I find it interesting that INCOG has put in a plan for commuter rail between downtown and BA with in the next 10 years.
The transportation plans for Tulsa are very interesting and they are looking for public input.
Go here:
http://www.incog.org/Transportation/default.htm
Is the Chairman listed as a citizen the same John Selph as this one?
quote:
my name is John Selph. I am a member of the Board of Directors of the National Association of Regional Councils (NARC) and I chair NARC's Air Quality Task Force. I am chairman-elect of the Indian Nations Council of Governments (INCOG), the Metropolitan Planning Organization for the Tulsa area, and I chair INCOG's Air Quality Committee
.And also former Dist. 2 County Commisioner and many other boards?
Has anyone ever proposed a commuter rail between Tulsa and Bartlesville? Between downtown, Tulsa Airport, Owasso, Skiatook, and then on to Bartlesville--I believe that could be a well used line. If there were a few local stops in between downtown and the airport, it might even spur some decent development in north Tulsa. My understanding is that Conoco/Phillips is relocating a lot of employees from Houston who would rather live in Tulsa. With gas at $3 a gallon, they might appreciate a commuter line. And those living in Owasso and Skiatook would surely appreciate the line as well.
The existing rail lines are well set up for commuter rail in and around Tulsa. You have the tracks that run from downtown BA to downtown Tulsa that could have stops in midtown at 21st street and in east tulsa at 51st and memorial. Another existing line going from downtown by the river to Jenks and maybe Bixby would work well, and the airport/Owasso/Bartlesville would be interesting.
Actually ODOT did hire Parsons Brinkerhoff to study commuter rail between Tulsa and Bartlesville in 1989.
The recommendation then was to make the sure the alignment is preserved so it can be used in the future.
Well its the future now.
Let's see how high fuel goes. That will be the fire that gets the public and policymakers behind rail.
Who wants to lay odds that this will happen in OKC way before it happens here? It looks like Sue Neal will have her work cut out for her as da Mare's legislative liason lobbying for this.
quote:
Originally posted by Double A
Who wants to lay odds that this will happen in OKC way before it happens here?
I dont suppose a collaboration would be a realistic expectation, would it?
Having a MagLev right down the center of the Turner Turnpike wouldnt bother me one bit --
Tulsa to OKC in 45 Min? Cool.
quote:
Originally posted by SXSW
The existing rail lines are well set up for commuter rail in and around Tulsa. You have the tracks that run from downtown BA to downtown Tulsa that could have stops in midtown at 21st street and in east tulsa at 51st and memorial. Another existing line going from downtown by the river to Jenks and maybe Bixby would work well, and the airport/Owasso/Bartlesville would be interesting.
I might be wrong but I recall a talk by by someone associated with Sunbelt Railroad (??) that used to have excursion trains from Mohawk Park. The gist of the talk was that there's 2 levels of certification for railbeds: commercial and passenger. As you'd expect, most ofthe railbeds around Tulsa were allowed to degrade to the lesser commercial grading - no need to keep the line up to passenger status if no one's hauling passengers. I also recall him saying that commercial lines can be used to haul passengers but it requires a permit and the train must operate at a vastly reduced speed (and maybe even stop before bridges, culverts, crossings and such). I wonder which would be more cost effective - rehabilitation or new construction?
But, then again, whatever was preventing Sunbelt (??) from passenger service 10 years ago may no longer be an issue due to the everchanging legislative lanscape.
peb
Part of the problem is that we need people to start changing their attitudes. I have heard so many say that Tulsans will never use a transit system because driving is so much more convenient. For those of us who have spent time commuting, in larger cities, we know the real convenience is in public transportation. Even if the public system doubles your commute time, it is time that you can actually get something done--writing, reading, working on your computer, etc....
quote:
Originally posted by pmcalk
Part of the problem is that we need people to start changing their attitudes. I have heard so many say that Tulsans will never use a transit system because driving is so much more convenient.
This time tomorrow, we'll be voting to widen some streets (among other things). Are we contributing to the problem?
quote:
Even if the public system doubles your commute time, it is time that you can actually get something done--writing, reading, working on your computer, etc....
Sounds like were talking on-board WiFi as a perk for business commuters (or at the very least, uninterrupted coverage from Tulsa Metronet along the route).
Aside from a dependable schedule and an affordable fare, what other utilization incentives might work?
quote:
Originally posted by patric
quote:
Originally posted by pmcalk
Part of the problem is that we need people to start changing their attitudes. I have heard so many say that Tulsans will never use a transit system because driving is so much more convenient.
This time tomorrow, we'll be voting to widen some streets (among other things). Are we contributing to the problem?
Yes we are.
I've heard all of this before. I remember this same commuter rail plan being proposed in the 1970s. I am still waiting for it to happen.
quote:
Originally posted by Dana431
quote:
Originally posted by patric
quote:
Originally posted by pmcalk
Part of the problem is that we need people to start changing their attitudes. I have heard so many say that Tulsans will never use a transit system because driving is so much more convenient.
This time tomorrow, we'll be voting to widen some streets (among other things). Are we contributing to the problem?
Yes we are.
Since I've never been to Tulsa, I really shouldn't be commenting on your transit system, but I really believe that anything done to improve public transportation would be great. Yesterday I was speaking with an acquaintance and told her we're planning on going to Tulsa for our next vacation. She was pretty surprised and proceeded to tell me that as soon as she retires, that's where she'll be living. She has a sister and Mother who live in OK (Not Tulsa) and she has been there often. She absolutely raved about the city. I realize this is just one incident and one other couple that I know of who plan on living down there, BUT, as I said before, Fla, Az, etc are crowded, expensive, etc. There are a lot of baby boomers from the Northern states who will soon be looking for a warmer climate that has very little snowfall yet has all four seasons. I just hope they don't stumble on to Tulsa until we can check it out or the real estate will be skyrocketing by then. Another thing we need to consider is the pattern in the Eastern states. Many people are tired of the hurricanes, heat, crowds, cost of living, etc in Fla. I know of several people who have left Fla. and are relocating to NC and SC. Could there be people in a Southern state near OK that may be looking in your direction some day, too? From the things that I've been told by friends who have been to Tulsa, the city has a lot to offer, entertainment, culture, beautiful scenery, etc. If I were a betting person, I'd guess that your area will see quite a population spurt within the next 10-15 years.
http://blog.foe.org/getting_there/2006/04/whats_that_have.html (//%22http://blog.foe.org/getting_there/2006/04/whats_that_have.html%22)
Seems Tulsa is getting a lot of talk around the country about our transportation system. But how much talk is going within the government and city circles? We should probably say goodbye to gas as low as $2.00 How much does gas need to rise before a serious discussion is brought to the forefront?
quote:
Seems Tulsa is getting a lot of talk around the country about our transportation system. But how much talk is going within the government and city circles? We should probably say goodbye to gas as low as $2.00 How much does gas need to rise before a serious discussion is brought to the forefront?
It's a good question. The Catch-22 in this situation is that as fuel prices rise, so will the cost of new construction (along with everything else). So if the purpose of a commuter system is to save fuel and lower individual transportation costs, it's actually in our best interest to build it now while gas prices are just annoying, rather than later when it gets painful.
Right now, it looks like we'll have to settle for centennial trolleys, baby steps. Tulsa to OKC in 45 minutes would be cool.
If anyone is interested in putting together a group to push for Tulsa area commuter rail, I would be willing to help.
[:)]
Drop me a note.
matthew.dowty@oklahomarail.org
quote:
Originally posted by soloriter
Quote
It's a good question. The Catch-22 in this situation is that as fuel prices rise, so will the cost of new construction (along with everything else). So if the purpose of a commuter system is to save fuel and lower individual transportation costs, it's actually in our best interest to build it now while gas prices are just annoying, rather than later when it gets painful.
VERY good point. I don't think gas prices will ever be back at the 1.50 or 2.00 dollar range.
Commuter rail idea deserves fresh look
By RUSSELL RAY Energy writer
TULSA WORLD 5/21/2006
Click here for the full article. (//%22http://www.tulsaworld.com/EmailStoryDisplay.asp?ID=060521_Bu_E1_Commu11039%22)
When I think of Tulsa's future, I see commuter trains hauling people from all directions to a downtown district brimming with storefronts and featuring a major arena.
The arena is under construction, and city leaders are pushing plans to turn downtown into a thriving retail and entertainment center.
What no one is talking about, however, is a commuter rail system serving Tulsa and the growing communities around it.
No single project could improve the quality of life more in the Tulsa area than a comprehensive system of commuter rails.
I believe now is a good time to push for a commuter rail between Bartlesville and Tulsa. I understand that ConocoPhillips is hiring & relocating more & more people to Bartlesville. Many of those people, especially those relocating from Houston, prefer a larger city like Tulsa. And Tulsa really needs some sort of public transportation between downtown and the airport.
Interesting article. Besides a "cultural change", I think Tulsa needs to be willing to accept physical changes. Outside of dowtown and some of the oldest neighborhoods, Tulsa is one, big, low-density, sprawl. Sure, there are tracks that go hither and yon, but the density along those tracks is very, very, low. Who among us is willing to walk, bike, or drive two miles in order to reach a transit stop? Based on lots of empirical evidence, the answer is likely to be, very few of us will do that.
Placing commuter train stops along these tracks is not a viable solution unless these cities recognize the need to rebuild at much higher densities within easy walking distance of those same stops. You need to build the market for the system, not just the system.
This would quite literally mean bulldozing houses to make room for 160-acre transit developments every mile or so along these alignments. That's a political hot potato(e) that everyone will want to avoid for as close to "forever" as they can orchestrate.
That said, I think there are probably quite a few underutilized spots along these train routes: cheap apartments that are nearing the end of their habitable lives, oversized parking lots, tanking strip malls, etc. So, is INCOG doing anything to identify these areas? Are they creating plans that will someday lead to a sustainable mass transit system? No, they are not.
If this region wants to get serious about commuter rail, then they need to start today with transit-oriented developments along those alignments. See those six-story buildings in the background, yeah, we ain't got those.
(http://www.transitorienteddevelopment.org/images/600_Tram.jpg)
Buses, even luxurious ones, could be a cost-effective substitution until such time as rail becomes feasible. I guess I'm about a quarter over my two bits. But here's a link on transit oriented development (//%22http://www.transitorienteddevelopment.org/pages/1/index.htm%22).
Here are some links about development that has occured or is going to occur after the arrival of rail transit.
In the Dallas area (//%22http://www.dart.org/economicdevelopment.asp%22)
In Saint Louis (//%22http://www.cmt-stl.org/ISSUES/stltod.html%22)
We are not reinventing the wheel here. There is not one rail transit system built in this country in the last 25 years that has not exceeded expectations.
People, their attachment to cars, and development patterns are not that different in Bid D from Tulsa.
Chicken Little brings up some interesting problems with a light-rail system in Tulsa.
I've been doing a lot of reading online lately about Albuquerque doing the same thing. But Albuquerque has one key difference -- it's surrounded by mountains that restrict sprawl. So ABQ is going to become much more dense in the coming years and thus will have a much more ready market for light rail.
ABQ also is currently building passenger-train service from Los Lunas to the south that eventually will connect with the tourism-rich Santa Fe. That's smart.
I used to live near St. Louis. Metrolink there is doing well, but it's also dealing with massive cost overruns with construction of its southwestern leg. And traffic growth on the highways will still necessitate yet another bridge to be built over the Mississippi River. Metrolink, so far, isn't making enough of an impact to slow sprawl.
In Tulsa, I'm afraid we'll have to have $5-a-gallon gas before people in large numbers consider mass transit.
Dallas' DART commuter rail has been successful because of the transit-oriented developments (TOD's) surrounding the various stops on its lines. The city/county gov. did the planning for the lines and funded the project. The private sector then created the TOD's. This public/private synergy has made DART and other systems in the U.S. successful. In order for Tulsa's system to be successful we would need the same kind of public/private commitment.
Take a look at the most likely "starter" line: the BA-downtown link. The downtown station would be none other than the beautiful Art Deco Union Depot, restored for use as a train station once again. Other stops could include a stop on 11th Street with shuttle/trolley access to TU, 21st Street with bus/trolley access to Utica Square and Expo Square, and a stop near 31st and Memorial where the tracks cross. The final stop would be in downtown BA and could anchor a revitalized Main Street with more local store/restaurants and the BAHS performing arts center. All stops would have parking lots/garages so people in surrounding areas could drive, park, and ride to their jobs/entertainment downtown. Inner city trips say from BA to events at Expo Square would utilize the intermediate stops. Dense TOD's could be created around the stops and would raise property values in the neighborhoods around them, like they have done in Dallas, Denver, St. Louis, Minneapolis, etc.
Additional lines would use existing rail lines going south along the river to Jenks and Bixby and north to the airport, Owasso, and possibly Bartlesville.
IMO, ChickenLittle's statements again present reasons why a light rail north to the airport and beyond makes the most sense (though I would also love to see a rail on the BA). The land north of downtown is undervalued, making the purchase of rightaway cheaper. While there isn't much density, that is looking at the cart before the horse. Prior to the advent of the car, density generally followed transportation routes, not vice versa. If you wait for the density to occur first, the land is no longer affordable. A dedicated bus loop downtown coupled with a north light rail could be exactly what north Tulsa needs to redirect growth from the south. It could put downtown as the center of the metro area once again, instead of 71st or 81st or whatever it is now. I am sure that it would not prove profitable, or even break even, for a number of years. But the point of planning is to visualize the future--what will ultimately set Tulsa apart and make it a livable, thriving community--not just dealing with the current gas crises of today.
We live in a city where people circle the parking lot until a space next to the front door opens up. We might wish that Tulsa were a walking, light rail kind of town, but it isn't.
Despite posts here that say Dallas' light rail is successful; my friend who lives next to it says no one uses it. The DART trains I saw roll by where empty.
I've spent my adult life using subways and after the initial fascination wears off you are left with sardines coughing germ ridden breath into your face.
Instead of fighting our nature we should focus on development of a smart car.
Whether you believe that density will create sustainable transportation routes, or you believe the opposite, the relationship is symbiotic. INCOG treats these two planning issues seperately. As long as they continue to do that, INCOG will be an obstacle. This is bad news for those of us who would like to see a successful mass transit system.
Tulsa is too small for such a concept at this point, the OKC option is interesting.
quote:
Originally posted by howard.beale
Tulsa is too small for such a concept at this point, the OKC option is interesting.
How much bigger will Tulsa seem when gas is $3.00/gallon? It's a wiser strategy to be proactive than to be reactive.
quote:
Originally posted by howard.beale
Tulsa is too small for such a concept at this point, the OKC option is interesting.
OKC is not that much bigger than Tulsa...and they are far less dense. I'd say Tulsa is a more viable option, aside from the aforementioned obstacle.
Not far less dense.
Actually, the OKC metro is really well-suited for a simple rail transit system, as the density is pretty much spread along a N-S line.
(http://9.forumer.com/uploads/urbanok/post-8-1137368148.jpg)
A 40 mile commuter line with stations in Edmond, NW OKC, Downtown/Midtown, Moore, and Norman would have a good chance of being successful.
quote:
Originally posted by OKC_Shane
Not far less dense.
Ah, very well...
considerably less dense Tulsa 988/mi², vs. OKC 833.8/mi², a difference of 155 persons per square mile, or 16%.
Taking out the unurbanized areas, I'm sure both cities exceed 2,000 people per square mile.
Wow, and I thought this topic was dead, but I'm glad to see that the high gas prices have got people talking about it again. I think what really needs to happen is for a commission comprised of the area communities, or even the metropolitan statistical area (Osage, Washington, Rogers, Wagoner, Creek, and Tulsa). It is not the responsibility of just Tulsa for northeastern Oklahoma to grow and provide service to these areas; it needs to be a whole community effort. All of our communities need this service.
I just dont see it working in Tulsa. There is no place yet that is dense enough to make it feasable or more convenient than using a car or bus or trolley. It would be nice if the city and surrounding communities designated areas that should have a certain growth density so that some day it may be more feasable. And start out with a much cheaper system of dedicated bus or trolley routes that would be similar to the rail and see if enough people use them.
A line from Broken Arrow to Downtown Tulsa wouldnt work. There are no areas of density in BA, no highrise condoes and apartments etc. BA is so spread out people would have to either drive miles to a huge parking lot which would have to be built then park get out and wait for the rail. Or they would have to walk or be driven out of their neighborhoods to bus stops then taken to the rail terminals etc. I just dont think there are going to be enough takers to fund a rail system. Basically you wouldnt just be paying for a rail sytem but for all the support systems as well, parking lots or garages, bus stops and bus sytem. IMO BA either needs to encourage more density or the people who work downtown just need to move closer to downtown.
The area around woodland is not even allowed to be built up over a certain height, unlike the Galleria area in Dallas. When Dilliards expanded and went one foot over the height limit they were fined by the city. So much for encouraging density in that area.
So it seems to me that if INCOG wants a commuter rail system between BA and downtown it should start yesterday in showing where the future stops are going to be and encouraging dense growth in those areas and or planning for the support structures that will be needed.
For regional commuter rail, area mayors will probably have to get behind it. Better yet, have a system shared with OKC so you can get economies of scale. Maybe using the EMSA model.
The congressional delegation would have to help get the federal matching capital funds. This is easier with Istook leaving the picture.
In New Mexico, the governor was the main hero. Service will start in July from Belen to Albuquerque and on to Bernallilo, with an extension to Santa Fe on the drawing board.
I have to agree with Artist's last remarks and point out that if there were indeed demand for this service, the MTTA routes that once made that run (do they still?) would be overflowing. What advantage would a rail version of busses be other than ambiance? And how likely is it that large areas of land will be set aside for parking in BA?
Increased density or altered mindsets regarding transportation would need to occur.
I agree with TheArtist. However, I also ponder whether a rail line would encourage density - the whole chicken / egg paradox.
In Dallas many dense areas that did not exist prior to DART's rail system have sprung up only AFTER the rail system was built.
Instead of trying to connect downtown Tulsa with BA, I would rather we start small and focus on a rail system in and around the IDL. Memphis has a small trolley line that connects Beale Street to downtown hotels to their convention center to the river. It would be great if we could loop the following with light rail: OSU-Tulsa, Brady, Downtown, River, 18th/Boston, 6th Street / Peoria.
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
I have to agree with Artist's last remarks and point out that if there were indeed demand for this service, the MTTA routes that once made that run (do they still?) would be overflowing. What advantage would a rail version of busses be other than ambiance? And how likely is it that large areas of land will be set aside for parking in BA?
Increased density or altered mindsets regarding transportation would need to occur.
With all the sprawl development, large areas of land are already set aside for parking in BA. Who would notice? [}:)]
Did you know that the BART system in the Bay Area is expensive, primarily serves well off Financial District office workers (though everyone gets taxed), and it will never pay for itself. It relies on a sales tax and state and federal money.
Public Transportation is an essential part of the motif of liberal thought but can't we be pragmatic and find something more tailored to our situation.
Downtown has a number of old car hotels with valet service. What if the city used a fraction of what a public rail system would cost to buy those old hotels, staff them with city workers and provide free valet parking for folks that do business downtown? Free validated parking. It might be enough of a novelty to cause people to walk a block or two.
Shucks you'd have so much money left over you could throw in some bike lanes and bike racks all over downtown.
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
I just dont see it working in Tulsa. There is no place yet that is dense enough to make it feasable or more convenient than using a car or bus or trolley. It would be nice if the city and surrounding communities designated areas that should have a certain growth density so that some day it may be more feasable. And start out with a much cheaper system of dedicated bus or trolley routes that would be similar to the rail and see if enough people use them.
It may not work today; but even if INCOG decided tomorrow it would build a transit system, it would take a decade to come to fruition. So the question is, once again, will Tulsa be playing catch-up, or will we actually plan for the future?
Density occurs not so much by design as by default. If we adopt policies that discourage sprawl, density will occur. That means we don't continue extending and widening roads. Ultimately, that is a self-defeating task, anyway--the more you widen, the more people move out, the more traffic. Not to mention less farm land and open space. If over the next decade we spend less money on roads, and more on public transportation, we may, for once, find ourselves ahead of many other cities.
As for paying for itself, you must look beyond simple bottom dollar. By creating better public transportation, how much do we save by keeping us off the clean air list? by not having to repave and widen roads as often? by decreasing roadway accidents (and therefore free up firefighters and polices)? by increasing productivity by allowing commuters to work while they commute? by encouraging more business to our city because of the tranportation system?
quote:
Originally posted by pmcalk
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
I just dont see it working in Tulsa. There is no place yet that is dense enough to make it feasable or more convenient than using a car or bus or trolley. It would be nice if the city and surrounding communities designated areas that should have a certain growth density so that some day it may be more feasable. And start out with a much cheaper system of dedicated bus or trolley routes that would be similar to the rail and see if enough people use them.
It may not work today; but even if INCOG decided tomorrow it would build a transit system, it would take a decade to come to fruition. So the question is, once again, will Tulsa be playing catch-up, or will we actually plan for the future?
Density occurs not so much by design as by default. If we adopt policies that discourage sprawl, density will occur. That means we don't continue extending and widening roads. Ultimately, that is a self-defeating task, anyway--the more you widen, the more people move out, the more traffic. Not to mention less farm land and open space. If over the next decade we spend less money on roads, and more on public transportation, we may, for once, find ourselves ahead of many other cities.
As for paying for itself, you must look beyond simple bottom dollar. By creating better public transportation, how much do we save by keeping us off the clean air list? by not having to repave and widen roads as often? by decreasing roadway accidents (and therefore free up firefighters and polices)? by increasing productivity by allowing commuters to work while they commute? by encouraging more business to our city because of the tranportation system?
All good points and should be taken into consideration. I'm not a transportation expert, but my feeling is that any light rail should have a connection from the airport to downtown in a first phase. OSU-Tulsa to the arena area and Brady Street connection may be a good start and allow the density to form around these terminals, then look to carry the system to B.A. and Owasso in the future.. oh yeah, and the Cherokee Casino. [:P]
You don't wait to build a train when there is "demand" for it. You build a train to prepare for the demand and to create the demand. In order for people to use the train, it has to be part of the accepted cultural landscape.
FYI, now that Earnest Istook is no longer the chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, light rail all over the country has a much better chance of getting federal dollars. Istook was a light rail "hater", so to speak. He just didn't believe in it. More idiotic leadership from our great state. It's embarassing, really.
Go to http://maps.google.com and type in "Tulsa Oklahoma" so you can look at an area map with the rail lines drawn in.
Creating a light rail system in Tulsa couldn't be easier, all things being equal. The tracks are already there, going just about everywhere you'd want to go.
1) From downtown heading NE going right past the airport. As the crow flies, about as direct a path as you can take. The tracks continue on to Catoosa (casino hub), parallel Route 66, and go all the way up to Claremore, for Pete's sake. If nothing else, getting people to the casino from the airport, and from the casino to downtown Tulsa quickly and easily would be a good thing for the region.
2) From downtown heading NE, skirts pretty close to TCC NE campus, then directly on to Mohawk Park. Linking our biggest park with downtown? Sure. The tracks then head NE up to Owasso. Pretty easy to imagine a park and ride terminal up there.
3) Straight north of downtown all the way up through Sperry and into Skiatook. Want to open up the north side to more development? How about housing clustered around light rail stops? It would be easy to create a spur going over to the Cherokee Industrial Park at 66th Street North, too.
4) Heading south of downtown, over the river, right past OSU College of Medicine and the River Parks Festival Grounds. Further south, the tracks cross under I-44 (possible park and ride), skirt Jones Airport (so both airports would be served), right through downtown Jenks, and continuing on to Bixby. Perfect.
5) After crossing the river, a set of tracks goes straight west past Chandler Park (another park linkage), continues along Avery Drive to Sand Springs, then continues all the way to Keystone Lake State Park.
6) There's a set of tracks that runs right along SW Boulevard to Sapulpa, which would also serve West Tulsa.
7) And of course, the tracks we all know, running SE of downtown, within a mile of TU, in the middle of the BA Expressway for a stretch, then continuing straight on to Broken Arrow, with potential park and ride locations somewhere in southeast Tulsa.
All lines heading in and out of downtown. It's all but a ready-made light rail system, ready to go.
Cool video clip of 10th anniversary of light rail in Dallas. Hey, its the KOTV guy doing the voice over! (//%22http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=llcEHVOXpTY&search=DART%20Dallas%22)
Rail in Tulsa will not work, half of downtown is a parking lot, etc. etc. everything is opposite of what is desirable for rail. Plus the conservative state wont raise taxes for such public works, thats why we have turnpikes,perhaps. This may change in time. I think commuter buses to the outlying areas like Claremore, Bixby, Sand Springs Buslines to downtown Tulsa would be economical.The thing is not everyone goes to downtown aka.the big parking lot.
45,000 people work in downtown Tulsa. I say, bring on the commuter rail, and get folks off the expressways!
Park and ride systems work in lots of cities, and it would work in Tulsa with our "satellite" communities. Imagine how quickly rail would catch on when people sitting in traffic on the BA or 169 started seeing trains zipping past them. (Full of people relaxing, reading, working on their laptops, chatting...generally taking it easy on the trains.)
Imagine a rail line from downtown to Owasso via the airport. Tulsans and visitors could finally get to the airport w/o a car, and all the Owasso denizens who work at American Airlines or downtown could leave their Dodge Rams at home.
It makes me excited to consider the possibilties for light rail and commuter rail. If we lobby and lobby hard for it- citing other cities like Portland and Dallas who have had enormous boosts from their rail systems- maybe we can get some political attention from the state. And the state can find ways to get federal help on it, but it takes a long time so it would be good to start now.
It would be incredibly easy for our cities to do this themselves, too- Tulsa's next Vision/OKC's next MAPS could be transit oriented- the people would vote, and presumably if it passed the popular vote it would already have community support.
Do you really think people will ride a train in Tulsa? Don't you have to have someplace to ride to?
I dont think we could even afford the "extention" that Dallas is building at over 2 billion dollars. They have a lot more money coming in than Tulsa does plus they have more density. They are building the dart to and from places that already exist and have had more density than any place in Tulsa. Remember even some of the suburbs of Dallas are close to the size of Tulsa. Plus they are growing while Tulsa's population is shrinking.
I do think we should start planning for a light commuter rail and establishing where the lines may be and buying the right of ways if possible. But even that may be difficult to do. But here again I think we should spend our money first on making the city attractive enough that its not losing people and starts to grow. Like for better schools and police, I bet a few billion dollars on that would go a looong way.
I dont think spending money on a commuter line from BA to Downtown is going to make people want to move to Tulsa. May do just the opposite. Frankly it should be Broken Arrow that spends the money to do that.
Better schools, higher teacher pay, and crime prevention first I say.
I did not mean by posting the video that modern light rail is the right technology for Tulsa.
Commuter rail, a downtown street car circulator that hits OSU-TULSA and maybe with an extension to TU, and beefed up bus service is probably what the consultants will recommend. Just as they have for Oklahoma City. (//%22www.okfgs.org%22)
It goes without saying we need better police and schools with a hybrid voucher experiment.
Has anybody seen Houstons' light rail? It has 30000 passengers a day and they are building a new line from the Galleria to the University of Houston, it is estimated to have more riders than Los Angeles's Rail system. Its' pretty impressive.
http://www.outofbalance.org/days/2004/day040303.html
Let me understand this ... you cannot even find the money to paint the freeway overpasses and you are going to build light rail?
Get real!
quote:
Originally posted by TheCritic
Let me understand this ... you cannot even find the money to paint the freeway overpasses and you are going to build light rail?
Get real!
Your point is taken, but just fyi those are two different funding sources. The state owns and maintains the freeway overpasses. Light rail would be a municipal effort (with a hefty dose of federal transporation funding).
who do you think dispurses federal transportation funding? I can guarantee you it doesn't go Feds->City.
quote:
Originally posted by inteller
who do you think dispurses federal transportation funding? I can guarantee you it doesn't go Feds->City.
Well, it does seem like mass transit funding generally does go directly from the Feds to the City (or metro transit agency)
Here's more than you ever wanted to know about the Federal Transportation Administration's "New Starts" program:http://www.fta.dot.gov/16228_ENG_HTML.htm
and...http://www.fta.dot.gov/16277_ENG_HTML.htm
You'll notice that cities like Portland, Denver, Dallas, SLC, Seattle, Wash DC, and Norfolk VA have gotten into the game. There's no reason why Tulsa should stand on the sidelines and let them get all the federal funding.
quote:
Originally posted by inteller
who do you think dispurses federal transportation funding? I can guarantee you it doesn't go Feds->City.
See: two posts above.
If I recall right, CDBG funding goes directly from the feds to municipalities, too.
quote:
Originally posted by inteller
quote:
Originally posted by AVERAGE JOE
quote:
Originally posted by inteller
who do you think dispurses federal transportation funding? I can guarantee you it doesn't go Feds->City.
See: two posts above.
If I recall right, CDBG funding goes directly from the feds to municipalities, too.*
From the grant site:
"FTA typically assigns project management oversight contractors to projects undergoing PE to ensure that the engineering effort progresses in accordance with FTA requirements, and that the project sponsor is adequately preparing for the final design stage of development."
In other words, a government contractor (NOT picked by the municipality) holds the purse strings and decides what does and doesn't happen on the project. Its akin to letting a fox in the hen house.
and that proves what, exactly, regarding mass transit money going directly to cities or being routed through the states?
I was doing some research for a comprehensive plan my firm is working on for the city of Thornton, Colorado and I came across a website for Denver's FasTracks system (light rail and rapid bus transit). I found one of the successes they tout to be quite interesting and promising. I just wonder if the thing makes money.
quote:
Ridership on light rail has exceeded even the most optimistic projections, and carries over 35,000 riders per day.
FasTracks (//%22http://www.rtd-denver.com/fastracks/%22)
quote:
Originally posted by tshane250
I was doing some research for a comprehensive plan my firm is working on for the city of Thornton, Colorado and I came across a website for Denver's FasTracks system (light rail and rapid bus transit). I found one of the successes they tout to be quite interesting and promising. I just wonder if the thing makes money.
I think the criteria for public transit shouldn't be "does it make money?" The questions should be: "Is it efficient? Does it spur sustainable growth? Does it promote increased ridership, and thus protect the environment? Does it make the city a better place to live? Does it decrease dependence on auto/oil? Does it improve quality of life?"
Nobody ever says: "Does the National Guard make money?" "Does the police department make money?" "Does widening 81st and Yale make money?" "Does the water department make money?"
I know I sound cranky...sorry about that, it's late...but it's like there's a double-standard for public transit.
Random thought: If everyone's so worried about spending money on transit...how come Americans are so happy dropping $35,000 for a new SUV? I wonder what that averages out per trip to the grocery store?
Let's see...if you pay cash for the vehicle--ha!--and make 3 trips a day for 5 years, you'll be paying $6.40 per errand...oops...I forgot to include gas, insurance, tag, and maintenance costs. Oh yeah...and the billions of tax dollars for the roads/highways/bridges...Should I get into public health costs associated with the sedentary lifestyle / car culture / pollution...nope, it's too late...)
Something tells me that efficient mass transit/rail actually does pay for itself afterall.
quote:
I know I sound cranky...sorry about that, it's late...but it's like there's a double-standard for public transit.
Man you are cranky! No, actually I totally agree with you. I was just wondering if their transit system made money as that would be a way of selling people on the idea. I never really thought of calculating the cost of a vehicle trip. Makes public transportation sound like a excellent idea! If only the auto/oil/construction industries did not have so much money and clout.
It's about time we get this already![:(!]
Tulsa World article on transit study that includes commuter rail. (//%22http://www.tulsaworld.com/NewsStory.asp?ID=060802_Co_zb1_Rails8%22)
Encirclement continues. Kansas City voters approved a light rail plan and sales tax on election night.
Cities in this region with rail transit operating or in the pipeline:
Albuquerque
Austin
Dallas
Fort Worth
Houston
Kansas City
Little Rock
Memphis
Saint Louis
quote:
Originally posted by Transport_Oklahoma
Encirclement continues. Kansas City voters approved a light rail plan and sales tax on election night.
Cities in this region with rail transit operating or in the pipeline:
Albuquerque
Austin
Dallas
Fort Worth
Houston
Kansas City
Little Rock
Memphis
Saint Louis
wow... rivermarket, downtown, crown center/union station, westport and the plaza all on a loop (not to mention coming within two-three blocks of every hospital in town)? with long-term legs to the airport and a two southern routes?
wow, holy crap and all 24 miles for just under $800 million... now THAT, i would pay for... talk about doing bold development for the future... beats the **** out of some asinine islands...
quote:
Originally posted by Transport_Oklahoma
Encirclement continues. Kansas City voters approved a light rail plan and sales tax on election night.
Cities in this region with rail transit operating or in the pipeline:
Albuquerque
Austin
Dallas
Fort Worth
Houston
Kansas City
Little Rock
Memphis
Saint Louis
I think its a pity guided buses haven't been looked at as a serious contender. They are cheaper, have the same capacity as light rail and have the possibility of fanning out at the end of the guide way to serve low density communties.
planned guided bus way (//%22http://www.cambridgeshire.gov.uk/transport/guided/%22)
Seems like a really interesting, more viable (at least, for now) alternative! It could be just the thing that Tulsa needs right now, for all the "low density nay-sayers". Why haven't I heard of this before?
From what I've read (not exhaustive) DART has been successful beyond expectations. The fact that someone lives next to DART and does not use it doesn't really matter. Many said Dallas residents would never ride a train anywhere and they were proven dead wrong. They are probably the same ones that said NO ONE would live in high end apartments and condos in the Uptown area. DART is also increasing home values and rental rates for any property near their stations. I don't know for sure but Dallas has a lot of people relocating from areas with mass transit and that attitude may be rubbing off. I'd much prefer sittin on a nice train as opposed to being stuck on Central if I lived in the burbs or worked downtown.
I really like the guided bus-way I wonder if the firm doing the study knows about them? If I converted right it looks like this project is costing their government $174,477,939 and the total cost is $219,118,366. Obviously right-of-way would be different here but I imagine this is less expensive than rail?
Guided busways can be even cheaper than that. You have to remember that everything in the UK is a lot more and the system in Cambridge relies heavily on guided tracks, which is the most expensive part of the scheme. I think on many routes in retarmacing the road in a slightly different colour to indicate a bus only lane, monitoring this lane to ensure only buses use it and putting sensors at junctions to give buses automatic priority would be enough. I think that some guided routes could be used to squeeze dedicated route through some tight spots and maybe where a dedicated bus lane would be too wide.
I really hope they look at the possibility of using coach services to link the outer suburbs/ towns with downtown, which could utilise the dedicated bus lanes into the city.
I hope they don't only consider light rail as it may well not be the most appropriate form of mass transit for the city. I'm just concerned that this may have become a dick swinging exercise rather than considering the best option. Because lets face it buses aren't perceived as glamorous as light rail.
quote:
Originally posted by PonderInc
quote:
Originally posted by tshane250
I was doing some research for a comprehensive plan my firm is working on for the city of Thornton, Colorado and I came across a website for Denver's FasTracks system (light rail and rapid bus transit). I found one of the successes they tout to be quite interesting and promising. I just wonder if the thing makes money.
I think the criteria for public transit shouldn't be "does it make money?" The questions should be: "Is it efficient? Does it spur sustainable growth? Does it promote increased ridership, and thus protect the environment? Does it make the city a better place to live? Does it decrease dependence on auto/oil? Does it improve quality of life?"
Nobody ever says: "Does the National Guard make money?" "Does the police department make money?" "Does widening 81st and Yale make money?" "Does the water department make money?"
I know I sound cranky...sorry about that, it's late...but it's like there's a double-standard for public transit.
Random thought: If everyone's so worried about spending money on transit...how come Americans are so happy dropping $35,000 for a new SUV? I wonder what that averages out per trip to the grocery store?
Let's see...if you pay cash for the vehicle--ha!--and make 3 trips a day for 5 years, you'll be paying $6.40 per errand...oops...I forgot to include gas, insurance, tag, and maintenance costs. Oh yeah...and the billions of tax dollars for the roads/highways/bridges...Should I get into public health costs associated with the sedentary lifestyle / car culture / pollution...nope, it's too late...)
Something tells me that efficient mass transit/rail actually does pay for itself afterall.
I totally agree with Ponder. In the long run, mass transit does pay off in many ways other than an immediate payoff in dividends.
Commuter Rail Meetings Feb. 22 February 14, 2007
Tulsa Transit is holding the second round of public meetings for the Commuter Rail Feasibility Study.#65533; You are invited to attend either or both of the meetings to get an update on the study progress including survey results, potential station locations, and details on the#65533;major employment centers that could possibly be served#65533;along the corridor.#65533; We will also receive input from the public.
Please provide your input on our online survey.
Thursday, February 22, 2007
12:00 Noon
Centennial Park Central Community Center
1028 E. 6th Street (6th & S. Peoria)
http://www.cityoftulsa.org/recreation/parks/CommCenter.asp
(Pizza and Sodas at the meeting)
4:30 PM
Nienhuis Park Community Center, Broken Arrow
3201 N. 9th Street
Building is located at Lynn Lane just north of 61st
http://www.brokenarrowok.gov/our-citizens/quality_life/city_parks/youth_center.htm
(Pizza and Sodas at the meeting)
quote:
Originally posted by Transport_Oklahoma
Please provide your input on our online survey.
How do we access the online survey?
quote:
Originally posted by PonderInc
quote:
Originally posted by Transport_Oklahoma
Please provide your input on our online survey.
How do we access the online survey?
http://tulsatransit.org/link.cfm?listid=8,4,6&rid=277&comm=73&lid=302