From Tulsa World (//%22http://www.tulsaworld.com/NewsStory.asp?ID=070223_Ne_a9_rail%22)
quote:
Reaction to a proposed commuter rail line between downtown Tulsa and Broken Arrow was enthusiastic Thursday at public hearings on the issue.
"I'd certainly use it," said John Dobson, a frequent rider on the Metropolitan Tulsa Transit Authority's express bus from Broken Arrow.
Dobson began taking the bus to his downtown Tulsa job about two years ago because he was sick of fighting traffic.
"It's just going to get worse," he said. "We have to think about mass transit on a broad scale. I think a train would encourage even more people to stop driving their cars every day."
Rebecca Warner said she's supportive of such a rail line but also wants to see more frequent bus routes throughout Tulsa.
"I don't mind riding the bus, but I really don't want to wait very long," she said.
Others attendees said they would like to see express bus routes from other suburbs, such as Owasso, Bixby and Jenks.
Tulsa Transit last fall hired a transportation engineering firm from Dallas to study the feasibility of a rail service from Broken Arrow and a possible Bus Rapid Transit system, which would be an upgraded version of the current express routes.
Lockwood, Andrews & New-nam Operations Manager
Timothy Schmidt said Thursday at public hearings in Tulsa and Broken Arrow that both options are feasible.
Under consideration is using the Union-Pacific Railroad tracks that run along the Broken Expressway for a diesel passenger train.
Initially it would be limited to weekday work commutes, with extra runs being added depending on demand, Schmidt said.
If started today, ridership would be 1,200 to 4,200 each day, he said. In 30 years, it would be 1,471 to 4,893, considering less than 1 percent growth per year.
The cost to launch it would be $32 million to $38 million because of track and crossing improvements and stations that would be needed. Annual operations and maintenance would cost $3.1 million.
The Bus Rapid Transit system, which in other cities features traffic-signal priority, dedicated traffic lanes and high-capacity buses, would cost as much as $19.6 million to launch, but the annual costs could be absorbed by the current system, Schmidt said.
City Councilor Rick Westcott, who has pushed to extend Amtrak from Oklahoma City to Tulsa, said the same reasons exist to have a local rail system.
"This is definitely something we need to explore," he said. "As the region continues to grow, we're going to have to find a better way to get people around than building bigger highways."
The firm will submit a final report by the end of March. Further study would be needed if regional officials decided to proceed with an option.
(http://www.tulsaworld.com/images/2007/070223_a9_rail_rails21.jpg)
That would be $3/(round trip)ticket in operating costs alone..
For the same price, we could buy everyone a $10,000 car and give them $750/yr for gas.
I like the idea, but the cost still seems outrageous right now for the number of passengers.
Bulldozing the BA Expressway would help.
As long as fuel is relatively cheap, and there isn't serious density on or near this rail, I'm not sure it's feasable.
Of course, it might be later. Broken Arrow still has some serious growth potential. As do fuel prices. The rail would also go through some rather large light industrial areas, don't know if that's positive or negative.
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
That would be $3/(round trip)ticket in operating costs alone..
For the same price, we could buy everyone a $10,000 car and give them $750/yr for gas.
I like the idea, but the cost still seems outrageous right now for the number of passengers.
Perhaps you're not adding in all the costs of the current system of highway development & expansion.
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
That would be $3/(round trip)ticket in operating costs alone..
For the same price, we could buy everyone a $10,000 car and give them $750/yr for gas.
I like the idea, but the cost still seems outrageous right now for the number of passengers.
$3 r/t ticket does not sound that bad to me. Thats only $66 per month. Not bad for being able to read a paper or catch a few more z's in the morning while riding to work. Heck double it and even at $132 a month, still does not sound bad IMO. Make it so riders can buy a monthly pass for $60 to $100.
How much is parking in DT?
quote:
Originally posted by DM
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
That would be $3/(round trip)ticket in operating costs alone..
For the same price, we could buy everyone a $10,000 car and give them $750/yr for gas.
I like the idea, but the cost still seems outrageous right now for the number of passengers.
$3 r/t ticket does not sound that bad to me. Thats only $66 per month. Not bad for being able to read a paper or catch a few more z's in the morning while riding to work. Heck double it and even at $132 a month, still does not sound bad IMO. Make it so riders can buy a monthly pass for $60 to $100.
How much is parking in DT?
If the prices for parking were raised it would encourage people to take public transport. We need to raise the cost of motoring to encourage people to make the switch.
quote:
Originally posted by DM
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
That would be $3/(round trip)ticket in operating costs alone..
For the same price, we could buy everyone a $10,000 car and give them $750/yr for gas.
I like the idea, but the cost still seems outrageous right now for the number of passengers.
$3 r/t ticket does not sound that bad to me. Thats only $66 per month. Not bad for being able to read a paper or catch a few more z's in the morning while riding to work. Heck double it and even at $132 a month, still does not sound bad IMO. Make it so riders can buy a monthly pass for $60 to $100.
How much is parking in DT?
Free for me, but I used to pay around $30/mo. $100+ for nice places. I'm just pointing out that when operating costs are in that range, it would be very tough to recover startup costs.
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
quote:
Originally posted by DM
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
That would be $3/(round trip)ticket in operating costs alone..
For the same price, we could buy everyone a $10,000 car and give them $750/yr for gas.
I like the idea, but the cost still seems outrageous right now for the number of passengers.
$3 r/t ticket does not sound that bad to me. Thats only $66 per month. Not bad for being able to read a paper or catch a few more z's in the morning while riding to work. Heck double it and even at $132 a month, still does not sound bad IMO. Make it so riders can buy a monthly pass for $60 to $100.
How much is parking in DT?
Free for me, but I used to pay around $30/mo. $100+ for nice places. I'm just pointing out that when operating costs are in that range, it would be very tough to recover startup costs.
True. Parking illegally is not free btw. lol! [:P]
quote:
Originally posted by DM
True. Parking illegally is not free btw. lol! [:P]
My employer owns the lot(s)
quote:
If the prices for parking were raised it would encourage people to take public transport. We need to raise the cost of motoring to encourage people to make the switch.
Yeah sure raise price .... we love INFLATION!!! What about the people who dont live along the line? ... they have no choice ... I'm sure they would love that idea.
quote:
Originally posted by Cubs
quote:
If the prices for parking were raised it would encourage people to take public transport. We need to raise the cost of motoring to encourage people to make the switch.
Yeah sure raise price .... we love INFLATION!!! What about the people who dont live along the line? ... they have no choice ... I'm sure they would love that idea.
I'm sure the federal reserve isn't going to have to readjust the interest rate based on the inflationary pressures of an increase in Tulsa car parking charges.
Increasing charges would encourage a market response. More people would take the buses, car share, take the new train service or choose to live within walking or cycling distances from their place of work..
quote:
Originally posted by si_uk_lon_ok
quote:
Originally posted by Cubs
quote:
If the prices for parking were raised it would encourage people to take public transport. We need to raise the cost of motoring to encourage people to make the switch.
Yeah sure raise price .... we love INFLATION!!! What about the people who dont live along the line? ... they have no choice ... I'm sure they would love that idea.
I'm sure the federal reserve isn't going to have to readjust the interest rate based on the inflationary pressures of an increase in Tulsa car parking charges.
Increasing charges would encourage a market response. More people would take the buses, car share, take the new train service or choose to live within walking or cycling distances from their place of work..
Either that or people would see that they can make even more money from parking and would tear down more buildings for parking lots in order to get a piece of the pie.
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
quote:
Originally posted by si_uk_lon_ok
quote:
Originally posted by Cubs
quote:
If the prices for parking were raised it would encourage people to take public transport. We need to raise the cost of motoring to encourage people to make the switch.
Yeah sure raise price .... we love INFLATION!!! What about the people who dont live along the line? ... they have no choice ... I'm sure they would love that idea.
I'm sure the federal reserve isn't going to have to readjust the interest rate based on the inflationary pressures of an increase in Tulsa car parking charges.
Increasing charges would encourage a market response. More people would take the buses, car share, take the new train service or choose to live within walking or cycling distances from their place of work..
Either that or people would see that they can make even more money from parking and would tear down more buildings for parking lots in order to get a piece of the pie.
If you raised prices with the current level of supply, I bet there would be over capacity of car parking spaces and car parks might be sold off for development. Cheap parking has fueled the demand for parking and with it the destruction of buildings.
quote:
Originally posted by si_uk_lon_ok
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
quote:
Originally posted by si_uk_lon_ok
quote:
Originally posted by Cubs
quote:
If the prices for parking were raised it would encourage people to take public transport. We need to raise the cost of motoring to encourage people to make the switch.
Yeah sure raise price .... we love INFLATION!!! What about the people who dont live along the line? ... they have no choice ... I'm sure they would love that idea.
I'm sure the federal reserve isn't going to have to readjust the interest rate based on the inflationary pressures of an increase in Tulsa car parking charges.
Increasing charges would encourage a market response. More people would take the buses, car share, take the new train service or choose to live within walking or cycling distances from their place of work..
Either that or people would see that they can make even more money from parking and would tear down more buildings for parking lots in order to get a piece of the pie.
If you raised prices with the current level of supply, I bet there would be over capacity of car parking spaces and car parks might be sold off for development. Cheap parking has fueled the demand for parking and with it the destruction of buildings.
What? That made absolutely no sense?
People don't go downtown because there is cheap parking. They go downtown because their jobs are there. And when they are there they look for the cheapest and most convenient parking they can find. If the city raises its parking prices, people will look for cheaper parking elsewhere. Thus they will be less inclined to park in the city owned parking spaces and will look for less expensive privately owned ones.
This will lead to less people parking in city owned parking spaces and parking more in private parking spaces. This will lead to private parking spaces being more valuable and scarce, and more buildings possibly being torn down to meet that demand.
For some reason I think you also suppose that people are more likely to give up driving because of expensive parking. I sure as heck wouldnt, I just wouldnt go downtown. And if I were a business owner and the parking cost my employees and customers a lot of money, I would leave downtown and move to where the cost of parking wasn't such a problem, aka the suburbs with whom I am competing price wise anyway. Your basically betting that people will give up their cars instead of downtown. I don't think so.
I think exactly the opposite would be true. Instead of the city charging higher parking prices than the private owners, charging less would make private parking lots have to compete and lower their prices, thus becoming less profitable, then property could be more valuable being developed, than it would as a parking lot.
If a bulding is sitting there empty, not making any money but the price of parking goes up. The person with that property will see that they can make more money with it as a parking lot than they could before, thats more of an incentive to make it into a parking lot. If the cost of parking goes down, thats less of an incentive to tear the building down and turn it into parking.
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
quote:
Originally posted by si_uk_lon_ok
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
quote:
Originally posted by si_uk_lon_ok
quote:
Originally posted by Cubs
quote:
If the prices for parking were raised it would encourage people to take public transport. We need to raise the cost of motoring to encourage people to make the switch.
Yeah sure raise price .... we love INFLATION!!! What about the people who dont live along the line? ... they have no choice ... I'm sure they would love that idea.
I'm sure the federal reserve isn't going to have to readjust the interest rate based on the inflationary pressures of an increase in Tulsa car parking charges.
Increasing charges would encourage a market response. More people would take the buses, car share, take the new train service or choose to live within walking or cycling distances from their place of work..
Either that or people would see that they can make even more money from parking and would tear down more buildings for parking lots in order to get a piece of the pie.
If you raised prices with the current level of supply, I bet there would be over capacity of car parking spaces and car parks might be sold off for development. Cheap parking has fueled the demand for parking and with it the destruction of buildings.
What? That made absolutely no sense?
People don't go downtown because there is cheap parking. They go downtown because their jobs are there. And when they are there they look for the cheapest and most convenient parking they can find. If the city raises its parking prices, people will look for cheaper parking elsewhere. Thus they will be less inclined to park in the city owned parking spaces and will look for less expensive privately owned ones.
This will lead to less people parking in city owned parking spaces and parking more in private parking spaces. This will lead to private parking spaces being more valuable and scarce, and more buildings possibly being torn down to meet that demand.
For some reason I think you also suppose that people are more likely to give up driving because of expensive parking. I sure as heck wouldnt, I just wouldnt go downtown. And if I were a business owner and the parking cost my employees and customers a lot of money, I would leave downtown and move to where the cost of parking wasn't such a problem, aka the suburbs with whom I am competing price wise anyway. Your basically betting that people will give up their cars instead of downtown. I don't think so.
I think exactly the opposite would be true. Instead of the city charging higher parking prices than the private owners, charging less would make private parking lots have to compete and lower their prices, thus becoming less profitable, then property could be more valuable being developed, than it would as a parking lot.
If a bulding is sitting there empty, not making any money but the price of parking goes up. The person with that property will see that they can make more money with it as a parking lot than they could before, thats more of an incentive to make it into a parking lot. If the cost of parking goes down, thats less of an incentive to tear the building down and turn it into parking.
I'm talking about raising all parking prices. Not just making the city owned spaces more expensive. This could be done with a parking place charge, where each parking space is taxed. This would raise prices of parking and not encourage their over supply as an empty space would still be taxed, but not raising revenue. I'm also not only talking about down town, I think there should be more expensive parking everywhere. If I go to Walmart they give me free parking, they are subsidising the car parking and they make a loss on it. However if I travel in using sustainable modes of travel, I get nothing. We shouldn't be encouraging unsustainable modes of travel to the degree we are.
I think the whole city needs to reverse its view on parking. If they city is going to spend huge amounts of money on public transport, on the supply side. It needs to balance this with some demand management, to encourage people to make a modal shift. Parking is a huge part of this. If people can drive everywhere on cheap fuel and park for peanuts they won't do the right thing and swap.
At the moment the city has rules about the minimum amount of parking a building needs if you were to build one. This should be reversed, to a maximum amount of spaces available.
Sorry I should have explained my thinking more clearly, but I was at work. I realise that there is no point in raising the rate the city charges if they would just be undercut by the private operators.
Ok, let me see if I get this. Your saying that, each surface parking space should be taxed by the city? I say surface parking because supposedly we still want inexpensive parking available but dont want parking lots, and would prefer what parking there was as parking garages (hopefully with ground floor retail in most areas)or underground parking. I would even give some sort of tax incentive to parking garages that had ground floor retail versus one that didn't to incentivise those being built. I would also not tax street side parking. If thats the case I am with ya and lets do it before any Wal-mart or such goes in. [:)]
But there are some things that I wonder about. Much of what I see as being surface parking downtown is either owned by the churches and not taxed, the college and I don't think we want to tax their parking, or small businesses that don't exactly have the money to to build structured parking. How would this effect Mc Nellies for example? And how much of a tax would you impose on each parking space that would make it enough to change peoples behavior or impact a companies bottom line?
Hopefully as downtown fills up and becomes desirable, property will becomes more valuable. Structured parking will then replace surface parking.
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
Ok, let me see if I get this. Your saying that, each surface parking space should be taxed by the city? I say surface parking because supposedly we still want inexpensive parking available but dont want parking lots, and would prefer what parking there was as parking garages (hopefully with ground floor retail in most areas)or underground parking. I would even give some sort of tax incentive to parking garages that had ground floor retail versus one that didn't to incentivise those being built. I would also not tax street side parking. If thats the case I am with ya and lets do it before any Wal-mart or such goes in. [:)]
But there are some things that I wonder about. Much of what I see as being surface parking downtown is either owned by the churches and not taxed, the college and I don't think we want to tax their parking, or small businesses that don't exactly have the money to to build structured parking. How would this effect Mc Nellies for example? And how much of a tax would you impose on each parking space that would make it enough to change peoples behavior or impact a companies bottom line?
Hopefully as downtown fills up and becomes desirable, property will becomes more valuable. Structured parking will then replace surface parking.
I don't actually want inexpensive parking period. I understand that parking lots are destroying and have destroyed most of downtown and that needs to be reversed. However parking encourages driving. I think more on street parking should be provided and the city should relax the rules on parking at angles to the curb. I think the fairest way of taxing would be to tax the land area of a parking lot. That would encourage multi storey car parks, but not letting them off the hook completely when it comes to parking charges.
I think it is strange that a church needs a parking lot at all. Can't they share a parking lot with an office, that would be empty on the weekend or evening? I also think there needs to be a reduction in parking that should not be limited in a way to hit the big guy, everyone needs to make changes. I think allowing on street parking would help. I think one of the main things is to prevent what suburban nation refers to as parking for the last Saturday before Christmas, ie making sure there is always mountains of spaces, other words 364 days a year there is over supply. I think OU Tulsa has way too much parking, so does ORU, I never drove to university. I think the universities would be a great place to encourage the development of a public transport hub.
As for how much to tax parking, I don't know. It would have to be enough to change behaviour though anything less would just be fund raising. The money would have to be ploughed into public transport initiatives to create a viable alternative.