Houston Gets 5 Light Rail Lines by 2012

[Renaissance]

quote:Originally posted by 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.

I've been back but haven't been to the fairgrounds recently.  I mean, I think it's in Tulsa's best interests to have excellent fairground infrastructure.  But given all of the other priorities right now, City of Tulsa really should annex that sucker and take away the County's little Fairgrounds fiefdom.  Maybe then the commissioners would focus more clearly on what they're supposed to be doing--day to day management of county infrastructure and services.

[Chicken Little]

quote:Originally posted by Floyd

Light rail is really, really, really expensive.

[and from another post]

All I know is that the 28-mile light rail Green Line under construction in Dallas is costing $1.8 billion.  

I'm sure there are many bus, rail, and streetcar options that have varying costs, and we should probably look at all of them.  And when we do compare them, we need to take a sober look at the costs of creating and maintaining roads, which are also really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, expensive.

The I-40 Crosstown reloc in OKC will cost over $500 million...and for what?  The I-44 widening will cost over $100 million a mile.  OUR Street maintenance bond will spend $2 billion to take our streets from a "D" grade to a "C".  Does that mean we'd need to spend SIX BILLION DOLLARS to get to an "A" grade?

Somehow, we can talk about billions and billions



billions and billions billions and billions of road improvements without batting an eye...but when mass transit is mentioned, things suddenly start sounding "expensive"?  Why is that?

[TUalum0982]

quote:Originally posted by 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.

why? It only makes sense that one of the largest cities in the country (based on population) and one with an extremely high commute time would invest in rail.  I am honestly shocked it has taken them this long.  Chicago has the subway, and the metra which travels to the suburbs.  I am very surprised it has taken Houston this long to get on board with this.  Especially since people in Texas have a certain persona (per se) about themselves.

[TUalum0982]

quote:Originally posted by 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.

must be a very old map of Tulsa.  It doesn't show the Creek turnpike that connects to the Turner, or the creek turnpike that runs through BA.

[Chicken Little]

quote:Originally posted by TUalum0982


must be a very old map of Tulsa.  It doesn't show the Creek turnpike that connects to the Turner, or the creek turnpike that runs through BA.

Which, btw, cost $362 million.

One of my favorite Q/A's from What about Rail

quote:Q: What is the cost comparison to road widening/maintenance?
A: Rail-based transit projects range in cost. These costs are largely dependent on the type of technology chosen for the project along with any special circumstances, such as varying topography and urban conditions. Our research has shown project costs ranging from $9 million dollars per mile in Austin to $ 21 million dollars per mile in Denver. In addition to these issues, right of way, overhead electrification, and the often volatile pricing of construction materials affect capital costs. By comparison, the I-44 expansion currently under way in Tulsa between the Arkansas River and Yale Avenue has an estimated cost of approximately $100 million per mile. Arterial expansion costs are significantly lower than highway projects. The City of Tulsa estimates, for CIP purposes, arterial expansion to range from $11 million per mile for 5 lane (from 2 lanes) expansion, to $13 million per mile for 6 lane expansion (from 4 lanes). This cost includes design, right of way acquisition, construction, and utility relocation.

Emphasis mine.  
http://www.whataboutrail.blogspot.com/

Mile for mile, we can get one form or another of fixed rail transit for roughly the same cost as an arterial expansion.  So next time you see a road project, maybe you should put it all in perspective...could have been a streetcar; could have been a BRT; or could have been 3 or 4 new on-street buses.  If we started investing "road-sized" money in mass transit infrastructure, we'd be transit-friendly very quickly.

[TUalum0982]

quote:Originally posted by Chicken Little

quote:Originally posted by TUalum0982


must be a very old map of Tulsa.  It doesn't show the Creek turnpike that connects to the Turner, or the creek turnpike that runs through BA.

Which, btw, cost $362 million.

One of my favorite Q/A's from What about Rail

quote:Q: What is the cost comparison to road widening/maintenance?
A: Rail-based transit projects range in cost. These costs are largely dependent on the type of technology chosen for the project along with any special circumstances, such as varying topography and urban conditions. Our research has shown project costs ranging from $9 million dollars per mile in Austin to $ 21 million dollars per mile in Denver. In addition to these issues, right of way, overhead electrification, and the often volatile pricing of construction materials affect capital costs. By comparison, the I-44 expansion currently under way in Tulsa between the Arkansas River and Yale Avenue has an estimated cost of approximately $100 million per mile. Arterial expansion costs are significantly lower than highway projects. The City of Tulsa estimates, for CIP purposes, arterial expansion to range from $11 million per mile for 5 lane (from 2 lanes) expansion, to $13 million per mile for 6 lane expansion (from 4 lanes). This cost includes design, right of way acquisition, construction, and utility relocation.

Emphasis mine.  
http://www.whataboutrail.blogspot.com/

Mile for mile, we can get one form or another of fixed rail transit for roughly the same cost as an arterial expansion.  So next time you see a road project, maybe you should put it all in perspective...could have been a streetcar; could have been a BRT; or could have been 3 or 4 new on-street buses.  If we started investing "road-sized" money in mass transit infrastructure, we'd be transit-friendly very quickly.

I wasn't knocking the idea of rail, I was just throwing out there that since the maps aren't updated, maybe the population density could/would be different based on todays population as well? I was in a hurry and didn't check to see when the date of the maps provided.

[booWorld]

quote:Originally posted by Floyd

It also surprises me that NONE of the principals in the ongoing streets plan discussion are talking about including transit in the streets discussion.

That doesn't surprise me at all.  

quote: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.

I remember a topic about the BA line which quickly degenerated into personal attacks directed toward Michael Bates in particular and which was locked down by the TN Forum Admin.  When I posted facts from the BA commuter rail study itself, I was accused of not accounting for Transit Oriented Development or assuming the wrong type of locomotive technology.  We can't seem to have a civil discussion of facts on this forum, so it does not surprise me that the officials behind the street plan discussion do not want to include public transit.  But I haven't heard anyone say that discussion of public transit of any kind is off the table.

[TheArtist]

I am curious as to their calculations on this matter. Has anyone on the council even mentioned rail when talking about the streets package?

Do they think the inclusion of some funds for the downtown starter line and or the BA line just wouldnt fly?

Can some of the new street funds be used for that anyway and they just dont want to take the risk of mentioning it?

Or do they not think rail is any sort of real priority at the moment?



I wish the TW or one of the other news outlets would do a poll to get a feel for how voters would respond to spending some of that tax money on a commuter line. Would it help the vote pass or hurt it if rail were included?

[booWorld]

quote:Originally posted by TheArtist

Has anyone on the council even mentioned rail when talking about the streets package?

Do they think the inclusion of some funds for the downtown starter line and or the BA line just wouldnt fly?

My guess is that least some of the Councilors think the downtown starter line and/or the BA line to be politically unwise.

quote:
Can some of the new street funds be used for that anyway and they just dont want to take the risk of mentioning it?

Or do they not think rail is any sort of real priority at the moment?

Again, my guess would yes to both questions.  Why don't you ask the City Council yourself?

quote:
I wish the TW or one of the other news outlets would do a poll to get a feel for how voters would respond to spending some of that tax money on a commuter line. Would it help the vote pass or hurt it if rail were included?

I wish the TW would not acquire buildings downtown, raze them, and replace them with surface parking lots.

In my case, it will hurt to include rail in any street package.  If funding for rail is included, I almost certainly will vote against the tax package.

[pfox]

quote:Originally posted by 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.

No, AJ, you are absolutely right.  Texas is a good cultural comparator to Oklahoma...attitude-wise, they encountered much of the same dismissive arguments: You'll never get at Texan out of his truck, we love our cars, ____ was built primarily after the advent of the automobile, we don't have the density, oil as the major economic drivers in the cities, etc.

The difference is the crisis.  Dallas' crisis was economic development (growth management) and congestion.  Houston's would seemingly be traffic, but the tipping point is really two fold: costs of commuting, and desire to invigorate the center city (downtown).  

Remember, Portland was Tulsa when they decided to commit to intermodal transportation.  The same size, population wise, a rotting, desolate  downtown, an ignored waterfront, a stagnant economy.  Not that rail changed all of that in one fell swoop, but they are an example of proactive planning and investment.  Doing it before the crisis.

Well, our crisis is upon us.  Rising gas prices, an aging, decrepit transportation system, rapid suburban growth, and a downtown and central core in serious need of a proverbial booster shot.

[booWorld]

Portland established growth boundaries which are helping the urbanized areas to become more densely developed while preserving the surrounding forests and agricultural land.  Tulsa continues to sprawl.  

I think some physical growth boundaries for Tulsa were proposed by Ian McHarg's consulting firm during Robert LaFortune's administration in the late 1960s, but instead the TMAPC has been on a mission of zoning for extremely low densities -- too low to support viable public transit options.  Paragraph edited by booWorld.  Robert LaFortune might have been the mayor pro-tem at the time, but I'm not certain.  Anyway, a study by Wallace and McHarg identified some ecologically sensitive areas which they recommended be preserved.

As far as Portland's major downtown revitilization effort goes, they are already 35 years ahead of us if we formulated a plan and implemented it today.  A "crisis" in the eyes of some is "business as usual" in the eyes of others, and I don't think most Tulsans would think we have a crisis on our hands here -- not yet.

[MichaelBates]

quote:Originally posted by booWorld

Portland established growth boundaries which are helping the urbanized areas to become more densely developed while preserving the surrounding forests and agricultural land.  Tulsa continues to sprawl.  

I think some physical growth boundaries for Tulsa were proposed by Ian McHarg's consulting firm during Robert LaFortune's administration in the late 1960s, but instead the TMAPC has been on a mission of zoning for extremely low densities -- too low to support viable public transit options.  Paragraph edited by booWorld.  Robert LaFortune might have been the mayor pro-tem at the time, but I'm not certain.  Anyway, a study by Wallace and McHarg identified some ecologically sensitive areas which they recommended be preserved.

As far as Portland's major downtown revitilization effort goes, they are already 35 years ahead of us if we formulated a plan and implemented it today.  A "crisis" in the eyes of some is "business as usual" in the eyes of others, and I don't think most Tulsans would think we have a crisis on our hands here -- not yet.

Jim Hewgley, Jr., was mayor from 1966-1970. Bob LaFortune was street commissioner and oversaw annexation from 1964-1970, then was mayor from 1970-1978. Vision 2000 happened during LaFortune's mayoral administration.

[booWorld]

quote:Originally posted by MichaelBates

quote:Originally posted by booWorld

Portland established growth boundaries which are helping the urbanized areas to become more densely developed while preserving the surrounding forests and agricultural land.  Tulsa continues to sprawl.  

I think some physical growth boundaries for Tulsa were proposed by Ian McHarg's consulting firm during Robert LaFortune's administration in the late 1960s, but instead the TMAPC has been on a mission of zoning for extremely low densities -- too low to support viable public transit options.  Paragraph edited by booWorld.  Robert LaFortune might have been the mayor pro-tem at the time, but I'm not certain.  Anyway, a study by Wallace and McHarg identified some ecologically sensitive areas which they recommended be preserved.

As far as Portland's major downtown revitilization effort goes, they are already 35 years ahead of us if we formulated a plan and implemented it today.  A "crisis" in the eyes of some is "business as usual" in the eyes of others, and I don't think most Tulsans would think we have a crisis on our hands here -- not yet.

Jim Hewgley, Jr., was mayor from 1966-1970. Bob LaFortune was street commissioner and oversaw annexation from 1964-1970, then was mayor from 1970-1978. Vision 2000 happened during LaFortune's mayoral administration.

Thank you for the clarification.  I had been reading about the creation of Tulsa Transit in 1968 and about Portland's "equivalent" (Tri-Met), which assumed the operation of Rose City Transit about 1969 or so.  Robert LaFortune signed the documentation establishing the Metropolitan Tulsa Transit Authority as Mayor Pro-Tem.  I'm guessing that he signed as Mayor Pro-Tem for legal reasons because the City of Tulsa is the beneficiary of the MTTA Trust and Jim Hewgley, Jr. signed as a Trustor.  Anyway, I realized the error of my original post immediately, and that's why I made the edits quickly and in red text.  I encourage clarifications, corrections, and refutations of my posts when they are needed.

What I'm questioning is whether Tulsa is the same now as Portland was at some time in the past.  Tulsa and Portland both had some sort of local passenger rail service which ended in the 1950s.  Portland began their current light rail service (MAX) in the mid-1980s.  When exactly did Portland's intermodal transportation planning begin?  In 1970?  If so, then it took Portland about 15 years from the beginning of planning until the initial light rail line was in operation.

Assuming 1970 for the sake of discussion, what was Portland's population then and what was Tulsa's population then (and now)?  Area-wise, how large was each city then (and now)?  What were the population densities of each city and their corresponding metro areas then, and what are they now?

quote:Remember, Portland was Tulsa when they decided to commit to intermodal transportation. The same size, population wise, a rotting, desolate downtown, an ignored waterfront, a stagnant economy.

Tulsa's downtown is rotting?  After reading about all of the nostalgic acorn light fixtures, the brick-like concrete unit pavers being installed hither and yon, the heralded proposed replacement of the "recently" closed Boulder Avenue bridge, the proposed hushing of the train horns, the repair of the small fountain at 5th & Main, the proposed Drillers stadium, the proposed conversion of one-way streets to two-way, the proposed clean up or demolition of the Tulsa Club Building -- I thought downtown Tulsa was on the cusp of transcending from great to Eden or Nirvana.

Seriously, what were (and are) the figures for Portland and Tulsa?  Employment?  Housing costs?  Average commute times?  Cost of living?

Is Portland a good cultural comparison to Tulsa?  I'm guessing it isn't, but I could be wrong.  What I don't see clearly is a light rail system being a magic pill to make things better.  What are the true costs and benefits?  Who will pay and who will benefit?  

Tulsans cherish the freedom of personal transportation in private vehicles.  Tulsans adore living in spread-out subdivisions, with lots of space between dwelling units.  The cost of living in Tulsa is relatively low compared to other cities such as Portland.

Even with the rise in gasoline prices and even considering the discussion of a very expensive streets tax package, I really don't think most Tulsans would consider our current situation to be a crisis.

[booWorld]

quote:Originally posted by PonderInc

Do we want to make decisions strategically that will position Tulsa to thrive in the future?

A few Tulsans want to make strategic decisions, but most do not want to think about making choices or planning for the future.  Most Tulsans are immersed in the present.

quote: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?

Most Tulsans are satisfied with the relative abundance and blessings they enjoy today.  Mediocrity is completely satisfying to many or most Tulsans because the average and commonplace here is better than conditions are in many other parts of the nation and around the globe.  Many Tulsans want to enjoy the great fortune of our status quo rather than fret about what might happen in the future or worry about something Houston has but Tulsa doesn't have.

[pfox]

Go ahead Boo World. Pick apart my post sentence by sentence.  But lets cut to the chase.  You are against this, and will cite and scrap for any reason why it will fail and fail miserably.  

Here is the thing though.  It won't.

You aren't unique. The same arguments against this   are regurgitated in every town where this has been implemented or proposed.  99% of the time, those arguments are proven to be unfounded, if not downright wrong.

Personally, I don't have time to list the reasons why Portland IS a good cultural comparator, but, in my professional opinion, it is.

Downtown Tulsa my not be rotting if you were only to look at the last few years, but if you look at it from a larger temporal cycle, it has been, to put it mildly, on a downswing for about 40 years.

The growth boundary is significant, but effectively, the City of Tulsa does have a growth boundary.  While the suburbs have fewer expansion limitations, Tulsa itself does.  This means that we need to start looking inward for expansion...so the essence of what happened in Portland can absolutely happen here.  To answer your question, Rose City Bus System went bankrupt in the early 1970's.  The planning and initiatives that put Tri-Met in place as the transit agency began around 1969, I believe, but they were a bus only agency until 1979, when they began pursuing federal funding for its first light rail line, which was approved in 1980.  Up until then they were notable for introducing Fareless Square.  Basically, they made buses free in Downtown Portland.

I encourage your participation.  Hopefully, you will begin to see the forest for the trees.  If not, at least you will have participated in the civic process.