Airport to Downtown Commuter Rail Line

[sgrizzle]

quote:Originally posted by si_uk_lon_ok

quote:Originally posted by sgrizzle

2 trains would provide service about every 15 minutes. I'm guessing a third would allow for maintenance, etc. With a route that size, hopefully they could utilize the engine/passenger car combo unit popular in other cities instead of buying a separate locomotive engine. The weight wouldn't really justify that.

I would think this line would easily be able to charge $5-$10 one-way as it allows business commuters the ability to travel from work to out-of-state locations without using a car. The cost would need to be slightly under, or close to, cab fair. It would be very popular with out-of-state business travelers. A downtown shuttle bus would have to be combined with this service in case the office or hotel you are seeking isn't within a few blocks of the station.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diesel_Multiple_Unit

Look I really like the idea of a rail link to the airport. I'm really pro public transport. However the airport can't support an exclusive express link. The airport only has 3,000,000 users a year, please correct me if I'm wrong.

If we jump to a service every 15 mins, with one carriage half full that's 27.5 people on each of the 128 rail journeys in a day that would be 3520 a day or 1,284,800 a year. That's nearly half the passengers using the airport. I'm sorry but the idea in its present form is not viable.

Being that it would be primarily for business, it would likely not run every 15 minutes for 16 hours. Two trains would allow for 15 minutes but I would assume closer to 30 minutes or not at all during late evening. Train may only run 12 hours and only make around half your number of trips a day.  (It it doubtful any airport that has 160 flights has almost the same # of train trips)

That would be about 600,000 passengers per year. About 20%. If they could charge $10/trip, that is $6M a year. Even at $5 a ride this is much better on paper than the BA route.

[okiebybirth]

People need to have a paradigm shift when it comes to the cost of public transportation around here.  A train that has a terminal in Owasso, goes by the AA maintenance base, airport, and continues on into downtown dropping passengers off at Williams Companies front door is definitely something worth considering.  But this needs to be done before talk of expanding 169 through Owasso; If the highway gets the transportation money before a train, then this will not happen anytime soon.

[PonderInc]

One reason that BA keeps coming up is that Broken Arrow residents have proven their desire to use mass transit to get downtown via an express bus.  I know it was running several years ago and was successful.  It may have been interrupted after Tulsa's 2002 downturn, but I think it's back in business now.

re: costs - remember that there's a lot of federal money available for capital transportation costs.  (We can always buy new buses and computers...but we struggle to pay for drivers and fuel.)  Last time I looked, on average, the feds matched us 2 to 1 on mass transit capital expenditures.

My concern with using existing tracks...we have a LOT of freight trains coming into and out of downtown every day.  (Almost every time I walk across the Boulder Bridge, there's a train underneath it.)  These trains are not speeding through town.  They are creeping.  A good passenger train service should be able to whisk people from place to place.  It should easily go 60 miles an hour, not 30...with plenty of time for a few stops along the way.   Cars that are stuck on the expressway should look up and think: "Wow, if I were on that train, I'd already be home!" I don't know, but I expect that we'd need more and better tracks to pull this off.

[sgrizzle]

MONORAIL!!!




(had to do it)

[si_uk_lon_ok]

With a modal split of 20%, 600,000 people would use the rail line. This would be barely profitable, with 50% occupancy on a single carriage train.

I think though that 20% using the service is at the moment completely unachievable. I've looked for data on the modal split of people getting to airports and found two relevant articles, one from the UK and one from the USA.

How do passengers travell to airports?

The British article requires some flexibility, the modal split won't be that similar to the USA. Car ownership is lower and the propensity to use public transport is higher, so any airport in the USA would struggle to match the modal splits in this report, but lets be optimistic and say they can. If we look at table H1 you can see that the modal split is between 1-22% for rail. Tulsa is however not Gatwick with 22%, Gatwick has extensive rail links with a wide range of destinations which in turn link up to bus, tram and underground services and is located quite far from population centres and isn't that easy to reach by car. Tulsa airport is located nearer to the city centre and has good highway links. Both Heathrow and Birmingham have 7% modal share for rail however both of these have rail lines that are integrated into existing mass transit systems. Now Newcastle has 5%, it is a metropolitan area about the same size as Tulsa, has an airport with 2.9 million passengers per annum and a rail link. Newcastle has a rail line around the city of 77.7km with 59 stations, Newcastle also has low levels of car ownership. Now I know this isn't US, but if we make a stretch and try to apply Newcastle to Tulsa's rail link we are only looking at 5% modal split, or more like 3% which is what my original post considered likely. This rail link really needs to be part of a bigger system to be viable.

MIT Info

This report from MIT shows when rail access is successful. Reasons include; existing metropolitan rail network, low cost of rail extension to airport, highway access difficult or pollution measures. As far as I can tell Tulsa fits none of these reasons why a rail link would be successful.

[AVERAGE JOE]

quote:Originally posted by PonderInc

One reason that BA keeps coming up is that Broken Arrow residents have proven their desire to use mass transit to get downtown via an express bus.  I know it was running several years ago and was successful.  It may have been interrupted after Tulsa's 2002 downturn, but I think it's back in business now.

re: costs - remember that there's a lot of federal money available for capital transportation costs.  (We can always buy new buses and computers...but we struggle to pay for drivers and fuel.)  Last time I looked, on average, the feds matched us 2 to 1 on mass transit capital expenditures.

My concern with using existing tracks...we have a LOT of freight trains coming into and out of downtown every day.  (Almost every time I walk across the Boulder Bridge, there's a train underneath it.)  These trains are not speeding through town.  They are creeping.  A good passenger train service should be able to whisk people from place to place.  It should easily go 60 miles an hour, not 30...with plenty of time for a few stops along the way.   Cars that are stuck on the expressway should look up and think: "Wow, if I were on that train, I'd already be home!" I don't know, but I expect that we'd need more and better tracks to pull this off.

Good thought about the freight trains, but the solution is the same as what they would employ on the Tulsa-BA commuter line -- freight trains run after commuter hours. Even if the airport express train ran from 7:00am to 9:00pm, the freight folks would have at least 8-9 hours to run freight down those lines.

Transit during the day and evening, freight at night.

[Double A]

Seems to me like Sully needs to get busy in D.C. and start earning his keep.

[NCTulsan]

A rail route (whether light rail or commuter) between downtown Tulsa and the airport would rarely get used ..... at least not by the amount of ridership to garner any state or federal funding.  Even in larger cities, this type of route sees minimal success, especially when there are no other trip generators along the line.  

The key reason the Hiawatha Line in Minneapolis is so successful is because there are plenty of other trip generators along the route, namely the Mall of America.  

I've worked in transit for 12 years, and I can say without a doubt that a rail route between downtown Tulsa and TUL will never see the light of day.  

The proposed commuter rail beween Broken Arrow and Tulsa holds much more promise.

[akupetsky]

quote:Originally posted by NCTulsan

A rail route (whether light rail or commuter) between downtown Tulsa and the airport would rarely get used ..... at least not by the amount of ridership to garner any state or federal funding.  Even in larger cities, this type of route sees minimal success, especially when there are no other trip generators along the line.  

The key reason the Hiawatha Line in Minneapolis is so successful is because there are plenty of other trip generators along the route, namely the Mall of America.  

I've worked in transit for 12 years, and I can say without a doubt that a rail route between downtown Tulsa and TUL will never see the light of day.  

The proposed commuter rail beween Broken Arrow and Tulsa holds much more promise.

I've always thought that you could have a commuter train system with sufficient trip generators in Tulsa.  With the new development going in at 71st and Turkey Mountain, the casinos, the 71st street shopping corridor, the Arkansas River and downtown revitalization, I'll bet Tulsa can support a two-way 71st/Arkansas River - downtown - Airport/Zoo - BA run.  You can lay tracks on the west side of the Arkansas instead of or along with any new north-south road that is built opposite Riverside Drive.  I would argue that that is the environmentally correct thing to do anyway.  You can have buses and cabs running from stations at 71st/Turkey Mountain, BA and downtown to round out the last mile.

[TheArtist]

People its going to be hard enough to get the BA to Downtown route going.  Lets focus on that first. If that doesnt go through, nothing else will.

As for the river, I would like to see a west river side drive first, from Jenks to Downtown. That needs to be done so that the INCOG 41st area west side developments can happen thus building more density along that side. A realistic plan for a downtown/midtown trolley car service would be nice as well. That could also then extend to the riverside corridor in time which would then connect with the planned Aquarium/Riverwalk/Casino Trolley runs. If that became busy enough a street car system could eventually be installed in the roadway or a monorail with pilings right along the riverbank.

[saintinthecity]

You guys wanna pass me some of what you are smoking [][]

[pfox]

'ere...*cough* *cough*