The Tulsa Forum by TulsaNow

In the NYT, they are talking about how streetcars are making a comeback in some 40 American cities. (http://"http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/14/us/14streetcar.html?bl&ex=1218945600&en=3141da97ae5b8c75&ei=5087%0A")  Streetcars would seem to be much more flexible to get to areas that need mass transit service.  They do not rely on existing commercial railroad tracks which have to give preference to the trains that use them.  

I lived in Portland before the new streetcar system and have since visited,  the streetcars are a vast improvement, not perfect, but much better than what they had which was a bus system that was only a bit better than what we have now.  

I am just not all that enamored of using the existing tracks.  I see the trains stopped or slow moving for periods of time along the BA and wonder to myself, how  would that help move people in an efficient manner from Broken Arrow to Tulsa if they can't get there.  

Just my pondering the question of the best and most efficient mass transit for our region.  And it really does need to be a regional system, not just a single line from downtown to BA.

Interesting article.  I like the idea of streetcars, but I don't think any form of mass transit should preclude another.  Why not have streetcars and light rail and buses and...? IMO, multimodal mass transit is the best idea to consider.

Notice how it'll take around $130 million to implement Cincinnati's system, while it will take $2 billion to bring Tulsa's streets up to an acceptable level?

How about teleportation for the future of mass transit?[;)] Beam me up, Scotty.[:D]

Lots of info on streetcars and other light rail at www.lightrailnow.org

Enjoy

I think that any commuter rail that would utilize existing rail ROW would have to build parallel lines next to the existing.  It wouldn't work if you had to wait for all the freight trains that are often stopped or moving slowly in and around downtown.  The only place this seems like a problem would be those lines that run down the skinny center of the BA Expresway.  Unless you gave up a lane of highway...which would probably work since fewer people would be on the road...

Lightrail should work in concert with other forms of mass transit, but sadly I don't think Tulsans have the stones to support anything, that makes them think past a year's time.

I've now been to two PLANiTULSA workshops (one as an individual participant, and one as a facilitator).  There were 500 people at each event.  I'm pretty sure that just about every table was including some form of transit in their plans for Tulsa.  

Whether it's bus rapid transit (BRT) or rail, there seems to be a strong agreement among people that we need alternatives to driving cars.  (I can only guess that the recent high gas prices were illuminating to a lot of folks....)  

Some groups used existing rail right-of-ways with plans to connect Tulsa to the burbs.  Others envisioned BRT along major arterials in town.  Others talked about a combination of both.

Of course, the people who are interested in planning for Tulsa's future are probably more forward-thinking than the average citizen who stayed home.  So there's probably a bias.  But overall, I was amazed at the consensus that people wanted to see more transit options.  

By the way, there will be a future public workshop dedicated solely to transit.  The date is TBA, but I think it's going to be sometime in February.

Now is as good a time as any to remind everyone that a study 18 months ago by Tulsa Transit concluded that we could have a commuter rail system in place from Broken Arrow to downtown Tulsa for less than the cost of the stadium development.

http://www.tulsatransit.org/news-info/commuter-rail-study/

But let's not include any of this in a bloated streets package.  That would be heresy.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Floyd

Now is as good a time as any to remind everyone that a study 18 months ago by Tulsa Transit concluded that we could have a commuter rail system in place from Broken Arrow to downtown Tulsa for less than the cost of the stadium development.

http://www.tulsatransit.org/news-info/commuter-rail-study/

But let's not include any of this in a bloated streets package.  That would be heresy.

---

If the bulk of business done in this city (read that as jobs) was downtown as it is in a lot of the cities who have successful mass transit (SF, Chicago, NY, etc) then it might be viable.  Problem is that we have several different areas with large worker bases (61st/Yale, Cityplex, 21st uptown, Cherry Street)

If you ignore those people feel alienated and also then feel the need to try and find work downtown, which really isn't being realistic.

Cities like Houston are making light rail work because their sprawl is MASSIVE.  I lived there for three years..another reason why it works is because the employment centers hug the freeways, unlike here.

Go ahead and read the proposal to see that it's a viable, minimal system designed for commuters to downtown and the hospital districts of midtown.

Bet the folks complaining about the traffic yesterday would have been well served by a park and ride commuter system.

Unfortunately, our city planners are too busy drawing up "starter lines" from one nonexistent development to another.  (pardon my irksomeness but it's really getting old.)

quote:

---

just about every table was including some form of transit in their plans for Tulsa

---

i saw the same thing today.
yet i heard from someone today that tulsa transit just eliminated service to ORU, 'round the 71st st. area.  

i wonder if there's a way to find out why this decision was made, and how tulsa transit / incog really does determine where more bus lines / mass transit services (park & ride, etc.) are needed.  ...it'd seem to me that if you wanted to relieve congestion, help roads last longer, eliminate the need to widen roads, help people save on gas, cut emmissions and keep tulsa on the clean air list, you'd be INCREASING public transportation in this area (...think of how much commuter traffic clogs up the 71st and riverside area every weekday afternoon), not cutting it out.

The Blind Lawyer at my table stated some statistics that ridership is up 30% over 5 years from now but service is down 30%.

I'd like to see Tulsa get Amtrak service before light rail.

Since Amtrak is outside the scope of the Comp Plan, I replied in "Development" on an existing Amtrak thread.
http://www.tulsanow.org/forum/topic.asp?whichpage=2&TOPIC_ID=10149#157472

quote:

---

Originally posted by PonderInc

Since Amtrak is outside the scope of the Comp Plan, I replied in "Development" on an existing Amtrak thread.
http://www.tulsanow.org/forum/topic.asp?whichpage=2&TOPIC_ID=10149#157472

---

Isn't that special.

quote:

---

 I'd like to see Tulsa get Amtrak service before light rail.

---

yea, who do we have to yell at for that?  state?  federal?  ...i think it's federal, no?

quote:

---

Originally posted by cmoreno

quote:

---

 I'd like to see Tulsa get Amtrak service before light rail.

---

yea, who do we have to yell at for that?  state?  federal?  ...i think it's federal, no?

---

BTW, if this is something we asked for in the Comp Plan Update wouldn't it help us to get it? I just love how the Tulsa Now junta starts tells everybody what they can and can't do when it doesn't fit their agenda.

dunno about ponderInc., but what i was referring to was that i don't think the city gov. or leadership has anything to do w/ amtrak.

i'm thinking back to that, "what about rail?" INCOG meeting like in april or may.  i seem to remember that what they were saying was that if tulsa wanted amtrak, it was an issue of lobbying for federal money.  ...dunno i could be totally stupid and wrong about that.

I'm actually one of the most pro-rail people you'll find in Tulsa.  I just meant that Amtrak service itself is separate from the Comp Plan discussion.  And we already have a specific thread where everyone can discuss THAT topic.

However, discussion about rail infrastructure within the city of Tulsa is certainly a topic for consideration here.

In fact, it would be great if the PLANiTULSA process would help bring like-minded people together to form some sort of transit/rail alliance.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Floyd

Go ahead and read the proposal to see that it's a viable, minimal system designed for commuters to downtown and the hospital districts of midtown.

Bet the folks complaining about the traffic yesterday would have been well served by a park and ride commuter system.

Unfortunately, our city planners are too busy drawing up "starter lines" from one nonexistent development to another.  (pardon my irksomeness but it's really getting old.)

---

I think the deal with the starter line is that its generally accepted that people dont want to pay for rail. That it would be political suicide to really confront the issue and try to pay for a rail line from BA into Downtown. Even if its just a part-time commuter rail. It would probably cost around 110mill (perhaps more as material costs keep rising) to do the line from BA to downtown. The other cost is the area IN downtown. You would probably have at least a couple of small stops and one main station. Perhaps a stop by the new baseball stadium, a main stop by the old depot, and perhaps one by the arena. You would also want to consider that you may in the future want to go to SS, Jenks and the Airport. Regardless that section IN downtown that will cost about 80 mill. So rather than ask for 190mill (which likely wouldnt fly) they have the idea of breaking it into smaller chunks to see if they can get things actually done. So the idea is, do the part downtown first and figure out how to finance that, cause your gonna have to do that first anyway in order for the BA line, or any other line, to connect into downtown. One way to get increased usage and to even help pay for it is to extend it to the city owned FinTube property and the West Bank, where we want to spur developments anyway. You can then lease, sell, tax,,,, there are several different possibilities that could be considered, the TOD that would go on that property. Not to mention those properties would make great locations for additional downtown parking versus building more parking garages. The city had planned on building more parking garages, BUT, if you took those funds and used them to fund the downtown segment first... your another step closer to getting the price tag down and ultimately getting that line to BA. Also there could be some small advertising revenue, perhaps some donors would step in to help, and there are other ideas to help get the thing paid for. It just doesnt seem likely that the voters will be willing to pay for the WHOLE link from BA to downtown and within downtown. So the idea is to break it up into smaller more digestible chunks lol, figure out creative ways to get the price down and get things going. Your gonna have to do that section in downtown anyway and if extending it a bit to the city owned property on either end would help pay for it, and open up development and parking potential to boot...

Saying it wont work... Denver did exactly the same thing. They did the expensive small chunk first in downtown, once they had that out of the way, they could then just branch out in several directions to the suburbs for commuter rail.

One of my big concerns with any discussion of mass transit or TOD developments, even if we just do BRT from BA to downtown, is to leverage city controlled property to have affordable housing in the mix. That is, imo a very important thing to put into any comprehensive plan. If we have city controlled property and allow developers to develop on it, we should ask that a percentage of that be affordable housing. I wish people would have considered that while these ballpark discussions were going on. That trust controlled, partially taxpayer funded, property around it should have some affordable housing mixed in. I know a lot of people, especially young people, who would love to live downtown, but cant afford it even when new stuff becomes available. If we create walkable, pedestrian friendly areas close to mass transit hubs, it cant just be for the wealthy. The poor and working class people are the ones who can benefit most from mass trasit and they cant be the ones left out of the development mix.

I understand the political calculations involved.  But one thing I've found is that this administration is horrendous at politics.

It would have made more sense to me to put a bare-bones commuter line into the streets package going before voters this fall.  The reasoning would be that it takes some wear off of the streets and provides commuters with alternative transport as gas prices rise.  The streets package would still pass--$50 million for commuter rail is about what 3 miles of arterial resurfacing costs, and isn't enough of a poison pill to kill the proposal.  Once the ridership built up--which it always does when you put in commuter rail--then you could build support for expanding the system.

In this poster's opinion, what Crowley and the current planners want to do will never fly until a commuter line demonstrates the viability of rail in Tulsa.  I understand that the "starter line" is a vital link in a larger system, but I don't understand why they want to build it first before there's anything to link.  (Don't bother typing pages and pages to convince me otherwise--I understand what they're doing, I just think they're tone deaf and mistaken in doing so.)

I have also wondered why at least some amount was not set aside for possible rail of some sort in that package. (however, I think there is some for a bridge or interchange in or near downtown that if done would actually help implementing any future rail) If your going to do a road plan that costs so much, a small amount to like you say, take some wear and tear off the roads and begin the process towards more mass transit, would seem reasonable. You just never heard hide nor hair about it at all.

I keep getting the sense that some of the "powers that be" are leaning towards BRT as a more likely alternative for mass transit than rail. I think some studies will be done to look at the cost effectiveness of both in our situation and see which comes out best, and for what area. I would like to see some sort of rail, somewhere in Tulsa. But if BRT is better at the moment, it could set the stage for rail in the future.

I really liked the BRT line they showed during the presentation having its own dedicated lanes and rail like stations. But the problem with that is where would you get the lane, in ANY part of the city, and how much would that cost?

One way or another Mass Transit and where we are going to have future stations, either Rail or BRT, HAS to be a fundamental part of the comprehensive plan. We are going to have to figure this out. You cant know where to put TOD if you dont know where the "T" is going to be. And deciding where in the city to put more pedestrian friendly and urban nodes can depend greatly on where access immediately on the mass transit lines are, or efficient lines of access to the transit nodes.

You dont want to focus your efforts on building up an area and then in the future decide a mass transit station can only go in a different area and you then your stuck saying..."Dang, we should have been putting all that development over here instead of there."

At this point we HAVE to know where the transit nodes are going to go first.

At our table and from what I could tell of others, we decided that we had to decide where the mass transit lines were going to be, whether BRT or Rail, in order to have some rhyme or reason for where we put future development. Especially more urban and pedestrian friendly development. Mass transit works best by having dense, pedestrian friendly areas to connect to. Unless we only want inefficient mass transit, we need to have dense nodes. Or just have downtown be the dense area and let everyone else fend for themselves. Thats a sure recipe to keep the poor and working class folk from being able to take advantage of mass transit, and they are the ones that it could benefit the most.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TheArtist

I keep getting the sense that some of the "powers that be" are leaning towards BRT as a more likely alternative for mass transit than rail. I think some studies will be done to look at the cost effectiveness of both in our situation and see which comes out best, and for what area. I would like to see some sort of rail, somewhere in Tulsa. But if BRT is better at the moment, it could set the stage for rail in the future.

I really liked the BRT line they showed during the presentation having its own dedicated lanes and rail like stations. But the problem with that is where would you get the lane, in ANY part of the city, and how much would that cost?

---

In order to get the "R" in "BRT", it really needs its own lane or Right of Way.  When the dedicated RoW is considered, the initial cost of BRT approaches that of Light Rail. When operating costs and equipment life are considered, Light Rail usually is less expensive. I am skeptical about the viability in Tulsa winters of movable barriers as proposed for BRT on the Broken Arrow expressway west of Memorial. I believe there are areas of the Tulsa Metro area that could be effectively served by Light Rail.

The claim of "just like rail but cheaper" is examined by Light Rail Now in a study of the Los Angeles "Orange Line".  LRN agrees that for the route covered that BRT is superior to previous bus service and also that due to local constraints that Light Rail was not feasible. They do offer several examples with photos of why "just like rail but cheaper" does not apply. See: http://www.lightrailnow.org/facts/fa_brt_2006-10a.htm

The studies and literature I have seen indicate that Rail is preferred over BRT by riders. Given the large expense of either Light Rail or a true BRT (not just a fancy bus on regular roads), I believe that rail would be a better choice for Tulsa transit solutions.

My team suggested taking already wide roads and carving out the middle for BRT. Memorial, 71st, etc. The BRT would then terminate at a light rail station.

quote:

---

Originally posted by sgrizzle

My team suggested taking already wide roads and carving out the middle for BRT. Memorial, 71st, etc. The BRT would then terminate at a light rail station.

---

Good location, try light rail right from the start.

If you are going to make exclusive right of way, two way rail will take less space. It will also not be tempting for autos to use the space illegally. If you want to share the space with autos, electric powered vehicles are generally able to keep pace with other traffic when a bus will not.

There is plenty of documentation to show that the real cost of BRT is not a whole lot cheaper. I'd rather pay a little more for something people would willingly use.

Our plan was based on the video fregonese showed of a bus lane running down center medians. The cost of buying a train is very high, plus I imagine installing rail vs concrete has to be a bit of a difference too. I can see where rail might have benefits over distance but over a 10mile run down an arterial road, I have trouble buying it.

quote:

---

Originally posted by sgrizzle

Our plan was based on the video fregonese showed of a bus lane running down center medians. The cost of buying a train is very high, plus I imagine installing rail vs concrete has to be a bit of a difference too. I can see where rail might have benefits over distance but over a 10mile run down an arterial road, I have trouble buying it.

---

\

Except for copyright issues, I could show you pictures of light rail doing the same.  I'll dig up some links for you also some regarding costs. Some of the cost reports are kind of boring but have info for someone really interested in the issue. There are, of course, experts on both sides using the same raw data to make their case.  Most of my references are available on www.lightrailnow.org  While they are pro-rail as their name inplies, they are primarily pro-tranist.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Red Arrow

quote:

---

Originally posted by sgrizzle

Our plan was based on the video fregonese showed of a bus lane running down center medians. The cost of buying a train is very high, plus I imagine installing rail vs concrete has to be a bit of a difference too. I can see where rail might have benefits over distance but over a 10mile run down an arterial road, I have trouble buying it.

---

\

Except for copyright issues, I could show you pictures of light rail doing the same.  I'll dig up some links for you also some regarding costs. Some of the cost reports are kind of boring but have info for someone really interested in the issue. There are, of course, experts on both sides using the same raw data to make their case.  Most of my references are available on www.lightrailnow.org  While they are pro-rail as their name inplies, they are primarily pro-tranist.

---

I found some pictures but couldn't make a direct link to one showing the trolley in the median of the road.  Both of the picture links have lots of pictures of trolleys.

There are several good articles on BRT cost v.s. LRT on Light Rail Now.  The link gets you to the section with the discussions on BRT.  I am still looking for an article I found last spring by E.L. Tennyson but my slow computer makes it take a while. It also had some links to US gov't reports. I'll keep looking for it.

BRT Analyses:
http://www.lightrailnow.org/facts/fa_brt.htm

Trolley Pictures:
http://www.joelance.com

More trolley stuff:
http://www.phillytrolley.org/

Of the list of public works stimulus projects Governor Brad Henry took to the National Governors Association meeting, about $40 million was for transit.

According to ODOT this was all for bus and van replacement.

The U.S. Conference of Mayors also submitted a list.  Norman requested $2.7 million for bus service expansion.

Here is Tulsa's request:

Tulsa OK Transit Transit Coaches-Purchase and replacement of up to sixteen (16) transit coaches. 5,300,000  30
Tulsa OK Transit Lift Vans-Purchase up to forty (40) lift vans/buses. 3,000,000  18
Tulsa OK Transit Sidewalk Infrastructure Improvements-Construct 5 sidewalk projects that improve pedestrian access to transit connections. 940,000  6
Tulsa OK Transit Paratransit buses-Replace 10 paratransit program transit buses. 900,000  4
Tulsa OK Transit Structural renovations-Roof and other structural work at facilities. 180,000  1
Tulsa OK Transit Passanger Shelters-Purchse and placement of up to fifty (50) passenger shelters throughout the metropolitan Tulsa Area. 250,000  1
Tulsa OK Transit Maintenance shop floor-Resurface maintenance shop concrete floor. 150,000  1
Tulsa OK Transit Fixed route fleet radios-Replace fixed route fleet radio system. 125,000  1
Tulsa OK Transit Downtown Trailhead Facility (Brady Village Infill Plan & Downtown Master Plan Update; current C.I.P. funding list). 2,000,000  12

Comment:  Would have liked to have seen the Jack Crowley light rail plan in there or maybe Tulsa Union Depot intermodal prep.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Transport_Oklahoma

Of the list of public works stimulus projects Governor Brad Henry took to the National Governors Association meeting, about $40 million was for transit.

According to ODOT this was all for bus and van replacement.

The U.S. Conference of Mayors also submitted a list.  Norman requested $2.7 million for bus service expansion.

Here is Tulsa's request:

Tulsa OK Transit Transit Coaches-Purchase and replacement of up to sixteen (16) transit coaches. 5,300,000  30
Tulsa OK Transit Lift Vans-Purchase up to forty (40) lift vans/buses. 3,000,000  18
Tulsa OK Transit Sidewalk Infrastructure Improvements-Construct 5 sidewalk projects that improve pedestrian access to transit connections. 940,000  6
Tulsa OK Transit Paratransit buses-Replace 10 paratransit program transit buses. 900,000  4
Tulsa OK Transit Structural renovations-Roof and other structural work at facilities. 180,000  1
Tulsa OK Transit Passanger Shelters-Purchse and placement of up to fifty (50) passenger shelters throughout the metropolitan Tulsa Area. 250,000  1
Tulsa OK Transit Maintenance shop floor-Resurface maintenance shop concrete floor. 150,000  1
Tulsa OK Transit Fixed route fleet radios-Replace fixed route fleet radio system. 125,000  1
Tulsa OK Transit Downtown Trailhead Facility (Brady Village Infill Plan & Downtown Master Plan Update; current C.I.P. funding list). 2,000,000  12

Comment:  Would have liked to have seen the Jack Crowley light rail plan in there or maybe Tulsa Union Depot intermodal prep.

---

Or some money for trails, or just about anything related to actually expanding non-auto transportation. I don't think 5 sidewalks will be of great help in that area.

Just found this 55 page report:

http://www.incog.org/transportation/documents/RailTransitStrategicPlanFinal.pdf

Rail Transit Strategic Plan

The Report of the Transportation Strategies Ad Hoc Committee
of the INCOG Transportation Policy Committee
October 2008

All these requests are for known/shelved projects. The commuter rail plan in Tulsa isn't far enough along to make a formal request.

I wasn't necessarily suggesting a Tulsa commuter rail plan was ready for a January stimulus.

Still it is frustrating that routine road repairs seem to be making up the biggest share of state priorities. (http://"http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/12/13/AR2008121301819.html")

There are countless 1930s WPA projects around Oklahoma that are serving people today.

The new layers of asphalt will just have to be redone a decade from now.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Transport_Oklahoma

I wasn't necessarily suggesting a Tulsa commuter rail plan was ready for a January stimulus.

Still it is frustrating that routine road repairs seem to be making up the biggest share of state priorities. (http://"http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/12/13/AR2008121301819.html")

There are countless 1930s WPA projects around Oklahoma that are serving people today.

The new layers of asphalt will just have to be redone a decade from now.

---

There is a decent likelihood that rail will be prepared for a future similar package that is expected in the coming few years.

Not every WPA project was done the first round.

Albuquerque-Santa Fe commuter rail starts Wednesday (12-17) (http://"http://www.krqe.com/dpp/news/business/business_krqe_nm_rail_runner_starts_par_ends_200812141821_rev1")

Albuquerque Metro pop:  799,260
Tulsa Metro pop:  841,238
OKC Metro pop:  1,157,842

quote:

---

Originally posted by Transport_Oklahoma

Albuquerque-Santa Fe commuter rail starts Wednesday (12-17) (http://"http://www.krqe.com/dpp/news/business/business_krqe_nm_rail_runner_starts_par_ends_200812141821_rev1")

Albuquerque Metro pop:  799,260
Tulsa Metro pop:  841,238
OKC Metro pop:  1,157,842

---

The Rail  Runner has proven to be very popular. Popular enough to extend it to Santa Fe.  My sister rides it to work from the park-&_ride at Los Lunas (south of ABQ).  She cites all the normal reasons for using the train.  Less wear and tear on the car, less gasoline, less putting up with idiots on I-25 (think BA Expy).

Full trains in Albuquerque. (http://"http://kob.com/article/stories/S717386.shtml?cat=504")

Next system opens:  Phoenix Metro!

The 20 mile starter light rail line attracted 150,000 over the weekend. (http://"http://www.abc15.com/content/news/phoenixmetro/story/Light-rail-attracts-150-000-in-opening-Phoenix/9S_ZFsiJ3Uy3sAQ7KpeN8A.cspx")

San Antonio, Texas is now the largest city in the nation with bus-only transit.

More. (http://"http://www.azcentral.com/news/traffic/lightrail/articles/2008/12/27/20081227lightrail_mog.html")

1.4 billion later...     Holy cow.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TeeDub


1.4 billion later...     Holy cow.

---

That's only 70% of the 2 Billion road package that was proposed last summer for Tulsa.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TeeDub


1.4 billion later...     Holy cow.

---

1.4b for a 20 mile starter line serving 28 stations expected to carry up to 26,000 riders a day.  

So lets say it more like 70m/mile.  The ridership is what's initially expected however as with most light rail lines it will probably be higher and grow annually.  I wonder how much of the tab was picked up by the feds and the state?  The line is a reinvestment in a predominantly existing urban area where infrastructure exists.  It's a mode that supports urban reinvestment and revitalization as well as compact development at outlying nodes all together establishing a framework for urban living that doesn't require automobility (better for the environment and other commuters continuing to utilize the highway system --- and, oh yeah, it enables some to invest in a lifestyle that uses less oil reducing our reliance on the foriegn stuff)  Sounds like a good investment to me!

I can't remember, how much are we spending on a few miles of expansion of I-44...that will only allow people to get through our city faster (for a while)?

I would gladly support a well designed and situated 20 mile light rail line including 28 development opportunities that connect to downtown...and remember the feds and state would pick up some of that tab...that would redirect investment in our City.

quote:

---

Originally posted by OurTulsa
It's a mode .... that doesn't require automobility (better for the environment and other commuters continuing to utilize the highway system ---

---

An excellent point worth repeating to those who say they won't be able to ride the rails, what does it do for them.

For those too dense to see the point: If a bunch of other people ride public transit, it will leave the roads and parking lots more open for you.  Around the USA, people are flocking to rail transit in a manner not seen by bus transit.  

See my usual source: www.lightrailnow.org

New York Times editorial (http://"http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/05/opinion/05mon2.html") urging the Obama administration to balance federal transportation priorities.

I just don't see a need for Rail Way mass transit in the Tulsa metro area. If you're traveling to BA, Bixby, jenks, Sand Springs, Owasso it would be a 15 to 20 min drive. Now, what I think would be beneficial is if there were a quick and efficiant way to get people from down town Tulsa to Bartlesville, Olkmulgee, McCalaster, Muskogee, and other areas where the drive is over 30 min. But from BA to Tulsa and other close communities it's just not practical.

I think those lines to Bartlesville, Muskogee, and etc. will eventually be part of the plan, but we need to develop the BA to Tulsa line before Muskogee to Tulsa.  I think eventually, Broken Arrow will be a stop on the Muskogee to Tulsa line.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ben Wehr

I just don't see a need for Rail Way mass transit in the Tulsa metro area. If you're traveling to BA, Bixby, jenks, Sand Springs, Owasso it would be a 15 to 20 min drive. Now, what I think would be beneficial is if there were a quick and efficiant way to get people from down town Tulsa to Bartlesville, Olkmulgee, McCalaster, Muskogee, and other areas where the drive is over 30 min. But from BA to Tulsa and other close communities it's just not practical.

---

Your decisions will depend in part on your vision for the Tulsa you are building for your childrens children.

(http://www.dkimages.com/discover/previews/1412/11293637.JPG)

You can have the image above in Heritage Streetcar or Modern Streetcar or even LRT.

You can have the image below with Bus Rapid Transit.

Which City do you want to be?

(http://blog.wired.com/cars/images/2007/09/24/estacionelevada.jpg)

As for the difference in Rail and Bus in terms of attraction of riders you can check the numbers for yourself at: http://www.lightrailnow.org/

For the difference in development attraction, "PCT Trolley buses vs REAL STREETCARS" WITH NUMBERS check out: The American Public Transportation Association web pages on "Heritage Trolleys"

http://www.heritagetrolley.com/planBenefits.htm

Long interesting FEATURE STORY on "Bring Back The Streetcars" from the APTA.
http://www.apta.com/research/info/online/weyrich.cfm

You want the TRUTH about streetcars?

You might also want to visit my blog at:

http://jacksonvilletransit.blogspot.com/

I also keep an informational web-site on transit at:

http://www.freewebs.com/lightrailjacksonville/

Streetcar and Transit Myths

Myth: You should always select one form of transit in order to maximize the impact.
Fact: In Transit, as in Wal-Mart, Mix and Choice sell.

Myth: BRT is just like rail only cheaper.
Fact: Look up the definition of the word CHEAP.

Myth: Overhead wires will be an eyesore.
Fact: Streetcars use a single overhead wire 1/2 inch in diameter.

Myth: Amtrak has no relation to Commuter Rail.
Fact: By introducing Amtrak services the federal and state governments pay to improve the track and plant, which can then be used by Commuter Rail. In fact Amtrak does operate some Commuter Rail services under contract.

Myth: Bikes and streetcars don't mix.
Fact: Portland and Philadelphia are bicycle-friendly cities; we can learn from them how to integrate streetcars and bikes.

Myth: Streetcars will harm bus service.
Fact: Buses replaced by streetcars can be used to provide new and expanded services. Streetcars can increase overall transit ridership.

Myth: People who don't ride buses won't ride streetcars.
Fact: In San Francisco, 7,000 people/day rode the electric bus; 21,000 people/day rode a streetcar on the same route.

Myth: Streetcars are more expensive to operate than buses.
Fact: There are trade-offs; buses last only 8 years, streetcars last 40 years.

Myth: Streetcars are too slow to attract riders.
Fact: Streetcars are designed to provide convenient, accessible, comfortable transportation. As for speed, streetcar/LRT has the same basic locomotion as the French High Speed Trains, it's all about how you want YOURS.

Myth: Streetcars won't reduce car trips.
Fact: They will reduce short, wasteful car trips within the area they serve by providing a predictable, comfortable alternative.

Myth: Fixed tracks make streetcars less flexible, and therefore a waste of money.
Fact: Building a permanent infrastructure for streetcars encourages retail and residential development. Current return in development dollars is about $1,200 dollars per $1 dollar invested in streetcar.

Myth: We can test or even achieve the streetcar potential with a Faux Trolley bus.
Fact: There is no relationship between the ridership of faux buses and real streetcars. One city experienced a jump from 7,000 passengers per day without rail to 21,000 a day with rail on the same route.

Myth: Rail is inflexible and thus prone to massive investment and loss.
Fact: Rail is perhaps the most flexible of all transit, but once on the ground it is a fixture that attracts TOD. No investor is going to sink a fortune in a new skyscraper because a bus is nearby. Elevated, in street, side of road, median, private railroad track, subway.

This is just the tip of the iceberg y'all and as a professional in this field, I'll be glad to post and fight this battle along side you. As one with ancestral roots in Oklahoma, and a former Cashion, OK. Councilman and student of OSU, I have more then a passing interest.

OCKLAWAHA [}:)]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ocklawaha

This is just the tip of the iceberg y'all and as a professional in this field, I'll be glad to post and fight this battle along side you. As one with ancestral roots in Oklahoma, and a former Cashion, OK. Councilman and student of OSU, I have more then a passing interest.

---

Glad to have you

ALOHA AND LAWZEE

 I have poor eyesight  and am a sumetime user of mass transit

"WHERE DO FELLOW TULSANS GET  THESE WEIRD OFF THE WALL IDEAS
(I read a lot of them on Tulsa now)???????

"MASS TRANSIT IN TULSA SUCKS!"

"TULSA TRANSIT IS A JOKE AND SUCKS!"

"TAXIES IN TULSA SUCK!"

   Mass Transit  is for the handicapped and the poor if you are not handicapped or poor you are a green,psycho-babble yuppi liberal!
the bus system in Tulsa is so wacked it takes some times two to three buses
and one and a half hours to go to one place in Tulsa  I've have used
Tulsa Transit since 1987;  it has gone from functionally bad to totally annoying and almost useless.  use taxies in tulsa they take forever and a day to pick you up  and charge you and a arm and a leg. street cars good grief we can't even fix the socially necessary evil  for the poor and handicapped and you green liberal folk want street cars good grief!
        Okay hypocritical green folk first lets do our moral duty and fix Tulsa transit and Tulsa's taxi services for the handicapped and poor.  Secondly
lets find a affordable and renewable fuel source
        Street cars as a viable solution  for mass transit good grief;
Jesus wept in the garden of  Gethsemane! 

ALOHA AND LAWZEE

1956packard,

There are two types of transit riders:  "captive" riders and "choice" riders.  Tulsa has captive riders, people such as yourself who must have public transit in order to take care of themselves. Our transit system is nearly "useless", you're right.  But fixing it isn't going to happen with just a few mild adjustments.  

As you noted, our transit system does not even begin to serve the captive population adequately.  By the way, it's not just for the "poor and handicapped" as you suggest, there are other hidden groups like seniors and school kids who would enjoy a much better quality of life if they had better mobility.

I think the fallacy, however, is that once you have a transit system that adequately serves the captive population, then your ridership will plateau.  That's not the case.  A good transit system, even in Tulsa, will start to pick up lots of "choice" riders, i.e., those who have a car but choose to take mass transit because it's convenient; easy; good for the environment; don't have to pay for parking; or some other valid reason.  It won't be long before transit becomes a priority investment for lots of Tulsans.  With enough choice riders, Tulsa will have to begin balancing transit investments with traditional big-ticket expenditures like street widening.

Going from awful to excellent, as challenging as it sounds, is probably the only way to "fix" Tulsa Transit.  It requires a big solution and it's necessarily a government solution.  But the existing roadway/private car system we have today is a big government solution, too, and it's leaving a lot of folks like you behind.  

Correct CL,

In order to attract "choice" riders, the system will need to be clean and efficient with frequent service.  As you said, excellent.  "Choice" riders usually prefer rail.    This does not mean that buses do not have a place in good mass transit.  It is just not the only (or preferred) solution.  True BRT (Bus Rapid Transit) on a dedicated Right of Way is usually no less expensive than rail if equipment life and operating costs are considered.  See www.lightrailnow.org for the studies I use for my conclusions.

One of my favorite outcomes of a good mass transit system is the infill development that occurs around stations.  Ultimately, you/me/the City gets far more bang for their/our buck (or return on investment) with a transit system than we/they will ever realize with a new road.

The City of Broken Arrow voted last night to contribute $78,778 toward a Light Rail study. 

Other Contributions:
Tulsa - $285,406
Owasso - $20,328
Sand Springs - $13,950
Jenks - $11,538

Where did you see this?..... Any more info, I am curious as to what this study is exactly? We have already paid for and done in depth studies, had public meetings, etc. on rail? Just how many studies do they need to do?

I wondered the same thing--I thought we already did a study.  Maybe this is more specific engineering, etc.

You can see the Broken Arrow City Council minutes from this weeks meeting at:
www.brokenarrowok.gov

It seems to be an INCOG thing.

The story was in the Broken Arrow Ledger. 

The last study was an INCOG thing as well.