Tulsa's exciting rail possibilities

[si_uk_lon_ok]

quote:Originally posted by 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?

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.

[Chicken Little]

Other Transit Oriented Developments around "Commuter" rail...from your list:

"TOD times five: How the subway revived a Virginia suburb"

"A Slew Of TODs In Works For Baltimore"

four TODs on "surplus property" that MBTA owns in Boston

four TODs in Chicago

Dallas (covered many times)

"Transit-Oriented Development Takes Hold in Los Angeles"

I'll look up more.  Point is, every place on your list of communter rail systems is working on Transit Oriented Development.

[Chicken Little]

quote:Originally posted by Oil Capital

Yes, and just as in the other thread, DART is still NOT commuter rail.

 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.

[Oil Capital]

quote:Originally posted by si_uk_lon_ok

quote:Originally posted by 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?

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.

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.

[Oil Capital]

quote:Originally posted by Chicken Little

quote:Originally posted by Oil Capital

Yes, and just as in the other thread, DART is still NOT commuter rail.

 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.

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?

[Chicken Little]

quote:Originally posted by Oil Capital

quote:Originally posted by Chicken Little

quote:Originally posted by Oil Capital

Yes, and just as in the other thread, DART is still NOT commuter rail.

 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.

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?

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.

[Oil Capital]

quote:Originally posted by Chicken Little

Other Transit Oriented Developments around "Commuter" rail...from your list:

"TOD times five: How the subway revived a Virginia suburb"

"A Slew Of TODs In Works For Baltimore"

four TODs on "surplus property" that MBTA owns in Boston

four TODs in Chicago

Dallas (covered many times)

"Transit-Oriented Development Takes Hold in Los Angeles"

I'll look up more.  Point is, every place on your list of communter rail systems is working on Transit Oriented Development.

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.

[Chicken Little]

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.

[Oil Capital]

quote:Originally posted by Chicken Little

quote:Originally posted by Oil Capital

quote:Originally posted by Chicken Little

quote:Originally posted by Oil Capital

Yes, and just as in the other thread, DART is still NOT commuter rail.

 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.

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?

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.

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.

[Oil Capital]

quote:Originally posted by Chicken Little

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.

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.

[Chicken Little]

quote:Originally posted by Oil Capital

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.

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.

[Oil Capital]

quote:Originally posted by Chicken Little

quote:Originally posted by Oil Capital

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.

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.

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".

[Chicken Little]

quote:Originally posted by Oil Capital

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.)  

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:Originally posted by Oil Capital

And of course I never said or implied anything like "commuter rail is a commuter rail because because [sic] it is a commuter rail".

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.[}:)]

[si_uk_lon_ok]

quote:Originally posted by Oil Capital

quote:Originally posted by si_uk_lon_ok

quote:Originally posted by 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?

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.

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.

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.

[Oil Capital]

quote:Originally posted by Chicken Little

quote:Originally posted by Oil Capital

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.)  

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:Originally posted by Oil Capital

And of course I never said or implied anything like "commuter rail is a commuter rail because because [sic] it is a commuter rail".

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.[}:)]

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.