westcott seems brighter than to be taken in by claims of a private company who says they can do a track rehab in six months and not require one penny from the state or feds. Unless it’s an established railroad like BNSF, he got a load of smoke blown up his nether regions. This reminds me of the huckster who was going to build a fully-enclosed NASCAR track up by Vinita. I don’t see any near term profitability on such a line, especially with fares which would compete with the cost of driving- let’s face it, 99% of people don’t consider wear, tear, upkeep, and a fraction of their car payment in considering their net cost. "What’s the gas going to cost me?" If the company can do it, tell them to put their money where their mouth is. I suspect the rail ROW is owned by the railroads or the feds, so it’s not as easy as it sounds. 110 miles at 1hour 40 minutes is 66 mph if my math still works. That amounts to 6 mph faster. Marginal difference. I haven't had your luck with road construction and traffic but then I often go in the fall when OU football traffic is common. The last trip I took was two weeks ago and only found a couple miles of road work. Mostly its just trucks causing slowdowns as they try to make it up the hilly portions. I tried to stay at 70-75 but still only averaged 65 for the trip. For some odd reason, much of the rest of the country can find a way to make railroads work, including the line from OKC to DFW, but we can't see it happening for tons of reasons. Maybe its our education system. I see no reason not to talk to a group that says they know how and have the money. Title: Re: Tulsa's exciting rail possibilities Post by: DTowner on May 01, 2012, 12:26:09 pm I did it bi-weekly for 2 1/2 years. 1:30 to 1:40 for a 110 mile drive, door-to-door, including stop lights once off the interstate. I can think of perhaps two or three wrecks that whole time which slowed traffic and two of those were during the Christmas snow storm of ’09. That was going to be a four hour drive no matter what. Not only that, my car was where I wanted it when I got there. Such a line at 50-60 MPH would be great for recreational purposes and perhaps business in close proximity to the terminals unless there’s simple and speedy mass transit on the other end. If they did have a car-carrier you’d likely wait another 20 minutes on each end getting your car loaded and unloaded- my guess on time? 4 hours one way. I’d just as soon drive. Westcott seems brighter than to be taken in by claims of a private company who says they can do a track rehab in six months and not require one penny from the state or feds. Unless it’s an established railroad like BNSF, he got a load of smoke blown up his nether regions. This reminds me of the huckster who was going to build a fully-enclosed NASCAR track up by Vinita. I don’t see any near term profitability on such a line, especially with fares which would compete with the cost of driving- let’s face it, 99% of people don’t consider wear, tear, upkeep, and a fraction of their car payment in considering their net cost. "What’s the gas going to cost me?" If the company can do it, tell them to put their money where their mouth is. I suspect the rail ROW is owned by the railroads or the feds, so it’s not as easy as it sounds. The article above says this idea involves a RR line owned by the state. Is this true? Title: Re: Tulsa's exciting rail possibilities Post by: Conan71 on May 01, 2012, 12:36:26 pm I tried to stay at 70-75 but still only averaged 65 for the trip. Tell me you aren’t the old geezer hogging the left lane in a cruise control drag race with said semi truck ;) The turnpike proper is about 1:10, 12 to 15 minutes to either house after exiting. Title: Re: Tulsa's exciting rail possibilities Post by: Hoss on May 01, 2012, 12:39:55 pm Tell me you aren’t the old geezer hogging the left lane in a cruise control drag race with said semi truck ;) The turnpike proper is about 1:10, 12 to 15 minutes to either house after exiting. Slacker. I've done it in 60 minutes flat. ;D Title: Re: Tulsa's exciting rail possibilities Post by: DTowner on May 01, 2012, 12:40:53 pm 110 miles at 1hour 40 minutes is 66 mph if my math still works. That amounts to 6 mph faster. Marginal difference. I haven't had your luck with road construction and traffic but then I often go in the fall when OU football traffic is common. The last trip I took was two weeks ago and only found a couple miles of road work. Mostly its just trucks causing slowdowns as they try to make it up the hilly portions. I tried to stay at 70-75 but still only averaged 65 for the trip. For such a short distance, I doubt even high speed rail would compete on time with the car for a trip between OKC and Tulsa. Unless you live/work by the station and your trip ends at the station on the other end, there wll necessarily be travel time in addition to the train. Plus, it is likely this trip will have at least a couple of stops along the way. Rail does not have to be quicker than the trip by car, just not too inconvenient. Cost is also a factor. Under current IRS rates a round trip between downtown Tulsa and downtown OKC is reimbursed at around $120, but how much would you pay for a train ride? I don't know how savvy Westcott is, but I will reserve my euphoria over train travel until some real details about this project become public. Title: Re: Tulsa's exciting rail possibilities Post by: patric on May 01, 2012, 12:44:33 pm I don't know how savvy Westcott is, but I will reserve my euphoria over train travel until some real details about this project become public. A 40-minute ride from OKC to Tulsa on a MagLev would get peoples attention, otherwise, meh... Title: Re: Tulsa's exciting rail possibilities Post by: jacobi on May 01, 2012, 01:22:35 pm Question: who would want to go to OKC? I'm all for rail, but as a tourism factor, it's a meh. I'd rather see a line between here and KC. I recognize that it would be great for business travel and just plain old civic pride, but I think Tulsans would end up disappointed in what they would get out of the deal.
Title: Re: Tulsa's exciting rail possibilities Post by: rdj on May 01, 2012, 01:35:59 pm Question: who would want to go to OKC? I'm all for rail, but as a tourism factor, it's a meh. I'd rather see a line between here and KC. I recognize that it would be great for business travel and just plain old civic pride, but I think Tulsans would end up disappointed in what they would get out of the deal. Probably the 10 people I know that rented a limo to take them to the Thunder game and back last night. I know of about 50 people that drove from Tulsa to OKC for the game last night. Title: Re: Tulsa's exciting rail possibilities Post by: Townsend on May 01, 2012, 01:38:14 pm Question: who would want to go to OKC? I'm all for rail, but as a tourism factor, it's a meh. I'd rather see a line between here and KC. I recognize that it would be great for business travel and just plain old civic pride, but I think Tulsans would end up disappointed in what they would get out of the deal. Connect from Tulsa to OKC to DFW and you have a stronger reason to connect KC to Tulsa to OKC to DFW. Title: Re: Tulsa's exciting rail possibilities Post by: Conan71 on May 01, 2012, 01:43:11 pm Probably the 10 people I know that rented a limo to take them to the Thunder game and back last night. I know of about 50 people that drove from Tulsa to OKC for the game last night. Hmmmm, and the depot is like a block or two from Chesapeake Center. Still not enough to justify an entire business around it though.. Title: Re: Tulsa's exciting rail possibilities Post by: nathanm on May 01, 2012, 01:48:50 pm Bring on this train! I don't care about its speed. I hope they have drive on rail cars so that I won't have to rent a car in OKC and that it connects to Dallas/Ft Worth. I'd rather rent a Hertz Connect car or something similar than bother with my own. They pay for gas and everything, just like ZipCar. Even the regular Hertz and Avis aren't bad, at the right location. Pick the wrong office and it takes for freakin' ever, though. (DT Tulsa Avis is actually really good, it's never taken me more than a couple of minutes to pick up or drop off) Title: Re: Tulsa's exciting rail possibilities Post by: TheTed on May 01, 2012, 01:56:30 pm A lot of the success would also depend on the number of trips per day. If it's run more like the New Mexico railrunner, which has ~7 weekday departures each way from ABQ to Santa Fe, that could be a lot more alluring than a two or three times per day schedule.
You'd also hope they could adjust to demand, running Thunder specials that wait for the game to let out. And the same with OU football. Amtrak already serves Norman, so I'm hoping it wouldn't be too much trouble to extend the route to Norman for OU game days. Title: Re: Tulsa's exciting rail possibilities Post by: TheTed on May 01, 2012, 01:57:48 pm I'd rather rent a Hertz Connect car or something similar than bother with my own. They pay for gas and everything, just like ZipCar. Even the regular Hertz and Avis aren't bad, at the right location. Pick the wrong office and it takes for freakin' ever, though. (DT Tulsa Avis is actually really good, it's never taken me more than a couple of minutes to pick up or drop off) Somewhat related, but I saw that OKC now has bike sharing, at least according to this site: http://spokiesokc.com/ Title: Re: Tulsa's exciting rail possibilities Post by: rdj on May 01, 2012, 02:39:21 pm Hmmmm, and the depot is like a block or two from Chesapeake Center. Still not enough to justify an entire business around it though.. I'm not saying you'd build a business around it. I was just giving a very fresh example of a potential customer. Jacobi asserted that no Tulsan would ever want to visit OKC. It's that type of arrogance and "looking down our nose" towards OKC that has created the animosity between the cities. Frankly, OKC has a nice number of attractions that would make for a great long weekend. That's just the type of trip that would lead a Tulsan to utilize rail service. IMO, Tulsa & OKC should be looking at ways to partner and create a metroplex that consists of the two cities. The combined demographics would be very appealing on many levels for business growth. We have approx 70 miles of highway accessible underdeveloped land between the downtown areas. We should encourage development along this corridor and avoid OKC becoming the newest suburb to DFW. BTW, did everyone see that Blueknight (former Sem) is moving their HQ to OKC? Notably, they are moving into the "midtown" area just north of downtown. The urban revitalization in OKC is real and its moving at a great pace. We better keep up or we'll be looking up at something great. Title: Re: Tulsa's exciting rail possibilities Post by: Conan71 on May 01, 2012, 02:51:31 pm I'm not saying you'd build a business around it. I was just giving a very fresh example of a potential customer. Jacobi asserted that no Tulsan would ever want to visit OKC. It's that type of arrogance and "looking down our nose" towards OKC that has created the animosity between the cities. Frankly, OKC has a nice number of attractions that would make for a great long weekend. That's just the type of trip that would lead a Tulsan to utilize rail service. IMO, Tulsa & OKC should be looking at ways to partner and create a metroplex that consists of the two cities. The combined demographics would be very appealing on many levels for business growth. We have approx 70 miles of highway accessible underdeveloped land between the downtown areas. We should encourage development along this corridor and avoid OKC becoming the newest suburb to DFW. BTW, did everyone see that Blueknight (former Sem) is moving their HQ to OKC? Notably, they are moving into the "midtown" area just north of downtown. The urban revitalization in OKC is real and its moving at a great pace. We better keep up or we'll be looking up at something great. Sorry, I didn’t mean to sound snarky if it came off that way. That could be a fun evening, take the train to OKC, dinner, concert, canal ride, then take the train back. Vice Versa for the OKC crowd- well except the whole canal ride thing. Could be good for both entertainment districts, for certain if we could get a small depot of sorts in the proximity of the Blue Dome, Brady, and BOK Center. Title: Re: Tulsa's exciting rail possibilities Post by: nathanm on May 01, 2012, 03:00:02 pm IMO, Tulsa & OKC should be looking at ways to partner and create a metroplex that consists of the two cities. If by "build a metroplex" you mean the forced suburbanization of the I-44 corridor between Tulsa and OKC, I don't think that's terribly wise. If you mean work together rather than against each other when it comes to drawing business to the state, I agree. Title: Re: Tulsa's exciting rail possibilities Post by: rdj on May 01, 2012, 03:15:38 pm If by "build a metroplex" you mean the forced suburbanization of the I-44 corridor between Tulsa and OKC, I don't think that's terribly wise. If you mean work together rather than against each other when it comes to drawing business to the state, I agree. The cities are going to grow. Regardless of how many of us on this forum feel about "the suburbification" of America its part of our American heritage. I'd prefer we plan to grow the cities together rather than apart. Wouldn't you rather Tulsa & OKC become twin cities than for OKC to become a part of the DFW megaplex? If you combine the two cities you have a metro area of over 2.3 million people today, that doesn't account for the future growth. I'd love to see Stroud become a center of business activity that is supported by both metro areas. Create an international airport that can fly residents, business people and cargo direct to all major airports in the US and beyond. Turn Stroud into the future clean manufacturing capital of Oklahoma. OKC has biotech, Tulsa has aerospace. Let Stroud be high tech that would serve both industries and more. Why couldn't you build a massive retail center there? Ikea (just an example of a large retailer discussed on this forum recently) won't come to BA, but could they come to Stroud if supported by both MSA's? What about a massive NFL stadium somewhere in the middle? The key is the funding formula for Oklahoma municipalities has to change. As long as core services of city government are dependent on sales tax revenue it will be impossible for something like this to happen. These are obviously big picture ideas. All I hear from our state leaders are let's cut taxes and business will come. Well, we need to invest in our infrastructure in a big way to give those business a place to land. Oklahoma needs dreamers. If we don't dream about what our two anchor metros could do together we'll never do anything but continue to lose to the rural power brokers of our state and the dreamers in the states that surround us. Title: Re: Tulsa's exciting rail possibilities Post by: nathanm on May 01, 2012, 03:24:44 pm Regardless of how many of us on this forum feel about "the suburbification" of America its part of our American heritage. If by heritage you mean foisted upon us by onerous land use regulations that outlaw dense mixed use neighborhoods, then yes. I would much rather see Tulsa and OKC increase their density and connect themselves with high speed transit. The era of the exurb is largely over, at least until we find something to replace gasoline that has similar energy density. That's not to say I think there's anything wrong with playing to our strengths and using some of that open land for industrial activity and even a new airport at some point in the future. I agree that tax cuts will not help anything. It might help a few someones, but that's about it. Title: Re: Tulsa's exciting rail possibilities Post by: Conan71 on May 01, 2012, 03:26:57 pm The cities are going to grow. Regardless of how many of us on this forum feel about "the suburbification" of America its part of our American heritage. I'd prefer we plan to grow the cities together rather than apart. Wouldn't you rather Tulsa & OKC become twin cities than for OKC to become a part of the DFW megaplex? If you combine the two cities you have a metro area of over 2.3 million people today, that doesn't account for the future growth. I'd love to see Stroud become a center of business activity that is supported by both metro areas. Create an international airport that can fly residents, business people and cargo direct to all major airports in the US and beyond. Turn Stroud into the future clean manufacturing capital of Oklahoma. OKC has biotech, Tulsa has aerospace. Let Stroud be high tech that would serve both industries and more. Why couldn't you build a massive retail center there? Ikea (just an example of a large retailer discussed on this forum recently) won't come to BA, but could they come to Stroud if supported by both MSA's? What about a massive NFL stadium somewhere in the middle? The key is the funding formula for Oklahoma municipalities has to change. As long as core services of city government are dependent on sales tax revenue it will be impossible for something like this to happen. These are obviously big picture ideas. All I hear from our state leaders are let's cut taxes and business will come. Well, we need to invest in our infrastructure in a big way to give those business a place to land. Oklahoma needs dreamers. If we don't dream about what our two anchor metros could do together we'll never do anything but continue to lose to the rural power brokers of our state and the dreamers in the states that surround us. Leave the mega-plexes to their own demise. There are a lot of us who appreciate the smaller size of Tulsa and OKC vs. a Houston or Dallas. By the time this could happen, I’ll likely be a pile of ashes so it’s a moot point for me anyhow. Title: Re: Tulsa's exciting rail possibilities Post by: jacobi on May 01, 2012, 06:10:51 pm Quote Jacobi asserted that no Tulsan would ever want to visit OKC. It's that type of arrogance and "looking down our nose" towards OKC that has created the animosity between the cities. Frankly, OKC has a nice number of attractions that would make for a great long weekend. That's just the type of trip that would lead a Tulsan to utilize rail service. In my more reasonable moments, I recognize that we need to compete as a region. That said, I feel miserable any time I am there. I always feel like im in the middle of nowhere. I'd rather spend a weekend in Guthrie than OKC. Title: Re: Tulsa's exciting rail possibilities Post by: Red Arrow on May 01, 2012, 06:28:08 pm Why couldn't you build a massive retail center there? Weather induced remodeling may give pause to some. Title: Re: Tulsa's exciting rail possibilities Post by: ZYX on May 01, 2012, 08:19:32 pm In my more reasonable moments, I recognize that we need to compete as a region. That said, I feel miserable any time I am there. I always feel like im in the middle of nowhere. I'd rather spend a weekend in Guthrie than OKC. Really? Title: Re: Tulsa's exciting rail possibilities Post by: jacobi on May 01, 2012, 08:43:08 pm Quote Really? Really. I hate basketball, endless suburbs, and bricktown. Title: Re: Tulsa's exciting rail possibilities Post by: ZYX on May 01, 2012, 09:28:29 pm Really. I hate basketball, endless suburbs, and bricktown. I like basketball, not a fan of endless suburbs, and Bricktown is cheesy meh. However, if you think that's all OKC has to offer, you really need to look harder. It really is a nice little city. Title: Re: Tulsa's exciting rail possibilities Post by: Conan71 on May 01, 2012, 11:04:34 pm I like basketball, not a fan of endless suburbs, and Bricktown is cheesy meh. However, if you think that's all OKC has to offer, you really need to look harder. It really is a nice little city. There’s also some lovely As someone who lived part time in OKC for the last 2 1/2 years I envy them for the Oklahoma River, Nonnas, their version of China Town and the Paseo, Tucker’s Hamburgers, and not much else that we don’t have here. There’s so much wasted space in their version of sprawl it’s sickening. Take a trip east out NW23rd St. or NW10th to Air Depot and you’ll get what I mean. Their downtown and Bricktown simply don’t feel as comfortable and organic to me as Brady, Blue Dome and BOK districts. Not really sure why that is, considering Bricktown feels like a compound with a river on one end, expressways or viaducts on the other boundary lines, really no different than our downtown, but it feels less local for some odd reason. We certainly don’t have to feel like we need to compete with OKC, but sure doesn’t hurt to make them envy us whenever we can. ;) Title: Re: Tulsa's exciting rail possibilities Post by: Hoss on May 01, 2012, 11:16:31 pm There’s also some lovely As someone who lived part time in OKC for the last 2 1/2 years I envy them for the Oklahoma River, Nonnas, their version of China Town and the Paseo, Tucker’s Hamburgers, and not much else that we don’t have here. There’s so much wasted space in their version of sprawl it’s sickening. Take a trip east out NW23rd St. or NW10th to Air Depot and you’ll get what I mean. Their downtown and Bricktown simply don’t feel as comfortable and organic to me as Brady, Blue Dome and BOK districts. Not really sure why that is, considering Bricktown feels like a compound with a river on one end, expressways or viaducts on the other boundary lines, really no different than our downtown, but it feels less local for some odd reason. We certainly don’t have to feel like we need to compete with OKC, but sure doesn’t hurt to make them envy us whenever we can. ;) Neat thing is that in the last couple of weeks since baseball season has started has given me a new reason to explore the different areas of downtown. That area right around the ballpark just screams 'infill'. It's a great area with super history and, at least on ball game nights, has an awesome vibe to it. I'd even go so far as to rate it better than around the BOK simply because you have things around the ballpark within a shorter distance. I think the railroad tracks create a great urban boundary and I would love to see more businesses go in along Elgin and Greenwood. Title: Re: Tulsa's exciting rail possibilities Post by: jacobi on May 02, 2012, 06:05:36 am Quote Neat thing is that in the last couple of weeks since baseball season has started has given me a new reason to explore the different areas of downtown. That area right around the ballpark just screams 'infill'. It's a great area with super history and, at least on ball game nights, has an awesome vibe to it. I'd even go so far as to rate it better than around the BOK simply because you have things around the ballpark within a shorter distance. I think the railroad tracks create a great urban boundary and I would love to see more businesses go in along Elgin and Greenwood. Well now that the greearch project seems like it's not going to happen, it's maybe a more mixed use friendly structure could be proposed instead. I just really want the TDA lot on the northwest corner of archer and elgin to go away. Also, I tried to start a thread about this but no one had any info. On the city website it said that part of the long term plans involved turning greenwood and elgin into underpasses at the BNSF lines. I wish I knew if this was actually going to happen and when. Title: Re: Tulsa's exciting rail possibilities Post by: AquaMan on May 02, 2012, 08:39:36 am There’s also some lovely As someone who lived part time in OKC for the last 2 1/2 years I envy them for the Oklahoma River, Nonnas, their version of China Town and the Paseo, Tucker’s Hamburgers, and not much else that we don’t have here. There’s so much wasted space in their version of sprawl it’s sickening. Take a trip east out NW23rd St. or NW10th to Air Depot and you’ll get what I mean. Their downtown and Bricktown simply don’t feel as comfortable and organic to me as Brady, Blue Dome and BOK districts. Not really sure why that is, considering Bricktown feels like a compound with a river on one end, expressways or viaducts on the other boundary lines, really no different than our downtown, but it feels less local for some odd reason. We certainly don’t have to feel like we need to compete with OKC, but sure doesn’t hurt to make them envy us whenever we can. ;) Dang. Tucker's. Best cheeseburger and fries I ever smeared on my face. OKC is not Tulsa. We keep comparing them to us and find them lacking but they chose their path, we're choosing ours. Bricktown isn't our thing, but I assure you people visiting from Wetumka are impressed and are spending money there. I think many people think our plans are superior but they have different ingredients to work with. People should understand that belittling them is pointless. We want them to come here on a train to visit our superior charm and sophistication, spend their OKC money and take our Tulsa ideas back with them. Title: Re: Tulsa's exciting rail possibilities Post by: nathanm on May 02, 2012, 05:09:31 pm On the city website it said that part of the long term plans involved turning greenwood and elgin into underpasses at the BNSF lines. "Yay." >:( Title: Re: Tulsa's exciting rail possibilities Post by: Townsend on March 05, 2013, 03:29:47 pm Move to Sell Rail Line Could Hurt Effort to Return Passenger Trains to Eastern Oklahoma
http://kwgs.com/post/move-sell-rail-line-could-hurt-effort-return-passenger-trains-eastern-oklahoma (http://kwgs.com/post/move-sell-rail-line-could-hurt-effort-return-passenger-trains-eastern-oklahoma) Quote A move contemplated by the State Department of Transportation could kill efforts to return passenger rail to eastern Oklahoma. Rick Westcott, Chair of Tulsa’s Rail Advisory Committee, calls ODOT’s proposed sale of the Sooner Sub line from Sapulpa to Oklahoma City ‘almost the worst news possible’. The state owns the 97 mile long line, but a freight hauling company is interested in buying it and Westcott believes that would greatly diminish chances of returning passenger rail service to Tulsa. He urges Oklahomans interested in bringing back passenger trains to contact their representatives and ask them to oppose the rail line sale. Title: Re: Tulsa's exciting rail possibilities Post by: sgrizzle on March 06, 2013, 07:45:06 am Tell them to sell the line, and then cut the heartland flyer subsidy. Either that or keep the line and get the train to run where it's supposed to. All or nothing.
Title: Re: Tulsa's exciting rail possibilities Post by: carltonplace on March 06, 2013, 10:01:51 am I have notified my state congress person
Title: Re: Tulsa's exciting rail possibilities Post by: swake on March 06, 2013, 11:13:25 am Move to Sell Rail Line Could Hurt Effort to Return Passenger Trains to Eastern Oklahoma http://kwgs.com/post/move-sell-rail-line-could-hurt-effort-return-passenger-trains-eastern-oklahoma (http://kwgs.com/post/move-sell-rail-line-could-hurt-effort-return-passenger-trains-eastern-oklahoma) ODOT/The state never had the slightest intention to extend rail service to Tulsa. This proves it. Title: Re: Tulsa's exciting rail possibilities Post by: Red Arrow on March 06, 2013, 12:16:30 pm ODOT/The state never had the slightest intention to extend rail service to Tulsa. This proves it. You may be right but it is unlikely that that right of way would have been turned into a high-speed passenger line. Title: Re: Tulsa's exciting rail possibilities Post by: swake on March 06, 2013, 12:21:50 pm You may be right but it is unlikely that that right of way would have been turned into a high-speed passenger line. I wasn't really thinking of HSR but the Amtrak extension that they have talked about for 10+ years. this is that line. The state is always full of crap when it comes to talking about supporting Tulsa. Title: Re: Tulsa's exciting rail possibilities Post by: Townsend on March 06, 2013, 12:29:42 pm The state is always full of crap when it comes to talking about supporting Tulsa. There does seem to be a tendency to concentrate on their own back yard and lawsuits against the federal government. Title: Re: Tulsa's exciting rail possibilities Post by: Hoss on March 06, 2013, 12:52:41 pm There does seem to be a tendency to concentrate on their own back yard and lawsuits against the federal government. You know how Tulsa's new slogan (allegedly) is "A New Kind of Energy"? Maybe OKC should start using "A Special Kind of Stupid"... Title: Re: Tulsa's exciting rail possibilities Post by: Red Arrow on March 06, 2013, 12:54:41 pm I wasn't really thinking of HSR but the Amtrak extension that they have talked about for 10+ years. this is that line. The state is always full of crap when it comes to talking about supporting Tulsa. It could probably do a regular speed Amtrak extension. I have seen where some people think it could get some minor improvements to be a high speed line. I've flown over most of it between Sapulpa and Luther at about 1000 ft AGL. I think the curves and going through some of the towns would be a problem for high speed service. Title: Re: Tulsa's exciting rail possibilities Post by: Townsend on October 23, 2013, 10:35:33 am Family Braces As Autistic Son Discovers Amtrak’s ‘Track a Train’ Web Page
http://tinyurl.com/mmdtc3v (http://tinyurl.com/mmdtc3v) Quote TULSA, OK—Just days after learning that the 8-year-old had thankfully moved on from a website compiling all professional baseball statistics since 1871, the local McKinsdale family reportedly braced themselves as autistic son Brendan discovered Amtrak.com’s “Track a Train” page. “Oh, God, he’s going to be on there for hours and hours at a time,” said mother Barbara McKinsdale, wincing upon learning that the site has an interactive graphic, which provides maps, timetables, and real-time, 24-hour updates on the progress of more than 300 trains traversing some 21,300 miles of track. “All we can do now is prepare ourselves to hear about how the 8:03 from Penn Station to Chicago is running 14 minutes late, or how the local train from Washington to Philadelphia is $59.36 cheaper than the express, but takes an extra 27 minutes to arrive. This is going to be rough.” Household sources later confirmed that Brendan had just spent the past half hour zoomed in on Milwaukee and hitting his browser’s refresh button every three seconds. |