The Tulsa Forum by TulsaNow

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=11&articleid=20121221_11_A1_IfTuls888853&r=4351


Luckily the Councilors don't seem to support the Vision part.

Tulsa Council Considering Separate Tax Extension Questions

http://kwgs.com/post/tulsa-council-considering-separate-tax-extension-questions (http://kwgs.com/post/tulsa-council-considering-separate-tax-extension-questions)

OK, this was the thread I should've used to talk about the capital improvements package.  Not Vision 2.

$1.8 billion for streets. How much for transit?

LOVE your sense of humor!!!!  Never lose that....

I hope this passes, and I suspect it will.  There are some decent projects included.  I like the River Parks stuff, and how it will interface with the Gathering Place.  The Peoria BRT will be a good test to see if this form of transit can be applied in other parts of the city.  

My hope is that the next time this package is presented to voters it includes at least 25% for transit and pedestrian/bike infrastructure/sidewalk improvements, instead of ~6% that is in this package.  Maybe there will be a more progressive mayor and council in place then.

City-County Deal on Tax Said to be Closer

(http://mediad.publicbroadcasting.net/p/kwgs/files/styles/card_280/public/201308/Council_meeting_3.JPG)

http://kwgs.com/post/city-county-deal-tax-said-be-closer (http://kwgs.com/post/city-county-deal-tax-said-be-closer)


Henderson appears to be awake.  Not sure if this is a stock or not.

FOS 2.  Full Of ...., oh, wait,...Fix our streets....yeah, that's it...that's the ticket....

The county needs to show me why we need more jail space and why simply choosing to cite more people rather than arrest them for minor violations isn't an option for reducing that need.

I found this:

http://www.fastforwardplan.org/tabid/65/ctl/ViewItem/mid/423/ItemId/114/Default.aspx?SkinSrc=/website/Portals/0/Skins/FastForward/SubPage

The list of capital improvement projects proposed by the City Council includes nearly $30 million for the Metropolitan Tulsa Transit Authority, more than half of which would be used to buy new buses.
The new buses are needed, they argue, but the potentially transformative piece of the funding is the $15 million dedicated to establishing a new bus rapid transit system along Peoria Avenue.

The bus rapid transit system would run Monday through Saturday - just like the 105 - but longer hours - from 5:30 a.m. to 10:30 p.m. 
Officials estimate that wait times would go from 30 minutes to 15 minutes during peak hours and from 30 minutes to 20 minutes the rest of the day.

That's not even completely unreasonable. It's not going to spur development, though. Rubber-tired vehicles just don't manage it. It's not like we're going to go as far as Miami-Dade County did when they put in BRT out to the southwest part of the metro and put it on a dedicated right of way. Still, it shows at least a bit of forward thinking, or would if it were done early in the funding cycle and not at the end. ;)

The only real way for BRT to be R, as in rapid, is to have its own right of way.  Same with streetcars/trolleys.  Street running is not fast.  However, real BRT is not really competing with street running streetcars/trolleys.  Its real competition is Light Rail. When a dedicated ROW, life expectancy of vehicles, operating costs and a few more issues are considered, BRT is not such a $ bargain.

Transit oriented development only really comes with an investment that cannot be moved with the stroke of a pen.  A few bus shelters are not a significant enough investment.

Better bus service up and down Peoria is a start though even if it is really only more like a shorter headway express bus.

You can make it (relatively) rapid even when street running if you have dedicated lanes at strategic points and traffic signal preemption. Otherwise, I agree with your post completely.

Which is the plan for Peoria, is it not?

Those would definitely help.

I have read that they were planning signal preemption, but haven't seen anything about adding/reconfiguring lanes as part of the project. I haven't looked that closely at it, though.

I think they are going to have dedicated lanes for stops and special shelters too. This really is a good first step to real mass transit. Tie it to a circulator trolley downtown and we have a real start.

From the Tulsa Fast Forward site:
http://www.fastforwardplan.org/Portals/0/Documents/Peoria/Peoria_BRT_1-page_map.pdf
http://www.fastforwardplan.org/Portals/0/Documents/Peoria/PeoriaTransitStudy4-4-2013DRAFT.pdf

Below are some excerpts from the study.  It's a bit long but I expect most here would not follow the link.

Corridor-Based BRT (“BRT 10/15” & “BRT 15/20”) Build Alternatives
These alternatives are proposed to operate in mixed traffic, replacing the existing route 105 service within the PRC.   Two BRT scenarios were devised in order to compare cost efficiency of operating at a 10 min/15 min or at a 15 min/20 min peak versus off peak service frequency. Infrastructure and technology improvements are the same between alternatives. BRT Alternative features include:
   15 hours service operating span (approximately 6am to 9pm) Monday thru Sunday    10 minutes peak / 15 minutes off-peak daily service frequency OR 15 minutes peak / 20 minutes
off-peak daily service frequency
   Limited stop frequency ranging from approximately every 1⁄2 mile to 11⁄2 miles from 38th Street North
to 81st Street South and Lewis Avenue. o   A local circulator bus will be added to the North end of the alignment to maintain service in
between 38th and 66th Streets.
   Traffic signal prioritization at all PRC signalized intersections    Branding of vehicles and transit amenities
   Significant transit shelters and amenities at end of line or major destinations / activity centers, major
arterials intersections and multimodal transfer points. Minimal transit shelters and amenities will be
installed at other selected stations.
   Real time arrival information and passenger information media at shelters    Pedestrian crossing protection and sidewalk repair/installation at stations adjacent to major arterial
intersections or multimodal transfer points
   Automated ticket vending and pedestrian lighting fixtures along sidewalk approaches to stations
adjacent to major arterial intersections or multimodal transfer points
   Dedicated transit lanes deployed only as appropriate in select locations



   Dedicated transit lanes restrict travel lane accessibility to transit operations and other designated vehicles, (i.e. – high occupancy vehicles (HOV)). They may be deployed and operated on a continuous basis, or as-needed during peak travel demand or congested periods. Designation of dedicated lanes within the PRC would be achieved through signage, striping and pavement marking only. Construction impacts may include:
o   Reduction in roadway capacity by restricting travel lane usage
o   May require construction of additional infrastructure to designate transition from mixed use to
dedicated transit lane


Evaluation Results
The No Build Alternative has reconstruction. All of the proposed Build Alternatives feature similar elements requiring minor road construction for bus pads at all stations, as well as curb extensions and pull out bays where necessary.
Current traffic volumes and congestion levels along PRC corridor roadways do not support the installation of dedicated transit lanes; therefore, they are currently not included in either of the BRT Alternatives. Pending future traffic conditions, dedicated transit lanes may be considered for installation, as warranted, to support BRT


Service
Faster one-way travel speeds along the Peoria/Riverside Corridor are hoped to be achieved through a combination of faster passenger boarding capabilities via off-board fare collection and consolidated stops. The removal of the current practice of “flag” stops is highly desired to improve on-time performance and boost productivity but has not yet been decided upon. Having consolidated stops would greatly improve travel times along this corridor. Table 16 tabulates alignment characteristics for the existing Route 105/No-Build scenario, as well as characteristics for each new service alternative. Table 17 details the service characteristics for local/existing service and the proposed alternatives.

Improvement Package Gets a Name

http://tinyurl.com/mkme7xj (http://tinyurl.com/mkme7xj)

This is a lot of money just for streets, we should really spend some money that pays us back over time.

For example: money set aside for housing in downtown has had the triple effect of removing unused office space from the inventory, bringing unused buildings back into use and into repair, and in additional new businesses to serve the new inhabitants.  There is no reason that other parts of the city couldn't see the same type of rebirth.

I just wish I knew who was selling all these fire alarms.

Did you know every time you went to the BOK Center or PAC that you were taking your life into your own hands?

It would be important to know if they are talking "pedestrian lighting" like you would find around a hospital or along Cherry Street, or the Acorn-style glare-bombs the taxpayers got stuck with in the Blue Dome district.

I've looked over the PDF for the "BRT" and it does seem like a good start. But the route for the Bus Rapid Transit should be changed, slightly.

http://tulsatransit.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/TulsaBRTFactSheet.pdf

The plan is to go from 36th St N to 6th st, over to the central bus terminal and back to Peoria and on down to 81st.

If you change it just a little, go west to Greenwood on Pine and then down to Archer over to Denver to 6th and then back to Peoria you have add very little, if any length to the trip but you pick up OSU Tulsa, Langston, The Greenwood District, Oneok Field and the Brady District while losing about a mile of Peoria, half of which is a highway and salvage yards. You would still have the shopping center with the old Albertson’s at Pine and would have The Pearl still at 6th and would improve access to Morton. This would improve access to jobs, healthcare, and education.

Nicely done swake

Sounds reasonable to me.  Send it in to the appropriate "authorities".

Indeed, he should have his people talk to their people.

IMO there is too much street work going on and it's all happening at once. They need to do one project and finish that before starting another. How much of that street work is really needed anyhoo? Memorial & Admiral  have been a mess for half a year and still are a long way from being done, then they tear up Admiral & Mingo, just west of highway 169. Yale is a mess in the south part, highway 169 & the B.A. are still a mess and nothing was really wrong there in the first place and they go tearing up the overpass. I still do not believe there was a need to replace that highway 75 bridge, they took down a good looking solid steel beam bridge just to replace it with another of the same kind. What they could of done was just move the highway bridge more to the west and build one big wide bridge at one single time instead of two seprate bridges, the one big bridge would of held the lanes for both NB & SB traffic and the other bridge never would of needed to be re-built, savings- a few million dollors.

(http://media.heavy.com/media/2012/09/YeahWellThatsJustLikeYourOpinionMan.gif)