Amtrak

[Transport_Oklahoma]

By the way.  We agree on something.  Pedi cabs and jitneys have their place.

[TheArtist]

quote:Originally posted by pimpthistownvotepaultay

quote:Originally posted by Transport_Oklahoma

By the way.  We agree on something.  Pedi cabs and jitneys have their place.

I am all for outlaw jitneys.  MTTA don't deserve the monopoly to provide piss-poor service.  And, then, the outright unmitigated gall tryin' to sweeten it up with a stoooopid concert series to kiss up.  Hey, Boatwright, get real ALREADY.

The city doesnt have a monopoly.  There is this privately owned thing called a "TAXI service".  If you think a bus service will be profitable, work to start your own and give the kind of service you think would be better.

[H.Noodleman]

quote:Originally posted by pimpthistownvotepaultay

quote:Originally posted by TheArtist

The city doesnt have a monopoly.  There is this privately owned thing called a "TAXI service".  If you think a bus service will be profitable, work to start your own and give the kind of service you think would be better.

Uh.  Mr. Artist, you need to review the City ordinance regarding fixed route bus services.  A private competing bus service is illegal by ordinance.

First review the enabling ordinance for MTTA

Taxi service is not competition, because it is not a fixed route service.  It is considered a for-hire service, governed by a completely different enabling ordinance.   Say a chinaman gets cute and tries to operate a pedi-cab service.  He would have to abide by the said ordinance or risk p-cab impoundment.  Not fun.

There's a p-cab service in the area.  But, it's not in Tulsa.  Guess where?  Said chinaman is quietly watching how the City's p-cab nazis treat Mr. Henretty.  So far, it's been pretty shabby.  Lotsa foot-draggin' and all dat crap.

And, out over yonder eastside, there is actually a couple of outlaw competition to the MTTA.  Various enterprising persons of the Latino persuasion operate them.  You know who you are.  Si Se Puede.

Believe it or not, they are makin' bank, not large enough to attract attention, but, enough to make rent, without the public handout, without the stooopid concert series, unlike the MTTA, which relies on public subsidies of approximately 200 clams per user.  So you say, who's kiddin' whom?

The fact of the matter is until there's lotsa honky bodies hangin' outta the MTTA buses during rush, dangerously overcapacity for a Gillig, there's no real public support for LRT.  Just a bunch of lip service during election time.  So, GIT REAL.

use claim ta be da pimps,but all I sees ya pimpin,be B.S> dat nobodys wantsta here fool!SHIZZLE_DEEEP_SHIZZLE

[okiebybirth]

quote:Originally posted by pimpthistownvotepaultay

What would be the purpose besides pandering to nostalgia?  Consider the subsidy to transit users, just a little north of 200 clams per month, per user.

My goodness, that's a car payment.  Simply give a car to every charity case that needs one, and do away with MTTA, Amtrak, and every other American public transit system.

Your suggestion is oversimplified and you are overlooking the cost of owning a car so that your theory would work.  After giving every charity case a car, who is going to pay the insurance for them to legally keep the car on the road?  How about all the gas to use the car?
And I know you realize that our transportation system is subsidized now.  If we had to really pay for the roads instead of them being subsidized by the government, then you'd see people giving up their cars.  We complain about Amtrak not supporting itself, but no one thinks about how much we spend to expand our highway system without any outcry that all roads must be turnpikes.  And with gas prices increasing with no sign of having prices go below $2 ever, cities offering a rail system which goes faster than any bus will be able to travel will be the cities that are considered the most "livable".

[TheArtist]

quote:Originally posted by pimpthistownvotepaultay

quote:Originally posted by TheArtist

The city doesnt have a monopoly.  There is this privately owned thing called a "TAXI service".  If you think a bus service will be profitable, work to start your own and give the kind of service you think would be better.

Uh.  Mr. Artist, you need to review the City ordinance regarding fixed route bus services.  A private competing bus service is illegal by ordinance.

First review the enabling ordinance for MTTA

Taxi service is not competition, because it is not a fixed route service.  It is considered a for-hire service, governed by a completely different enabling ordinance.   Say a chinaman gets cute and tries to operate a pedi-cab service.  He would have to abide by the said ordinance or risk p-cab impoundment.  Not fun.

There's a p-cab service in the area.  But, it's not in Tulsa.  Guess where?  Said chinaman is quietly watching how the City's p-cab nazis treat Mr. Henretty.  So far, it's been pretty shabby.  Lotsa foot-draggin' and all dat crap.

And, out over yonder eastside, there is actually a couple of outlaw competition to the MTTA.  Various enterprising persons of the Latino persuasion operate them.  You know who you are.  Si Se Puede.

Believe it or not, they are makin' bank, not large enough to attract attention, but, enough to make rent, without the public handout, without the stooopid concert series, unlike the MTTA, which relies on public subsidies of approximately 200 clams per user.  So you say, who's kiddin' whom?

The fact of the matter is until there's lotsa honky bodies hangin' outta the MTTA buses during rush, dangerously overcapacity for a Gillig, there's no real public support for LRT.  Just a bunch of lip service during election time.  So, GIT REAL.

 I kind of guessed I should have elucidated my point rather than try to show an example...  So here goes.

 This conversation was about AMTRACK and different routes and possibilities to and from different cities.  My response about Taxis to your MTTA response was to show similar irrelevance.  Apparently that was lost in your self centered universe. Actually I would say your connection of an AMTRACK service, from St Louis to Tulsa, to the MTTA was less far more a stretch than my connection of the MTTA to a Taxi service. Wouldnt AMTRACK be governed by a different enabling ordinance than MTTA?  Would AMTRACK be competition with the MTTA?  
  As for a city ordinance being in the way of a competing bus service.  Puleeeze, like your one to suddenly think all current city ordinances should be written in stone and unchangeable.  Or are we only supposed to consider any changes you want as reasonable and any notion at all by anyone else warrants a "GET REAL" response?      

 

 If you like what your getting, keep doin what your doing.  Is it working for ya Paul?

[H.Noodleman]

Dat bike ridin pimp sho gots sum screws being loos in da head he got_SHIZZLE_LOONI_SHIZZLE

[H.Noodleman]

(Please converse in a way more easily understandable. Thanks.)

[waterboy]

(EDIT)

I want to ride trains and I don't care if Amtrak runs it or some private group. Nostalgia has nothing to do with it regardless of your opinion. Travelling on turnpikes, even well maintained ones, simply isn't as cost efficient as rails in the big picture. Driving to OKC is a collosal waste of energy, land and time. In your mind all those people riding trains on the coasts are just nostalgic?

(EDIT)

[okiebybirth]

quote:Originally posted by pimpthistownvotepaultay

quote:Originally posted by okiebybirth

Your suggestion is oversimplified and you are overlooking the cost of owning a car so that your theory would work.  After giving every charity case a car, who is going to pay the insurance for them to legally keep the car on the road?  How about all the gas to use the car?
And I know you realize that our transportation system is subsidized now.  If we had to really pay for the roads instead of them being subsidized by the government, then you'd see people giving up their cars.  We complain about Amtrak not supporting itself, but no one thinks about how much we spend to expand our highway system without any outcry that all roads must be turnpikes.  And with gas prices increasing with no sign of having prices go below $2 ever, cities offering a rail system which goes faster than any bus will be able to travel will be the cities that are considered the most "livable".

You are correct.  SOV is heavily subsidized in the form of urban sprawl, the constant road widenings, and of course the ubiquitous zoning codes that dictate the size of parking lots.  Not to mention the tax revenue lost to right-of-ways used for streets and highways.

The day that cities will be considered "livable" is the day when redneck NASCAR meth fiends from Sand Springs can't afford gasoline.  I am waiting patiently for that day.

Remember that Tulsa had a 28% increase in bus ridership since the gas has risen recently.  If we are going to focus on all rail, we should take that statistic into account as for showing that gas is getting to a limit that most cannot afford without altering their lifestyle significantly.

[PonderInc]

I always used to think that the reason we didn't have much in the way of mass transit was that "well, we're such a young nation...we developed along with cars."  Ha!  It seems that in the early 1900's we had the best, most efficient mass transit system in the world (trains and electric trolley systems).   This includes cities such as L.A. and...even Tulsa.

If you haven't heard about how GM (with help from Standard Oil, Firestone Tire, etc) bought up all the local trolley lines and systematically, intentionally destroyed them...I suggest you check out a video at the library.  It's called "Taken for a Ride."  If you believe that mass transit and walkability are critical quality of life issues (I do), it will make your hair catch fire. (Much like what happens when you think about W putting Inhofe in charge of the Environmental committee in the Senate...)

An interesting side story is about how the highway construction lobby got busy in the 50's obtaining fed funds for road building (Hey, thanks, department of defense!)...and how grassroots activists in DC and San Francisco saved their cities from being filleted by freeways. (Ever pondered how many gorgeous old homes and buildings were destroyed for our own inner-dispersal loop?  And how neighborhoods were cut in half by this automotive iron curtain?)

[Transport_Oklahoma]

I strongly support OKC-Tulsa commuter or high speed rail.  But it should be considered part of a future phase.  

Requiring rail service west beyond downtown Tulsa to Oklahoma City could be a deal breaker in the short term if this Missouri Amtrak thing "gets legs."

Why?

Engineering cost barriers starting at about Greenwood.  Probably a minimum of $30 million just to make a slow speed service possible.

Lets get done what is politically possible now.

[waterboy]

Was using the highway system for landing planes a military strategy? Never heard that. The telephone poles, narrow width, rails etc. wouldd make that a sketchy proposition. And using tanks on roads that have weak substructures would also be temporary. These roads can't even handle car traffic. Maybe in Colorado Springs because of NORAD but the rest of the country, no. Not like the Roman roads in Europe.

More likely, in the case of the domestic defense, we would use a large quantity of light armored, quick, manueverable troop carriers and helicopters. BTW, how do we move our tanks currently for deployment to staging areas? BY RAIL!
So we got a gift from GM et.al. for killing the corrupt railroad robber barons? How so? We replaced one set of corrupt businessman political alliances with another. Cynical view. Generally I like cynicism but you abuse it. Unless you owned stock in the emerging robber baron industries, it was a net negative for the country.

(EDIT)

[iplaw]

I think I saw that same episode on the History Channel.  I remember hearing somewhere that the highways were designed as emergency runways in case of damage to existing structures on military bases, but I found this link from the DOT and I can't see where it discusses the topic.

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/infrastructure/history.htm

[TheArtist]

Paul I think the nostalgia thing is only in your head not in anyone elses lol.  I wasnt around when there were trains or trolleys in the Tulsa area.  Never had a train set.  Never even ridden one other than the Tube or subway.   I have no interest in or memory of trains what so ever.  Nostalgia for trains?  Just how old are you lol?  

  As for the "Is it working for you" comment. What I was talking about was your message, what you want changed or done in Tulsa. At least I am thinking you do want something?  You want people to vote for you anyway.  I would also assume you would want people to understand you and stand with you for whatever cause or change your advocating.  Dont look like you are just riding around town to simply get from one place to another, seems you want some sort of attention.  Is there a purpose to that attention?  Or is it just to get attention period?  

  Often you seem like an intelligent person who wants positive changes to take place.  Who has ideas.  But then I hear comments that quite frankly turn me off from listening to you and even make me angry at you.  Not a good way to garner support.  I mean you cant have it both ways.  One cant have a cause or motivation to do something and make others not like you and expect them to want to help you or care about your cause.  Actually you make me feel like I want to do just the opposite of whatever it is you want.  

 You say you dont care weather people like you or not or whether they like what you say.  But it seems like you keep wanting attention and for people to listen.  

 I have seen so many people with causes.  The little girl in New Orleans who got money and books to open the library near her house comes to mind.  So many people find a message and a way to make their cause succeed and come to fruition.  

  Do you have a message?  Is there something you want?  And is what your doing getting you there?  Or are you just a nut case aimlessly ranting about whatever?  I dont know....  I actually feel odd talking to you.  I keep expecting someone to take me aside and calmly, sincerely tell me your not all there in the head.  And trust me I would believe them.  

  The only thing that pops into my mind for a reason for what you do is that you may have at one time tried to get things done "through the system" so to speak.  But that it didnt work for you so out of frustration you have lashed out in this direction thinking it will work for you?  

 Frankly whatever it is your after, I for the life of me cant figure it out.  Other than your just a nut case with an "attention seeking" disorder of some sort. Or is that really all you want people to think about you and what you say?  If most people had put as much time and effort into something as you seemingly do, they would have succeeded at it by now.  

 If you like what your getting, keep doing what your doing.  

[Editor]

Please stay on topic. Personal attacks are not tolerated, especially when multiple people pick on one target.