Tulsa's exciting rail possibilities

[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

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.

Aye aye, commandante.  We will not question the experts.  We will not question the studies handed down by our superiors.  Ours is not to question.  Ours is to follow like sheep.

How about those real world numbers from ABQ?  Any thoughts on those?

[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

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.

Aye aye, commandante.  We will not question the experts.  We will not question the studies handed down by our superiors.  Ours is not to question.  Ours is to follow like sheep.

How about those real world numbers from ABQ?  Any thoughts on those?

I'm saying that there are somethings in life that a 'can do' attitude doesn't cut the mustard such as dentistry, building suspension bridges and statistical analysis.

[Oil Capital]

Here are some more actual real-world numbers.  Just some additional food for thought.

Nashville has a commuter rail somewhat similar to what is planned here (but twice as long 50% more station, 50% more runs each day, and of course a much larger, faster growing, and congested metropolitan area).  The first year ridership projected by their team of experts.  1,300. Actual ridership at the peak last summer:  640.

No reason at all to question a 2,200 projection for Tulsa... no reason at all...  ;-)

[Oil Capital]

Duplicate Post.  Sorry.

[Chicken Little]

quote:Originally posted by Oil Capital

Again, read more carefully and post less.  I of course said nothing like what you are attributing to me.

Oh, but you have...repeatedly.  You're slipping on your own eely arguments.

When you say, "over a period of many years, it could perhaps evolve...", are you speaking from experience?  Are you presenting ANYTHING in support of this supposition?  Of course not.  If I may borrow from your book and apply some circular reasoning, you can't provide evidence, because it would then no longer be supposition.  

How many is many? Two years?  Twenty?  More conjecture.

At exactly what point must we take the leap from running trains more frequently into this "massive" infrastructure investment?  'Cause if it happens before "many", I guess we'd be in trouble.  Yeah, I see your point now.  

And how much extra right-of-way is needed? Your near certainty leads me to believe that you have thought about it.  Would it cut into one lane on the BA...or perhaps zero?  Or maybe six lanes?  Or twenty-three?

At what point does 2-3 freight trains a day (according to the study) become a problem?  At the point you say so?  

Airtight, man. Airtight.

[Oil Capital]

quote:Originally posted by Chicken Little

quote:Originally posted by Oil Capital

Again, read more carefully and post less.  I of course said nothing like what you are attributing to me.

Oh, but you have...repeatedly.  You're slipping on your own eely arguments.

When you say, "over a period of many years, it could perhaps evolve...", are you speaking from experience?  Are you presenting ANYTHING in support of this supposition?  Of course not.  If I may borrow from your book and apply some circular reasoning, you can't provide evidence, because it would then no longer be supposition.  

How many is many? Two years?  Twenty?  More conjecture.

At exactly what point must we take the leap from running trains more frequently into this "massive" infrastructure investment?  'Cause if it happens before "many", I guess we'd be in trouble.  Yeah, I see your point now.  

And how much extra right-of-way is needed? Your near certainty leads me to believe that you have thought about it.  Would it cut into one lane on the BA...or perhaps zero?  Or maybe six lanes?  Or twenty-three?

At what point does 2-3 freight trains a day (according to the study) become a problem?  At the point you say so?  

Airtight, man. Airtight.

You have more or less proved my argument by your ranting and twisting and ultimate failure to come up with a single example of TOD around a station of a rail system where the trains stop 4 times a day.  

Your posting of the list of TODs was especially helpful in that it essentially proved my point that TOD occurs around rail stations where there is frequent, all-day, two-way service, and none to be found where those elements do not exist.  Thank you for your efforts.

[Renaissance]

This is beyond wearisome.  Rail is costly but there are collateral benefits including potential (not proven) development, a lightened load on the roads, and a direct commuter link from the central business district to populations.

Stop trying to convert the believers.  Ignore the nitpickers and move on.

[Oil Capital]

quote:Originally posted by Floyd

This is beyond wearisome.  Rail is costly but there are collateral benefits including potential (not proven) development, a lightened load on the roads, and a direct commuter link from the central business district to populations.

Stop trying to convert the believers.  Ignore the nitpickers and move on.

Again, please read more carefully.  I have not posted anything anti-rail.  No one has questioned that rail is expensive or that it has collateral benefits  But we really should be looking at it carefully and with well-reasoned estimates in order to come up with reasonably accurate estimates of both the costs and the collateral benefits.  I have merely questioned the ridership forecasts in the study, and I very much doubt the potential for TOD arising from the proposed rail system.  It's possible that this line might be a good idea even if the numbers are wrong and even without any TOD resulting from it.  That is a fair discussion.

As you suggested, some people just want to believe and so they do...

[si_uk_lon_ok]

quote:Originally posted by Oil Capital

quote:Originally posted by Floyd

This is beyond wearisome.  Rail is costly but there are collateral benefits including potential (not proven) development, a lightened load on the roads, and a direct commuter link from the central business district to populations.

Stop trying to convert the believers.  Ignore the nitpickers and move on.

Again, please read more carefully.  I have not posted anything anti-rail.  No one has questioned that rail is expensive or that it has collateral benefits  But we really should be looking at it carefully and with well-reasoned estimates in order to come up with reasonably accurate estimates of both the costs and the collateral benefits.  I have merely questioned the ridership forecasts in the study, and I very much doubt the potential for TOD arising from the proposed rail system.  It's possible that this line might be a good idea even if the numbers are wrong and even without any TOD resulting from it.  That is a fair discussion.

As you suggested, some people just want to believe and so they do...

There have been well reasoned estimates involved and they have come up with those figures. It is you who with no knowledge in regression analysis and lacking all the facts have decided not to believe the data in front of you.

You want to disbelieve and have decided to. You don't have knowledge nor a $90k report to back up your position, but you've decided to be stubborn in your disbelief.

[Chicken Little]

quote:Originally posted by Oil Capital

You have more or less proved my argument...

No, your argument is leaky.  According to your own logic, the study recommends a passenger train "of a certain type" that will not attract transit-oriented development.  That "type" is a commuter rail that runs four times a day.    

Presume for a moment that I'd buy that.  I don't, because development is happening around passenger rail stops across the country.   TOD is no longer an accidental pattern, it's conscious growth strategy for cities, even in cities in the West that have grown up around the car.  There's a substantial body of evidence that TOD is, as the Dallas article I posted says, the "iPod" of the development community.  Not a fad, but a paradigm shift in the way we develop.  You have provided no real reason why it couldn't happen here.  But presume I swallowed your argument.  

Then your entire argument hinges on that the belief that the proposed train can only run four times a day.  That's a transitory distinction at best.  The train can run more than that.  Service levels can be increased based on demand, or choice, or both.  By your own definition it would no longer be a "commuter train".  And by your own admission, TOD could then happen.  Your argument, on your terms, unravels completely.  

I think you've lost.  You have never allowed for change over time, which perhaps also explains your problems with regression analysis.  Doubting change is perhaps an instinctual trait, if not the very definition, of a small "c" conservative.  Or maybe it's because you are a lawyer.  You help people sort out the past, not the future.  That's a job for people like Si.  

Isaac Asimov said, "The only constant is change."  I tend to believe that.  And I believe that we can infer from our past, and from the past and present of others.  We can come up with reasonable predictions worthy of public investment.  Forecasting may not be your bailiwick, but that doesn't mean it doesn't happen.  Are you as skeptical about the insurance industry?  stock market?  There's always risk.  But, without some understanding of tomorrow, we'd never have planted crops.  We'd still be hunting and gathering.  You can keep saying, "I don't believe in the future", but that doesn't mean we have to listen.

[SXSW]

I like the following existing corridors for future light rail or commuter rail in and around Tulsa IF the suburbs served (Jenks, Owasso, BA) shouldered part of the costs to create a regional rail network.  I would hope it would be more of a Tulsa County initiative than just Tulsa. 

Tulsa County Rail


Downtown Tulsa Streetcar (starter loop) that connects to light rail

[TheArtist]

Sounds great.

But you know with rail we are gonna run into the "well I dont want to fund rail" "its not governments job to fund rail" "I am a suburb why do I want to fund rail in or to Tulsa" etc. We are already getting that from Owasso for the rail to OKC thing.

I got some questions for those smarter than me,,, few that there may be. I noticed in the "Economic stimulus package" we sent out, on our list was a hundred thou or so to study widening the highway to Owasso.

Now, is this city thinking about rail or not? Are we going to consider putting money into widening the highways to the suburbs over having rail? Sure sounds like it when your asking for thousands of dollars to start doing so. When its costing 100mill a mile to widen the last leg of I44, are we really putting off serious discussion of rail for the 14 miles to BA or all the way to Owasso? Are we we going to continue spending money on the process for widening the highways and not on rail? Looks like it.

I say we dont need to be widening any more highways, especially to areas where we could be doing rail. Where it would be logical to put rail IF we were to ever do so. Are we going to ever do rail or not?

The question I have is WHY ON EARTH did we ask for thousands of dollars to start the design process to widen the highway to Owasso!

Especially when its the Owasso dude who is one of the guys who has been against Tulsa getting high speed rail or rail moneys! Who had the power and authority to put that on Tulsas list of "Economic stimulus" needs? The city aka the mayor and council, or the county, or INCOG? Who decides what gets widened and when? I would have not put that in the stimulus package and used that as leverage against the moron in Owasso. I would have said,,, Oh you want a highway widened to Owasso? Hmm? You want it studied? hmmm? Seems we dont have money to study that, and wont, but boy we would sure like to get some rail started in Tulsa... hint hint, clue clue. If them damned suburbs want the highways widened that go to them, they should sure as heck not be dissing Tulsas desire for rail. And Tulsa should not be putting in any funding requests to do so either. 

People keep saying we should work with the suburbs. But when its those very suburbs who are trying to stop our dams or rail. We should not be helping them do things that we see would be contrary to what we want. We should want a rail line to Owasso, not widening the highway to Owasso. And we should do everything in our power to block it, especially if they are going to block what we want. Just letting them block what we want and giving them what they want is stupid.   

[SXSW]

Connecting the suburbs to downtown is key for the longterm future of downtown, and the longterm growth of downtown Tulsa as the heart of the metro for office space, entertainment, and eventually restaurants and retail.  The streetcar is just as important though for connecting the different districts of downtown.  Tulsa should follow Portland's lead and bring suburban communities into downtown via rail but also serve the urban neighborhoods and downtown area with streetcar lines. 

[godboko71]

People keep saying we should work with the suburbs. But when its those very suburbs who are trying to stop our dams or rail. We should not be helping them do things that we see would be contrary to what we want. We should want a rail line to Owasso, not widening the highway to Owasso. And we should do everything in our power to block it, especially if they are going to block what we want. Just letting them block what we want and giving them what they want is stupid.   

So we are so petty as to lower ourselves to there "level?" Does not working with the suburbs help our cause any more then they being "against us?"

The answer is simple, no and heck no. Why? Because an interconnected city means more people spend money is more areas, both sides right now are looking at the small picture, the suburb sees the connection as taking money away from then as people do more in the city core, the city core sees it in two ways, one where more people come and spend there money but less live there, why live in the icky city if you can live in the suburb, while the other sees both sides.

The truth is it will balance out, some urbanits will want a weekend away from home and will go to one of the many destination burbs instead of one of our own districts, where the suburbanite wife comes into downtown to have lunch with her husband (work) and three kids (private school in city core.)

A well connected city and communities support each other because they have to but because it betters us all. What we need in this region is leaders that don't  let there own personal lifestyle choices dicktate there actions, but instead look at the bigger picture.

So please instead of getting down to there level, lets help educate everyone that if each part of the city does better and has better services EVERYONE benefits.

[Composer]

Good point Artist.  I do know some people in Broken Arrow's leadership who would like the rail line from Broken Arrow to Tulsa and I know Broken Arrow would help fund it.