What About Rail?

[pundit]

Hate to be the skunk at the party but what about cost. Light rail is very, very expensive even with government help. If Tulsa cannot even fix its streets, how will it ever do light rail?

[Bike_Billboards]

quote:Originally posted by Floyd
You keep repeating that rail cannibalizes buses, but a) it's not shown to be true--could cause more demand if folks need transit from nodes as Bates keeps harping on, and b) is it neceessarily a bad thing, Mr. Bike Fanatic?  Also, you people talking about the "fact" that rail doesn't spur development obviously haven't spent a lot of time with real estate private equity types.  I only learned about Transit Oriented Development (TOD) lately, but investors are falling over themselves trying to find new TODs to throw their fund money at.

You are just tee'd off because he's right.  

"Some cities clamoring to build extensive development around transit may be misinformed about the potential economic rewards."

Ms. Utter of Citiventure says that a lot of cities that are mainly funded by sales taxes are desperate for transit-oriented development because they are betting on a windfall resulting from the retail component. "But there is a great misunderstanding that transit attracts a lot more retail than it actually does," she says.

On Point 2, rail cannibalizing bus ridership is really not a bad thing.  But, isn't the whole point to get more motorists off the road?  Naaaaaaaah.  

WHAT am I missing, people?

You've only learned about TOD's recently?!  Yep.  Peter Calthorpe was born YESTERDAY.[}:)][}:)][}:)]

Floyd, ENJOY your wet dream.  [][}:)]

[booWorld]

quote:Originally posted by TheArtist

Does anyone who went to the meeting with Jack Crowley remember what we can talk about pertaining to rail?

I read something online or saw something on the news with him mentioning a rail line from downtown to Riverparks West somewhere near 23rd and Jackson.  Is that the starter line?  Are we talking about a short starter line or something more extensive?

[Renaissance]

quote:Originally posted by Bike_Billboards

quote:Originally posted by Floyd
You keep repeating that rail cannibalizes buses, but a) it's not shown to be true--could cause more demand if folks need transit from nodes as Bates keeps harping on, and b) is it neceessarily a bad thing, Mr. Bike Fanatic?  Also, you people talking about the "fact" that rail doesn't spur development obviously haven't spent a lot of time with real estate private equity types.  I only learned about Transit Oriented Development (TOD) lately, but investors are falling over themselves trying to find new TODs to throw their fund money at.

You are just tee'd off because he's right.  

"Some cities clamoring to build extensive development around transit may be misinformed about the potential economic rewards."

Ms. Utter of Citiventure says that a lot of cities that are mainly funded by sales taxes are desperate for transit-oriented development because they are betting on a windfall resulting from the retail component. "But there is a great misunderstanding that transit attracts a lot more retail than it actually does," she says.

On Point 2, rail cannibalizing bus ridership is really not a bad thing.  But, isn't the whole point to get more motorists off the road?  Naaaaaaaah.  

WHAT am I missing, people?

You've only learned about TOD's recently?!  Yep.  Peter Calthorpe was born YESTERDAY.[}:)][}:)][}:)]

Floyd, ENJOY your wet dream.  [][}:)]

So you're conceding that rail nodes might actually spur development, but arguing that the sales tax collections won't be worth the investment in public infrastrucure?

Turns out you're a policy wonk in Santa clothing?  Maybe.  Just plain annoying as hell?  yes.

Oh and Tay--most males haven't had a wet dream since adolescence.  If you're having developmental issues, you might want to look into those before mounting another banana seat.

IGNORED.

[Bike_Billboards]

quote:Originally posted by TheArtist
I know real artists, people of all kinds like hanging around real artists, and your no artist. Please take your meds.

New Rule: Pull stick out of BTUT, before bicycling.

[Bike_Billboards]

quote:Originally posted by DwnTwnTul

I remember when Dallas' DART was just a concept.  They planned to have small communities spring up along the rail at various rail stops.  They envisioned residential mixed with office space, restaurants, and entertainment.  This vision indeed came to fruition and has proven quite successful.  

Yep.  Righto.  But, at what PRICE?  DFW has one of the nation's HIGHEST ad valorem taxes.  They built DART on the backs of old ladies on fixed incomes.

And, Oklahoma is STILL a donor state.  Hell will FREEZE, before Inhofe earmarks an urban commuter transit project.

[Bike_Billboards]

quote:Originally posted by Floyd
So you're conceding that rail nodes might actually spur development, but arguing that the sales tax collections won't be worth the investment in public infrastrucure?

Sure.  Rail nodes MIGHT spur development.  But, do you really want to bet MILLIONS and MILLIONS of your tax dollars per line to find out?  For what L.A. spend to build the Red Line, they could have just add what how many more buses and STILL have money left over to give ALL transit patrons a FREE Prius.

What rate of a City sales tax would be worth urban commuter rail?  10%, 15%, 20%?  You tell me.

But, that wasn't really the point, right?

[booWorld]

quote:Originally posted by pundit

Hate to be the skunk at the party but what about cost. Light rail is very, very expensive even with government help. If Tulsa cannot even fix its streets, how will it ever do light rail?

The cost of widening I-44 was cited by pfox in a previous post:

quote:Originally posted by pfox

350 million for Yale to Riverside.  Over 100 million per mile.  We could, using the existing tracks here in Tulsa, implement darn near 45 miles of passenger rail for that cost.

That's about $7.8 million per mile for a rail system using existing tracks.  A light rail system on new tracks most likely would cost more than that, depending on the proposed route.

EDIT:  The proposed commuter rail from Tulsa to Broken Arrow on existing tracks was projected to cost about $3.07 to $3.5 million per mile.  That was the capital cost for a 14 mile route with four stations.

[Bike_Billboards]

quote:Originally posted by booWorld

The proposed commuter rail from Tulsa to Broken Arrow on existing tracks was projected to cost about $3.5 million per mile.

Now we are getting WARMER.  For $4 Million per mile, just give the projected ridership FREE Priuses.  Problem SOLVED.

$100 million per mile for I-44 is actually a good thing.  When gas hits $6, it's gonna make a great BIKE path.  []

[Bike_Billboards]

quote:Originally posted by pfox
In order for Mr. Bates or Mr. Little to operate in this city without a car.  Well...that is not a likely scenario, is it?

According to the Bartlett/Davis Complete Our Streets Report, almost 100,000 Tulsans, 28% of the metro populations, do NOT have access to vehicles, presumably automobiles.  How are they getting around?

I agree Bates might be too FAT to get around town without a car.  But, C-Little might do very well without driving his big Lexus to spinning class.

quote:
We are not looking at rail to eliminate cars.  We are looking at rail because what is most important in transortation planning is redundancy.

Sometimes the answer to the question is the simplest one.

What's most important in transportation planning is COMMON sense.

quote:
What that means is, good transportation systems work together, overlap, and provide options when one system breaks down.

Bikes ALWAYS get through, unless the tamale supply dries up with all the cheap kitchen help leaving the state.

quote:
So...where are Tulsa's deficiencies? Most notably, Transit.  What should be the basic services that transit provides? Frequency, convenience, and reliability.  Will it take you where you need to go and get you there when you need to get there?  Do I have to worry about a schedule or does the bus come every 15-20 minutes reliably?  Am I safe?

So, yes, in order for a high capacity train to work, we will have to pony up and pay for better bus service, so that, if you get off at 31st and Yale, you can quickly get on another bus and get to St. Francis Hospital or OU-Tulsa or the Fairgrounds within 5 to 10 minutes.

And, government-subsidized and controlled transit will do a great job of THAT.  Welcome to Santa's WET dream.  Publically-owned transit has NO profit motive, NO reason, to meet the myriad of needs, basic and emotional, of the commuting public.

quote:
The densities everyone is worried about should be addressed during the Comp Plan update.  That is why we are coordinating with the City and providing them with every bit of data they need to evaluate our current and future transportation needs, and adjust the land uses appropriately.  Should we have a TOD or MXU category?  If we are going to have a successful transit system, we probably should consider it.

Hell will FREEZE or Santa elected to a City office, before Comp Plan updates.

quote:
*The great thing about all of this is that even our roadway engineers down the road at ODOT have conceded that we cannot build our way out of this problem.

Better late than never, GENIUSES.

quote:
The problem? Ever increasing congestion (and reduced air quality as a by product). Adding capacity only adds more cars.  We can make it better for a while, until that latent traffic catches up, and then you are in the same problem, only with that much more road to maintain.

Yeah, right.  Preach to the CHOIR.

quote:
How do you add capacity on a rail line?  You add another railcar.  You tell me what is more cost efficient.

Give EVERY member of the transit ridership FREE Priuses.  Or maybe just roll a bike on the BA?  Naaaaaaaaaaah.

quote:
The Artist is correct.  It was us who cited costs associated with the I-44 project.  350 million for Yale to Riverside.  Over 100 million per mile.  We could, using the existing tracks here in Tulsa, implement darn near 45 miles of passenger rail for that cost.

Yep.  Now that Artist is piss'd off at bikes, we might as well blow for rail.  Certainly wouldn't want to associate with freaky people on bikes.

quote:
Imagine the impact this would have on visitors arriving via air and this new rail line. While our airport isn't large, it is one of the cleanest and nicest in the country. Travelers would land in a clean, non-congested airport; board the train, for a quick, affordable trip into the city. Arriving in a bustling mixed development would make a great impression on these individuals. From there they could stay in a hotel located in the village or hop a cab to a downtown destination.

Transit can help us realize our dreams for this city.  A revitalized downtown, quality infill, better & friendlier streets, beautiful neighborhoods, and economic vitality.

HILLARY CLINTON: I could stand up here and say: let's just get everybody together. Let's get unified. The sky will open, the light will come down, celestial choirs will be singing, and everyone will know we should do the right thing and the world will be perfect.

Suppose you guys just quit waiting to be coddled.  Ask NOT for what Tulsa isn't and will NEVER be.  Ask how to be the change you want Tulsa to be.

[pfox]

quote:Originally posted by pundit

Hate to be the skunk at the party but what about cost. Light rail is very, very expensive even with government help. If Tulsa cannot even fix its streets, how will it ever do light rail?

Light Rail is very expensive, which is why we are not considering it.  At least not light rail like DART or in Portland.

Using existing track, which eliminates the individual property acquisition costs (that are a major part of light rails expense); and eliminates the cost of constructing all new track; and implementing a (soon to be) FRA compliant vehicle like this one;



which runs on Diesel (or BioDiesel) instead of overhead power, eliminating the cost of an overhead power supply; it would cost us about a tenth of what a light rail line might for a similar distance.

The roads need to be fixed, but this is not an either/or situation.  We have to fund transit as  well for the compendium of reasons mentioned in this and other threads, not the least of which is that the more people riding transit, the fewer cars on the road which sub sequentially reduces the wear and tear on the roads, which saves the public money on maintenance.

Plus there are cost recovery methods, including fares, that are available to transit that aren't available to roads.  So yes, it is subsidized, just like roads, only its a better business model in this day and age.

And by the way...the train will eliminate some bus routes, namely express routes from Broken Arrow to Downtown.  If that is cannibalization, so be it. But it also adds routes.  In fact, in St. Louis, 76% of all transit riders, train and bus, are new to transit since the implementation of their rail system in the 90's. 76%...  that doesn't sound like cannibalization to me.

[Bike_Billboards]

quote:Originally posted by pfox
Using existing track, which eliminates the acquisition costs and the cost of all new track; and implementing a (soon to be) FRA compliant vehicle like this one;



which runs on Diesel (or BioDiesel) instead of overhead power, eliminating the cost of an overhead power supply, it would cost us about a tenth of what a light rail line might for a similar distance.

Yep.  Looks great.  Burn up the food supply with bio when diesel hits $6.  Good grief, that monstrosity doesn't even make sense now, with diesel at $4.  

Might as well pedal-power it by a bunch of MONKEYS.  If deployed, it certainly will be managed by a bunch of MONKEYS.

quote:
The roads need to be fixed, but this is not an either or situation.  We have to fund transit as  well for the compendium of reasons mentioned in this and other threads, not the least of which is that the more people riding transit, the fewer cars on the road which sub sequentially reduces the wear and tear on the roads, which saves the public money on maintenance.

1) Oklahoma is STILL a donor state.  
2) Congress is not exactly itching to stop with the DECREASE in transit subsidies.
3) NO member of Congress from Oklahoma has EVER earmarked for urban commuter transit.

GET REAL.

quote:
Plus there are cost recovery methods, including fares, that are available to transit that aren't available to roads.  So yes, it is subsidized, just like roads, only its a better business model in this day and age.

If the City acted in the interest of better business models, it would have DIVESTED Tulsa Transit a long time ago.  If USDOT acted to give the commuting pubic better ground transit, it would have DE-regulated transit like the airlines, a long time ago.  If the commuting public wanted better transit, it would have DEMANDED privatized transit, a long time ago.

quote:
And by the way...the train will eliminate some bus routes, namely express routes from Broken Arrow to Downtown.  If that is cannibalization, so be it. But it also adds routes.  In fact, in St. Louis, 76% of all transit riders, train and bus, are new to transit since the implementation of their rail system in the 90's. 76%...  that doesn't sound like cannibalization to me.

No, it sounds more like TRANSPORTAINMENT for the middle-class suburbanites built on the backs of old ladies on fixed incomes in Mid-Town.  Leave it to BEAVER?  Golly, gee, Dad, let's ride the train to the Arena!

[Renaissance]

I'll be fascinated to hear the details of any proposal, pfox.  It's really odd to me that something as common as passenger rail has such vehement enemies (as well as bike-riding buffoons) speaking so strongly against it before there's actually any formal plan presented.  I mean really, strikingly odd--I can't even begin to fathom where certain posters on this forum are coming from.  

Total incomprehension of the oddballs aside, I appreciate your levelheadedness and reasonable explanations.  Do let us know ASAP what Crowley et al. have in mind for a public transit supplement to the roads plan.

[Bike_Billboards]

quote:Originally posted by Floyd

I'll be fascinated to hear the details of any proposal, pfox.  

Go ahead, Mr. Fox.  INDULGE the man.  The DEVIL is in the details.  The fact of the matter is, Mr. Floyd, there are NO details.  It is only the collective WET dreams of a bunch of MONKEYS, drunk on PURPLE Kool-aid.

quote:
It's really odd to me that something as common as passenger rail has such vehement enemies (as well as bike-riding buffoons) speaking so strongly against it before there's actually any formal plan presented.  I mean really, strikingly odd--I can't even begin to fathom where certain posters on this forum are coming from.

EVERYTHING You've EVER Wanted to Know About EVERYTHING Wrong with Publically-subsidized Transit, But Were Afraid to Ask.

[mdunn]

tulsa cant even support a bus system,let alone a rail system,nor is Tulsa even close to size a city needs to be to even think about one!