INCOG planning for commuter rail

[soloriter]

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.

[Double A]

Right now, it looks like we'll have to settle for centennial trolleys, baby steps. Tulsa to OKC in 45 minutes would be cool.

[Matthew.Dowty]

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

[TulsaFan-inTexas]

quote:Originally posted by soloriter

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.

[Matthew.Dowty]

Commuter rail idea deserves fresh look
By RUSSELL RAY Energy writer

TULSA WORLD 5/21/2006

Click here for the full article.

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.

[pmcalk]

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.

[Chicken Little]

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.



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.

[Matthew.Dowty]

Here are some links about development that has occured or is going to occur after the arrival of rail transit.

In the Dallas area

In Saint Louis


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.

[rwarn17588]

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.

[SXSW]

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.

[pmcalk]

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.

[Hometown]

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.

[Chicken Little]

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.

[howard.beale]

Tulsa is too small for such a concept at this point, the OKC option is interesting.

[okiebybirth]

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.