INCOG planning for commuter rail

[Chicken Little]

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.

[OKC_Shane]

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.



A 40 mile commuter line with stations in Edmond, NW OKC, Downtown/Midtown, Moore, and Norman would have a good chance of being successful.

[Chicken Little]

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%.

[OKC_Shane]

Taking out the unurbanized areas, I'm sure both cities exceed 2,000 people per square mile.

[sportyart]

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.

[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.

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.

[Matthew.Dowty]

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.

[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.

[DwnTwnTul]

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.  

[AVERAGE JOE]

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? [}:)]

[Hometown]

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.  

[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?

[okiebybirth]

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. []

[Kenosha]

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.

[AVERAGE JOE]

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.