Bates phones it in again: Transit

[brunoflipper]

quote:Originally posted by si_uk_lon_ok

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder

1) the MIT team did not cheat, card counting in your head is perfectly legal.  Though, casino's reserve the right to boot your butt out for doing it.  Also, with continuous shoes it is now impossible (jerks) & with Indian anti it might be impossible to win even with that advantage (don't EVER play blackjack with anti.  Dumbest thing ever).

Agreed.

Counting only works best towards the end of the deck when you have a better idea what is left and what the odds are. A good dealer should have shuffled the pack well well before you have any idea what is or isn't left.

You maybe able to do it in the classroom or at home, but I doubt you could pull it off in a casino.

i never said it was illegal... but collusion as a card counting team in blackjack cheats the other (non-team) players at the table... but i'll clarify that with bates next time see him...

ANYWHO, back on topic-
the light rail concept could be awesome even if it were done as a short-line run (from the arena? to ??)... just an initial line to get the concept rolling (literally)... but i agree with CL, you have to use cabs and buses as an adjunct...

and bates' crap about a rail down every street is wackooooooo!... last time i was in san fran and boston, i was in the middle of the business district and still had to hoof it 1/2 a mile to get to the subway/el... bfd, everyone does it and not a single person appeared to be that put out... i certainly was not... talk about a country mouse, it genuinely felt liberating to be able to walk 4 blocks get on a train, then transfer to a bus and be at my destination some 5 miles away, all without ever turning a key...

the beauty of this, is that we could actually be ahead of the game for once, our downtown is stunted... and as a result, we still have rail corridors all over the place and a ripe for redevelopment in and immediately adjacent to downtown... it would be easy to nurse these light rails in... we wait 20 years and we'll be like kansas city and denver who putting rail and struggling to fit it into a (relatively) dense urban core... do these light rails first and dollars to donuts says the burbs will be looking to tie in...

screw big-box retail, baseball, soccer and the river... this is our "build it and they will come" idea...

what would light rail cost per mile?

back to bates- why this topic? why now? does he see it as wedge to be used against the streets bond? is just against anything and everything? or has he feckin stroked out?

[Renaissance]

quote:Originally posted by brunoflipper

quote:Originally posted by si_uk_lon_ok

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder

1) the MIT team did not cheat, card counting in your head is perfectly legal.  Though, casino's reserve the right to boot your butt out for doing it.  Also, with continuous shoes it is now impossible (jerks) & with Indian anti it might be impossible to win even with that advantage (don't EVER play blackjack with anti.  Dumbest thing ever).

Agreed.

Counting only works best towards the end of the deck when you have a better idea what is left and what the odds are. A good dealer should have shuffled the pack well well before you have any idea what is or isn't left.

You maybe able to do it in the classroom or at home, but I doubt you could pull it off in a casino.

i never said it was illegal... but collusion as a card counting team in blackjack cheats the other (non-team) players at the table... but i'll clarify that with bates next time see him...

Hate to keep the threadjack alive, but you're not quite right.  Card counters play statistically perfect blackjack, just like the little cheatsheet card tells you--you know, always hit 16, hit on soft 17, always double on 11, etc.  They're not altering play based on their counting, they're altering their bets.  Their counting tells them when they're statistically likely to have a high count--18, 19, 20, or 21--and they bet heavy when this is the case.  When they're likely to have a low cout--12, 13, 14, 15, 16--they're likely to hit and bust, and so they pull back to the minimum.  Nobody's being cheated.  They're just detecting when the odds are in their favor, and highly leveraging those odds.  And getting quickly detected and kicked out.

quote:Originally posted by brunoflipper
ANYWHO, back on topic-
the light rail concept could be awesome even if it were done as a short-line run (from the arena? to ??)... just an initial line to get the concept rolling (literally)... but i agree with CL, you have to use cabs and buses as an adjunct...

and bates' crap about a rail down every street is wackooooooo!... last time i was in san fran and boston, i was in the middle of the business district and still had to hoof it 1/2 a mile to get to the subway/el... bfd, everyone does it and not a single person appeared to be that put out... i certainly was not... talk about a country mouse, it genuinely felt liberating to be able to walk 4 blocks get on a train, then transfer to a bus and be at my destination some 5 miles away, all without ever turning a key...

the beauty of this, is that we could actually be ahead of the game for once, our downtown is stunted... and as a result, we still have rail corridors all over the place and a ripe for redevelopment in and immediately adjacent to downtown... it would be easy to nurse these light rails in... we wait 20 years and we'll be like kansas city and denver who putting rail and struggling to fit it into a (relatively) dense urban core... do these light rails first and dollars to donuts says the burbs will be looking to tie in...

screw big-box retail, baseball, soccer and the river... this is our "build it and they will come" idea...

what would light rail cost per mile?

back to bates- why this topic? why now? does he see it as wedge to be used against the streets bond? is just against anything and everything? or has he feckin stroked out?

Back to the topic at hand: if it's going to happen, the best of all possible (and I mean feasible in the next 5-8 years) worlds would be to have the Broken Arrow commuter line funded and approved with the inclusion of stops at 13th and Lewis and 6th and Peoria.  Not all the trains would stop there; some would be express routes.  But if there are small stations established, MTTA could then run rubber wheeled trolley loops.  One could include TU and Cherry Street, and the other could run up Peoria and Riverside to connect the Pearl, Brookside, and the Jenks river developments.  

That's the best case in the real world we live in.  I guess I could imagine a trolley rail line being integrated into the 6th Street plan, to connect TU, Pearl and downtown, but that's just pipe dreaming.  The BA line and rubber wheeled trolleys . . . that could happen in less than 10 years.  That's what we need to push.  That, and a sister study for the Jenks line.  Where's pfox?  Talk to us, rail guy.

[si_uk_lon_ok]

You're right (of course) there is no way you'd run light rail down every major artery. You don't design any mass transit system like that you run it between key origins and destinations. You run a system that attempts to hook up as many key sources of travel and as many places people want to go. Running a long down 21st street because its straight is not how you plan for mass transit.

He also forgets the reason destinations and origins are currently dispersed is due to low density. It's hard to achieve high density if everyone has to drive to where they are going then park out front. If mass transit lead to density increasing you'd quickly find the shop you need next to the station you pass on your way home.

The beauty with a mass transit system is that more users benefit everyone. If more people take the rail, it makes more money and the service increases, making it better for the users. If more people start to drive to work everyone gets there slower, Tulsa really needs light rail no matter what people like Bates say.

[Renaissance]

Oh, and just so you know: Light rail is incredibly expensive, like millions and millions per mile.  Dallas' DART costs are spiraling out of hand.  We're talking over a billion dollars in the next decade.  It's too much money for Tulsa at the moment.  http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/localnews/stories/DN-dartletter_11met.ART0.West.Edition1.375da94.html

But certainly, it does awesome things for development.  http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/classifieds/news/homecenter/realestate/stories/011108dnbustods.29812b1.html

[RecycleMichael]

But I want to keep the threadjack alive...

I am a good card counter. I count aces and tens from all blackjack games and play very consistent. If there are more chances for me to get a 21, I increase my wager slightly...if less, I have the discipline to walk away.

Gambling, like business and marriage, is about both money management and risk management combined with luck.

[booWorld]

INCOG conducted a fixed guideway mass transit feasibility study around 1990.  There might have been some updates since then -- I don't know.

The conclusion of that study would support the points Michael Bates made in his opinion column.  In general, Tulsa does not have the density to support trolleys.  Flexible route schemes with vehicles such as jitneys make more sense in places developed as sparsely as Tulsa is.

The INCOG study included several potential rail routes, with the Tulsa-BA route being the most feasible.  One of the problems with that route is that the tracks are in the middle of the highway for several miles.  Station design and access in the middle of the BA expressway would be expensive and difficult.  Also, the TMAPC has been on a mission of down-zoning older neighborhoods to incredibly low suburban densities -- nothing close to what could support a viable light rail system.

With few exceptions, Tulsa has been planned to be very spread out with wide separations between buildings and between use districts.  The price of gasoline is a factor, but until the TMAPC allows for urban densities, mass transit systems will not be feasible.  There are too few people spread out over too much land.
 

[TheArtist]

quote:Originally posted by Floyd

Oh, and just so you know: Light rail is incredibly expensive, like millions and millions per mile.  Dallas' DART costs are spiraling out of hand.  We're talking over a billion dollars in the next decade.  It's too much money for Tulsa at the moment.  http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/localnews/stories/DN-dartletter_11met.ART0.West.Edition1.375da94.html

But certainly, it does awesome things for development.  http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/classifieds/news/homecenter/realestate/stories/011108dnbustods.29812b1.html

I believe they estimated the BA to Downtown Tulsa route with several stops/transportation nodes would cost about 40 mill. The rail line is already there. It would be the perfect start between our biggest suburb. BA wants to start having higher density nodes"part of their downtown long range plan has a possible stop along the line there with midrise living around it, and the places where there would be stops along that line in Tulsa are already near high travel areas and some high density areas to boot. Getting it started along that line and then promoting that to developers, allowing developers to use that as a selling point for placing say midrise condos, lofts, apartments, retail, etc. near those stops would spur those areas to become all the more dense and walkable. We are VERY lucky to have right of ways, relativly high population areas, and a rail line already in place there. It wont cost billions at all.

It would be a dream scenario in any other city.  We are at just the right place in our growth and development to start thinking ahead for having a rail line there in say 10 or 15 years time.  If you say this is part of the plan, that you ARE going to do it. The city can begin getting the properties they will need for stations and parking when they are available and relatively cheap. PLUS developers knowing that those areas will in a few year shave access to light rail, will begin developeing with that in mind and the city can also encourage and zone for more high density development to be going in during that 10-15 year time span. So that by the time that you are ready to start the service, most of your ducks will be in a row.

If for instance we agreed with BA to have the rail. They could buy up property for their station and encourage purposeful growth around it rather than waiting until something else is built there and wishing you had planned ahead.

Saying your going to do it along that line doesn't mean you do it immediately. It would be smarter to say it WILL be done, we are planning for it to happen, and then take steps during that time to make sure the growth around it serves that plan.

I am kind of puzzled by peoples responses on here. There were studies, then meetings and public discussions on this, just this last year and how it would all work "timeline wise, expense, demographic, and development wise" if we were to adopt that line as something we wanted to do as a city.

Deciding that we will or want to do it is not the same as saying we are going to put it in right this moment. Even if we decided we wanted to do it right now it would take a decade or more to implement. And the longer you take to decide,  the more you push that date further back as well. Plus the more expensive the properties become. For example there is still some available property near one of the planned stations near BA. That area is infilling and if you wait too long someone may buy it and build on that property. It is one of the few available good spots left to buy. It will cost a whoooole lot more to buy if it gets built on. The Wal-Mart that the Blue Cross just bought on memorial was another location where they planned for a stop to be. It is a large piece of property they could have gotten fairly cheaply, had lots of parking, is right on the rail, right on a busy corridor with connecting bus routes, etc. The longer time goes by the more missed opportunities for land purchase and encouraging the right kind of development we will lose.

Nobody was saying it would be something we would start right this second, but saying we "are going" "future tense" to do it and its a definite part of the plan will allow us to NOW begin taking the sort of steps we need to in order to make it more easily and cheaply happen in the near future.

[Renaissance]

Yes.  The BA line would be heavy commuter rail.  It is absolutely feasible and in my opinion should absolutely be funded by the upcoming street bond.  The study was completed less than a year ago, and it's ready to roll.  We just have to be intelligent and integrate commuter transit into our street plan.

Light rail, on the other hand, would be incredibly expensive.  No one is seriously considering a light rail system in Tulsa at this time.  I mean, dream away, and maybe in 10 years it'll be time to plan the beginnings of a light rail system.  But we ARE seriously considering heavy commuter rail, right now.  Everyone should make sure they understand the difference, starting with Bates the opinion maker.  If you convince people that street money is going to go to some sort of tram system, rather than sensible commuter rail, you're doing a disservice to the community by confusing voters.

[cannon_fodder]

continuation of thread jack, for those that want to read past.

quote:Bruno said...but collusion as a card counting team in blackjack cheats the other (non-team) players at the table.

Blackjack is a game against the house, a given players actions have no statistical impact on the other players.  If I split my tens and double down against a 19 - it really doesnt effect you. If I'm on third base and decide to hit a 16 against dealers 15 - it doesnt matter.  In spite of the jerks at the table that insist you are stealing their mojo, it is just as likely to get them a better card as it is to "steal" their card.

Likewise, if I count cards and up my bet when the shoot is hot it has no effect on the other players at all.

For that matter, if I had perfect knowledge of the deck and played my hand accordingly, it would have no effect on the other players.

Very simply, it is a game against the house.  A players actions have no statistical (large number) consequence against other players.  I might take your good card, or take your bust card... but in the long run there is no effect.

[brunoflipper]

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder

continuation of thread jack, for those that want to read past.

quote:Bruno said...but collusion as a card counting team in blackjack cheats the other (non-team) players at the table.

Blackjack is a game against the house, a given players actions have no statistical impact on the other players.  If I split my tens and double down against a 19 - it really doesnt effect you. If I'm on third base and decide to hit a 16 against dealers 15 - it doesnt matter.  In spite of the jerks at the table that insist you are stealing their mojo, it is just as likely to get them a better card as it is to "steal" their card.

Likewise, if I count cards and up my bet when the shoot is hot it has no effect on the other players at all.

For that matter, if I had perfect knowledge of the deck and played my hand accordingly, it would have no effect on the other players.

Very simply, it is a game against the house.  A players actions have no statistical (large number) consequence against other players.  I might take your good card, or take your bust card... but in the long run there is no effect.

ok, so you count cards and statistically  odds are high that the next card in the deck is a face/10 card... you've got  a a pair of 3's showing... the dealer is showing an 8... by all rights you should hit... but you're buddy michael to your left has 11... and since you're cahoots you stand... he gets his ten and winds up at 21... so is this still legit?
i always thought it was the team play rather than the card counting that got them into trouble...

[Chicken Little]

quote:Originally posted by booWorld

INCOG conducted a fixed guideway mass transit feasibility study around 1990.  There might have been some updates since then -- I don't know.

The conclusion of that study would support the points Michael Bates made in his opinion column.

That's kind of the point, Booworld.  Michael is making a case using stale assumptions.  And he's offering a "solution" that is not really a solution in first-world countries.  Jitneys are a potential enhancement, but not a suitable replacement for mass transit.

[TheArtist]

quote:Originally posted by booWorld

INCOG conducted a fixed guideway mass transit feasibility study around 1990.  There might have been some updates since then -- I don't know.

The conclusion of that study would support the points Michael Bates made in his opinion column.  In general, Tulsa does not have the density to support trolleys.  Flexible route schemes with vehicles such as jitneys make more sense in places developed as sparsely as Tulsa is.

The INCOG study included several potential rail routes, with the Tulsa-BA route being the most feasible.  One of the problems with that route is that the tracks are in the middle of the highway for several miles.  Station design and access in the middle of the BA expressway would be expensive and difficult.  Also, the TMAPC has been on a mission of down-zoning older neighborhoods to incredibly low suburban densities -- nothing close to what could support a viable light rail system.

With few exceptions, Tulsa has been planned to be very spread out with wide separations between buildings and between use districts.  The price of gasoline is a factor, but until the TMAPC allows for urban densities, mass transit systems will not be feasible.  There are too few people spread out over too much land.
 

There was a new study done just this last year. It was in the news, there were public meetings and presentations. It mapped out where the stations would be. How much different stations would cost. How it would link in with the bus service. Gave cost and time estimates for several different scenarios and showed that it would be feasible for a Downtown BA run. One estimate was about 40 mill. Even had schedules for times the train could  run, they had worked out possible agreements with Union Pacific who owns the rail for time slots, and they even gave different estimates for the costs of tickets. Showed projected ridership numbers, low and high range, and how it would likely evolve over time ridership wise and cost wise. It was a very stripped down basic "starter line" intended to just "get things rolling". I thought they did a very good job of being frugal and yet having a workable system. Not your usual city plan that seems to want to spend lots of money. They looked at ways to get the most impact for the least amount of money to get a rail started in Tulsa.

Wasnt there an earlier thread on here about all of this that had pics of the maps showing the route and likely stations, costs, etc?

This new study is what the city is considering. Not the ancient incog study from two decades ago.

Perhaps Bates was asleep during the presentation of the new study?

[booWorld]

In his opinion piece, Michael Bates offered an alternative to spending millions of dollars on a light rail system that would be used by very few Tulsans, not a "solution" to anything:

quote:
Rather than spend millions to build a rail system that few Tulsans would use, there are a couple of things we could do to make it possible for more Tulsans to get around without a car.

First, let's do what we can to rebuild and reconnect the urban core of our city, to recreate an area where car-free living would be practical. The small zone that was developed before streetcars gave way to automobiles, roughly between Pine and 21st Street, Union and Harvard, has lost population to urban renewal, expansion of hospitals and universities, freeway construction, and the relentless expansion of downtown parking lots. An area that was home to more than 60,000 Tulsans in 1960 had less than half that population in 2000.

Implementing the city's Pearl District plan would be a good first step. Stormwater improvements would remove the Sixth Street corridor between downtown and TU from the flood plain. Putting the district under form-based development rules, as a replacement for zoning, would facilitate high-density, mixed-use redevelopment.

Step two is to improve public transit within that urban core, with more frequent service connecting residents with workplaces, shopping, entertainment, the Utica medical corridor, TCC, TU, and OSU-Tulsa, and downtown.

That doesn't necessarily mean spending more money on Tulsa Transit. It's funny, we know from history that free markets are superior to centrally planned economies, and yet we expect a centrally planned bus network to succeed. In many parts of the world, privately-owned vehicles provide public mobility. The free market is the most efficient way to allocate supply to meet demand.

Let's end the ban on jitneys. Someone with a van ought to be able to offer rides to his neighbors to take them to jobs, shopping, and doctors and to charge them a fare to cover his expenses and his time. Unlike a taxi, jitneys would allow a large number of passengers to share the cost of a trip.

A jitney owner might choose to run a regular route or might shift routes as demand shifts over the course of the day. Some jitneys might work on a "call-ahead" reservation basis. Where city bus trips usually require at least one transfer, smaller, more flexible jitneys could provide point-to-point service, making it more practical for people to do without a car.

Jitneys could not only serve this central district, but could provide convenient transportation to people who can't or would rather not drive, wherever they live.

While some rules would be needed, barriers to entry and regulation should be kept to a minimum. The city's role could be to help potential riders understand how to use jitneys and to encourage shopping centers and office parks to allow jitneys to drop off and pick up passengers.

Before we tie ourselves to the train tracks, let's give free markets and entrepreneurial energy a chance to meet Tulsa's public transportation needs.

It's difficult to rebuild and reconnect the urban core of Tulsa between Pine and 21st, Union and Harvard with the TMAPC pushing down-zoning in that area of the city to ridiculously low suburban densities.  The de-population of central Tulsa and sprawl of the surrounding suburbs is a by-product of decades and decades of intentional planning and zoning policies aimed at spreading people and buildings farther apart.  The suburban mindset is deeply ingrained here, and a light rail system won't change that fact.

Allowing jitneys seems to be worth trying.  Perhaps I missed it, but I don't see anything in Michael's opinion column proposing that jitneys replace Tulsa Transit.

As far as stale assumptions go, what has changed in Tulsa since 1990 which invalidates Michael's suggestions?  The price of gas has remained relatively inexpensive.  Are there more or fewer cars per capita now than there were 17 years ago?  Are there more or fewer persons per square mile living in Tulsa today as compared to 1990?  In general, are streets in better or worse shape now than they were then?  Have demand for and usage of Tulsa Transit increased or decreased during the past 17 years?  Are there more or fewer bus routes now compared to 1990?  How about headways and travel times on Tulsa now?  Are they longer or shorter than they were in 1990?  Are taxes higher or lower now than they were then?

If it comes to a question of whether to raise taxes in order to fund a light rail system, then I will be unwilling to pay for something that won't be very useful.  In a city which can't afford to operate public swimming pools, street lights, and fountains, we need to look at what is pragmatic.  Thinking that a light rail system will work for Tulsa now or anytime in the near future is naive and somewhat stale itself.  We don't have the population density or the demand for mass transit to warrant such an enormous expenditure.    

[booWorld]

quote:Originally posted by TheArtist

quote:Originally posted by booWorld

INCOG conducted a fixed guideway mass transit feasibility study around 1990.  There might have been some updates since then -- I don't know.

The conclusion of that study would support the points Michael Bates made in his opinion column.  In general, Tulsa does not have the density to support trolleys.  Flexible route schemes with vehicles such as jitneys make more sense in places developed as sparsely as Tulsa is.

The INCOG study included several potential rail routes, with the Tulsa-BA route being the most feasible.  One of the problems with that route is that the tracks are in the middle of the highway for several miles.  Station design and access in the middle of the BA expressway would be expensive and difficult.  Also, the TMAPC has been on a mission of down-zoning older neighborhoods to incredibly low suburban densities -- nothing close to what could support a viable light rail system.

With few exceptions, Tulsa has been planned to be very spread out with wide separations between buildings and between use districts.  The price of gasoline is a factor, but until the TMAPC allows for urban densities, mass transit systems will not be feasible.  There are too few people spread out over too much land.
 

There was a new study done just this last year. It was in the news, there were public meetings and presentations. It mapped out where the stations would be. How much different stations would cost. How it would link in with the bus service. Gave cost and time estimates for several different scenarios and showed that it would be feasible for a Downtown BA run. One estimate was about 40 mill. Even had schedules for times the train could  run, they had worked out possible agreements with Union Pacific who owns the rail for time slots, and they even gave different estimates for the costs of tickets. Showed projected ridership numbers, low and high range, and how it would likely evolve over time ridership wise and cost wise. It was a very stripped down basic "starter line" intended to just "get things rolling". I thought they did a very good job of being frugal and yet having a workable system. Not your usual city plan that seems to want to spend lots of money. They looked at ways to get the most impact for the least amount of money to get a rail started in Tulsa.

Wasnt there an earlier thread on here about all of this that had pics of the maps showing the route and likely stations, costs, etc?

This new study is what the city is considering. Not the ancient incog study from two decades ago.

Perhaps Bates was asleep during the presentation of the new study?

I'll need to get a copy of the most recent study to compare with the 1990 study.  My guess is that there won't be much of a difference in the numbers, including fuel costs.  $40 million seems like a bunch of money to me for a city which can't afford the basics.

Density is the key.  If the TMAPC remains bent on forcing low, low suburban densities, then a light rail system will not be feasible.

Wait -- if concrete unit pavers are installed between the light rail tracks and around all the stations, then the system has a much better chance of success.  Concrete pavers can fix nearly any problem.

[booWorld]

quote:Originally posted by TheArtist

This new study is what the city is considering. Not the ancient incog study from two decades ago.

Perhaps Bates was asleep during the presentation of the new study?

Not sure about Michael Bates, but I snoozed right through  last year's Tulsa Transit train study.