Nashville commuter rail

[Kenosha]

PEOPLE....FORGET ABOUT THE BA FEASIBILITY STUDY, particularly the parts about station location and technology.  Their ridership stats are pretty good, considering those parameters... but that is not the type of train Tulsa is looking at.

For information regarding the technology being considered in Tulsa, start here:

http://allsystemsgo.capmetro.org/capital-metrorail-vehicles.shtml

http://allsystemsgo.capmetro.org/capital-metrorail.shtml

The Capital MetroRail trains are being manufactured in Switzerland by Stadler Bussnang AG.

Each vehicle will be self-propelled by two diesel electric engines and will be able to start and stop faster than traditional commuter rail vehicles.

The trains have a capacity of 200 passengers, 108 seated and 92 standing, as well as spaces for passengers with wheelchairs (fully ADA com-pliant) and bicycles.

Each train will feature luggage racks, high back seats, low floor entry for easy access, and WiFi.

The rail car communications system includes visual and acoustic passenger information, a video recording system and a wireless LAN infrastructure.

After assembly of the first two rail vehicles, Stadler conducted static and track testing. Capital MetroRail trains will exceed both U.S. and European safety standards.

[booWorld]

quote:Originally posted by Kenosha

PEOPLE....FORGET ABOUT THE BA FEASIBILITY STUDY, particularly the parts about station location and technology.  Their ridership stats are pretty good, considering those parameters... but that is not the type of train Tulsa is looking at.

The feasibility study was presented to Tulsa Transit about 10 months ago.  Has locomotive technology changed so much since then that we can afford to forget the study?  It seems to me that the Cap Metro type of train might change the estimates for the capital costs for the system and possibly the operation costs, but how would it significantly alter the development costs for a Sheridan or Memorial station?

Oil Capital began this topic with some information about how the ridership for the Nashville commuter train was over-estimated.  The proposed system for Tulsa will have costs and benefits.  What are the costs of the new type of train?

[Kenosha]

quote:Originally posted by booWorld



The feasibility study was presented to Tulsa Transit about 10 months ago. Has locomotive technology changed so much since then that we can afford to forget the study? It seems to me that the Cap Metro type of train might change the estimates for the capital costs for the system and possibly the operation costs, but how would it significantly alter the development costs for a Sheridan or Memorial station?

The short answer is yes. The technology presented by the consultants was for "commuter" rail vehicles that are found in cities like Dallas (TRE btwn Fort Worth and Dallas) California, Albuquerque (Rail Runner). These are legacy systems designed for long runs with few stops. The CapMetro vehicle is the first of its kind in the US...basically its an FRA compliant low-floor DMU.

The capital costs for rail upgrades would, roughly, remain the same.  The rolling stock is a bit higher, but not significant in the scheme of things.  Especially when you compare it to the possibility of adding lanes to the BA.  Not even close.

It would probably alter station costs, because there would be more of them. Unlike the technology factored in the feasibility study, the Stadler vehicles allow for shorter start and stop times, like a light rail vehicle, which is the primary reason there are only two mid-run stops in that scenario.

Of course more stations means more opportunity for TOD...and likewise would be accessible to more Tulsans, which would alter the ridership numbers in the positive direction.  

So yes, it totally changes everything.

[booWorld]

^ Does the City of Tulsa or Tulsa Transit intend to build a system based on the newer technology?  If so, please post your sources.

[Kenosha]

What Tulsa Transit intends to do is use the Federal money they received this past year for the Alternatives Analysis, which is step one of the federal transit administration's process to be eligible for New Starts/Small Starts Funding, which is how the majority of rail and BRT based transit systems are funded.  Alternatives Analysis (AA) is like that feasibility study on steroids, so the projected numbers from the feasibility study will be fully vetted, I assure you.  AA also includes Environmental Impact studies and some preliminary engineering.

The Alternatives Analysis will, and is required to focus on multiple technologies, including Bus Rapid Transit (which I don't think works in the BA Corridor, but that is a whole 'nother post), but there is what is called a locally preferred option.  I would say that, as of right now, the CapMetro style DMU is that option.

The three potential alternatives studied are a No-Build alternative, a Transportation Systems Management (TSM) alternative, and build alternatives.

I am not going to cite my sources.  But they are good ones. You'll just have to trust me.


As far as the city is concerned...I couldn't say if they have gone as far as to choose a technology, but they are aware of the CapMetro technology.

[booWorld]

quote:Originally posted by Kenosha

quote:Originally posted by booWorld



The feasibility study was presented to Tulsa Transit about 10 months ago. Has locomotive technology changed so much since then that we can afford to forget the study? It seems to me that the Cap Metro type of train might change the estimates for the capital costs for the system and possibly the operation costs, but how would it significantly alter the development costs for a Sheridan or Memorial station?

The short answer is yes. The technology presented by the consultants was for "commuter" rail vehicles that are found in cities like Dallas (TRE btwn Fort Worth and Dallas) California, Albuquerque (Rail Runner). These are legacy systems designed for long runs with few stops. The CapMetro vehicle is the first of its kind in the US...basically its an FRA compliant low-floor DMU.

The consultants presented both technologies.

quote:
The capital costs for rail upgrades would, roughly, remain the same.

According to the consultants, the costs for rail upgrades would be precisely the same for both technologies.

quote:
The rolling stock is a bit higher, but not significant in the scheme of things.  Especially when you compare it to the possibility of adding lanes to the BA.  Not even close.

The consultants estimated the train equipment costs for the DMU technology would be $11.6 million, as opposed to $10 million for the older technology.  

quote:
It would probably alter station costs, because there would be more of them. Unlike the technology factored in the feasibility study, the Stadler vehicles allow for shorter start and stop times, like a light rail vehicle, which is the primary reason there are only two mid-run stops in that scenario.

The primary reason there are no stops proposed between 35th/Sheridan and 13th/Lewis is because the rail line is in the middle of the Broken Arrow Expressway along that segment, and stations would be difficult and expensive to construct there.  The primary reason there are no stops proposed between 41st/Memorial and downtown Broken Arrow is because the rail line runs through sparsely populated industrial areas.

quote:
Of course more stations means more opportunity for TOD...and likewise would be accessible to more Tulsans, which would alter the ridership numbers in the positive direction.

Yes, more stations would mean more opportunity for TOD.  Where do you propose more stations be built?  For stations located in industrial areas, how will the freight trains work with the passenger trains?  Do you envision some type of high-density transit corridor along the tracks between Memorial and downtown BA?  How many stations do you have in mind along the proposed route?  

quote:
So yes, it totally changes everything.

The study was presented less than one year ago. If Tulsa Transit is now considering a commuter rail system with significantly different equipment and with a significantly different arrangement of train stations, then it makes me wonder why I ought to believe what they think might happen in 2030.

[booWorld]

quote:Originally posted by Kenosha

I am not going to cite my sources.  But they are good ones. You'll just have to trust me.

I think you know much more about the subject than I.  But I do question why we should forget a study completed 10 months ago.  Is that study really invalid already?  Oil Capital began this topic with some doubt about the ridership projections.  Now I'm doubting the entire process of the transit study itself.  

If TOD is allowed along the proposed route at close intervals, then I think the commuter rail could be viable.  But where?  At what intensity?  At what cost?

[Kenosha]

Perhaps I overstated it...don't forget about the feasibility study...it's just, by no means, the last and final thought on the matter.  Things change.  In fact, I believe Lockwood, Andrews and Newman were consultants on the Austin system...

To be clear:

This is Commuter Rail DMU in Albuquerque:






This is Commuter Rail DMU in Austin:





The Albuquerque Type DMU (Colorado Railcar) is the size of a regular locomotive engine and passenger car.  The Austin DMU is the size of a Light Rail vehicle.  Big difference.

DMU stands for Diesel Multiple Unit.  It means that the vehicle runs on Diesel instead of overhead electric, that's all.  There are all types of DMU vehicles. Sorry for the confusion.



http://interfleet-international.com/CorporateWebsite/News/News_Index.aspx?ArticleID=114

quote:

News - Group
Interfleet On Track For U.S. Rail First

Interfleet Technology Inc is overseeing the next stage of a multi-million-dollar project that will see a fleet of non FRA-compliant Diesel Multiple Units (DMUs) operating on a new 32-mile commuter rail system in Austin, Texas.

Interfleet's German subsidiary, Interfleet Technology GmbH in Cologne, is utilizing their skills and knowledge of vehicle engineering to oversee the production of the cars, and will shortly witness the testing & commissioning of the first DMU when it undergoes commissioning at the Stadler manufacturing site in Switzerland in late April.

This is the latest stage in a project that has seen Interfleet review global technology options, develop performance-based technical specifications and undertake design reviews for the project, which is being implemented by Capital Metropolitan Transportation Authority and executed by prime consultant Lockwood, Andrews and Newnam Inc. The new service will be called Capital MetroRail and is expected to be operational by late 2008.

Principal consultant Stephen Bonina, who has led Interfleet's involvement in the project from the company's Philadelphia office commented: "There's heavy auto congestion in Austin, and that's why this rail system is necessary. Austin is a high-tech city that really does need a modern transit system.

"A hallmark of success for this project, and perhaps why Interfleet Technology Inc has been so successful, is the cross-office support, with our offices in Philadelphia, Germany and the UK working closely to share knowledge and skills. Our engineering knowledge and the geographical location of our offices mean that we have the ability to provide local support, whether that's in the U.S. or in Europe."

Testing should last for two months, with the first DMU being shipped to Texas in September, with the rest following one a month.

The DMUs will be the second in Europe to comply with new EU regulations but will be the first in North America.

Not only has Interfleet provided research and design, it has also recommended maintenance and operational specifications and interior/exterior design concepts. Interfleet Inc has also helped with the tender evaluation from potential maintenance suppliers to provide future maintenance for the DMU fleet.

10 May 2007

[TeeDub]

Hey, these are the same guys that saved our city with 2025.  Look how much money the city made off that little adventure.

They wouldn't lie to us now would they?

[booWorld]

quote:Originally posted by Kenosha

Perhaps I overstated it...don't forget about the feasibility study...it's just, by no means, the last and final thought on the matter.  Things change.

Last year's study was not meant to be the last and final thought on the matter.  It was a $90,000 study.  The next study was to cost about $400,000 or so.  Of course things change.  If the intent now is to have more stations and more TOD, I'm asking where you think those stations and that TOD will, could, or should be constructed.

quote:
To be clear:

This is Commuter Rail DMU in Albuquerque:






This is Commuter Rail DMU in Austin:



The Albuquerque Type DMU (Colorado Railcar) is the size of a regular locomotive engine and passenger car.  The Austin DMU is the size of a Light Rail vehicle.  Big difference.

DMU stands for Diesel Multiple Unit.  It means that the vehicle runs on Diesel instead of overhead electric, that's all.  There are all types of DMU vehicles. Sorry for the confusion.

Lockwood, Andrews, and Newnam presented examples from both the New Mexico and the Austin systems to Tulsa Transit on April 30, 2007.  The Interfleet article you cited, which includes information about the Austin system from the same consultant hired by Tulsa Transit, is dated May 10, 2007.  It is difficult for me to believe that the consultant figured out how to implement a new technology for Austin within those 10 days after the Tulsa Transit presentation.  It also makes me wonder why Tulsa studied a particular technology with no serious consideration of actually employing that technology.  If Tulsa officials were looking at the newer Cap Metro type of train with more stations and more TOD, then why not include all of that in the study that was done for Tulsa?

quote:
http://interfleet-international.com/CorporateWebsite/News/News_Index.aspx?ArticleID=114

quote:

News - Group
Interfleet On Track For U.S. Rail First

Interfleet Technology Inc is overseeing the next stage of a multi-million-dollar project that will see a fleet of non FRA-compliant Diesel Multiple Units (DMUs) operating on a new 32-mile commuter rail system in Austin, Texas.

Interfleet's German subsidiary, Interfleet Technology GmbH in Cologne, is utilizing their skills and knowledge of vehicle engineering to oversee the production of the cars, and will shortly witness the testing & commissioning of the first DMU when it undergoes commissioning at the Stadler manufacturing site in Switzerland in late April.

This is the latest stage in a project that has seen Interfleet review global technology options, develop performance-based technical specifications and undertake design reviews for the project, which is being implemented by Capital Metropolitan Transportation Authority and executed by prime consultant Lockwood, Andrews and Newnam Inc. The new service will be called Capital MetroRail and is expected to be operational by late 2008.

Principal consultant Stephen Bonina, who has led Interfleet's involvement in the project from the company's Philadelphia office commented: "There's heavy auto congestion in Austin, and that's why this rail system is necessary. Austin is a high-tech city that really does need a modern transit system.

"A hallmark of success for this project, and perhaps why Interfleet Technology Inc has been so successful, is the cross-office support, with our offices in Philadelphia, Germany and the UK working closely to share knowledge and skills. Our engineering knowledge and the geographical location of our offices mean that we have the ability to provide local support, whether that's in the U.S. or in Europe."

Testing should last for two months, with the first DMU being shipped to Texas in September, with the rest following one a month.

The DMUs will be the second in Europe to comply with new EU regulations but will be the first in North America.

Not only has Interfleet provided research and design, it has also recommended maintenance and operational specifications and interior/exterior design concepts. Interfleet Inc has also helped with the tender evaluation from potential maintenance suppliers to provide future maintenance for the DMU fleet.

10 May 2007

[Kenosha]

quote: Lockwood, Andrews, and Newnam presented examples from both the New Mexico and the Austin systems to Tulsa Transit on April 30, 2007. The Interfleet article you cited, which includes information about the Austin system from the same consultant hired by Tulsa Transit, is dated May 10, 2007. It is difficult for me to believe that the consultant figured out how to implement a new technology for Austin within those 10 days after the Tulsa Transit presentation. It also makes me wonder why Tulsa studied a particular technology with no serious consideration of actually employing that technology. If Tulsa officials were looking at the newer Cap Metro type of train with more stations and more TOD, then why not include all of that in the study that was done for Tulsa?  

Boo,

You are assuming that the level of detail that the consultants presented on the technology was substantive in nature.  It wasn't. It was a cursory overview of the technology.  The Austin trains weren't even built at that point, so any data regarding them was speculative.

That being said, Tulsa Transit's perspective, at that point, wasn't to find the latest and greatest technology for a system, but to find the most 'cost efficient' way to implement a rail based commuter train from BA to Downtown ONLY.  With those parameters in mind, they were considering refurbished rail cars and engines and Bus Rapid Transit...whatever was cheapest.  The steering committee accepted the results of the feasibility study based on those parameters.  

What INCOG has done in the wake of that study is to take it a step further.  Instead of just examining a single corridor, they have looked at what would be the best solution for a rail based system.  Locomotive styled commuter rail is limited in its flexibility.  What the Austin styled technology does is allow you to plan a system that is wholly integrated, meaning that you could run the same technology from BA to Downtown as you would from Downtown to the West bank, and Downtown to the Airport.  Having a single technology, as opposed to having several different types of trains also makes sense from maintenance and operating perspective.  The Austin style train is also nimble enough to operate "on street" if necessary, like a light rail vehicle.  The Austin technology also allows for express runs and local service.  The larger trains are limited in how many stops they can make because of the long stop/start times.

The consultant wasn't considering these parameters; therefore they didn't present the Austin option.  I would say that since INCOG has been working on this larger system model, Tulsa Transit's perspective has changed.  


As far as stations are concerned, as I mentioned earlier, I think you would have Express service from Broken Arrow, and local service.  Potentially, you could have 5, 6 or 7 stops in that 14 mile corridor.

•   Main Street Broken Arrow
•   169 Park and Ride
•   Memorial
•   31st & Yale
•   21st & BA
•   11th & Lewis
•   6th Street/Pearl District
•   3rd and Lansing Area (Walking distance from proposed ballpark)
•   Union Station
•   BOK Center

[booWorld]

quote:Originally posted by Kenosha

quote: Lockwood, Andrews, and Newnam presented examples from both the New Mexico and the Austin systems to Tulsa Transit on April 30, 2007. The Interfleet article you cited, which includes information about the Austin system from the same consultant hired by Tulsa Transit, is dated May 10, 2007. It is difficult for me to believe that the consultant figured out how to implement a new technology for Austin within those 10 days after the Tulsa Transit presentation. It also makes me wonder why Tulsa studied a particular technology with no serious consideration of actually employing that technology. If Tulsa officials were looking at the newer Cap Metro type of train with more stations and more TOD, then why not include all of that in the study that was done for Tulsa?  

Boo,

You are assuming that the level of detail that the consultants presented on the technology was substantive in nature.  It wasn't. It was a cursory overview of the technology.  The Austin trains weren't even built at that point, so any data regarding them was speculative.

Actually, I was looking at the entire study as cursory, not substantive.  This topic was started by Oil Capital as a reaction to some discussion on another topic in which ridership projections presented by the "expert consultants" were accepted and defended without question.  Whenever I see an initial post ending with a winking emoticon, I'm assuming it's at least a bit tongue-in-cheek.

And whenever I see a post which begins with a command in all upper case letters such as "PEOPLE -- FORGET ABOUT THE FEASIBILITY STUDY" then I wonder what's behind it.  The emphasis was yours, not mine.

A light rail system for Tulsa was studied about 15 years ago.  It would be interesting to see how current thinking has evolved since then.  I agree with you that if a system with nimble vehicles is to be studied, then the results will not be the same as they would be for a single corridor.

quote:As far as stations are concerned, as I mentioned earlier, I think you would have Express service from Broken Arrow, and local service.  Potentially, you could have 5, 6 or 7 stops in that 14 mile corridor.

•   Main Street Broken Arrow
•   169 Park and Ride
•   Memorial
•   31st & Yale
•   21st & BA
•   11th & Lewis
•   6th Street/Pearl District
•   3rd and Lansing Area (Walking distance from proposed ballpark)
•   Union Station
•   BOK Center

Sorry, but I missed your earlier post on station locations.  You've listed ten locations.  Of those, four or five were included in the Lockwood, Andrews, and Newnam study.  Are you suggesting all 10 locations, or 5 to 7 of them?

[Kenosha]

quote:Originally posted by booWorld


Actually, I was looking at the entire study as cursory, not substantive.  This topic was started by Oil Capital as a reaction to some discussion on another topic in which ridership projections presented by the "expert consultants" were accepted and defended without question.  Whenever I see an initial post ending with a winking emoticon, I'm assuming it's at least a bit tongue-in-cheek.

And whenever I see a post which begins with a command in all upper case letters such as "PEOPLE -- FORGET ABOUT THE FEASIBILITY STUDY" then I wonder what's behind it.  The emphasis was yours, not mine.

A light rail system for Tulsa was studied about 15 years ago.  It would be interesting to see how current thinking has evolved since then.  I agree with you that if a system with nimble vehicles is to be studied, then the results will not be the same as they would be for a single corridor.

quote:As far as stations are concerned, as I mentioned earlier, I think you would have Express service from Broken Arrow, and local service.  Potentially, you could have 5, 6 or 7 stops in that 14 mile corridor.

•   Main Street Broken Arrow
•   169 Park and Ride
•   Memorial
•   31st & Yale
•   21st & BA
•   11th & Lewis
•   6th Street/Pearl District
•   3rd and Lansing Area (Walking distance from proposed ballpark)
•   Union Station
•   BOK Center

Sorry, but I missed your earlier post on station locations.  You've listed ten locations.  Of those, four or five were included in the Lockwood, Andrews, and Newnam study.  Are you suggesting all 10 locations, or 5 to 7 of them?

Truthfully, I was talking about midpoint stops, not the Main Street BA and Union Station stops in that figure.

I would say that some of those stops, particularly close to downtown would be either or...that is where the AA comes into play.  11th and Lewis is probably a good location for a stop due to its proximity to TU, Hillcrest, Cherry Street etc...is it too close to the 21st street station, which could service Utica Square, St. Johns and the Fairgrounds?  The 6th Street/3rd and Lansing stops are probably interchangeable. The Arena stop would probably be part of a line that would provide access to the west bank.

The reason I emphasized the the feasibility study is because these tend to be taken as gospel, and that is just not the case.  It was/is a starting point for the discussion, not the end all be all.  That's all.  I didn't mean to discount the work done on the study.  It was fine for the parameters given, but like I said, those have changed.

[booWorld]

quote:Originally posted by Kenosha

quote:As far as stations are concerned, as I mentioned earlier, I think you would have Express service from Broken Arrow, and local service.  Potentially, you could have 5, 6 or 7 stops in that 14 mile corridor.

•   Main Street Broken Arrow
•   169 Park and Ride
•   Memorial
•   31st & Yale
•   21st & BA
•   11th & Lewis
•   6th Street/Pearl District
•   3rd and Lansing Area (Walking distance from proposed ballpark)
•   Union Station
•   BOK Center

Truthfully, I was talking about midpoint stops, not the Main Street BA and Union Station stops in that figure.

I would say that some of those stops, particularly close to downtown would be either or...that is where the AA comes into play.  11th and Lewis is probably a good location for a stop due to its proximity to TU, Hillcrest, Cherry Street etc...is it too close to the 21st street station, which could service Utica Square, St. Johns and the Fairgrounds?  The 6th Street/3rd and Lansing stops are probably interchangeable. The Arena stop would probably be part of a line that would provide access to the west bank.

The 31st & Yale or the 21st & BA locations would be difficult and expensive to construct.  They would have access problems as were addressed in the Oklahoma Fixed Guideway Transportation System Study prepared for ODOT by Parsons Brinckerhoff in the late 80s and early 90s.  However, depending on the usage, either or both locations could be worth the extra expense.  In some of Tulsa's existing or historic neighborhoods, I think TOD will be met with resistance.  The idea behind the proposed conservation district ordinance is to prevent the intrusion of generally more intense development in existing single-family neighborhoods.  The land around stations will need to be allowed to be developed intensely, or it will need to be a location with an existing intensity of employment, population, and/or destination of some sort.

Many of these rail transit and TOD concepts could work in Tulsa.  I'm not arguing that.  But the TMAPC has been on a trend to thwart intensification of older neighborhoods near downtown.  When the TMAPC suggested that my property be down-zoned to 2.66 dwelling units per acre, I begged them to leave the zoning alone.  

I tried to use the argument that increased population densities in central Tulsa would help support a viable public mass transit system, as many of my neighbors did not have cars.  That did not matter to the TMAPC or to INCOG support staff -- they thought it would be better to down-zone my property from 29 dwelling units per acre to 2.66 dwelling units per acre.  

I tried to use the argument that multi-family housing was an explicit written objective of the Comprehensive Plan for my neighborhood, and I wanted to have the right to build rental units.  That did not matter to the TMAPC or to INCOG support staff -- they thought it would be better to down-zone my property from 29 dwelling units per acre to a single-family district with a maximum of 2.66 dwelling units per acre.

I tried to argue that RM-2 zoning was in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan, and that I was satisfied with it and did not wish it to be re-zoned.  My wishes did not matter to the TMAPC.  The Comprehensive Plan Zoning Matrix did not matter to the TMAPC or INCOG -- they thought it would be a good idea to down-zone my property against my wishes from 29 dwelling units per acre to 2.66 dwelling units per acre.

I actually asked to be left alone because I welcomed increased intensity of development in central Tulsa.  But the TMAPC and INCOG did not leave me alone.  They fought me tooth and nail to get my property down-zoned from 29 dwelling units per acre to 2.66 dwelling units per acre.  They absolutely had to have it their way.

Now, if I see the "planners" at INCOG try to ram high-density TOD down the throats of Midtowners who don't want it, I'll be relunctant to support their "plans", however well-intentioned.  I won't be inclined to vote for a tax increase on myself which in essence transfers my property rights from central Tulsa to some contrived point along a railroad track.

quote:
The reason I emphasized the the feasibility study is because these tend to be taken as gospel, and that is just not the case.  It was/is a starting point for the discussion, not the end all be all.  That's all.  I didn't mean to discount the work done on the study.  It was fine for the parameters given, but like I said, those have changed.

Again, Oil Capital began this topic because some other users were taking the ridership projections in the study as gospel truth, or so it seemed from their posts.  I was curious to see what the average cost per trip would be based on the numbers in the feasibility study.  As I said in an earlier post, that cost was not as high as I expected it to be.

I think all of these studies should be thoroughly analyzed, questioned, and debated.  I've had an awful experience with the "planners" at INCOG, so it's very difficult for me to look at anything they say with an open mind.  Tulsa needs predictable planning and land use policies.  For Tulsa Transit to hire a consultant to conduct a feasibility study (cursory as it may be) and then for INCOG to take a stance of "Oh, that study -- that's sooooo 10 months ago -- our ideas have completely changed since way back in May of 2007" sounds silly and fickle to me.  If we don't have the foresight to see 10 months down the road, then how in the world will be able to predict something 20 years from now?    

[Chicken Little]

quote:Originally posted by booWorld

Now, if I see the "planners" at INCOG try to ram high-density TOD down the throats of Midtowners who don't want it, I'll be relunctant to support their "plans", however well-intentioned.

I hope they won't, too.  But, I don't think that'll happen because the tracks are already in place.  Look at a map that shows existing tracks, http://maps.live.com/.  Outside of downtown, the train that runs down the BA is the only "midtown" line.  Train lines run down the west bank, and all over north Tulsa.  That's where new growth is needed most, and wanted most.  Sure, you can blow away a strip club, a lock-n-store, and a parking lot or two along the BA to make room for TOD, but I don't see how it could be too invasive. Ironically, I'd argue that midtowners could easily be feeling "left out" in a few years.  No tracks, no train.