Houston Gets 5 Light Rail Lines by 2012

[AVERAGE JOE]

Article

Great quote:

quote: "I'll say it loud and clear: No longer is the city of Houston waffling on rail," Councilman Peter Brown said. "With gas headed to $8 a gallon and oil to $200 a barrel, we have to rethink Houston as the happy motoring paradise."

Houston gets it. Houston. How about it, Tulsa?

Discuss.

[RecycleMichael]

Does size matter?

Houston metro is now almost 6 million.

[TURobY]

Additionally, Houston commutes are horrendously high compared to Tulsa.

I'm pushing for rail here, but it is no surprise that it would be better embraced there than here. People only change when they are inconvenienced long enough. Maybe when all of the Tulsa roads are torn up, then Tulsans will start pushing for different forms of transportation?

[AVERAGE JOE]

But culturally speaking, don't you find it interesting that the biggest city in Texas (and the headquarters city for so many oil companies) has attempted to fast-track these lines? People said light rail wouldn't catch on in Dallas, but it has. Now Houston is getting on track (pun intended).

I honestly thought that if there was one major city guaranteed to be dead last in pursuing light rail, it would be Houston.

[PonderInc]

Or that the 2nd most sprawling city in the nation (next to OKC) can do it... Remember this next time you hear someone say "That would never work in Tulsa b/c all our development has been based on the car.")

The thing about Tulsa is getting people to think about the future, and realizing that what worked in 1950 won't work in 2050.  Everyone assumes that nothing will ever change.  But we need to start planning NOW.  We need to be proactive, not reactive like Houston.

We're starting to get an appreciation for what happens when the price of gas quadruples.  So, what's next? Anybody believe that the next 20 years will bring a return to cheap oil?  (I hope it will bring a lot of great alternatives to fossil fuels...but regardless...)

Do we want to make decisions strategically that will position Tulsa to thrive in the future?  Or do we want to stick with the status quo...a system that has worked OK (in a mediocre sort of way) for the past 50 years?

[dbacks fan]

They are bulding a light rail system here in Phoenix that is scheduled to open December of this year that will have links to park and ride lots as well as links to bus routes.

http://www.valleymetro.org/METRO_light_rail/Default.asp

It has plans for a stop to connect with the airport and plans to connect to other parts of the valley thru 2025. I think that the opening of it will be a success with the current and future gas prices. Some of the people who said in the past that it won't work are those that are already filling up regular and express bus routes. I can speak from experience that the amount of traffic on the freeway has changed quite a bit from the same time last year.

The one gripe that alot of people have here is that when they passed highway funding back in the mid 80's there was a seperate plan to place commuter rail lines down the center of all of the freeways that would meet at a central area in downtown and operate in both directions so that feasibly you could live downtown and work in the outlying areas or vice versa. The voters voted it down from what I've been told that they thought is was a boondoggle. 20/20 hindsight for them now.

Anyway I think that a well planned light rail would work, but they would have to coordinate or revamp bus routes to make it work.

Does MTTA still run through residential sections, or have they moved to more of a grid system?

[Conan71]

I'm not trying to crap on the parade, but let's look at all the various needs and wants of our citizens and leaders in the Tulsa MSA.  The list keeps growing, problem is, how do you fund every good idea in a community without local and county taxes becoming 25% of someone's annual income:

Light rail
River development
Street repair
Street widening and expansion
Bike lanes
Denser infill development
More money thrown at education
Upgrades to the sewage treatment system
Improvements to Expo Square
Downtown baseball stadium
Etc., etc. etc.

How many of these are things which could be addressed and prioritized in the comp plan?

With a metro area of 6mm, Houston has a much broader tax base to draw from.

[PonderInc]

You couldn't make it work anywhere if you're just talking about "4.5 people per sq. mile" (as the dark areas on these maps reflect).  You would have to plan for high-density, walkable, mixed-use developments along rail stops in conjunction with rail that would serve exsiting populations via park-and-rides.

The idea is not that a train stops in front of your house.  But that enough people can quickly and conveniently jump on board via 1) denser neighborhoods or 2) park and rides 3) job/education/entertainment centers.

Now that gas is so expensive, Owasso suddenly wants an express bus line to downtown Tulsa.  A couple years ago, you would have had to rip the steering wheels of their 8-cylindar Dodge Ram trucks from their cold, dead fingers.  Things are changing already.  They're going to change some more.  

I keep hearing a quote that I like: "The future is not going to be like the past, or the present."  

Even if we say "no" or "that's impossible" to every proposal, Tulsa won't stay the same.  The world will simply pass us by, and our lives will be different because of that.

[dbacks fan]

2010 Projection for MAricopa County average 448 people/sq mile.

http://www.gpec.org/greater_phoenix/2010_Population_Density.pdf

[Renaissance]

Light rail is really, really, really expensive.

I think we have to focus on retrofitting our commuter rail lines to BA and Jenks and do the connector line in the middle of town.

Tulsa County needs to stop worrying about parking for exotic horse shows and start worrying about tying the suburbs and the airport to the city center via train.

[dsjeffries]

quote:Originally posted by PonderInc

You couldn't make it work anywhere if you're just talking about "4.5 people per sq. mile" (as the dark areas on these maps reflect).  You would have to plan for high-density, walkable, mixed-use developments along rail stops in conjunction with rail that would serve exsiting populations via park-and-rides.

The 4.5 was in thousands.  4,500 is slightly more dense than 4.5 people [].

[Oil Capital]

quote:Originally posted by twizzler

quote: Or that the 2nd most sprawling city in the nation (next to OKC) can do it... Remember this next time you hear someone say "That would never work in Tulsa b/c all our development has been based on the car.")

Sprawl does not necessarily mean there is no density.

Which of these metros would make most sense for light rail based on population density? (note: The scale of the maps is identical)


Houston




Oklahoma City




Tulsa

Very interesting maps.   But they almost make it look as though Oklahoma City is more densely developed than Tulsa.  But everyone knows that is not true.  There must be something wrong with my monitor.

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by Floyd

Light rail is really, really, really expensive.

I think we have to focus on retrofitting our commuter rail lines to BA and Jenks and do the connector line in the middle of town.

Tulsa County needs to stop worrying about parking for exotic horse shows and start worrying about tying the suburbs and the airport to the city center via train.

Floyd, I don't know if you are back in Tulsa yet or if you have been here since they tore up the entire fair midway, but driving around the old Bell's area now, it's pretty clear the Fair Board wanted space to pave a new state-of-the-art midway and space to park their construction equipment.  

No wonder those bastards wanted another $283mm last fall.  They could find enough projects at Expo to blow that kind of money at the rate they are going.

[Red Arrow]

quote:Originally posted by Floyd

Light rail is really, really, really expensive.

I think we have to focus on retrofitting our commuter rail lines to BA and Jenks and do the connector line in the middle of town.

Tulsa County needs to stop worrying about parking for exotic horse shows and start worrying about tying the suburbs and the airport to the city center via train.

Light rail is expensive up front. For an on-going system, light rail can be less expensive than buses.  See www.lightrailnow.org Go to the Myths and Facts sections.

[Renaissance]

quote:Originally posted by Red Arrow

quote:Originally posted by Floyd

Light rail is really, really, really expensive.

I think we have to focus on retrofitting our commuter rail lines to BA and Jenks and do the connector line in the middle of town.

Tulsa County needs to stop worrying about parking for exotic horse shows and start worrying about tying the suburbs and the airport to the city center via train.

Light rail is expensive up front. For an on-going system, light rail can be less expensive than buses.  See www.lightrailnow.org Go to the Myths and Facts sections.

All I know is that the 28-mile light rail Green Line under construction in Dallas is costing $1.8 billion.  They got $700 million from the feds for it as well.  And that line is on time and on budget.  They're having issues with cost overruns and timelines on other lines.

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/localnews/transportation/stories/041208dnmetdart.52f58e4e.html

Trolleys are cheaper and could be built into the streets plan.  Commuter heavy rail with just a few stops is much cheaper and could be built into the streets plan or have the costs split among the municipalities it serves.  But building light rail lines involves new right of ways, new technology, and major infrastructure overhaul.

Still, Average Joe's point stands--Tulsa should be talking seriously about expanding our commuter options NOW, in the most efficient way possible.  I also don't know why it seems these things have to be couched in terms of spurring development.  At this point, simply relief of commute costs seems like a pragmatic selling point that would have a great deal of salience with voters county-wide.  Gas prices are only going up.  

It also surprises me that NONE of the principals in the ongoing streets plan discussion are talking about including including transit in the streets discussion.  People are obviously wanting to leave their cars in the garage as much as possible, and so giving them options to reduce road wear should be a part of any comprehensive streets plan.  In my head.  Seems to me that with reasonably quick action the BA line could be ready just in time for $7/gallon gas.