pretty fluffly piece in the TW
Support for more downtown Tulsa parking garages riseshttp://www.tulsaworld.com/article.aspx/Support_for_more_downtown_Tulsa_parking_garages_rises/20130710_11_A1_Severa792198
Quote
(http://www.tulsaworld.com/articleimages/2013/20130710_parkinggarages.jpg)
Several members of the Tulsa City Council Capital Improvements Program Task Force indicated support for the construction of multiple parking garages in downtown Tulsa during its meeting Tuesday.
"The question isn't parking garages or no parking garages," councilor Blake Ewing said. "Parking garages are kind of a critical next step for downtown. It's not necessarily more advanced planning but prioritization. (Lack of) Parking keeps people from coming downtown."
On Tuesday, Williams Co. director of corporate real estate George Shahadi said the establishment of parking garages is a top priority for the Downtown Coordinating Council.
"It will ignite developers, whether residential or retail, because this is one item they don't have to take care of themselves," he said.
The DCC has asked the City Council for funding for downtown housing, one-way to two-way street conversion, and streetscapes and sidewalks with every two-way conversion, which would comprise $32.07 million of the more than $919 million proposed capital improvements package, according to the task force's most recent draft released Tuesday.
The council will vote on a nonbinding consensus to present to voters during town hall meetings on Thursday, and the council passed a similar agreement last week allocating a proposed $470 million for street repairs. Councilors on Thursday are expected to finalize a list of proposed capital improvement projects that they will present in public meetings in the coming weeks.
Councilor Phil Lakin said proposed parking garages, which will be operated by the Tulsa Parking Authority, are one of few revenue-generating items in the city's capital needs package. Nearly 72 percent of the package is dedicated to transportation-related expenses such as streets, pedestrians, public transit and bicycles, he said.
"I also wonder if ... we can make it among the first projects to generate revenue toward other DCC-related priorities," he said. "There aren't very many other projects on this list that have a revenue piece to them, so we've got to use that revenue piece to our advantage."
DCC manager Tom Baker said money for two desired parking garages - $26 million of the DCC's current proposed allotment - will go toward operation of the garages, maintenance, special repairs and bond services.
"We don't make a lot of money but we cover all of our expenses and do as many of the special repairs as we can," he said. "You need this to kick start some development. Maintaining the heart of this region is critical to the success of the whole area."
The DCC would not disclose the possible locations for the parking garages, but Ewing said there are five viable spots in the downtown area.
"(Tulsa Community College) sits in the middle of surface parking on literally every side," he said. "If you solve the problem in the TCC area, that opens up residential opportunities."
In addition to the TCC area, Ewing said he would like to see parking garages near East Village and the Performing Arts Center, as well as in the Brady District and in the core of the central business district.
"The Brady District one is already funded, but those other four are ones I think people most often talk about," he said. "The one in the Brady (District) is needed. The ones further away from the core (of downtown) are good for activating new residential and retail development."
Lakin and Baker said the DCC's desire not to publicize the potential locations could open up development opportunities throughout the whole downtown area.
"They want to be a little bit nimble in the words they use with us regarding location because they don't know necessarily where retailers or businesses will want those garages," he said. "They're trying to use the parking garages as a catalyst to create housing, retail and other commercial opportunities."
Councilor G.T. Bynum said he fully expects the parking garage proposal and the other agenda items discussed Tuesday, ranging from an off-site animal welfare facility to the format of the capital improvement town hall meetings, to be brought back up for discussion on Thursday.
Spot #4 I think should be highest priority, then #1.
Not sure where #2 would go, and #3 is a hard sell. Not sure the point of #5. If they built it I would take pictures. Parking garage in an island of little more than parking.
Quote from: sgrizzle on July 10, 2013, 12:23:10 PM
Spot #4 I think should be highest priority, then #1.
Not sure where #2 would go, and #3 is a hard sell. Not sure the point of #5. If they built it I would take pictures. Parking garage in an island of little more than parking.
Yep, number 4 makes the most sense because it will free up so much surface parking for development in an area that is already developing. I hope these discussions about parking garages include building garages that don't look like garages and are multi-use structures.
Quote from: carltonplace on July 10, 2013, 12:45:15 PM
I hope these discussions about parking garages include building garages that don't look like garages and are multi-use structures.
+1
I'd like the $31,000,000 proposed for the 81st to 91st Yale expansion diverted to this. That'd pretty much take care of the cost.
If they can't do that, use it to bury the lines in South Tulsa and let the damned trees grow normally. (off subject, I know)
Wish we could somehow add the parking and also create a green space at 3rd/2nd & Cincinnati/Detroit. It's a great spot for Blue Dome festivals, Mayfest, etc and could create more demand for mixed-use residential around it. Plus the skyline view there is awesome. Something like this wouldn't even be *as* expensive because of the natural slope of the site. Something like this with entrances and exits on 2nd..
(http://www.grodzka.net.pl/media_n/parking_nagroblach.jpg)
Is there really a parking shortage? My garage is now 1/3 empty with Cimarex new tower and parking. PAC is mostly evening and has City Hall parking, Hyatt parking, BOK parking, and Main Parking mall as well as hundreds of surface/street parking - all within 3 blocks.
Brady has much the same.
If I this needed for development, so be it. And structured parking is waaaaaay better than surface. But I do not want to help subsidize American parkings next revenue source and/or someone's parking lot.
Parking isn't the issue. A lack of public transportation is. If you want to go big, you invest in a light rail system.
Quote from: cannon_fodder on July 13, 2013, 06:58:27 PM
Is there really a parking shortage? My garage is now 1/3 empty with Cimarex new tower and parking. PAC is mostly evening and has City Hall parking, Hyatt parking, BOK parking, and Main Parking mall as well as hundreds of surface/street parking - all within 3 blocks.
Brady has much the same.
If I this needed for development, so be it. And structured parking is waaaaaay better than surface. But I do not want to help subsidize American parkings next revenue source and/or someone's parking lot.
I think the only time parking becomes an issue is when there are events, and then it's not so much that there isn't enough, it's that every parking garage in a semi-close vicinity to the event suddenly feels the need to charge $25 for parking. Why is it in other businesses this is called gouging, but with parking, it's just par for the course?
And not to mention all the full-time downtown workers parking in on-street parking... which only makes it hard for visitors to find a space a perpetuates the "no parking" myth,
There is pleeeeenty of parking already. A fraction of what they are thinking of spending on parking garages directed to transit (that includes signage and "public service/education/info" about transit, where to park, where the "trolley" runs, times, etc.) would make all the difference in many respects.
I remember the interview of the guy in the Brady Arts who owns the chocolate store there. He was saying that people were complaining that there needed to be more parking. He said what was needed was a new parking garage and pointed down the street saying it should be on the edge of downtown. I was in Brady the other day and you can look right to the south and just across the tracks, RIGHT THERE in plane sight, and there are huge parking garages available for use that sit empty most of the time (even during festivals) which are CLOSER to where the crowds are going than many of the proposed new parking garages are. (If we are not using the parking we have thats closer now, why would we use new parking that's farther away?) And even those parking garages that do exist further away, and the ample surface parking, would be readily accessible with good transit... at less cost and with better; economic/pedestrian friendly, development encouraging/friendly, results. You could both upgrade the transit to better use the parking we already have and add more money for downtown housing with the same money they would spend on parking garages.
Quote from: BKDotCom on July 13, 2013, 09:45:11 PM
And not to mention all the full-time downtown workers parking in on-street parking... which only makes it hard for visitors to find a space a perpetuates the "no parking" myth,
Raising the rates to $1/hour (with a 2 hour limit) and actively policing the meters would solve this problem.
Quote from: SXSW on July 14, 2013, 04:53:31 PM
Raising the rates to $1/hour (with a 2 hour limit) and actively policing the meters would solve this problem.
A two hour limit, a reasonably significant fine and actively policing the meters would probably work as well or better.
Edit:
What is the average surface parking lot monthly charge?
What is the average parking garage monthly charge?
I pay $85 a month for each of my employees to park at 2nd and Boulder in a parking garage. There is a surface parking lot across the street that wants $75 a month.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on July 14, 2013, 05:52:59 PM
I pay $85 a month for each of my employees to park at 2nd and Boulder in a parking garage. There is a surface parking lot across the street that wants $75 a month.
Thanks.
At 9 to 10 hr/day and 22 days/mo, $85/mo for the garage would be about $.40/hr. No reason to raise on street parking to $1hr. Just stick a fine on the on street parking for exceeding a reasonable time limit.
Building a garage across from the PAC would unlock the rest of that block for development. Also will better connect the Central Business District/Deco District to the Blue Dome. The former Griffin Communications/KOTV building has been purchased by a civic minded investor group and will be converted to office space. That will also help begin to bridge the gap between the two areas.
Agreed, there is plenty of parking, but this surface lot next to the PAC and City Hall needs to be better utilized. The churches in the Cathedral District (and TCC) all have their own dedicated surface parking.
People that are going to TCC, to church, to the PAC and to City Hall are going to drive in and drive out and they are not looking for transportation options. We should get them to park closer together and find better uses for these oceans of asphalt.
Scratch light rail.
I demand hyperloop (whatever it is)
http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-57593734-1/elon-musk-says-hyperloop-plans-coming-soon/
Quote from: BKDotCom on July 15, 2013, 04:08:52 PM
Scratch light rail.
I demand hyperloop (whatever it is)
http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-57593734-1/elon-musk-says-hyperloop-plans-coming-soon/
Be ready to empty your wallet.
Activate Hyperloop! Dynotherms connected! Infracells up! Mega thrusters are go!
Quote from: sgrizzle on July 15, 2013, 07:18:37 PM
Activate Hyperloop! Dynotherms connected! Infracells up! Mega thrusters are go!
Doesn't sound expensive at all.
Quote from: TheArtist on July 15, 2013, 09:14:37 PM
Doesn't sound expensive at all.
You must have "selective hearing".
:D
Quote from: Red Arrow on July 15, 2013, 06:17:16 PM
Be ready to empty your wallet.
As a typical taxpaying citizen (or non-taxpayer).. It goes without saying that I feel entitled and that someone else should pay for it.
But here's an Elon Musk quote from Sep 2012:
QuoteBecause the $60 billion bullet train they're proposing in California would be the slowest bullet train in the world at the highest cost per mile. They're going for records in all the wrong ways.
He thinks his Futurama tubes (or whatever it is) could be done at 1/10th the cost
While I don't think we need to oversaturate downtown with parks, the PAC lot because of the view and location between the CBD and Blue Dome would be an awesome place for one. More Guthrie Green and less Centennial Green. And because of the slope of the site could handle a couple levels of parking underneath. The garage would only be visible along 2nd where the entrance and exit would be located. You add more parking and create a gathering space that then could be surrounded by new development (lots along 3rd, Detroit and 2nd).
I saw over the weekend how a well-located, and well-programmed, green space can truly be a catalyst for the Brady neighborhood. Blue Dome needs the same treatment IMO.
View from the lot
(http://images.travelpod.com/tw_slides/ta00/9b1/844/tulsas-skyline-from-downtown-tulsa.jpg)
Jamison Square in Portland (once a parking lot, surrounded by parking lots)
(http://www.pwpla.com/sites/pwp/images/6153/pJamison_50122.jpg)
Actually I would like to see Centennial Green act as a catalyst for development there (for full disclosure I own a shop right in front of Centennial green so of course I am not biased in any way) and would like the parking lot in front of, and to the east of, the PAC to be redeveloped to become more of a connector from the Deco District to the Blue Dome/Brady/Greenwood (Bluedywood? ;D) districts.
We were actually talking about that park at one of the last Deco District meetings trying to think of ways to make it more "functional" and enjoyable. There are a lot of people who like going to the core of downtown (and who automatically go there as it's the logical place to go when visitors come to the city) and I am often surprised at the number of people who do play in the park (parents with their kids kicking around a soccer ball, throwing frisbee, playing in the fountain, bootcamp exercise groups, etc.) but it still seems quite lacking in amenities. Someone mentioned a "music park" having giant, interactive, musical, playground sculptures (they were hesitant to mention the idea as silly but I actually really like it) and also seeing if the city could ever finish the stage area for the park (I have heard that it is actually too small and should be larger). And of course it would be nice for the city to do some "programming" for the park as well. Frustrating that the city started the park but didn't finish it as advertised. But regardless we in the Deco District will try to have more events there as well, but of course we don't have the funding that the Guthrie Green people do.
I attended the Center of the Universe festival and parked in the garage next to the Jazz Depot. There were tons of spaces unused. I'd say maybe a fourth of the garage was used. With all of those people downtown, I don't know where they parked, but there was clearly not any shortage of parking spots. The garage is only a block and a half from Guthrie Green and maybe 3 or 4 blocks to Cains. Confirms to me that there is not a parking shortage even for the Brady District.
Quote from: DowntownDan on July 22, 2013, 12:05:13 PM
I attended the Center of the Universe festival and parked in the garage next to the Jazz Depot. There were tons of spaces unused. I'd say maybe a fourth of the garage was used. With all of those people downtown, I don't know where they parked, but there was clearly not any shortage of parking spots. The garage is only a block and a half from Guthrie Green and maybe 3 or 4 blocks to Cains. Confirms to me that there is not a parking shortage even for the Brady District.
Wow!
I am shocked by that.
I thought this one would fill up then everyone would freak out.
That's awesome it was only 25% used and I haven't not heard any complaints about parking.
The American Parking Surface lots in the Blue Dome were all packed. People just don't know that they can park in the parking structures, or they don't recognize them (since they are used to street level) or they really wanted to walk extra blocks.
Quote from: carltonplace on July 22, 2013, 12:26:41 PM
The American Parking Surface lots in the Blue Dome were all packed. People just don't know that they can park in the parking structures, or they don't recognize them (since they are used to street level) or they really wanted to walk extra blocks.
It's Tulsa, we are addicted to surface parking. It's crack for Tulsa's motorists.
I do think there needs to be some simple signage that would greatly help. At the entrance to a parking garage it needs to say on a HUGE sign "PUBLIC PARKING" and then some prices. Most people, including me, when they drive by a parking garage have no idea whether its private parking, parking for a hotel, public parking, etc. and are not going to slow down in the middle of the street trying to look around at the entrance to decipher what such and such garage actually is, whether its open and the cost. It's easier to drive around till you see an open spot along a street or in surface parking. The surface parking lots do a much better job of directing people to their lots, have signage out saying what the price is and even people out there to take your money and wave you in.
I have said it over and over that most of the garages we have now are way underutilized and we have plenty of surface parking lots. Little education of the public along with some signage and investing a fraction of the cost of the new proposed parking garages into transit would do so much more for our downtown. They did a great thing by adding signage to the north facing wall of the parking garage across the tracks from the Brady Arts District, but do wonder if they did some signage on the other side where the entrance is? Even the parking garage I am in does not do adequate signage imho and nobody parked there during the event. Tens of thousands of people downtown, parking garage completely empty and available, but we want to spend millions and millions for more parking garages? What planet are these people from?
Quote from: TheArtist on July 22, 2013, 03:55:13 PM
I do think there needs to be some simple signage that would greatly help. At the entrance to a parking garage it needs to say on a HUGE sign "PUBLIC PARKING" and then some prices. Most people, including me, when they drive by a parking garage have no idea whether its private parking, parking for a hotel, public parking, etc. and are not going to slow down in the middle of the street trying to look around at the entrance to decipher what such and such garage actually is, whether its open and the cost. It's easier to drive around till you see an open spot along a street or in surface parking. The surface parking lots do a much better job of directing people to their lots, have signage out saying what the price is and even people out there to take your money and wave you in.
I have said it over and over that most of the garages we have now are way underutilized and we have plenty of surface parking lots. Little education of the public along with some signage and investing a fraction of the cost of the new proposed parking garages into transit would do so much more for our downtown. They did a great thing by adding signage to the north facing wall of the parking garage across the tracks from the Brady Arts District, but do wonder if they did some signage on the other side where the entrance is? Even the parking garage I am in does not do adequate signage imho and nobody parked there during the event. Tens of thousands of people downtown, parking garage completely empty and available, but we want to spend millions and millions for more parking garages? What planet are these people from?
That's what these are for, they have been added all over downtown:
(http://www.myparkingsign.com/img/md/K/Parking-Sign-K-7197.gif)
Quote from: swake on July 22, 2013, 04:21:47 PM
That's what these are for, they have been added all over downtown:
(http://www.myparkingsign.com/img/md/K/Parking-Sign-K-7197.gif)
I thought those were signs for restrooms.
;D
To somewhat echo what others have said...
I think most Tulsans must think parking garages are crowded, confusing/hard-to-navigate, and/or expensive.
This quote almost applies: "Nobody goes there anymore because it's too crowded"
I tend to find downtown Tulsa's garages, ghost towns, quick in and out, and very competitive price-wise. In the case of the Tulsa operated ones, there's often no attendant on duty (free parking).
Quote from: swake on July 22, 2013, 04:21:47 PM
That's what these are for, they have been added all over downtown:
(http://www.myparkingsign.com/img/md/K/Parking-Sign-K-7197.gif)
Yea, and so? That doesn't tell you anything other than there is parking. Doesn't say whether its only for a hotel, or for a business, or whether it's reserved for weekly or monthly parking only, or what.
Quote from: TheArtist on July 22, 2013, 03:55:13 PM
I have said it over and over that most of the garages we have now are way underutilized and we have plenty of surface parking lots. Little education of the public along with some signage and investing a fraction of the cost of the new proposed parking garages into transit would do so much more for our downtown. They did a great thing by adding signage to the north facing wall of the parking garage across the tracks from the Brady Arts District, but do wonder if they did some signage on the other side where the entrance is? Even the parking garage I am in does not do adequate signage imho and nobody parked there during the event. Tens of thousands of people downtown, parking garage completely empty and available, but we want to spend millions and millions for more parking garages? What planet are these people from?
I park in the north garage daily and during the day it runs at around 80-85% capacity. Most of the addition is reserved but pretty full and there are rows in the old section that are reserved but far from fully utilized.
There is also an ample number of handicapped spots as well.
They could probably increase capacity by 50+ vehicle if they would reserve the top for pick ups and large SUV's as the spots as painted are not big enough for those vehicles so you end up with a lot of unused spots because two pick ups parked one space apart take up 3 spots.
I usually park there if I'm going Blue Dome or BOk Center and always for a night on Brady. Of course it's free at night now if you pay monthly :)
To your point about knowing you can park there. There are several signs pointing that way but you're correct, the signage on the garage its self does not make it obvious you can park there. I would think it would be in Central Parkings best interest to put up better signage but you can't even call them and get local person anymore. When you call you get an office that is who knows where, and it takes 10 minutes to explain that garage that is even with using the address and name of it. My point being, with only a couple of people local, they don't seem to understand they need better signage to profit after business hours.
Quote from: TheArtist on July 23, 2013, 07:20:14 AM
Yea, and so? That doesn't tell you anything other than there is parking. Doesn't say whether its only for a hotel, or for a business, or whether it's reserved for weekly or monthly parking only, or what.
No, that sign specifically means there is public parking available in this lot or garage. That's what it is for.
Quote from: swake on July 23, 2013, 08:42:00 AM
No, that sign specifically means there is public parking available in this lot or garage. That's what it is for.
So a public awareness campaign would obviously be useful.
Quote from: carltonplace on July 23, 2013, 10:51:43 AM
So a public awareness campaign would obviously be useful.
It would take years to detox the Walmart/Target parking from everyone's blood.
Can't imagine the shakes someone from Glenpool would go through.
Plain and simple the problem is people just don't understand parking garages. We have been a town of surface lots for so long that people are just creatures of habit. Remove the surface lots and you force people to go into parking garages. Also, I think some of the issues are that people are concerned that the garage may close and they won't be able to get out (I know the garage next to the Petroleum Club had hours and my car almost was stuck in there.) A general education program about the parking garages would go a long way.
Quote from: swake on July 23, 2013, 08:42:00 AM
No, that sign specifically means there is public parking available in this lot or garage. That's what it is for.
One down, 400,000 plus Tulsans to go. Or the city can start a public awareness campaign. But apparently for the "powers that be" it's easier to spend millions on more barely used parking garages because their constituents complain that there "isn't enough parking downtown" than do a little education. OR, just wait for the parking to ACTUALLY get bad and then people on their own discover the magical secret of parking garages, and or transit, or even the magic of the free market.
Quote from: TheArtist on July 23, 2013, 03:15:34 PM
One down, 400,000 plus Tulsans to go. Or the city can start a public awareness campaign. But apparently for the "powers that be" it's easier to spend millions on more barely used parking garages because their constituents complain that there "isn't enough parking downtown" than do a little education. OR, just wait for the parking to ACTUALLY get bad and then people on their own discover the magical secret of parking garages, and or transit, or even the magic of the free market.
I think people are afraid of parking garages as well.
You know, the boogie man, skateboarders, and pot smokers all hang out in them all night long.
But seriously, I think there is some fear there.
Quote from: Weatherdemon on July 23, 2013, 03:20:24 PM
I think people are afraid of parking garages as well.
You know, the boogie man, skateboarders, and pot smokers all hang out in them all night long.
But seriously, I think there is some fear there.
Trudy Monk was killed in a parking garage.
However, parking garages are nice during a hail storm. Long bed crew cab pickups should be banned from most areas of the garage.
Quote from: Townsend on July 23, 2013, 12:11:10 PM
It would take years to detox the Walmart/Target parking from everyone's blood.
Can't imagine the shakes someone from Glenpool would go through.
Nah, they would just park on the
long skinny parking areas sidewalks.
Quote from: DowntownDan on July 22, 2013, 12:05:13 PM
I attended the Center of the Universe festival and parked in the garage next to the Jazz Depot. There were tons of spaces unused. I'd say maybe a fourth of the garage was used. With all of those people downtown, I don't know where they parked, but there was clearly not any shortage of parking spots. The garage is only a block and a half from Guthrie Green and maybe 3 or 4 blocks to Cains. Confirms to me that there is not a parking shortage even for the Brady District.
While I'm not trying to argue that we need more parking, I respectfully disagree about your assessment of the North Garage during CoU. The vast majority of the empty spots in the Garage those evenings were the assigned spots, not the public spots.
I know because I have an assigned spot, as that's my garage for work. On a normal weekend night, I don't have to use my assigned spot, because almost all of the public spots that are closer to the entrance/exit are free. But on both Friday and Saturday night of CoU, I parked in my assigned spot because almost all of the public spots were taken... at least on the first two levels.
Quote from: sgrizzle on July 15, 2013, 07:18:37 PM
Activate Hyperloop! Dynotherms connected! Infracells up! Mega thrusters are go!
Elon Musk released his idea this afternoon
http://www.teslamotors.com/sites/default/files/blog_images/hyperloop-alpha.pdf
Quote from: BKDotCom on August 12, 2013, 04:02:09 PM
Elon Musk released his idea this afternoon
http://www.teslamotors.com/sites/default/files/blog_images/hyperloop-alpha.pdf
Reading through it now...
QuoteThe pods and linear motors are relatively minor expenses compared to the tube itself – several hundred million dollars at most (for LA to San Fran - 380 miles), compared with several billion dollars for the tube. Even several billion is a low number when compared with several tens of billion proposed for the track of the California rail project.
It's 100 miles between Tulsa and OKC
Perhaps the cost between Tulsa and OKC is closer to a couple hundred million.
Perspective: Cost of BOK center: $178 mil.
What would those luxury apartment nay-sayers think if OK got a futurama tube between OK's two largest cities?
And got it first?
Quote from: BKDotCom on August 12, 2013, 04:02:09 PM
Elon Musk released his idea this afternoon
http://www.teslamotors.com/sites/default/files/blog_images/hyperloop-alpha.pdf
At the most basic level, the concept seems OK. The devil is always in the details. My guess on cost is to expect big overruns. Development cost seems to have been neglected. The semi-reclining passenger seats may be incompatible with rapid loading and unloading. Headway times seem overly optimistic. I don't see cost of the tube as being significantly less than regular rail except for ROW costs which could be low if routed along I-5. He talks of a 1G acceleration to speed but then limits other accelerations to 0.5G for passenger comfort. Side routes with minimal headway times and high speed may be really tricky. Vehicles would need to slow down significantly to negotiate the change in direction of a turn-out while maintaining the lateral support of the tube.
Somehow it seems like the old JC Whitney ads to add horsepower to you engine. Put on all the small increases and you could get 500 HP (slight exaggeration) from a small block Chevy or Ford.
Quote from: BKDotCom on August 12, 2013, 04:02:09 PM
Elon Musk released his idea this afternoon
http://www.teslamotors.com/sites/default/files/blog_images/hyperloop-alpha.pdf
All I can think of is a line from "Animal House" where Dean Wormer says "Put a sock in it, or you'll be out of here like sh!t through a goose".
There are several open tracts of land along Greenwood, from Archer to about 3rd. How about a different direction? Community gardens. Possibly a Community Supported Agriculture (CSA) approach to a truly productive use of the land instead of another slab of assfault.
Quote from: BKDotCom on August 12, 2013, 04:19:53 PM
Reading through it now...
It's 100 miles between Tulsa and OKC
Perhaps the cost between Tulsa and OKC is closer to a couple hundred million.
Perspective: Cost of BOK center: $178 mil.
What would those luxury apartment nay-sayers think if OK got a futurama tube between OK's two largest cities?
And got it first?
Heard talk on NPR a few days ago about high speed rail from Tulsa to OKC....estimated at over a billion. Too much.
Elon's idea is fantastic. Didn't finish that article, but EE Times was talking about it and a NYC to LA was proposed at about an hour. Pull a little vacuum on one side, and a little pressure on the back, then levitate magnetically for low friction...NOW we're talking transportation!!
Quote from: Red Arrow on August 12, 2013, 06:31:28 PM
At the most basic level, the concept seems OK. The devil is always in the details. My guess on cost is to expect big overruns. Development cost seems to have been neglected. The semi-reclining passenger seats may be incompatible with rapid loading and unloading. Headway times seem overly optimistic. I don't see cost of the tube as being significantly less than regular rail except for ROW costs which could be low if routed along I-5. He talks of a 1G acceleration to speed but then limits other accelerations to 0.5G for passenger comfort. Side routes with minimal headway times and high speed may be really tricky. Vehicles would need to slow down significantly to negotiate the change in direction of a turn-out while maintaining the lateral support of the tube.
Somehow it seems like the old JC Whitney ads to add horsepower to you engine. Put on all the small increases and you could get 500 HP (slight exaggeration) from a small block Chevy or Ford.
The .5G he refers to is the side-to-side / go-around-a-corner forces.. which are apparently more annoying
that than push you straight back into your seat forces.
In an interview he made after the release, he's revealed he now plans on building a prototype
Quote"I think it might help if I built a demonstration article. I think I probably will do that, actually. I've sort of come around in my thinking on that part."
- http://www.forbes.com/sites/hannahelliott/2013/08/12/latest-update-elon-musk-will-start-the-hyperloop-himself/
Quote from: BKDotCom on August 12, 2013, 08:28:44 PM
The .5G he refers to is the side-to-side / go-around-a-corner forces.. which are apparently more annoying that push you straight back into your seat forces.
In an interview he made after the release, he's revealed he now plans on building a prototype - http://www.forbes.com/sites/hannahelliott/2013/08/12/latest-update-elon-musk-will-start-the-hyperloop-himself/
I realize the .5G mentioned is lateral. 1G go faster/slower is equivalent to about 0 to 60 in 2.7 seconds, assuming constant acceleration. I believe most passengers will not find that to be comfortable. Increase in speed would probably be better tolerated than deceleration at 1G. Both would be a no liquid refreshment type ride.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on August 12, 2013, 08:06:26 PM
Heard talk on NPR a few days ago about high speed rail from Tulsa to OKC....estimated at over a billion. Too much.
Elon's idea is fantastic. Didn't finish that article, but EE Times was talking about it and a NYC to LA was proposed at about an hour. Pull a little vacuum on one side, and a little pressure on the back, then levitate magnetically for low friction...NOW we're talking transportation!!
A billion is about what we've spent on the Brady so far. I think high speed rail between the two cities has about the same value, plus we have federal funds already allotted for it.
Too bad our state isn't forward thinking enough to try to get them to prototype here in Oklahoma. A fast cheap ride from OKC to Tulsa would benefit both cities.
Quote from: davideinstein on August 13, 2013, 08:36:17 AM
A billion is about what we've spent on the Brady so far. I think high speed rail between the two cities has about the same value, plus we have federal funds already allotted for it.
I was talking about Tulsa/OKC high speed rail with an ODOT official recently and he told me the real cost estimate is much closer to $2 billion. He said a lot of the problem is the current RR has a lot of turns that would have to be straightened out to get any kind of speed in the high speed rail. I know ODOT may not be the most reliable source on this, but I've always felt that $1 billion figure was somewhat pulled out of the air and it's been around a while. Plus, what project like this ever comes in even close the original cost projections.
Quote from: CharlieSheen on August 13, 2013, 09:04:31 AM
Too bad our state isn't forward thinking enough to try to get them to prototype here in Oklahoma. A fast cheap ride from OKC to Tulsa would benefit both cities.
And linking Tulsa and OKC first... may make it more likely that any Kansas-City <-> Dallas route would be
KC <-> Tulsa <-> OKC <-> Dallas
Tulsa built the Alaska pipeline. I think we can handle this.
Our aircraft manufacturing industry's future isn't so certain. Could Tulsa manufacture the passenger cars/capsules/pods?
Quote from: DTowner on August 13, 2013, 09:09:31 AM
I was talking about Tulsa/OKC high speed rail with an ODOT official recently and he told me the real cost estimate is much closer to $2 billion. He said a lot of the problem is the current RR has a lot of turns that would have to be straightened out to get any kind of speed in the high speed rail. I know ODOT may not be the most reliable source on this, but I've always felt that $1 billion figure was somewhat pulled out of the air and it's been around a while. Plus, what project like this ever comes in even close the original cost projections.
ODOT has a vested interest in NOT having high speed rail - they are roads.
We shouldn't be worried about a billion here...a billion there....the turnpike authority is running around a billion in debt the last time I looked (little over a year ago) and back in the late 90's they were just over $2 billion. And they can't get a turnpike right yet, so hey, why not give high speed rail a shot? Just NOT letting ODOT or the OTA get involved....
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on August 13, 2013, 09:50:31 AM
Just NOT letting ODOT or the OTA get involved....
Oklahoma Department of Tubes and Oklahoma Tube Authority?
Quote from: BKDotCom on August 13, 2013, 10:08:09 AM
Oklahoma Department of Tubes and Oklahoma Tube Authority?
you would have to think that pipeline technology could be adapted for this use.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on August 13, 2013, 09:50:31 AM
ODOT has a vested interest in NOT having high speed rail - they are roads.
I don't disagree, but I think the $2 billion estimate is more realistic and you would still end up with "high speed" rail that isn't very fast and would end in two cities with very little public transit options.
Quote from: DTowner on August 13, 2013, 11:23:01 AM
I don't disagree, but I think the $2 billion estimate is more realistic and you would still end up with "high speed" rail that isn't very fast and would end in two cities with very little public transit options.
Two slightly different tube designs were revealed.
a) passenger only
2) passengers + their cars (which read somewhat like a Tesla Ad.. as he says a full-sized car, "such as the Tesla model S") :)
Quote from: BKDotCom on August 13, 2013, 10:08:09 AM
Oklahoma Department of Tubes and Oklahoma Tube Authority?
Whoa....totally tubular, dude!!
Quote from: DTowner on August 13, 2013, 11:23:01 AM
I don't disagree, but I think the $2 billion estimate is more realistic and you would still end up with "high speed" rail that isn't very fast and would end in two cities with very little public transit options.
Small steps... then start pushing public transit, since it won't ever happen without some better cause than what we have now.
I travel that road so much that if the train were available, I would place a car at the station at each end so could walk off the train, get in the car and go from there. It would be worth having two cars dedicated to that to avoid driving the turnpike.
QuoteQuote from: CharlieSheen on August 13, 2013, 09:04:31 AM
Too bad our state isn't forward thinking enough to try to get them to prototype here in Oklahoma. A fast cheap ride from OKC to Tulsa would benefit both cities.
Quote from: swake on August 13, 2013, 10:55:54 AM
you would have to think that pipeline technology could be adapted for this use.
Quote from: BKDotCom on August 13, 2013, 10:08:09 AM
Oklahoma Department of Tubes and Oklahoma Tube Authority?
.
I believe the technology exists already for this. Just go down to your drive-thru bank and ask the bank teller for some cash and see how she delivers it to you. The Plan: A park and ride scheme. Say, on one end in Tulsa, at the latest or next version of "Quick Trip" store with a parking garage, get in the capsule (on schedule) and blast- off. Arrive in OKC just in a few minutes. At their end you would have to end up at a 7-11 store. Just a few kinks to work out I know, like solving the equation: Quick Trip>7-11. I'm somewhat confident somebody can figure that out. On the bright side, this will give Quick Trip a more honest meaning than it does now. Get financing from the bank people as they already know how to make these things. Don't have to make a big case to the loan officer.
Quote from: ElwoodBen on August 13, 2013, 02:15:27 PM
.
I believe the technology exists already for this. Just go down to your drive-thru bank and ask the bank teller for some cash and see how she delivers it to you. The Plan: A park and ride scheme. Say, on one end in Tulsa, at the latest or next version of "Quick Trip" store with a parking garage, get in the capsule (on schedule) and blast- off. Arrive in OKC just in a few minutes. At their end you would have to end up at a 7-11 store. Just a few kinks to work out I know, like solving the equation: Quick Trip>7-11. I'm somewhat confident somebody can figure that out. On the bright side, this will give Quick Trip a more honest meaning than it does now. Get financing from the bank people as they already know how to make these things. Don't have to make a big case to the loan officer.
I'd make it an OnCue, but that is besides the point.
Quote from: DTowner on August 13, 2013, 11:23:01 AM
I don't disagree, but I think the $2 billion estimate is more realistic and you would still end up with "high speed" rail that isn't very fast
A train with limited stops could easily achieve a 1 hour trip from DT Tulsa to DT OKC, and that's assuming the tracks are only improved to HSR standards on about 3/4s of the journey, or about how much of the present journey is on the turnpike. That said, I think it would be important to have commuter service that stops a few times along the way as well as an express that goes from here to OKC with zero stops.
$2 billion sounds like a lot of money, and it is to you or me, but compared to our overall transportation budget it's not that much. My only concern is that stubbornness among our populace would keep many from riding the train even if it is faster than driving, cost-competitive, and there are convenient transportation options at both ends, whether something like zipcar, trollies, or whatever. Seems to me that the benefit of basically unifying the workforces of our two largest cities would more than make up for the expense of building the thing. Closer economic ties between us make both OKC and Tulsa more attractive places for businesses to locate.
Quote from: nathanm on August 13, 2013, 04:08:47 PM
and there are convenient transportation options at both ends,
I believe this would be key to any rail success between Tulsa and OKC.
Quote from: Red Arrow on August 13, 2013, 04:24:31 PM
I believe this would be key to any rail success between Tulsa and OKC.
I don't see that happening.
One of the novel parts of Elon's proposal is that you can take your car with you. I've never seen that before (other than a ferry). Could there be some sort of high speed take-your-car non-tube transport? Probably.
Quote from: DTowner on August 13, 2013, 09:09:31 AM
I was talking about Tulsa/OKC high speed rail with an ODOT official recently and he told me the real cost estimate is much closer to $2 billion. He said a lot of the problem is the current RR has a lot of turns that would have to be straightened out to get any kind of speed in the high speed rail. I know ODOT may not be the most reliable source on this, but I've always felt that $1 billion figure was somewhat pulled out of the air and it's been around a while. Plus, what project like this ever comes in even close the original cost projections.
Interestingly enough, there is currently a presentation going on in the center for creativity at the TCC metro campus about the proposed line from Tulsa to OKC.
Quote from: BKDotCom on August 13, 2013, 04:49:38 PM
I don't see that happening.
One of the novel parts of Elon's proposal is that you can take your car with you. I've never seen that before (other than a ferry). Could there be some sort of high speed take-your-car non-tube transport? Probably.
If it doesn't happen, passenger rail between Tulsa and OKC will be marginally successful at best. There just isn't enough distance between us.
I believe I have seen the equivalent of a "train ferry" but it's been a while and I don't remember where I saw it.
Quote from: Red Arrow on August 13, 2013, 05:12:14 PM
If it doesn't happen, passenger rail between Tulsa and OKC will be marginally successful at best. There just isn't enough distance between us.
I disagree. It would be cheaper for a company to send you back and forth on the train and pay for a day's car rental in OKC than it is to pay mileage there and back, but they have negotiated rental rates that are stupid cheap. It could easily be a big deal on event days when there's stuff going on near the stations. And this is without any real transit at all. Actually do transit and it increases the utility even further.
Where I don't disagree is that it's likely to only be marginally successful in the near future, but that's more about us as Oklahomans not being willing to park the car and ride somewhere even if it is faster and lets you nap or read or work or play on the Internet or whatever than a problem with trains in general. I'd also be pretty shy about the prospect of leaving the car if I'd never seen an example of a reasonably well functioning transit system. However, I know better. It can be done, if we decide it is something we want.
Quote from: nathanm on August 13, 2013, 05:32:45 PM
I disagree. It would be cheaper for a company to send you back and forth on the train and pay for a day's car rental in OKC than it is to pay mileage there and back, but they have negotiated rental rates that are stupid cheap.
I might give you that one. I haven't rented a car for a while so I don't know the rates. Large companies can certainly negotiate rates but I'm not so sure about smaller companies or perhaps someone like an independent salesperson.
QuoteIt could easily be a big deal on event days when there's stuff going on near the stations. And this is without any real transit at all. Actually do transit and it increases the utility even further.
Depends on how far stuff is. OKC is a spot on the map for me. How far are the major event locations from the rail station? I guess we would have some latitude in that regard here in Tulsa since we don't presently have a passenger station. The the BOK Center and the ball park are each certainly close enough to the tracks.
QuoteWhere I don't disagree is that it's likely to only be marginally successful in the near future, but that's more about us as Oklahomans not being willing to park the car and ride somewhere even if it is faster and lets you nap or read or work or play on the Internet or whatever than a problem with trains in general.
One thing to consider is door-to-door time. A 1 hour drive is often quicker than flying (Edit: in my personal plane). Flying is a lot more fun than driving though. Not putting up with driving the Turner Tpk is certainly worth something. I have difficulty reading etc on a train. I used to get really car sick when I was a kid. I have to be r-e-a-l-l-y tired to sleep on a plane. That's really good when I'm the pilot but even as a passenger on a commercial flight I find it difficult to nap.
QuoteI'd also be pretty shy about the prospect of leaving the car if I'd never seen an example of a reasonably well functioning transit system. However, I know better. It can be done, if we decide it is something we want.
I'd be glad to leave the car if there was a reasonably well functioning transit system. I didn't go into downtown Philly often but when I did, I usually took the trolley to the El/Subway. Our family went to the NYC Boat Show a few years in the 60s. We drove to a Park-and-Ride on the NJ side. Dad had absolutely no intention of taking the car into NYC.
If we could stay on and use it to get to DFW, I see a good use for it.
Dealing with TIA to get to a hub to fly anywhere else is a pain.
I'd also use it to get to Dallas/Ft Worth for the heck of it as well.
I doubt I'd use it to get to OKC until there's a decent public transit system.
Is Dallas' public transit any better?
Quote from: BKDotCom on August 14, 2013, 08:51:08 AM
Is Dallas' public transit any better?
Hell if I know but I'd be more willing to rent a car and visit my friends, go to entertainment venues, etc.
Hopping on a train to go to OKC wouldn't make sense to me over driving. Hopping on a train and heading to Dallas for a flight or for fun would.
Quote from: BKDotCom on August 14, 2013, 08:51:08 AM
Is Dallas' public transit any better?
They have rail from Ft Worth - Airport - Dallas. Have never ridden it - yet. May do so this fall.
The train ride from OKC to Ft Worth (Heartland Flyer) is very cool. Takes 4 hours, with stops along the way. Lots of fun, especially at Christmas time when they have a "Christmas train" - Santa shows up and gives out candy to kids.
I always rent a car when we take that trip, so don't know how the transit is (to Dallas), but it is right there at the station when you get off the Flyer. It's about time to repeat this for a 3 day weekend....
Quote from: BKDotCom on August 14, 2013, 08:51:08 AM
Is Dallas' public transit any better?
Yes. The DART is pretty good.
Quote from: nathanm on August 13, 2013, 04:08:47 PM
A train with limited stops could easily achieve a 1 hour trip from DT Tulsa to DT OKC, and that's assuming the tracks are only improved to HSR standards on about 3/4s of the journey, or about how much of the present journey is on the turnpike. That said, I think it would be important to have commuter service that stops a few times along the way as well as an express that goes from here to OKC with zero stops.
$2 billion sounds like a lot of money, and it is to you or me, but compared to our overall transportation budget it's not that much. My only concern is that stubbornness among our populace would keep many from riding the train even if it is faster than driving, cost-competitive, and there are convenient transportation options at both ends, whether something like zipcar, trollies, or whatever. Seems to me that the benefit of basically unifying the workforces of our two largest cities would more than make up for the expense of building the thing. Closer economic ties between us make both OKC and Tulsa more attractive places for businesses to locate.
The Heartland Flyer is currently beings subsidized with $4 million per year (paid evenly between Oklahoma and Texas) and offers only 1 round trip per day. Does anyone know what the ridership numbers are currently/historically? $2 billion on a single transportation project would be huge, and that is money that then cannot be spent on anything else.
I have trouble seeing any way a train can make the downtown Tulsa to downtown OKC trip in 1 hour. It takes approximately 1.5 hours by car with no stops and you can easily overage close to 70 MPH. From what I've been told, the current tracks between Tulsa and OKC have a lot of curves. If those curves are not straightened out, you will never get any real speed. Moreover, even if straightened out, any stops along the way kill the average speed, with slowdowns and start ups and idling time to unload/load. I don't think it is realistic to expect an express train trip to take less time than by car. Adding stops (which will be necessary for practical and political reasons) along the way will push the trip out well in excess of 2 hours. Even that time assumes a reasonable accommodation can be worked out with Burlington Northern, which owns the leg of rail between Sapulpa and Tulsa such that freight trains don't take precedence over passenger trains.
My firm's Tulsa and OKC offices are both located in each city's downtown and, assuming a round trip ticket is less than $120, it would be cheaper for it to buy my ticket than to reimburse me for the trip by car. However, if more than one of us shared a ride to a meeting/event (which is not uncommon), the cost advantage disappears unless the train ticket is very cheap (unlikely) and then the only advantage of the train is the one person who would have been the driver can work while on the train.
It's easy to poke fun of us Okies as unwilling to give up our cars for mass transit and trains, but you cannot expect us to make an irrational choice of using transportation that is slower, more costly, provides less flexibility, requires renting a car on one end of the trip, or some other inconvenience.
As far as the city public transit, is the train the chicken or the egg?
Quote from: Townsend on August 14, 2013, 12:13:22 PM
As far as the city public transit, is the train the chicken or the egg?
Yes
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on August 14, 2013, 09:13:06 AM
They have rail from Ft Worth - Airport - Dallas. Have never ridden it - yet. May do so this fall.
This is the TRE, it's easy to use and inexpensive. Last time I was in Dallas I did not rent a car, I used the TRE from the Airport to Union, then took the DART to my hotel. I used the DART to get around, to get to the AA Center, to visit friends and to get to work. Went to FW on the TRE and back to the airport.
Quote from: DTowner on August 14, 2013, 12:04:46 PM
The Heartland Flyer is currently beings subsidized with $4 million per year (paid evenly between Oklahoma and Texas) and offers only 1 round trip per day. Does anyone know what the ridership numbers are currently/historically? $2 billion on a single transportation project would be huge, and that is money that then cannot be spent on anything else.
I have trouble seeing any way a train can make the downtown Tulsa to downtown OKC trip in 1 hour. It takes approximately 1.5 hours by car with no stops and you can easily overage close to 70 MPH. From what I've been told, the current tracks between Tulsa and OKC have a lot of curves. If those curves are not straightened out, you will never get any real speed. Moreover, even if straightened out, any stops along the way kill the average speed, with slowdowns and start ups and idling time to unload/load. I don't think it is realistic to expect an express train trip to take less time than by car. Adding stops (which will be necessary for practical and political reasons) along the way will push the trip out well in excess of 2 hours. Even that time assumes a reasonable accommodation can be worked out with Burlington Northern, which owns the leg of rail between Sapulpa and Tulsa such that freight trains don't take precedence over passenger trains.
My firm's Tulsa and OKC offices are both located in each city's downtown and, assuming a round trip ticket is less than $120, it would be cheaper for it to buy my ticket than to reimburse me for the trip by car. However, if more than one of us shared a ride to a meeting/event (which is not uncommon), the cost advantage disappears unless the train ticket is very cheap (unlikely) and then the only advantage of the train is the one person who would have been the driver can work while on the train.
It's easy to poke fun of us Okies as unwilling to give up our cars for mass transit and trains, but you cannot expect us to make an irrational choice of using transportation that is slower, more costly, provides less flexibility, requires renting a car on one end of the trip, or some other inconvenience.
Just monitoring this thread. I would take issue with your assumptions. Time to OKC is more like 1 hr 15 minutes and that's with my grandpa driving ;). It is very difficult to average 70mph with road construction, hills, semi's, and taking break for coffee or restroom. Unless you have a pike pass you have to stop and wait there as well. Most drivers on the turnpike are solo or doubles. And you can't really do any work, read a book, talk on the phone or eat safely while driving.
Just saying, to be fair, there is little to recommend driving this stretch if a decent train were available.
Quote from: AquaMan on August 14, 2013, 12:48:16 PM
Just monitoring this thread. I would take issue with your assumptions. Time to OKC is more like 1 hr 15 minutes and that's with my grandpa driving ;). It is very difficult to average 70mph with road construction, hills, semi's, and taking break for coffee or restroom. Unless you have a pike pass you have to stop and wait there as well. Most drivers on the turnpike are solo or doubles. And you can't really do any work, read a book, talk on the phone or eat safely while driving.
Just saying, to be fair, there is little to recommend driving this stretch if a decent train were available.
How sweet would it be to take the train to OKC, walk to a Thunder game, have dinner, and catch the train back to Tulsa?
Quote from: Weatherdemon on August 14, 2013, 12:57:19 PM
How sweet would it be to take the train to OKC, walk to a Thunder game, have dinner, and catch the train back to Tulsa?
Not as sweet as OKC folk taking the train to Tulsa, walking to the BOK center and catching the train back to OKC
Quote from: BKDotCom on August 14, 2013, 01:04:09 PM
Not as sweet as OKC folk taking the train to Tulsa, walking to the BOK center and catching the train back to OKC
(http://www.snookerbacker.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Thumbs-Up.jpg)
Quote from: DTowner on August 14, 2013, 12:04:46 PM
The Heartland Flyer is currently beings subsidized with $4 million per year (paid evenly between Oklahoma and Texas) and offers only 1 round trip per day. Does anyone know what the ridership numbers are currently/historically? $2 billion on a single transportation project would be huge, and that is money that then cannot be spent on anything else.
My firm's Tulsa and OKC offices are both located in each city's downtown and, assuming a round trip ticket is less than $120, it would be cheaper for it to buy my ticket than to reimburse me for the trip by car. However, if more than one of us shared a ride to a meeting/event (which is not uncommon), the cost advantage disappears unless the train ticket is very cheap (unlikely) and then the only advantage of the train is the one person who would have been the driver can work while on the train.
It's easy to poke fun of us Okies as unwilling to give up our cars for mass transit and trains, but you cannot expect us to make an irrational choice of using transportation that is slower, more costly, provides less flexibility, requires renting a car on one end of the trip, or some other inconvenience.
Round trip on Heartland Flyer from OKC to Ft Worth is $56.
Not too shabby. I would do that from Tul to OKC in a heartlandbeat.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on August 14, 2013, 02:18:39 PM
Round trip on Heartland Flyer from OKC to Ft Worth is $56.
Not too shabby. I would do that from Tul to OKC in a heartlandbeat.
It helps that Oklahoma and Texas pay nearly $11,000 per round trip (assuming this train runs 365 days a year), which is worth 595 round trip tickets at that price.
Quote from: DTowner on August 14, 2013, 02:28:11 PM
It helps that Oklahoma and Texas pay nearly $11,000 per round trip (assuming this train runs 365 days a year), which is worth 595 round trip tickets at that price.
Every time I have ridden it, there have been between 150 to 200 travelers - mostly has been out on Friday, back on Sunday or Monday - except for the Christmas trips on the weekends that are pretty much full...several hundred...not sure of total capacity, but there are always a lot of kids to see Santa.
595 ?? Not sure where that came from.... $11,000 at 56 each? (That's about 196.)
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on August 14, 2013, 02:44:19 PM
Every time I have ridden it, there have been between 150 to 200 travelers - mostly has been out on Friday, back on Sunday or Monday - except for the Christmas trips on the weekends that are pretty much full...several hundred...not sure of total capacity, but there are always a lot of kids to see Santa.
595 ?? Not sure where that came from.... $11,000 at 56 each? (That's about 196.)
Apparently, I have math dyslexia - it is 196 tickets.
Here is an interesting article that says OKC-Ft. Worth route lost $43 per rider in 2012. Not sure how they messure "rider", but it is likely by one-way, not round trip. Even so, this made Heatland Flyer one of Armtrak's more "successful" routes.
http://newsok.com/heartland-flyer-loses-more-than-43-per-rider-in-2012-report-finds/article/3760428
Quote from: Red Arrow on July 23, 2013, 08:39:34 PM
Trudy Monk was killed in a parking garage.
However, parking garages are nice during a hail storm. Long bed crew cab pickups should be banned from most areas of the garage.
That's because she had the judge's illegitimate baby, and the judge hired a six-fingered man to off her. I don't see that being a common event.
Quote from: DTowner on August 14, 2013, 02:55:32 PM
Apparently, I have math dyslexia - it is 196 tickets.
Here is an interesting article that says OKC-Ft. Worth route lost $43 per rider in 2012. Not sure how they messure "rider", but it is likely by one-way, not round trip. Even so, this made Heatland Flyer one of Armtrak's more "successful" routes.
http://newsok.com/heartland-flyer-loses-more-than-43-per-rider-in-2012-report-finds/article/3760428
One of the things out of all this is that the people of Oklahoma - progressive types in particular, who have much to say about rail travel - are not using the available resource to anything even approaching capacity. With the people I see loading up when I get on, there are still hundreds of empty seats. I use that route any chance I get, mostly for pleasure, but twice so far for business. Even with the stops, it is still better than driving the same distance. It does take just a little bit of time more - about 30 minutes - to get to/from same points. Great for business travel. Can drive from Tulsa, park in the covered parking at the hotel across the street - I think it is still Courtyard by Marriott. Then enjoy the ride!
There is a BIG Christmas store there on the route between Ft Worth and Dallas - Decorators Warehouse, Arlington - that SWMBO loves to visit! It IS an amazing place that even caters to husbands - they have big screen TV in a special room at the back that plays 'guy stuff'...mostly sports. Something for everyone. And especially if any of you guys need to make some "points" with the other half...this is the place! Always builds up several months of "slack"...
http://www.decoratorswarehousearlington.com/
Quote from: DTowner on August 14, 2013, 02:55:32 PM
Apparently, I have math dyslexia - it is 196 tickets.
Here is an interesting article that says OKC-Ft. Worth route lost $43 per rider in 2012. Not sure how they messure "rider", but it is likely by one-way, not round trip. Even so, this made Heatland Flyer one of Armtrak's more "successful" routes.
http://newsok.com/heartland-flyer-loses-more-than-43-per-rider-in-2012-report-finds/article/3760428
Hey, Amtrak isn't the only mode of travel subsidized. Do your math on highway spending, particularly Turnpikes and airports. They are losers as well.
Quote from: AquaMan on August 14, 2013, 05:45:16 PM
Hey, Amtrak isn't the only mode of travel subsidized. Do your math on highway spending, particularly Turnpikes and airports. They are losers as well.
Not to mention oil companies and every bite everyone eats. To the tune of hundreds of billions per year.
There are a lot of places that feed from the trough...I have ranted here about looking at the big chunks first, then we don't even have to worry about the small pieces - the small savings mostly aren't worth the effort expended to ferret them out and try to eliminate them.
Quote from: BKDotCom on August 14, 2013, 01:04:09 PM
Not as sweet as OKC folk taking the train to Tulsa, walking to the BOK center and catching the train back to OKC
LOL, indeed!
Quote from: DTowner on August 14, 2013, 12:04:46 PM
The Heartland Flyer is currently beings subsidized with $4 million per year (paid evenly between Oklahoma and Texas) and offers only 1 round trip per day. Does anyone know what the ridership numbers are currently/historically? $2 billion on a single transportation project would be huge, and that is money that then cannot be spent on anything else.
[...]
It's easy to poke fun of us Okies as unwilling to give up our cars for mass transit and trains, but you cannot expect us to make an irrational choice of using transportation that is slower, more costly, provides less flexibility, requires renting a car on one end of the trip, or some other inconvenience.
If you assume the only possible train is the worst possible train, of course it would make no sense and nobody would ride it. Given ambition, and $2 billion, which is the estimated cost of fully high speed rail, not the slow speed using the existing route as-is, we could have a train with times equal to or better than the Turnpike. As far as stops go, there is nothing that says we can't run both express and local trains. Or we could just play dumb, in which case we're wasting money no matter what we do because we're not spending it wisely.
We're paying about 17 cents per passenger mile for a not-very-good train. Granted, we pay about 5c per vehicle mile for road vehicles, but the total direct expenditure is over a thousand times greater and results in hundreds of deaths, thousands of injuries, and at least another billion dollars a year in property damage and medical bills due to car crashes, none of which is included in that figure. Funny how we expect trains to pay their own way, but we spend about twice what we bring in with taxes and user fees on cars (ignoring the crash costs). Accounting for that brings it closer to 10c per vehicle mile, if not a bit higher.
I had a conference in Philly a couple of weeks ago, and was scheduled to fly into PHL through DFW. Weather shut down PHL mid-trip, and the closest I could get to was Kennedy in NY. My option from there was to rent a car or take the train. In part due to the discussions here, and because I'd never ridden a commuter train before, I thought I'd give it a shot.
I took the airport train to the NY subway, and then the subway to the train station. (The NY subway was "interesting", but no real issues and there was a solid mix of riders.) I have to say that I was very impressed by the AMTRAK train from NY to Philly. The ticketing and boarding were similar to an airport, with the exception of none of the intrusive security screening. Once on the train (which was about an hour trip) the seating was very airplane-like, it was clean, there was electricity and a WiFi connection, and food for sale if you wanted it. I had a very productive hour clearing out emails and doing a couple of phone calls while in-route. Once in Philly, I caught a cab for the final leg to the conference, but I found out later that I could easily made it an all-train trip by jumping on the subway there and getting off adjacent to the conference hotel.
In discussions with some my co-workers over there, many of them have passes for AMTRAK and ride it several times a week rather than drive. I realize we're a long way off from having an infrastructure like the do on the East coast, but I do think that the market is there if we were to get serious about it.
Quote from: rebound on August 15, 2013, 03:14:57 PM
the seating was very airplane-like, it was clean, there was electricity and a WiFi connection, and food for sale if you wanted it.
Haven't ridden main Amtrak yet, but Heartland Flyer has about 2 feet of space beyond where my feet land on the floor!! Amazing!! And nice.
What do you think of the proposed ordinance designed to encourage structured parking and reuse of existing buildings in Downtown Tulsa?QuoteCity staff has drafted an ordinance to address the City Council's concern about demolition of buildings and the proliferation of surface parking lots in the part of Downtown Tulsa commonly referred to as the IDL, or the Inner Dispersal Loop. This move prompted the following article from Streetsblog.
Building on input received from Feedback about the topic entitled 'Downtown Buildings and Parking Policy: Past, Present, Future?', comments collected from this topic will be considered during the August 21st work session of the Tulsa Metropolitan Area Planning Commission.
On the previous topic, 79 of 97 participants wanted to see more buildings and fewer surface parking lots, no one wanted to see more parking lots and 18 people wanted to see something else.
The draft ordinance provides for issuance of a demolition permit inside the IDL only when: the building poses a public health or safety risk; a zoning clearance permit and building permit for the proposed use of the property has already been approved; the Board of Adjustment has conducted a public hearing and determines the proposed demolition to be appropriate based upon review criteria contained within the ordinance. Click here for the full draft ordinance.
PLANiTULSA and the Downtown Area Master Plan recognize that losing existing structures for the creation of additional parking lots is detrimental to a vital, thriving downtown. A moratorium is currently in place to prevent the teardown of downtown structures, pending development of a longer-term solution.
To retain the integrity of a pedestrian-friendly, active downtown, structured parking is preferred. And it represents a more efficient, economical and sustainable way to utilize limited downtown property. The proposed ordinance establishes structured parking as a permitted use by right within the IDL. It continues to permit surface parking as an on-site accessory use and allows an applicant to request a Special Exception (to be considered by the Board of Adjustment in a public hearing) for approval of surface parking as a principal or off-site accessory use.
Tell us what you think about the proposed ordinance by reviewing it and then by clicking on Post below to have your say.
Post your thoughts here:
http://www.peakdemocracy.com/portals/121/Forum_355/Issue_1429 (http://www.peakdemocracy.com/portals/121/Forum_355/Issue_1429)
I just noticed today that the north garage that signs point everyone too for Brady parking has a nice red and white sign up at the west entrance they direct every to saying their hours of operation are 5AM - 9PM.
No wonder it's not utilized as much in the evening as I thought it would be.