Tulsa's exciting rail possibilities

[White Choc Hot Choc]

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.

[booWorld]

Mmmmmmmm......    []

"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

[T-TownMike]

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.

[Oil Capital]

quote:Originally posted by T-TownMike

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.

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.

[Renaissance]

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.

[Oil Capital]

quote:Originally posted by Floyd

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.

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.

[si_uk_lon_ok]

quote:Originally posted by Oil Capital

quote:Originally posted by Floyd

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.

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.

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

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.

[Oil Capital]

quote:Originally posted by si_uk_lon_ok

quote:Originally posted by Oil Capital

quote:Originally posted by Floyd

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

[Oil Capital]

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.)

[Renaissance]

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.

[TheArtist]

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?

[Chicken Little]

Here's an example 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.

[si_uk_lon_ok]

quote:Originally posted by Oil Capital

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.)

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.

[Oil Capital]

quote:Originally posted by si_uk_lon_ok

quote:Originally posted by Oil Capital

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.)

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.

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?

[Oil Capital]

quote:Originally posted by Chicken Little

Here's an example 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.

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