Nashville commuter rail

[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?

[booWorld]

^ 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.

[Renaissance]

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.

[TeeDub]

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.

[Kenosha]

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.