Here are some more actual real-world numbers. Just some additional food for thought.
Nashville has a commuter rail somewhat similar to what is planned here (but twice as long 50% more station, 50% more runs each day, and of course a much larger, faster growing, and congested metropolitan area). The first year ridership projected by their team of experts. 1,300. Actual ridership at the peak last summer: 640.
No reason at all to question a 2,200 projection for Tulsa... no reason at all... ;-)
Instead of traditional commuter rails, Tulsa needs streetcars around Downtown and some Midtown areas. There is more demand for a transportation product when it has a differentiated appeal, such as tourism, nostalgia, or elegance, all of which are often perceived of streetcars. Little Rock implemented streetcars in their downtown area, and they are marvelously succussful. And Little Rock has 200,000 less people in the city proper, and 250,000 less in the MSA than Tulsa.
quote:
Originally posted by perspicuity85
Instead of traditional commuter rails, Tulsa needs streetcars around Downtown and some Midtown areas. There is more demand for a transportation product when it has a differentiated appeal, such as tourism, nostalgia, or elegance, all of which are often perceived of streetcars. Little Rock implemented streetcars in their downtown area, and they are marvelously succussful. And Little Rock has 200,000 less people in the city proper, and 250,000 less in the MSA than Tulsa.
Little Rock's light rail system carries only 520 passengers a day.
quote:
Originally posted by MichaelBates
Little Rock's light rail system carries only 520 passengers a day.
Over what kind of area? If it is only downtown, I'd say that sounds pretty decent. If it is all over Little Rock, then those numbers aren't so hot.
Life on the Rail: All aboard the Transit Oriented Development Express? (Nashville) (//%22http://www.businesstn.com/pdfs/1107_Wilson.pdf%22)
First, your numbers are already stale:
quote:
Allyson Shumate, project manager at the Regional Transit Authority, says about 634 people rode the Star per day in the months
of June, July and August. RTA's goal is to attract 1,500 a day, and although the Star is trending in the right direction (between March and June, ridership numbers increased by about 200 people per day), a TOD is likely to give the numbers a major boost.
"All it would take is one serious developer to do a bona fide TOD, and the ridership would quadruple," Davis says.
Second, it's the development that offers the promise for Nashville, and Tulsa:
quote:
While hundreds are utilizing the new rail as an alternative to traffic jams and high gas prices, many are also recognizing the Star's potential as a catalyst for development. Yet, some Wilson County officials and others assisting with city planning efforts are not
touting just any kind of development—they have
something specific in mind.
"I'm hoping that we can aim a little higher and create transit-oriented development," says T.K. Davis, design director of the Nashville Civic Design Center and an associate professor at the University of Tennessee School of Architecture. "TOD is different from conventional development that happens to be adjacent to a transit stop. It's integrated carefully at all levels to make it work cohesively."
Perhaps a foreign concept to many, transit-oriented development is a growing trend that's more than just a buzz word in cities such as Charlotte, N.C., Denver and Portland, Ore. The idea is to create a mixed-use, walkable community offering housing, retail, restaurants
and offices within about a 2,000-foot radius of a transit station. Driven by smart growth initiatives, TOD promises to reduce sprawl and traffic congestion, while satisfying a burgeoning demand (by singles and retiring baby boomers) for smaller homes in quality urban areas.
quote:
The city is already constructing a walking and biking trail system that connects the commuter rail with the town square. The trail, which will open this spring, cuts through
The Mill at Lebanon, an old woolen mill that has been converted to a 15-acre, 200,000-square-foot space for retail, entertainment, office and
residential use. The Mill spokesperson Diane Parness says there's also room for a boutique hotel and spa, making The Mill and Lebanon a destination point. Meanwhile, farther west, Mt. Juliet officials are interested in TOD-like opportunities that coincide with plans to create a traditional town square. Davis, who has had UT students design TOD plans for Mt. Juliet as part of their curriculum, believes Mt. Juliet has the most immediate potential for change because it has so much open land surrounding its transit station.
One such piece of land, says Kenneth Martin,
economic and community development director for
Mt. Juliet, is a county-owned, 12-acre lot across from the transit station (once home to an elementary school) that was recently rezoned for development as a commercial town center.
"We're looking for something there that will generate a lot of foot traffic," Martin says. "I'd like to see upscale, multi-family condos where people can walk out their door and visit a retail area. On the front end would be the town center concept with loft-style apartments above smaller shops, so business owners could rent space, live at the top and have a store
at the bottom."
Based on the information in this article, it looks like the train is already having a catalytic effect on development. Wouldn't you agree? And, if new development occurs would ridership go a) UP, or b) DOWN?
quote:
Originally posted by perspicuity85
Instead of traditional commuter rails, Tulsa needs streetcars around Downtown and some Midtown areas. There is more demand for a transportation product when it has a differentiated appeal, such as tourism, nostalgia, or elegance, all of which are often perceived of streetcars. Little Rock implemented streetcars in their downtown area, and they are marvelously succussful. And Little Rock has 200,000 less people in the city proper, and 250,000 less in the MSA than Tulsa.
The Little Rock
streetcar (italicized for the persnickety) is a 2.5 mile tourist trolley.
(http://www.lightrailnow.org/images/lr-lrt-stc-map-phase1x_cata.jpg)
FWIW, I think it is a success in that it does what it's supposed to...get tourists across the River.
Hey look, it's the discussion of a passenger rail service in Tulsa:
(http://www.mysticmountainarts.com/PotTrackCircleS.jpg)
As much as I'd like it, it is not economical and it hasn't worked outside of very congested areas that (to at least some extent) grew up with rail service (Seattle, New York, Chicago).
Albuquerque has what is considered a successful rail program running a 50 mile straight shot from Southern Suburb, to the airport, downtown and then to a Northern Suburb (9 stops, including 5 suburbs/commuter lots, the airport, downtown - AmTrack line + Greyhound + local bus station, shopping etc). It fare is between $1 to $3 to ride and the parking is usually free.
It cost $135,000,000 to build this phase (phase II goes to Sante Fe) and is subsidized to the tune of an additional $10,000,000 a year. Average daily ridership is nearing 2,500 a day and growing. The cost is $19 per passenger (ave. $2 paid by the passenger, $11 direct and an additional ~$6 per day on the note). Federal funding for the project never materialized.
A great deal for the 2500 people that ride it daily and it would be nice for people in the suburbs to ride into town for entertainment. I'd love it if it went within walking distance of my house to TU, downtown, Woodland Hills...whatever. But the fact remains it's a hard sell when the government has to kick in $8.50 for every dollar the 2500 people who use it spend.
http://www.nmrailrunner.com/FAQ.asp
- - -
It would be interesting to see where the existing rail lines in Tulsa are. Other than downtown, near the airport, and probably a link near most suburbs - the destinations dont have a link nearby (TU, ORU, Woodland Hills/Promenade, Cherry Street, brookside). It would end up being a commuter line to downtown and little else - which in Tulsa seems to severely limit ridership.
I think we have to face the fact that almost all public transport systems are subsidised. This isn't a bad thing though, the roads are massively subsidised and rather than bringing benefits, they produce massive negative effects they produce more pollution, more accidents, encourage sprawl and severe communities in ways that rail doesn't. It also allows the city to focus development and dense up allowing the city to retain more growth. In the next decade Tulsa is going to have to spend a fortune on renewing its roads and its right to look at all the alternatives especially those that provide long term solutions and that are sustainable and benefit the city. Rail is a long term solution and some of the benefits such as development will take a few years to fully be quantified.
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
As much as I'd like it, it is not economical and it hasn't worked outside of very congested areas that (to at least some extent) grew up with rail service (Seattle, New York, Chicago).
Albuquerque has what is considered a successful rail program running a 50 mile straight shot from Southern Suburb, to the airport, downtown and then to a Northern Suburb (9 stops, including 5 suburbs/commuter lots, the airport, downtown - AmTrack line + Greyhound + local bus station, shopping etc). It fare is between $1 to $3 to ride and the parking is usually free.
It cost $135,000,000 to build this phase (phase II goes to Sante Fe) and is subsidized to the tune of an additional $10,000,000 a year. Average daily ridership is nearing 2,500 a day and growing. The cost is $19 per passenger (ave. $2 paid by the passenger, $11 direct and an additional ~$6 per day on the note). Federal funding for the project never materialized.
A great deal for the 2500 people that ride it daily and it would be nice for people in the suburbs to ride into town for entertainment. I'd love it if it went within walking distance of my house to TU, downtown, Woodland Hills...whatever. But the fact remains it's a hard sell when the government has to kick in $8.50 for every dollar the 2500 people who use it spend.
http://www.nmrailrunner.com/FAQ.asp
- - -
It would be interesting to see where the existing rail lines in Tulsa are. Other than downtown, near the airport, and probably a link near most suburbs - the destinations dont have a link nearby (TU, ORU, Woodland Hills/Promenade, Cherry Street, brookside). It would end up being a commuter line to downtown and little else - which in Tulsa seems to severely limit ridership.
I don't know if I'd hang my hat on the subsidies that Albuquerque's paying on a two year old system. But for sake of argument, I guess that's fine...what's it...$17 million a year, divided by 819,000? $20 a year per person?
What do you think they are going to be asking
us to pay to subsidize the streets? $100,000,000 a year? That's $254 per person per year. And that's just to keep us from getting an "F". If we really want "nice" streets, are we going to be doubling or tripling that number? I'm happy to be wrong on these numbers (who wouldn't be?), but my point is illustrative. We subsidize streets, too.
All forms of transit are subsidized one way or another, even sidewalks are repaired on our dime. I'm happy to look at the cost vs. benefit of any form of transit, as long as it's a fair look.
But also note that Albuquerque and Bernalillo are working on transit oriented development plans. If this plays out, you'd have to factor that in on the benefit side in terms of efficient growth, right?
UPDATE: Si said it better...as usual.
Very good point about streets. If the rail replaced the street system I'd whole heartedly support it and perhaps in the long run it will to some extent. I love urban streetscapes, huddles of shops and bars around rail stations in Chicago, brown stones near the subways in Brooklyn, or even the downtown station are near Albuquerque... But with a city like Tulsa that has grown up with expressways and the grid, the demand for those roads wouldn't drop much and they will still have to be paid for.
The BA handles 50,000+ cars per day and is the busiest commuter corridor. Pretending that they are each occupied by a single person and we have as much success as Albuquerque the traffic reduction would be at most, 5-10% (I'm unsure if the data is two way, or one way). Not nearly enough to justify $130 million+ in subsidies from a "savings on roads" perspective.
Riverside has 20,000+ it's entire length (high of 31,000). And on and on. The number of cars vs. the number of rail users indicates the road budget would not change at all.
http://www.cityoftulsa.org/CityServices/Streets/documents/2006-COUNTS.pdf
I really wish it made sense. But it just doesn't. It could be neat, but without a real commitment and some density it just doesn't make economic sense. And yes, I understand it is a chicken or the egg argument - to which I have no good answer. But 2500 daily riders is the equivalent of spending $150 million to have a commuter line so the 2500 citizens of Bristow that work in Tulsa can get to work each day.
It just doesn't make sense.
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
Very good point about streets. If the rail replaced the street system I'd whole heartedly support it and perhaps in the long run it will to some extent. I love urban streetscapes, huddles of shops and bars around rail stations in Chicago, brown stones near the subways in Brooklyn, or even the downtown station are near Albuquerque... But with a city like Tulsa that has grown up with expressways and the grid, the demand for those roads wouldn't drop much and they will still have to be paid for.
The BA handles 50,000+ cars per day and is the busiest commuter corridor. Pretending that they are each occupied by a single person and we have as much success as Albuquerque the traffic reduction would be at most, 5-10% (I'm unsure if the data is two way, or one way). Not nearly enough to justify $130 million+ in subsidies from a "savings on roads" perspective.
Riverside has 20,000+ it's entire length (high of 31,000). And on and on. The number of cars vs. the number of rail users indicates the road budget would not change at all.
http://www.cityoftulsa.org/CityServices/Streets/documents/2006-COUNTS.pdf
I really wish it made sense. But it just doesn't. It could be neat, but without a real commitment and some density it just doesn't make economic sense. And yes, I understand it is a chicken or the egg argument - to which I have no good answer. But 2500 daily riders is the equivalent of spending $150 million to have a commuter line so the 2500 citizens of Bristow that work in Tulsa can get to work each day.
It just doesn't make sense.
CF, you've got an excellent handle on the situation, and I agree that it's really hard to find a "good answer".
We will always have to maintain the street network we have, and there are only a couple of variables you can play with to save money, since tearing out streets is not really an option.
1) We've already played out the first option, which is to defer maintenance. Oh well, it was fun while it lasted.
2) You can limit the rate of expansion of the street network. I know a lot of south Tulsans live on "undersized" streets, but it's an option. The reality is, most of these streets are only undersized for about 30 minutes in the morning and evening. If people staggered their departure times by 15 minutes, we could probably save tens of millions in lane widening...even in the short term. Just a politically unpopular thought.
3) You've said this already, but if we could make a real commitment to density, we could have more people to share the burden of maintaining the street network. I for one, am willing to share this burden.
It'd be challenging to grow this way, but I don't think that it's crazy. Doing nothing seems way crazier to me. Cities are always in transition, whether or not we choose to notice: six years ago Kingspointe Village was a crummy old abandoned Sipes; twenty-five years ago our streets were decent; and sixty years ago Tulsa was a compact city with streetcars. So, where do we want to be in the next 20 years? 60 years?
We've got 1,339 lane miles of arterials and 3,999 lane miles of residential streets (//%22http://www.tulsaworld.com/common/printerfriendlystory.aspx?articleID=070722_238_A1_spanc87150%22). For a little perspective, the average family pays to maintain 88 feet of 2-lane street. That's more surface area than a driveway, and probably bigger than your whole front lawn. If we do nothing, then we'll still be taking care of that same 88 feet of street when we're 88 ourselves. But if we start to build "up" instead of "out", and make more efficient use of the streets we have, then we could reduce that 88 feet of street to what? 66 feet? 44?
I think the thing that is so appealing about trains is that we still have the tracks in lots of places: Downtown, North Tulsa, East Tulsa, and West Tulsa. And these areas around the tracks are pretty affordable; they are typically underutilized industrial areas. A large fraction of industry has switched to trucking. Over the last few decades, they've physically abandoned these old districts in favor of highway locations.
These underutilized industrial areas represent a relatively painless way for Tulsa to grow. We can preserve the quality neighborhoods we have, and quietly grow in places long forgotten.
I don't exactly see what's so magical, or overly-risky, or even
new about this...freaking Plano (//%22http://www.nctcog.org/trans/sustdev/landuse/examples/plano.asp%22) is doing it. So, in the end, it's all about the development for me. If the train existed only on paper and it was able to spark this growth pattern, I'd be happy as a clam. But unfortunately, it doesn't look like it works that way.
In the long run, though, doing
nothing is the thing that doesn't make sense to me. Do you see any other way out of our "un-smart" (for lack of a better term) growth dilemma?
quote:
Originally posted by Chicken Little
We've got 1,339 lane miles of arterials and 2,999 lane miles of residential streets (//%22http://www.tulsaworld.com/common/printerfriendlystory.aspx?articleID=070722_238_A1_spanc87150%22). For a little perspective, the average family pays to maintain 88 feet of 2-lane street. That's more surface area than a driveway, and probably bigger than your whole front lawn. If we do nothing, then we'll still be taking care of that same 88 feet of street when we're 88 ourselves. But if we start to build "up" instead of "out", and make more efficient use of the streets we have, then we could reduce that 88 feet of street to what? 66 feet? 44?
Growing up instead of out won't reduce the number of streets we have. And I can guess what kind of reception you will get from taxpayers when you tell them they will not only have to fix the streets but also build an inconvenient and little used rail system. Growing up would fix the density problems, and make a rail more financially plausible.
The real problem with Oklahoma is we like our space. We live farther and farther from the things we need to visit on a regular basis, but not concentrated enough either in housing or destination to make a proper mass transit system viable.
We can't make Tulsa transit work. The Sand Springs trolley went out even when there was a lot of ridership. What makes you think a light rail will do any better now?
Sand Springs line history
http://books.google.com/books?id=qfPShIW8uzwC&pg=PA71&lpg=PA71&dq=sand+springs+trolley&source=web&ots=aIt09iLvvE&sig=WdjGKOXQ49PGEXnEia3qoqSkCak#PPA77,M1
quote:
Originally posted by TeeDub
quote:
Originally posted by Chicken Little
We've got 1,339 lane miles of arterials and 2,999 lane miles of residential streets (//%22http://www.tulsaworld.com/common/printerfriendlystory.aspx?articleID=070722_238_A1_spanc87150%22). For a little perspective, the average family pays to maintain 88 feet of 2-lane street. That's more surface area than a driveway, and probably bigger than your whole front lawn. If we do nothing, then we'll still be taking care of that same 88 feet of street when we're 88 ourselves. But if we start to build "up" instead of "out", and make more efficient use of the streets we have, then we could reduce that 88 feet of street to what? 66 feet? 44?
Growing up instead of out won't reduce the number of streets we have. And I can guess what kind of reception you will get from taxpayers when you tell them they will not only have to fix the streets but also build an inconvenient and little used rail system. Growing up would fix the density problems, and make a rail more financially plausible.
The real problem with Oklahoma is we like our space. We live farther and farther from the things we need to visit on a regular basis, but not concentrated enough either in housing or destination to make a proper mass transit system viable.
We can't make Tulsa transit work. The Sand Springs trolley went out even when there was a lot of ridership. What makes you think a light rail will do any better now?
Sand Springs line history
http://books.google.com/books?id=qfPShIW8uzwC&pg=PA71&lpg=PA71&dq=sand+springs+trolley&source=web&ots=aIt09iLvvE&sig=WdjGKOXQ49PGEXnEia3qoqSkCak#PPA77,M1
I feel that Oklahomans don't know their options. I think there are very very few people on this board even who have lived in dense mixed use urban areas and these are the urbanists of Tulsa. People really can't get there heads around what the advantages of this could be. It's not something that only young people would like a dense urban area is a huge boon for everyone from children to the infirm. I don't think you can ignore an urban form or claim people won't like it without experiencing it.
Growing up instead of out will reduce the financial burden of our street network. It will intensify land use meaning more sales and property tax for each mile of road.
I think we can get into the old chestnut of the chicken and egg. Do we need density or do we need mass transit first? I really think that when you consider the length of time that mass transit infrastructure is operational for I'd wait for the density to catch up with the system.
I've also read When Oklahoma Took the Trolley and I think the Sand Springs line closed as the rail road moved towards freight not due to profitability issues.
quote:
Originally posted by TeeDub
Growing up instead of out won't reduce the number of streets we have. And I can guess what kind of reception you will get from taxpayers when you tell them they will not only have to fix the streets but also build an inconvenient and little used rail system. Growing up would fix the density problems, and make a rail more financially plausible.
The real problem with Oklahoma is we like our space. We live farther and farther from the things we need to visit on a regular basis, but not concentrated enough either in housing or destination to make a proper mass transit system viable.
We can't make Tulsa transit work. The Sand Springs trolley went out even when there was a lot of ridership. What makes you think a light rail will do any better now?
Sand Springs line history
http://books.google.com/books?id=qfPShIW8uzwC&pg=PA71&lpg=PA71&dq=sand+springs+trolley&source=web&ots=aIt09iLvvE&sig=WdjGKOXQ49PGEXnEia3qoqSkCak#PPA77,M1
Growing "up", i.e.., increasing density, doesn't reduce the size of the street network, it just allows for more people to maintain the same amount of streets. Get it?
It wasn't lack of popularity that killed streetcars in Tulsa it was conspiracy (//%22http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_streetcar_conspiracy%22) by General Moters, Firestone, Standard Oil of California, Phillips Petroleum. Their dummy holding company, National City Lines (//%22http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_City_Lines%22) bought and shut down over 100 streetcar systems around the country. They manipulated the market, they were found guilty in court, and they were fined.
The Sand Springs Interurban held on for another decade and a half, but the company running this operation found that it could make more money by running freight. Now, if you exclude all that happened before this, I suppose you could call it a free-market choice. But NCL manipulating America by closing 100 trolley systems around the nation? Not so much.
Maybe the problem is indeed that we "like our space"...why don't you treat it like a problem? If we don't change, we are going to have to pay a lot more to maintain this lifestyle. Are you okay to see your taxes increase (probably permanently) to pay for streets? Our streets have fallen apart because we refused to pay to maintain what we built. There's no way we can avoid it from here forward. What else have we ignored in order to enjoy our space? This isn't scare tactics, it's simple math.
But I think that we can change. Dallas and Denver love their space, too. But they have created successful mass transit systems.
quote:
Originally posted by Oil Capital
Here are some more actual real-world numbers. Just some additional food for thought.
Nashville has a commuter rail somewhat similar to what is planned here (but twice as long 50% more station, 50% more runs each day, and of course a much larger, faster growing, and congested metropolitan area). The first year ridership projected by their team of experts. 1,300. Actual ridership at the peak last summer: 640.
No reason at all to question a 2,200 projection for Tulsa... no reason at all... ;-)
A consultant team headed by Lockwood, Andrews, and Newnam (LAN) prepared the
Broken Arrow to Tulsa commuter rail study for Tulsa Transit last year. LAN used two models for the ridership projections, as explained in their final report.
quote:
from LAN's Executive Summary of the BA/Tulsa Mass Transit Study, page 4
The achievement of any [ridership] projection may be affected by fluctuating economic conditions and depends on the occurrence of future events that cannot be assured. Therefore, the actual results achieved may vary from the projections, and the variations could be significant.
LAN estimated a range of initial capital costs based on location of a midtown station (Sheridan or Memorial) and on the type of equipment used for the trains.
I looked at both estimates in terms of the highest, the lowest, and the average cost per trip to build and operate the system from 2010 to 2030 -- based on the figures in LAN's report.
For Model 1, the worst scenario is assuming a Memorial Station with the most expensive equipment and lowest ridership projection. Average cost per trip = $4.44
For Model 1, the best scenario is assuming a Sheridan Station with the least expensive equipment and highest ridership projection. Average cost per trip = $1.59
For Model 2, the worst scenario is assuming a Memorial Station with the most expensive equipment. Average cost per trip = $5.68
For Model 2, the best scenario is assuming a Sheridan Station with the least expensive equipment. Average cost per trip = $5.20
For both models, the Sheridan Station location resulted in the lower average cost per trip.
For Model 1, assuming a Sheridan Station, the average cost per trip is $2.92 -- this is an average based on the high/low ridership projections and the high/low equipment costs.
For Model 1, assuming a Memorial Station, the average cost per trip is $3.04 -- again, this is an average based on the extremes of ridership projections and equipment costs.
For Model 2, assuming a Sheridan Station, the average cost per trip is $5.24 -- this is an average based on the high/low equipment costs.
For Model 2, assuming a Memorial Station, the average cost per trip is $5.64 -- this is an average based on the high/low equipment costs.
Finally, I looked at the mean cost per trip based on the averages for each ridership projection model at each station location over the same 20 year period:
Using both Model 1 and Model 2, the mean cost per trip assuming a Sheridan Station = $4.08
Using both Model 1 and Model 2, the mean cost per trip assuming a Memorial Station = $4.34
I'm not certain about what LAN would consider to be a "significant variation" between their projections and actual ridership, but according to the information in Oil Capital's initial post, the ridership projections for Nashville's commuter rail were over-estimated by a factor of 2.
I did the calculations quickly by hand -- so they could be wrong. I was trying to see how much of a subsidy the BA-Tulsa commuter train might require based on LAN's numbers. Actually, the averages weren't as bad as I suspected they would be. But if I mis-calculated, or if LAN over-estimated projected ridership by 100%....
PEOPLE....FORGET ABOUT THE BA FEASIBILITY STUDY, particularly the parts about station location and technology. Their ridership stats are pretty good, considering those parameters... but that is not the type of train Tulsa is looking at.
For information regarding the technology being considered in Tulsa, start here:
http://allsystemsgo.capmetro.org/capital-metrorail-vehicles.shtml
http://allsystemsgo.capmetro.org/capital-metrorail.shtml
The Capital MetroRail trains are being manufactured in Switzerland by Stadler Bussnang AG.
Each vehicle will be self-propelled by two diesel electric engines and will be able to start and stop faster than traditional commuter rail vehicles.
The trains have a capacity of 200 passengers, 108 seated and 92 standing, as well as spaces for passengers with wheelchairs (fully ADA com-pliant) and bicycles.
Each train will feature luggage racks, high back seats, low floor entry for easy access, and WiFi.
The rail car communications system includes visual and acoustic passenger information, a video recording system and a wireless LAN infrastructure.
After assembly of the first two rail vehicles, Stadler conducted static and track testing. Capital MetroRail trains will exceed both U.S. and European safety standards.
quote:
Originally posted by Kenosha
PEOPLE....FORGET ABOUT THE BA FEASIBILITY STUDY, particularly the parts about station location and technology. Their ridership stats are pretty good, considering those parameters... but that is not the type of train Tulsa is looking at.
The feasibility study was presented to Tulsa Transit about 10 months ago. Has locomotive technology changed so much since then that we can afford to forget the study? It seems to me that the Cap Metro type of train might change the estimates for the capital costs for the system and possibly the operation costs, but how would it significantly alter the development costs for a Sheridan or Memorial station?
Oil Capital began this topic with some information about how the ridership for the Nashville commuter train was over-estimated. The proposed system for Tulsa will have costs and benefits. What are the costs of the new type of train?
quote:
Originally posted by booWorld
The feasibility study was presented to Tulsa Transit about 10 months ago. Has locomotive technology changed so much since then that we can afford to forget the study? It seems to me that the Cap Metro type of train might change the estimates for the capital costs for the system and possibly the operation costs, but how would it significantly alter the development costs for a Sheridan or Memorial station?
The short answer is yes. The technology presented by the consultants was for "commuter" rail vehicles that are found in cities like Dallas (TRE btwn Fort Worth and Dallas) California, Albuquerque (Rail Runner). These are legacy systems designed for long runs with few stops. The CapMetro vehicle is the first of its kind in the US...basically its an FRA compliant low-floor DMU.
The capital costs for rail upgrades would, roughly, remain the same. The rolling stock is a bit higher, but not significant in the scheme of things. Especially when you compare it to the possibility of adding lanes to the BA. Not even close.
It would probably alter station costs, because there would be more of them. Unlike the technology factored in the feasibility study, the Stadler vehicles allow for shorter start and stop times, like a light rail vehicle, which is the primary reason there are only two mid-run stops in that scenario.
Of course more stations means more opportunity for TOD...and likewise would be accessible to more Tulsans, which would alter the ridership numbers in the positive direction.
So yes, it totally changes everything.
^ Does the City of Tulsa or Tulsa Transit intend to build a system based on the newer technology? If so, please post your sources.
What Tulsa Transit intends to do is use the Federal money they received this past year for the Alternatives Analysis, which is step one of the federal transit administration's process to be eligible for New Starts/Small Starts Funding, which is how the majority of rail and BRT based transit systems are funded. Alternatives Analysis (AA) is like that feasibility study on steroids, so the projected numbers from the feasibility study will be fully vetted, I assure you. AA also includes Environmental Impact studies and some preliminary engineering.
The Alternatives Analysis will, and is required to focus on multiple technologies, including Bus Rapid Transit (which I don't think works in the BA Corridor, but that is a whole 'nother post), but there is what is called a locally preferred option. I would say that, as of right now, the CapMetro style DMU is that option.
The three potential alternatives studied are a No-Build alternative, a Transportation Systems Management (TSM) alternative, and build alternatives.
I am not going to cite my sources. But they are good ones. You'll just have to trust me.
As far as the city is concerned...I couldn't say if they have gone as far as to choose a technology, but they are aware of the CapMetro technology.
quote:
Originally posted by Kenosha
quote:
Originally posted by booWorld
The feasibility study was presented to Tulsa Transit about 10 months ago. Has locomotive technology changed so much since then that we can afford to forget the study? It seems to me that the Cap Metro type of train might change the estimates for the capital costs for the system and possibly the operation costs, but how would it significantly alter the development costs for a Sheridan or Memorial station?
The short answer is yes. The technology presented by the consultants was for "commuter" rail vehicles that are found in cities like Dallas (TRE btwn Fort Worth and Dallas) California, Albuquerque (Rail Runner). These are legacy systems designed for long runs with few stops. The CapMetro vehicle is the first of its kind in the US...basically its an FRA compliant low-floor DMU.
The consultants presented both technologies.
quote:
The capital costs for rail upgrades would, roughly, remain the same.
According to the consultants, the costs for rail upgrades would be precisely the same for both technologies.
quote:
The rolling stock is a bit higher, but not significant in the scheme of things. Especially when you compare it to the possibility of adding lanes to the BA. Not even close.
The consultants estimated the train equipment costs for the DMU technology would be $11.6 million, as opposed to $10 million for the older technology.
quote:
It would probably alter station costs, because there would be more of them. Unlike the technology factored in the feasibility study, the Stadler vehicles allow for shorter start and stop times, like a light rail vehicle, which is the primary reason there are only two mid-run stops in that scenario.
The primary reason there are no stops proposed between 35th/Sheridan and 13th/Lewis is because the rail line is in the middle of the Broken Arrow Expressway along that segment, and stations would be difficult and expensive to construct there. The primary reason there are no stops proposed between 41st/Memorial and downtown Broken Arrow is because the rail line runs through sparsely populated industrial areas.
quote:
Of course more stations means more opportunity for TOD...and likewise would be accessible to more Tulsans, which would alter the ridership numbers in the positive direction.
Yes, more stations would mean more opportunity for TOD. Where do you propose more stations be built? For stations located in industrial areas, how will the freight trains work with the passenger trains? Do you envision some type of high-density transit corridor along the tracks between Memorial and downtown BA? How many stations do you have in mind along the proposed route?
quote:
So yes, it totally changes everything.
The study was presented less than one year ago. If Tulsa Transit is now considering a commuter rail system with significantly different equipment and with a significantly different arrangement of train stations, then it makes me wonder why I ought to believe what they think
might happen in 2030.
quote:
Originally posted by Kenosha
I am not going to cite my sources. But they are good ones. You'll just have to trust me.
I think you know much more about the subject than I. But I do question why we should forget a study completed 10 months ago. Is that study really invalid already? Oil Capital began this topic with some doubt about the ridership projections. Now I'm doubting the entire process of the transit study itself.
If TOD is allowed along the proposed route at close intervals, then I think the commuter rail could be viable. But where? At what intensity? At what cost?
Perhaps I overstated it...don't forget about the feasibility study...it's just, by no means, the last and final thought on the matter. Things change. In fact, I believe Lockwood, Andrews and Newman were consultants on the Austin system...
To be clear:
This is Commuter Rail DMU in Albuquerque:
(http://www.nmrailrunner.com/GRAPHICS/locomotive-arrives-in-abq.jpg)
(http://www.lightrailnow.org/images02/abq-rpr-railrunner-trn-Lamy-stn-20060707br-cameo_Marti-Niman.jpg)
This is Commuter Rail DMU in Austin:
(http://www.stadlerrail.com/file/img/71121_re.jpg)
The Albuquerque Type DMU (Colorado Railcar) is the size of a regular locomotive engine and passenger car. The Austin DMU is the size of a Light Rail vehicle. Big difference.
DMU stands for Diesel Multiple Unit. It means that the vehicle runs on Diesel instead of overhead electric, that's all. There are all types of DMU vehicles. Sorry for the confusion.
http://interfleet-international.com/CorporateWebsite/News/News_Index.aspx?ArticleID=114
quote:
News - Group
Interfleet On Track For U.S. Rail First
Interfleet Technology Inc is overseeing the next stage of a multi-million-dollar project that will see a fleet of non FRA-compliant Diesel Multiple Units (DMUs) operating on a new 32-mile commuter rail system in Austin, Texas.
Interfleet's German subsidiary, Interfleet Technology GmbH in Cologne, is utilizing their skills and knowledge of vehicle engineering to oversee the production of the cars, and will shortly witness the testing & commissioning of the first DMU when it undergoes commissioning at the Stadler manufacturing site in Switzerland in late April.
This is the latest stage in a project that has seen Interfleet review global technology options, develop performance-based technical specifications and undertake design reviews for the project, which is being implemented by Capital Metropolitan Transportation Authority and executed by prime consultant Lockwood, Andrews and Newnam Inc. The new service will be called Capital MetroRail and is expected to be operational by late 2008.
Principal consultant Stephen Bonina, who has led Interfleet's involvement in the project from the company's Philadelphia office commented: "There's heavy auto congestion in Austin, and that's why this rail system is necessary. Austin is a high-tech city that really does need a modern transit system.
"A hallmark of success for this project, and perhaps why Interfleet Technology Inc has been so successful, is the cross-office support, with our offices in Philadelphia, Germany and the UK working closely to share knowledge and skills. Our engineering knowledge and the geographical location of our offices mean that we have the ability to provide local support, whether that's in the U.S. or in Europe."
Testing should last for two months, with the first DMU being shipped to Texas in September, with the rest following one a month.
The DMUs will be the second in Europe to comply with new EU regulations but will be the first in North America.
Not only has Interfleet provided research and design, it has also recommended maintenance and operational specifications and interior/exterior design concepts. Interfleet Inc has also helped with the tender evaluation from potential maintenance suppliers to provide future maintenance for the DMU fleet.
10 May 2007
Hey, these are the same guys that saved our city with 2025. Look how much money the city made off that little adventure.
They wouldn't lie to us now would they?
quote:
Originally posted by Kenosha
Perhaps I overstated it...don't forget about the feasibility study...it's just, by no means, the last and final thought on the matter. Things change.
Last year's study was not meant to be the last and final thought on the matter. It was a $90,000 study. The next study was to cost about $400,000 or so. Of course things change. If the intent now is to have more stations and more TOD, I'm asking where you think those stations and that TOD will, could, or should be constructed.
quote:
To be clear:
This is Commuter Rail DMU in Albuquerque:
(http://www.nmrailrunner.com/GRAPHICS/locomotive-arrives-in-abq.jpg)
(http://www.lightrailnow.org/images02/abq-rpr-railrunner-trn-Lamy-stn-20060707br-cameo_Marti-Niman.jpg)
This is Commuter Rail DMU in Austin:
(http://www.stadlerrail.com/file/img/71121_re.jpg)
The Albuquerque Type DMU (Colorado Railcar) is the size of a regular locomotive engine and passenger car. The Austin DMU is the size of a Light Rail vehicle. Big difference.
DMU stands for Diesel Multiple Unit. It means that the vehicle runs on Diesel instead of overhead electric, that's all. There are all types of DMU vehicles. Sorry for the confusion.
Lockwood, Andrews, and Newnam presented examples from both the New Mexico and the Austin systems to Tulsa Transit on April 30, 2007. The Interfleet article you cited, which includes information about the Austin system from the same consultant hired by Tulsa Transit, is dated May 10, 2007. It is difficult for me to believe that the consultant figured out how to implement a new technology for Austin within those 10 days after the Tulsa Transit presentation. It also makes me wonder why Tulsa studied a particular technology with no serious consideration of actually employing that technology. If Tulsa officials were looking at the newer Cap Metro type of train with more stations and more TOD, then why not include all of that in the study that was done for Tulsa?
quote:
http://interfleet-international.com/CorporateWebsite/News/News_Index.aspx?ArticleID=114
quote:
News - Group
Interfleet On Track For U.S. Rail First
Interfleet Technology Inc is overseeing the next stage of a multi-million-dollar project that will see a fleet of non FRA-compliant Diesel Multiple Units (DMUs) operating on a new 32-mile commuter rail system in Austin, Texas.
Interfleet's German subsidiary, Interfleet Technology GmbH in Cologne, is utilizing their skills and knowledge of vehicle engineering to oversee the production of the cars, and will shortly witness the testing & commissioning of the first DMU when it undergoes commissioning at the Stadler manufacturing site in Switzerland in late April.
This is the latest stage in a project that has seen Interfleet review global technology options, develop performance-based technical specifications and undertake design reviews for the project, which is being implemented by Capital Metropolitan Transportation Authority and executed by prime consultant Lockwood, Andrews and Newnam Inc. The new service will be called Capital MetroRail and is expected to be operational by late 2008.
Principal consultant Stephen Bonina, who has led Interfleet's involvement in the project from the company's Philadelphia office commented: "There's heavy auto congestion in Austin, and that's why this rail system is necessary. Austin is a high-tech city that really does need a modern transit system.
"A hallmark of success for this project, and perhaps why Interfleet Technology Inc has been so successful, is the cross-office support, with our offices in Philadelphia, Germany and the UK working closely to share knowledge and skills. Our engineering knowledge and the geographical location of our offices mean that we have the ability to provide local support, whether that's in the U.S. or in Europe."
Testing should last for two months, with the first DMU being shipped to Texas in September, with the rest following one a month.
The DMUs will be the second in Europe to comply with new EU regulations but will be the first in North America.
Not only has Interfleet provided research and design, it has also recommended maintenance and operational specifications and interior/exterior design concepts. Interfleet Inc has also helped with the tender evaluation from potential maintenance suppliers to provide future maintenance for the DMU fleet.
10 May 2007
quote:
Lockwood, Andrews, and Newnam presented examples from both the New Mexico and the Austin systems to Tulsa Transit on April 30, 2007. The Interfleet article you cited, which includes information about the Austin system from the same consultant hired by Tulsa Transit, is dated May 10, 2007. It is difficult for me to believe that the consultant figured out how to implement a new technology for Austin within those 10 days after the Tulsa Transit presentation. It also makes me wonder why Tulsa studied a particular technology with no serious consideration of actually employing that technology. If Tulsa officials were looking at the newer Cap Metro type of train with more stations and more TOD, then why not include all of that in the study that was done for Tulsa?
Boo,
You are assuming that the level of detail that the consultants presented on the technology was substantive in nature. It wasn't. It was a cursory overview of the technology. The Austin trains weren't even built at that point, so any data regarding them was speculative.
That being said, Tulsa Transit's perspective, at that point, wasn't to find the latest and greatest technology for a system, but to find the most 'cost efficient' way to implement a rail based commuter train from BA to Downtown ONLY. With those parameters in mind, they were considering refurbished rail cars and engines and Bus Rapid Transit...whatever was cheapest. The steering committee accepted the results of the feasibility study based on those parameters.
What INCOG has done in the wake of that study is to take it a step further. Instead of just examining a single corridor, they have looked at what would be the best solution for a rail based
system. Locomotive styled commuter rail is limited in its flexibility. What the Austin styled technology does is allow you to plan a system that is wholly integrated, meaning that you could run the same technology from BA to Downtown as you would from Downtown to the West bank, and Downtown to the Airport. Having a single technology, as opposed to having several different types of trains also makes sense from maintenance and operating perspective. The Austin style train is also nimble enough to operate "on street" if necessary, like a light rail vehicle. The Austin technology also allows for express runs and local service. The larger trains are limited in how many stops they can make because of the long stop/start times.
The consultant wasn't considering these parameters; therefore they didn't present the Austin option. I would say that since INCOG has been working on this larger system model, Tulsa Transit's perspective has changed.
As far as stations are concerned, as I mentioned earlier, I think you would have Express service from Broken Arrow, and local service. Potentially, you could have 5, 6 or 7 stops in that 14 mile corridor.
• Main Street Broken Arrow
• 169 Park and Ride
• Memorial
• 31st & Yale
• 21st & BA
• 11th & Lewis
• 6th Street/Pearl District
• 3rd and Lansing Area (Walking distance from proposed ballpark)
• Union Station
• BOK Center
quote:
Originally posted by Kenosha
quote:
Lockwood, Andrews, and Newnam presented examples from both the New Mexico and the Austin systems to Tulsa Transit on April 30, 2007. The Interfleet article you cited, which includes information about the Austin system from the same consultant hired by Tulsa Transit, is dated May 10, 2007. It is difficult for me to believe that the consultant figured out how to implement a new technology for Austin within those 10 days after the Tulsa Transit presentation. It also makes me wonder why Tulsa studied a particular technology with no serious consideration of actually employing that technology. If Tulsa officials were looking at the newer Cap Metro type of train with more stations and more TOD, then why not include all of that in the study that was done for Tulsa?
Boo,
You are assuming that the level of detail that the consultants presented on the technology was substantive in nature. It wasn't. It was a cursory overview of the technology. The Austin trains weren't even built at that point, so any data regarding them was speculative.
Actually, I was looking at the entire study as cursory, not substantive. This topic was started by Oil Capital as a reaction to some discussion on another topic in which ridership projections presented by the "expert consultants" were accepted and defended without question. Whenever I see an initial post ending with a winking emoticon, I'm assuming it's at least a bit tongue-in-cheek.
And whenever I see a post which begins with a command in all upper case letters such as "PEOPLE -- FORGET ABOUT THE FEASIBILITY STUDY" then I wonder what's behind it. The emphasis was yours, not mine.
A light rail system for Tulsa was studied about 15 years ago. It would be interesting to see how current thinking has evolved since then. I agree with you that if a system with nimble vehicles is to be studied, then the results will not be the same as they would be for a single corridor.
quote:
As far as stations are concerned, as I mentioned earlier, I think you would have Express service from Broken Arrow, and local service. Potentially, you could have 5, 6 or 7 stops in that 14 mile corridor.
• Main Street Broken Arrow
• 169 Park and Ride
• Memorial
• 31st & Yale
• 21st & BA
• 11th & Lewis
• 6th Street/Pearl District
• 3rd and Lansing Area (Walking distance from proposed ballpark)
• Union Station
• BOK Center
Sorry, but I missed your earlier post on station locations. You've listed ten locations. Of those, four or five were included in the Lockwood, Andrews, and Newnam study. Are you suggesting all 10 locations, or 5 to 7 of them?
quote:
Originally posted by booWorld
Actually, I was looking at the entire study as cursory, not substantive. This topic was started by Oil Capital as a reaction to some discussion on another topic in which ridership projections presented by the "expert consultants" were accepted and defended without question. Whenever I see an initial post ending with a winking emoticon, I'm assuming it's at least a bit tongue-in-cheek.
And whenever I see a post which begins with a command in all upper case letters such as "PEOPLE -- FORGET ABOUT THE FEASIBILITY STUDY" then I wonder what's behind it. The emphasis was yours, not mine.
A light rail system for Tulsa was studied about 15 years ago. It would be interesting to see how current thinking has evolved since then. I agree with you that if a system with nimble vehicles is to be studied, then the results will not be the same as they would be for a single corridor.
quote:
As far as stations are concerned, as I mentioned earlier, I think you would have Express service from Broken Arrow, and local service. Potentially, you could have 5, 6 or 7 stops in that 14 mile corridor.
• Main Street Broken Arrow
• 169 Park and Ride
• Memorial
• 31st & Yale
• 21st & BA
• 11th & Lewis
• 6th Street/Pearl District
• 3rd and Lansing Area (Walking distance from proposed ballpark)
• Union Station
• BOK Center
Sorry, but I missed your earlier post on station locations. You've listed ten locations. Of those, four or five were included in the Lockwood, Andrews, and Newnam study. Are you suggesting all 10 locations, or 5 to 7 of them?
Truthfully, I was talking about midpoint stops, not the Main Street BA and Union Station stops in that figure.
I would say that some of those stops, particularly close to downtown would be either or...that is where the AA comes into play. 11th and Lewis is probably a good location for a stop due to its proximity to TU, Hillcrest, Cherry Street etc...is it too close to the 21st street station, which could service Utica Square, St. Johns and the Fairgrounds? The 6th Street/3rd and Lansing stops are probably interchangeable. The Arena stop would probably be part of a line that would provide access to the west bank.
The reason I emphasized the the feasibility study is because these tend to be taken as gospel, and that is just not the case. It was/is a starting point for the discussion, not the end all be all. That's all. I didn't mean to discount the work done on the study. It was fine for the parameters given, but like I said, those have changed.
quote:
Originally posted by Kenosha
quote:
As far as stations are concerned, as I mentioned earlier, I think you would have Express service from Broken Arrow, and local service. Potentially, you could have 5, 6 or 7 stops in that 14 mile corridor.
• Main Street Broken Arrow
• 169 Park and Ride
• Memorial
• 31st & Yale
• 21st & BA
• 11th & Lewis
• 6th Street/Pearl District
• 3rd and Lansing Area (Walking distance from proposed ballpark)
• Union Station
• BOK Center
Truthfully, I was talking about midpoint stops, not the Main Street BA and Union Station stops in that figure.
I would say that some of those stops, particularly close to downtown would be either or...that is where the AA comes into play. 11th and Lewis is probably a good location for a stop due to its proximity to TU, Hillcrest, Cherry Street etc...is it too close to the 21st street station, which could service Utica Square, St. Johns and the Fairgrounds? The 6th Street/3rd and Lansing stops are probably interchangeable. The Arena stop would probably be part of a line that would provide access to the west bank.
The 31st & Yale or the 21st & BA locations would be difficult and expensive to construct. They would have access problems as were addressed in the
Oklahoma Fixed Guideway Transportation System Study prepared for ODOT by Parsons Brinckerhoff in the late 80s and early 90s. However, depending on the usage, either or both locations could be worth the extra expense. In some of Tulsa's existing or historic neighborhoods, I think TOD will be met with resistance. The idea behind the proposed conservation district ordinance is to prevent the intrusion of generally more intense development in existing single-family neighborhoods. The land around stations will need to be allowed to be developed intensely, or it will need to be a location with an existing intensity of employment, population, and/or destination of some sort.
Many of these rail transit and TOD concepts could work in Tulsa. I'm not arguing that. But the TMAPC has been on a trend to thwart intensification of older neighborhoods near downtown. When the TMAPC suggested that my property be down-zoned to 2.66 dwelling units per acre, I begged them to leave the zoning alone.
I tried to use the argument that increased population densities in central Tulsa would help support a viable public mass transit system, as many of my neighbors did not have cars. That did not matter to the TMAPC or to INCOG support staff -- they thought it would be better to down-zone my property from 29 dwelling units per acre to 2.66 dwelling units per acre.
I tried to use the argument that multi-family housing was an explicit written objective of the Comprehensive Plan for my neighborhood, and I wanted to have the right to build rental units. That did not matter to the TMAPC or to INCOG support staff -- they thought it would be better to down-zone my property from 29 dwelling units per acre to a single-family district with a maximum of 2.66 dwelling units per acre.
I tried to argue that RM-2 zoning was in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan, and that I was satisfied with it and did not wish it to be re-zoned. My wishes did not matter to the TMAPC. The Comprehensive Plan Zoning Matrix did not matter to the TMAPC or INCOG -- they thought it would be a good idea to down-zone my property against my wishes from 29 dwelling units per acre to 2.66 dwelling units per acre.
I actually asked to be left alone because I welcomed increased intensity of development in central Tulsa. But the TMAPC and INCOG did not leave me alone. They fought me tooth and nail to get my property down-zoned from 29 dwelling units per acre to 2.66 dwelling units per acre. They absolutely had to have it
their way.
Now, if I see the "planners" at INCOG try to ram high-density TOD down the throats of Midtowners who don't want it, I'll be relunctant to support their "plans", however well-intentioned. I won't be inclined to vote for a tax increase on myself which in essence transfers my property rights from central Tulsa to some contrived point along a railroad track.
quote:
The reason I emphasized the the feasibility study is because these tend to be taken as gospel, and that is just not the case. It was/is a starting point for the discussion, not the end all be all. That's all. I didn't mean to discount the work done on the study. It was fine for the parameters given, but like I said, those have changed.
Again, Oil Capital began this topic because some other users
were taking the ridership projections in the study as gospel truth, or so it seemed from their posts. I was curious to see what the average cost per trip would be based on the numbers in the feasibility study. As I said in an earlier post, that cost was not as high as I expected it to be.
I think all of these studies should be thoroughly analyzed, questioned, and debated. I've had an awful experience with the "planners" at INCOG, so it's very difficult for me to look at anything they say with an open mind. Tulsa needs
predictable planning and land use policies. For Tulsa Transit to hire a consultant to conduct a feasibility study (cursory as it may be) and then for INCOG to take a stance of "Oh, that study -- that's sooooo 10 months ago -- our ideas have completely changed since way back in May of 2007" sounds silly and fickle to me. If we don't have the foresight to see 10 months down the road, then how in the world will be able to predict something 20 years from now?
quote:
Originally posted by booWorld
Now, if I see the "planners" at INCOG try to ram high-density TOD down the throats of Midtowners who don't want it, I'll be relunctant to support their "plans", however well-intentioned.
I hope they won't, too. But, I don't think that'll happen because the tracks are already in place. Look at a map that shows existing tracks, http://maps.live.com/. Outside of downtown, the train that runs down the BA is the only "midtown" line. Train lines run down the west bank, and all over north Tulsa. That's where new growth is needed most, and wanted most. Sure, you can blow away a strip club, a lock-n-store, and a parking lot or two along the BA to make room for TOD, but I don't see how it could be too invasive. Ironically, I'd argue that midtowners could easily be feeling "left out" in a few years. No tracks, no train.
Last time I checked there was only one set of tracks running down the middle of the BA.
So do we reroute the freight trains to a new track with the proper easement and width requirements after or before you put down the two tracks needed to run a system? Or are you seriously telling me this system is only going to have one train/tram running back and forth?
^ The single track / freight train / multiple train issue was mentioned in that $90,000 antiquated feasibility study which was presented to Tulsa Transit way, way, way back in 2007.
quote:
Originally posted by TeeDub
Last time I checked there was only one set of tracks running down the middle of the BA.
So do we reroute the freight trains to a new track with the proper easement and width requirements after or before you put down the two tracks needed to run a system? Or are you seriously telling me this system is only going to have one train/tram running back and forth?
We're seriously telling you the system is only going to have one train running back and forth. No one seems to grasp how bare-bones this thing is, which in my mind is the quality that makes it so pragmatic. Take what's there, make it work. Tulsa-BA doesn't need an elaborate web; it just needs service every hour or 90 minutes.
How about a monorail?
At least then we can say we sunk millions into something worth looking at.
And we can all sing the monorail song.
quote:
Originally posted by booWorld
The 31st & Yale or the 21st & BA locations would be difficult and expensive to construct. They would have access problems as were addressed in the Oklahoma Fixed Guideway Transportation System Study prepared for ODOT by Parsons Brinckerhoff in the late 80s and early 90s. However, depending on the usage, either or both locations could be worth the extra expense. In some of Tulsa's existing or historic neighborhoods, I think TOD will be met with resistance. The idea behind the proposed conservation district ordinance is to prevent the intrusion of generally more intense development in existing single-family neighborhoods. The land around stations will need to be allowed to be developed intensely, or it will need to be a location with an existing intensity of employment, population, and/or destination of some sort.
Note: TOD's are generally not public project. They are usually privately developed. I am sure that a developer's proforma would calculated the cost benefit of any TOD, whether at 31st and Yale or at 21st....or wherever.
If you do something as simple as google maps, you'll see TOD opportunity at all of those sites I listed. I don't see much opportunity for encroachment into "historic" neighborhood, at least at those nodes Those areas are generally zoned Multifamily or CH as it is. I believe a MU or TOD zoning designation would be appropriate in those locations.
quote:
Many of these rail transit and TOD concepts could work in Tulsa. I'm not arguing that. But the TMAPC has been on a trend to thwart intensification of older neighborhoods near downtown. When the TMAPC suggested that my property be down-zoned to 2.66 dwelling units per acre, I begged them to leave the zoning alone.
I tried to use the argument that increased population densities in central Tulsa would help support a viable public mass transit system, as many of my neighbors did not have cars. That did not matter to the TMAPC or to INCOG support staff -- they thought it would be better to down-zone my property from 29 dwelling units per acre to 2.66 dwelling units per acre.
I tried to use the argument that multi-family housing was an explicit written objective of the Comprehensive Plan for my neighborhood, and I wanted to have the right to build rental units. That did not matter to the TMAPC or to INCOG support staff -- they thought it would be better to down-zone my property from 29 dwelling units per acre to a single-family district with a maximum of 2.66 dwelling units per acre.
I tried to argue that RM-2 zoning was in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan, and that I was satisfied with it and did not wish it to be re-zoned. My wishes did not matter to the TMAPC. The Comprehensive Plan Zoning Matrix did not matter to the TMAPC or INCOG -- they thought it would be a good idea to down-zone my property against my wishes from 29 dwelling units per acre to 2.66 dwelling units per acre.
I actually asked to be left alone because I welcomed increased intensity of development in central Tulsa. But the TMAPC and INCOG did not leave me alone. They fought me tooth and nail to get my property down-zoned from 29 dwelling units per acre to 2.66 dwelling units per acre. They absolutely had to have it their way.
I am sorry that happened to you....sounds like an unfortunated deal. Amd, while that is alot to absorb, I sort of feel we are arguing the same side of the coin...can I just agree with you?
quote:
Now, if I see the "planners" at INCOG try to ram high-density TOD down the throats of Midtowners who don't want it, I'll be relunctant to support their "plans", however well-intentioned. I won't be inclined to vote for a tax increase on myself which in essence transfers my property rights from central Tulsa to some contrived point along a railroad track.
Be clear...one of other reasons INCOG transportation is looking at this is because they believe that there is an undeniable relationship btwn Land Use and Transportation; AND considering the Comp Plan Update is eminent, it seemed like a good time to go to the public and visit with them about just this very subject. No one is going to ram anything down anyones throat. This will be publically driven....by the public.
quote:
The reason I emphasized the the feasibility study is because these tend to be taken as gospel, and that is just not the case. It was/is a starting point for the discussion, not the end all be all. That's all. I didn't mean to discount the work done on the study. It was fine for the parameters given, but like I said, those have changed.
Again, Oil Capital began this topic because some other users were taking the ridership projections in the study as gospel truth, or so it seemed from their posts. I was curious to see what the average cost per trip would be based on the numbers in the feasibility study. As I said in an earlier post, that cost was not as high as I expected it to be.
quote:
I think all of these studies should be thoroughly analyzed, questioned, and debated. I've had an awful experience with the "planners" at INCOG, so it's very difficult for me to look at anything they say with an open mind. Tulsa needs predictable planning and land use policies. For Tulsa Transit to hire a consultant to conduct a feasibility study (cursory as it may be) and then for INCOG to take a stance of "Oh, that study -- that's sooooo 10 months ago -- our ideas have completely changed since way back in May of 2007" sounds silly and fickle to me. If we don't have the foresight to see 10 months down the road, then how in the world will be able to predict something 20 years from now?
1) I am sorry you had a bad experience with INCOG. Are you willing to let me provides some information that might help you rest easier?
The TMAPC staff, whom I am assuming you were dealing with in regards to your Land Use issue, are in a completely different division than the Transportation Planners who are working on this project. It is easy to assume that because they all work under the INCOG moniker, that they are the same. They aren't. So, for the sake of argument, can we assume that these people might have some competency?
You are charactarizing the stance INCOG is taking as 'silly and fickle', whereas my stance would be that Tulsa Transit is a management and operations agency, not a planning agency.
Tulsa Transit issued the study. It was a starting point, and it was only a 90,000 dollar study, design to identify any glaring non-starters for a mass transit commuter corridor. They didn't want to get into a half a million dollar Alternatives Analysis only to find that the possibility was not there. Because of the limited scope of the study, and because INCOG's transportation department actually excercized some foresight, they are now looking at a broader scope. FWIW, the feasiblity study specifically specifies that the study was done independent of any other transit connections; other rail, local or Amtrak; and if they were added, it would alter the numbers, likely in a positive manner.