Tulsa's exciting rail possibilities

[Townsend]

Again:

Local and State Leaders Look At Passenger Rail Service

http://www.ktul.com/Global/story.asp?S=13846681&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

[TheArtist]

Again:

Local and State Leaders Look At Passenger Rail Service

http://www.ktul.com/Global/story.asp?S=13846681&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

I am completely and utterly against it. TOTAL waste of money.  It will NOT bring in more dollars. We could better use the funds encouraging more density in and around downtown and for various mass trainsit options IN town, not between OKC and Tulsa. That would more likely spur growth here than some slow line between Tulsa and OKC.  There are probably more local people likely to use a line from BA or Jenks to Tulsa and back each day than would use one going from OKC to Tulsa and back. And it could be used to help us improve our density, pedestrian friendlieness, spur some TOD development, etc. And I am not even completely convinced on that, but Tulsa to OKC, nooooooo way.  If anything it will flop and become an expense that will be a rallying cry against any efforts for commuter rail in town.

[patric]

2 1/2 hours to OKC isnt exactly exciting.  40 minutes would be, though...

[waterboy]

I am completely and utterly against it. TOTAL waste of money.  It will NOT bring in more dollars. We could better use the funds encouraging more density in and around downtown and for various mass trainsit options IN town, not between OKC and Tulsa. That would more likely spur growth here than some slow line between Tulsa and OKC.  There are probably more local people likely to use a line from BA or Jenks to Tulsa and back each day than would use one going from OKC to Tulsa and back. And it could be used to help us improve our density, pedestrian friendlieness, spur some TOD development, etc. And I am not even completely convinced on that, but Tulsa to OKC, nooooooo way.  If anything it will flop and become an expense that will be a rallying cry against any efforts for commuter rail in town.

Your view is surprising to me having read some of your other posts. I wonder if it comes from your hatred, distrust and jealousy of OKC? Maybe deserved, but not productive for us. Downtown density and passenger train service to OKC are both achievable and synergistic. Making it easier to travel between a larger metro to a smaller metro benefits both. You think people in the sprawling OKC area would not be interested in a leisurely train ride to visit the Blue Dome, Pearl, Brady and River districts? Of course they would.

Driving the Turnpike is a laborious chore and increasingly congested with trucking. Its faster mainly because everyone exceeds speed limits, but its constantly in a state of repair somewhere. It will always take about 1 1/2 hours to travel to the middle of OKC. But you can increase the speed of a rail system over time as well as the convenience of its station locations. It will in fact spur development around those locations. It would also stimulate the perception of the public that it is a viable alternative to driving/parking and thus increase the likelihood of the acceptance of mass transit within the metro. That will lead to increased densities and more walkable neighborhoods.

Lastly, consider this. Fuel availability issues (as well as water) will be THE issues in the coming decades. Having an alternative, and vastly more fuel efficient, rail transport system between the two metros means an uninterrupted supply route when trucks are too expensive to operate at the demands we put on them now. Here is a concrete example. Retailers, both brick/mortar and internet, rely on the trucking industry to deliver within 24/48 hours right now. You can order a desk from Staples and have it delivered the next day because it likely comes up 35 from Dallas, thru OKC and out to Tulsa. 24 hours!

When fuel costs spike, there are fuel surcharges and increased shipping times because they are locked into that delivery system. At some point it becomes unsustainable. However, having the option to ship on existing rail lines from Dallas to OKC keeps them in the loop but might cut us out. Our rail lines are mostly heavy freight and petrochemical oriented.

We should support any effort to modernize this state and the two metros are the only chance to do so. It certainly won't be Pawnee county that leads the way!

[SXSW]

I would love to see a rail link to OKC.  I would use it a few times a year, and even more if it was an extension of the Heartland Flyer so after stopping in downtown OKC it would go to Norman. 

[DTowner]

Florida Governor has declined the feds $2.4 Billion for high speed rail in Florida.  Among the reasons, he cites the high likelihood of huge costs overruns that must be covered by the state, huge operating subsidies longterm that must be covered by the state and the overly optimistic ridership estimates that are nearly equal to the ridership numbers of the Acela train in the densely populated northeast corridor. 

Here is his statement:  http://www.flgov.com/2011/02/16/florida-governor-rick-scott-rejects-federal-high-speed-rail/

[Townsend]

Florida Governor has declined the feds $2.4 Billion for high speed rail in Florida.  Among the reasons, he cites the high likelihood of huge costs overruns that must be covered by the state, huge operating subsidies longterm that must be covered by the state and the overly optimistic ridership estimates that are nearly equal to the ridership numbers of the Acela train in the densely populated northeast corridor. 

Here is his statement:  http://www.flgov.com/2011/02/16/florida-governor-rick-scott-rejects-federal-high-speed-rail/

Bring that $2.4 billion our way.  Heck yes.  We'll default on any overrun and be proud of it.   Oklahoma's motto would be "Bail us out, bail us out, bail us out.  We're too big to fail...OK?"

[nathanm]

Republican governors seem to be cutting off their noses a lot lately.

[Transport_Oklahoma]

Reminder-state rail plan hearing tonight (Feb. 16, 4:30-7pm). 

5202 S Hudson Ave
LaFortune Community Center

[Conan71]

Republican governors seem to be cutting off their noses a lot lately.

How is it cutting off your nose if you can see the program is going to unnecessarily saddle his state with cost over-runs?  Just because a governor refuses federal money doesn't mean they are "cutting off their nose" especially when there are strings attached which could penalize a state's citizens.  A Tampa to Orlando  line doesn't make much sense.  Are there that many people who commute daily between those two cities?  I could see a high speed rail all up the densely-populated east coast of Florida making a whole lot more sense. The only major outpost between Tampa and Orlando is Lakeland and it's not a big city nor a major destination.

His reasoning is sound based on good historical data.  He also indicates Florida could better invest in other infrastructure projects which will lead to growth:

"Historical data shows capital cost overruns are pervasive in 9 out of 10 high speed rail projects and that 2/3 of those projects inflated ridership projections by an average of 65 percent of actual patronage.

It is projected that 3.07 million people will use the train annually.  Keep in mind that Amtrak's Acela train in Washington, D.C., Boston, Philadelphia, New York and Baltimore only had 3.2 million riders in 2010.  And that market's population is 8 times the size of the Tampa/Orlando market.

President Obama's high-speed rail program is not the answer to Florida's economic recovery.
We must make investments in areas where we will get a return for the shareholders – Florida's taxpayers.

Rather than investing in a high-risk rail project, we should be focusing on improving our ports, rail and highway infrastructure to be in a position to attract the increased shipping that will result when the Panama Canal is expanded when the free trade agreements with Colombia and Panama are ratified and with the expansion of the economies of Central and South America.

By capturing a larger share of containerized imports entering our seaports, expanding export markets for Florida businesses and emerging as a global hub for trade and investment we can create up to an additional 143,000 jobs according to a recent chamber of commerce study."

[nathanm]

He's just replacing one set of made up numbers with another, only the second set doesn't involve someone giving his state billions of dollars.

[Conan71]

He's just replacing one set of made up numbers with another, only the second set doesn't involve someone giving his state billions of dollars.

He's citing pretty solid examples, Nathan.

[nathanm]

He's citing pretty solid examples, Nathan.

His examples of where the state should be spending money is made up. Also, comparing rail projects done in an inflationary environment where labor and materials costs are constantly increasing to one being done in an environment where that is not the case isn't exactly the best comparison to make. It completely ignores the larger picture. But that wasn't what I was talking about.

[Conan71]

His examples of where the state should be spending money is made up. Also, comparing rail projects done in an inflationary environment where labor and materials costs are constantly increasing to one being done in an environment where that is not the case isn't exactly the best comparison to make. It completely ignores the larger picture. But that wasn't what I was talking about.

What, honestly, would be the upshot to a Tampa/Orlando route?  Up and down the east coast of FLA makes much more sense.  The route he's refusing crosses a pretty barren area.  Not only that, Tampa is a minor cruise port so it's not like it's going to open up Disney World to a bunch of new tourists. 

It's called restraint.  Just because you can doesn't mean you should. 

[Hoss]

What, honestly, would be the upshot to a Tampa/Orlando route?  Up and down the east coast of FLA makes much more sense.  The route he's refusing crosses a pretty barren area.  Not only that, Tampa is a minor cruise port so it's not like it's going to open up Disney World to a bunch of new tourists. 

It's called restraint.  Just because you can doesn't mean you should. 

Unless it's Marshall's beer.

Ha!  Got in my Marshall reference at 11 pages!