Large Downtown Tulsa Movie Theater

[SXSW]

The Railrunner has average weekday boardings of 4,500 on a system of 97 miles of track and 13 stations.  Does that really count as a "success" worth emulating?

97 miles?  That would be like having commuter rail between Tulsa and OKC.

[Red Arrow]

The Railrunner has average weekday boardings of 4,500 on a system of 97 miles of track and 13 stations.  Does that really count as a "success" worth emulating?

It started out as just the southern part from Belen to Albuquerque.  After a few years, it was extended to Santa Fe.  I guess it is enough of a success to warrant the extension.  It's not only about the people on the train.  It's also about the fact that the people on the train are not on the highway.  How much would it cost to add a lane in each direction on the BA Expressway?  Is the BA Expressway a toll road?  I know several members of this forum would like to make it so.

I almost forgot, it also means less parking spaces required downtown.  

Edit 2:
The first leg was actually Albuquerque to Bernalillo followed shortly by the extension to Belen to the south.

[cannon_fodder]

The RailRunner current costs the government around $5 per person riding it in subsidies.  The subsidies are, however, a fixed cost of around $10,000,000 per year.  If ridership doubled, the subsidies wouldn't have to go up, practically speaking.

The BA carries 90,000 vehicles a day.  Let's pretend we've drop to 100,000 in a few years just to make the numbers nice.  Of that 100,000, 50% is commuter traffic coming to and from work.  The study commissioned a few years ago indicated a commuter rail service could be utilized by 20% of BA commuters at an operational cost of $3mil per year.  That equates to a cost of $600 per year per commuter (25000 commuters).

So you can sell a resident an unlimited pass on the train from BA to Tulsa for $600 and it pays for itself.   Average distance from BA to downtown is 15 miles, at the IRS rate of $.55 per mile = $16.5 per day to drive it.  x 50 weeks x 5 days per week = $4,125 to drive from BA to downtown Tulsa per working year (your realitor won't explain this to you, nor factor in the 30 minute commute x 200 work days = 100 wasted hours.  Or more hours wasted than most Americans get in vacation time).  That is, of course, ignoring the assumption that you household would have two cars and twice the insurance even if you took the train to work everyday - which woudl result in even MORE savings (mom works in BA, drops dad off at the station...). 

And that's ignoring the impact of having other stations, spur lines, etc. in the future.

Rail is expensive...  but driving is expensive too.  People in the great fly-over zone are simply used to spending THOUSANDS and THOUSANDS of dollars driving everywhere and don't consider the costs.  Owning a car is expensive for an individual.  Now consider the roads, parking, traffic enforcement, and all the other expenses that you do not individually pay.  Just for the city of Tulsa the budget is tens of millions of dollars (swollowed in the Transportation/Public Works Budget... maybe 100s of millions?), add in State and Federal funds.  DRIVING IS EXPENSIVE!

Commuter Rail
Cost: $43 million to $49 million
Annual operation expenses: $3.1 million, with up to 12 percent covered by fares.
Potential fare: $2
Ridership growth between 2010 and 2030: 1.4 million to 5 million
Speed: 70 mph
Peak frequency: Every 72 minutes

Read more from this Tulsa World article at http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=070501_1_A2_Commu05642

[Hoss]

The RailRunner current costs the government around $5 per person riding it in subsidies.  The subsidies are, however, a fixed cost of around $10,000,000 per year.  If ridership doubled, the subsidies wouldn't have to go up, practically speaking.

The BA carries 90,000 vehicles a day.  Let's pretend we've drop to 100,000 in a few years just to make the numbers nice.  Of that 100,000, 50% is commuter traffic coming to and from work.  The study commissioned a few years ago indicated a commuter rail service could be utilized by 20% of BA commuters at an operational cost of $3mil per year.  That equates to a cost of $600 per year per commuter (25000 commuters).

So you can sell a resident an unlimited pass on the train from BA to Tulsa for $600 and it pays for itself.   Average distance from BA to downtown is 15 miles, at the IRS rate of $.55 per mile = $16.5 per day to drive it.  x 50 weeks x 5 days per week = $4,125 to drive from BA to downtown Tulsa per working year (your realitor won't explain this to you, nor factor in the 30 minute commute x 200 work days = 100 wasted hours.  Or more hours wasted than most Americans get in vacation time).  That is, of course, ignoring the assumption that you household would have two cars and twice the insurance even if you took the train to work everyday - which woudl result in even MORE savings (mom works in BA, drops dad off at the station...). 

And that's ignoring the impact of having other stations, spur lines, etc. in the future.

Rail is expensive...  but driving is expensive too.  People in the great fly-over zone are simply used to spending THOUSANDS and THOUSANDS of dollars driving everywhere and don't consider the costs.  Owning a car is expensive for an individual.  Now consider the roads, parking, traffic enforcement, and all the other expenses that you do not individually pay.  Just for the city of Tulsa the budget is tens of millions of dollars (swollowed in the Transportation/Public Works Budget... maybe 100s of millions?), add in State and Federal funds.  DRIVING IS EXPENSIVE!

Commuter Rail
Cost: $43 million to $49 million
Annual operation expenses: $3.1 million, with up to 12 percent covered by fares.
Potential fare: $2
Ridership growth between 2010 and 2030: 1.4 million to 5 million
Speed: 70 mph
Peak frequency: Every 72 minutes

Read more from this Tulsa World article at http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=070501_1_A2_Commu05642

Funny seeing our favorite Santa Claus commenting in that four year old article...and the mindset.  Times were a little different back then (the economy was a little bit better).

I think there is still not enough employers downtown to warrant light rail in between BA and downtown.  It's getting better, but the density needs to be higher.

[Red Arrow]

I think there is still not enough employers downtown to warrant light rail in between BA and downtown.  It's getting better, but the density needs to be higher.

That's possible but we need to be looking at it. 

[Hoss]

That's possible but we need to be looking at it. 

Sure, we need to be looking at it, but how long will it be before people start bellyaching about 'how much did that study cost'?

[Red Arrow]

Sure, we need to be looking at it, but how long will it be before people start bellyaching about 'how much did that study cost'?

How much more will they complain when gridlock approaches in another decade or so?  Rail systems used to be able to pop up in a few years but that was nearly 100 years ago.

[DTowner]

Do we even know if the owner of the track down the middle of the BA is willing to share with a commuter line?  Assuming the owner agrees to a lease, it will most likely give priority to frieght trains because that's who owns the track.

What speed will a commuter train be allowed to run?  Freight trains move pretty slow down this stretch.  How many stops?  How long will it take to travel by train from BA to downtown as compared to a car (and that's not counting the drive to the train and the walk from the station to a person's office)?

What is the current usage of the express bus from BA to downtown?  Under most but the worst of traffic days, the bus currently gets from BA to downtown quicker than a train will (and that assumes no train stops in between, which is not realistic).  If large numbers of commuters currently don't take the bus, why would large numbers take a slower option - just because trains are cool?

Why not try a HOV lane on the BA to encourage car pooling before expending huge sums for rail?  It would also allow buses to travel faster.

I think we are a long way from the kind of traffic on the BA that will make a train ride preferably for most commuters over driving their own cars.  Planning for future potential rail is great, but I think we are looking at a long timeline and have a lot of other alternatives to try first.

 

[Red Arrow]

Do we even know if the owner of the track down the middle of the BA is willing to share with a commuter line?  Assuming the owner agrees to a lease, it will most likely give priority to frieght trains because that's who owns the track.

What speed will a commuter train be allowed to run?  Freight trains move pretty slow down this stretch.  How many stops?  How long will it take to travel by train from BA to downtown as compared to a car (and that's not counting the drive to the train and the walk from the station to a person's office)?

What is the current usage of the express bus from BA to downtown?  Under most but the worst of traffic days, the bus currently gets from BA to downtown quicker than a train will (and that assumes no train stops in between, which is not realistic).  If large numbers of commuters currently don't take the bus, why would large numbers take a slower option - just because trains are cool?

Why not try a HOV lane on the BA to encourage car pooling before expending huge sums for rail?  It would also allow buses to travel faster.

I think we are a long way from the kind of traffic on the BA that will make a train ride preferably for most commuters over driving their own cars.  Planning for future potential rail is great, but I think we are looking at a long timeline and have a lot of other alternatives to try first.

I have attended several of the public presentations for transit study.  I haven't read the final reports yet but found that the expected speed of commuter rail from BA to Tulsa is 70 mph.


http://tulsatransit.org/media/files/StudyPresentation.pdf

http://www.fastforwardplan.org/FinalPlan.aspx

[dbacks fan]

I have attended several of the public presentations for transit study.  I haven't read the final reports yet but found that the expected speed of commuter rail from BA to Tulsa is 70 mph.

http://www.fastforwardplan.org/FinalPlan.aspx

You can't run a freight down those tracks at 70mph.

http://www.avcog.org/documents/Rail%20Terminology.pdf

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_limits_in_the_United_States_(rail)#Track_classes

[Red Arrow]

You can't run a freight down those tracks at 70mph.

That's probably why the 2007 study allowed for $1.88 Million for track improvements.  Plus, your link is talking about some really heavy freight cars rather than commuter cars.

Edit:
Plus another $11.5 million for signal and system costs.

Edit 2:

From page 11 of the final report:

Union Pacific tracks along the study corridor are currently utilized
by as many as three freight trains per day with a combination
of local and through-routed destinations.  The commuter
rail option assessed included four stations and assumed a
speed of 70 miles per hour, operating only during peak hours. 

[dbacks fan]

That's probably why the 2007 study allowed for $1.88 Million for track improvements.  Plus, your link is talking about some really heavy freight cars rather than commuter cars.

Class 5 track is operated by freight railroads where freight train speeds are over 60mph. On parts of the BNSF Railway Chicago–Los Angeles mainline, the old Santa Fe main, ATS equipped passenger trains such as Amtrak's Southwest Chief can operate at up to 90 mph (145 km/h). This is gradually being reduced as the train stop system is retired, but freight trains over 60 mph still require class 5 track.

My point was that even passenger (generic I know) trains that travel at those speeds require Class 5 Track which is the typical open country track much like what parallels I-40 across the western US. I don't think federal law would allow speeds like that in a populated area, specifically along the center line of a highway. (Trying to find more info.)

[dbacks fan]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amtrak#Speed

Separately, a 1947 Interstate Commerce Commission order required, by year-end 1951, enhanced safety features for all trains traveling above a 79 mph limit.[22] The infrastructure required for cab signaling, automatic train stop and other enhancements were uneconomical for freight railroads in most of the US. Crucially, outside the Northeast Corridor, Amtrak trains primarily use trackage rights to travel on freight railroad tracks. So this ICC safety rule effectively killed further development of US high-speed rail outside of the Northeast Corridor. In the Northeast Corridor the Pennsylvania Railroad and others already had installed cab signaling by 1947. By contrast, the United Kingdom, Canada, and Australia all operate trains at 100 mph (160 km/h) or higher using conventional lineside signalling.

As a result of that 1947 ICC order, few trains in the United States operate above 79 mph (127 km/h) outside of the Northeast Corridor. A notable exception is the Southwest Chief, which travels up to 90 miles per hour (140 km/h) along various stretches of its Chicago–Los Angeles route. However, positive train control (PTC) signaling is required to be implemented by 2015 under the Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008; PTC signaling is sufficient to remove the 79 mph limit.[108] The Wolverine has already had some PTC signaling and other upgrades put in place to enable higher speeds. PTC has proven to be a much less expensive method to provide enhanced signaling than earlier technologies used in the United States.

 
South Station, in Boston, Massachusetts, is a major transportation hub for interstate Amtrak trains and for the MBTA commuter rail.In Britain, for example, the 393-mile (632 km) journey from London to Edinburgh is completed in around four and a half hours (an average speed of around 87 miles (140 km) per hour).[109] In the USA, the 340-mile (550 km) journey on the Cardinal from New York to Charlottesville takes some seven hours,[110] an average of just under 49 miles (79 km) per hour. Even the flagship Acela service between New York and Boston only averages, in its three and a half hour journey, around 63 miles (101 km) per hour,[110] in large part due to the age of the trackage and catenary system, which has been undergoing renovation in stages since Acela's 2001 introduction. Also, some segments of track in the Northeast Corridor are too close together for the Acela carriages to safely tilt while also maintaining FRA-mandated minimum space between trains on parallel tracks.

Unlike Canada, the US, and most of the UK, the dedicated high-speed trains (e.g. Japan's Shinkansen, France's TGV) of China, France, Germany, Italy, Japan and Spain generally use special high-speed railroad tracks that were constructed for the sole use of high-speed passenger trains

[dbacks fan]

I guess what I'm try to say is that while it may be able to travel at 70mph I don't think it will average 70mph over the proposed route when you factor in the stops and the number of street crossings along the route.

[jacobi]

With street crossings (at least at the suburban stops I saw in dallas) traffic stops for the train not the other way around.  And at 70 MHR, cars dont wait long.