Oklahoma Opportunity

[dbacksfan 2.0]

Apparently Dallas Light Rail is not doing that well,

http://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/editorials/20120611-editorial-wheres-the-dart-ridership-plan.ece

http://www.costaustin.org/jskaggs/?p=2771

And Tri Met in Portland is losing ridership, cutting services, and raising fares as well

http://blog.oregonlive.com/commuting/2012/06/trimet_board_kills_portlands_f.html

[Rookie Okie]

I fail to see what the added motivation is for someone to ride a railed trolley rather than a bus given the same route dynamics.  Mass transportation is mass transportation.

I think a motivator for light rail is that it would take us off the raggedy roads that make up Tulsa, if only for a few miles.  Kidding aside, (ground) mass transportation =  (ground) mass transportation if one form cannot get you from A to B any quicker than another.  However, (underground) mass T  >> (ground) mass T when considering that a subway train is often the fastest mode of transportation of any type in large urban centers such as NYC.

At a cost of up to $30 million per mile, it will never happen in Tulsa.  Any real transportation vision under this administration is nothing short of a pipe dream.

I agree (ground) mass transportation =  (ground) mass transportation if one form cannot get you from A to B any quicker than another.  I think a motivator for light rail is that it would take us off the raggedy roads that make up Tulsa, if only for a few miles (just kidding).  However, I suspect that light rail may have some added appeal as being more modern, hipper, worldly, trendy, and upscale than conventional buses to some folks.  To sum it up, light rail seems/sounds/feels more "sexier" than the bus.  Just say, I'm running off to the train or I gotta catch the bus?  Which sounds cooler?  I do think that there would be some people who would take a trolley before a bus, and there may be some that would take a trolley that wouldn't ride a bus at all.  I just don't know if there are enough of them to justify even the one proposed trolley route given the prohibitive cost to construct. 

I understand that even modest improvements to what passes for bus service in Tulsa is of considerably low priority for the administration, and that is unfortunate.  Worse though it appears as though the city has ignored or greatly underscored by far its biggest transportation related headache which is the abysmal condition of virtually the entire network of the city's streets and roads.  I glanced at the website detailing the "Fix our Streets" initiative and my initial thought was that it wouldn't cover all that much of what is needed (from a newcomer's perspective trying to navigate rough roads in every area of town).  

BTW, can someone please enlighten me as to how did a city like Tulsa allow its streets to crumble to a state of almost total neglect?  It pains me to say this, but I can't think of a U.S or Canadian city with roads in worse shape, and this includes places such as Detroit and Camden NJ that are truly broke(n) as well as heavily road salted winter cities such as Rochester, Boston, and Pittsburgh.

I'd like to know from anyone here as to whether we should expect to see significant improvement in Tulsa's roads over the next 3 - 5 years, within 5 -10 years, or perhaps not much at all.

[Red Arrow]

I'd like to know from anyone here as to whether we should expect to see significant improvement in Tulsa's roads over the next 3 - 5 years, within 5 -10 years, or perhaps not much at all.

Since we are starting from such a state of disrepair, significant improvement won't take much effort. 

[Red Arrow]

Roads aren't cheap either.

Project Overview

The stretch of I-44 between Riverside Dr. and Yale Ave. in Tulsa is one of the oldest sections of interstate in Oklahoma. (In fact, it was built before the creation of the Interstate System in 1956!) The Oklahoma Department of Transportation is working to widen this area from four lanes to six, and to upgrade the intersections at Riverside Dr., Peoria Ave., Lewis Ave. and Harvard Avenue. This nearly $400 million project will greatly improve the traffic flow and safety for this corridor.
http://www.okladot.state.ok.us/newsmedia/i44riverside/

With the way we build roads around here, I'll be surprised if it doesn't need major maintenance within 10 years.

[TheArtist]

Apparently Dallas Light Rail is not doing that well,

http://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/editorials/20120611-editorial-wheres-the-dart-ridership-plan.ece

http://www.costaustin.org/jskaggs/?p=2771

And Tri Met in Portland is losing ridership, cutting services, and raising fares as well

http://blog.oregonlive.com/commuting/2012/06/trimet_board_kills_portlands_f.html

Each one of these communities has problems and oddly enough in polar opposite ways.

Dallas did not do adequate zoning. You have heard me say that zoning trumps transit as a priority and decrying their "fake urbanity".  Apparently from the article they still have minimum parking requirements, even with their TOD!? You have got to be kidding me? lol

Portland has multiple difficulties and opportunities, one "problem" in that though transit ridership is down, because of their better zoning pedestrian "trips" and cycling have dramatically increased and car ridership too is down. Also they seem to be having political problems that are increasing the price of fares which may decrease ridership, while in some areas they cut bus service due to budget constraints they are now having to increase service on lines because of overcrowding.
     From the article above...
"At the same time, TriMet expects to add service on seven bus lines to alleviate overcrowding: 4, 9, 33, 35, 44, 76 and 94.

Officials initially said they needed to deal with a budget shortfall of up to $17 million. But the agency hopes a third-party arbitrator rules in its favor in the long-simmering labor dispute with Amalgamated Transit Union 757.

The unresolved union contract, which ended in 2009, adds $5 million to $10 million to the fiscal year 2013 budget shortfall, said TriMet spokeswoman Mary Fetsch.

At the heart of the dispute is the generous health care and retirement package for unionized drivers and mechanics, which is one of the most generous for public employees in the country."


When we did the transit studies for Tulsa they had experts from other cities come to Tulsa and say how lucky we were on several fronts.  We are at just the right stage to set the stage for good transit.  And because we are behind them in development, we are actually in the position to learn from their mistakes and heed their lessons learned.  Get your zoning in place, your right of ways, TOD development properties bought up, etc. now so that when in the future you do consider putting in transit you will be sooooo much better off.
Many young cities wait too long to prepare and then regret the actions they should have taken sooner.  They find they can no longer easily or affordably put the rail where it would have been best and have to settle for awkward configurations that cost more and are more difficult to get riders on for example.

Let me say again.  I do not think we are ready for rail transit... but if we do think we will want it in the future, we are falling behind and actually making decisions that will make it more expensive and difficult. The longer we wait to prepare, the more expensive and difficult it will be to implement if and when we decide to.

My personal priority above rail, and even improved bus transit, at this time is zoning for good pedestrian/transit friendly development.  We are in the position to begin creating super high quality urban areas that could smack down and out compete anything Dallas, Denver or Austin has and really ramp up our competitiveness/attractiveness,,, before putting in a single rail line.  We may find we won't even really need rail for a long long time. (but it would only be prudent and wise to prepare for that possibility none the less).  

[TheArtist]

Roads aren't cheap either.

Project Overview

The stretch of I-44 between Riverside Dr. and Yale Ave. in Tulsa is one of the oldest sections of interstate in Oklahoma. (In fact, it was built before the creation of the Interstate System in 1956!) The Oklahoma Department of Transportation is working to widen this area from four lanes to six, and to upgrade the intersections at Riverside Dr., Peoria Ave., Lewis Ave. and Harvard Avenue. This nearly $400 million project will greatly improve the traffic flow and safety for this corridor.
http://www.okladot.state.ok.us/newsmedia/i44riverside/

With the way we build roads around here, I'll be surprised if it doesn't need major maintenance within 10 years.

So about 100 million per mile.  Imagine how much it might cost to widen the BA in the future?  Yet it was estimated to cost about 130 mill to put a 14 mile rail system in with stations from downtown Tulsa to Downtown BA.  They also pointed out that if the city owned property for TOD at the fin-tube site, one or two properties between and BA owned some TOD property those properties could help pay for the transit.  SLC did that in some instances and just read about one new one that is already making a profit from property leases to developers and that profit is going to pay for the transit. Use the properties as park and ride first then build up with good pedestrian/transit friendly zoned development. Use the increased income to pay for the transit and increase frequency.   I remember the transit people from Austin and Dallas just drooled and looked amazed at the fortunate fact that we already have a rail line right from our downtown into the downtown of our biggest suburb.

[Conan71]

Roads aren't cheap either.

Project Overview

The stretch of I-44 between Riverside Dr. and Yale Ave. in Tulsa is one of the oldest sections of interstate in Oklahoma. (In fact, it was built before the creation of the Interstate System in 1956!) The Oklahoma Department of Transportation is working to widen this area from four lanes to six, and to upgrade the intersections at Riverside Dr., Peoria Ave., Lewis Ave. and Harvard Avenue. This nearly $400 million project will greatly improve the traffic flow and safety for this corridor.
http://www.okladot.state.ok.us/newsmedia/i44riverside/

With the way we build roads around here, I'll be surprised if it doesn't need major maintenance within 10 years.

This is a very involved project which has required construction of all new bridges, acquiring quite a bit of commercial and residential real estate for right of way and having to demo it, all new drainage run off, creating by-passes to keep traffic flowing throughout the project, sound attenuation walls, expanding the Riverside bridge at the east end, extensive excavation, etc.

In other words, it's a pretty atypical cost for road construction.

[Red Arrow]

This is a very involved project which has required construction of all new bridges, acquiring quite a bit of commercial and residential real estate for right of way and having to demo it, all new drainage run off, creating by-passes to keep traffic flowing throughout the project, sound attenuation walls, expanding the Riverside bridge at the east end, extensive excavation, etc.

In other words, it's a pretty atypical cost for road construction.

I don't imagine the Crenshaw addition to the LA Light Rail is a cake walk either. Also, light rail is a step up in performance and cost from streetcar/trolleys.  Little Rock claims to have spent approximately $8 Million/track mile on their initial 2-1/2 mile system including trolleys and maintenance facilities in 2003.  The inflation calculator puts that about $10 Million/track mile in 2013 dollars, $8.7 Million/track mile in 2006.

Road construction costs:

Question: What is the cost of constructing a mile of highway?

All costs shown in the following text have been adjusted to 2006 dollars.

Adding a Single Lane to an Existing Highway:

FHWA's Highway Economic Requirements System (HERS) includes input values for the typical costs of a variety if highway improvements, including the cost of adding a lane to an existing highway. The unit cost per lane-mile for adding an additional lane includes a portion of the cost to cover bridges, interchanges, environmental issues, etc. for a normal project. However, a project with a large number of bridges, complicated interchanges, major environmental issues, and other extreme engineering and environmental issues will result in a higher cost per lane-mile.
Separate cost factors are used for urban and rural areas. In urban areas, widening costs are further disaggregated by the type of roadway (freeways, other divided highways, and undivided roads), and vary from $2.4 million to $6.9 million per lane-mile. In rural areas, costs depend upon highway functional class (Interstates, arterial roads, and collectors) and terrain type, and range from $1.6 million to $3.1 million per lane-mile.
The model also assumes higher construction costs in areas where widening might be especially difficult or costly, such as densely developed urban areas or environmentally sensitive rural areas. These are termed "high cost lanes" and can range from $7.3 million to $15.4 million per lane-mile for construction in urban areas to $5.8 million to $9.9 million per lane-mile in rural areas.

http://www.railstotrails.org/resources/documents/whatwedo/policy/07-29-2008%20Generic%20Response%20to%20Cost%20per%20Lane%20Mile%20for%20widening%20and%20new%20construction.pdf


From the FHWA directly:

For the 2004 C&P report, significant changes were made to the structure of the HERS improvement cost matrix, the assumed unit costs in that matrix, and the manner in which those values were applied. The improvement cost updates reflected in the 2004 report were based on highway project data from six States (see Appendix A of that report for more information). Though adequate in most respects, that dataset was relatively thin in certain key areas. The 2004 update disaggregated the improvement cost values in urban areas by functional class and by urbanized area size. Three population groupings were used: small urban (5,000 to 49,999), small urbanized (50,000 to 200,000), and large urbanized (more than 200,000). However, the data used to create values for the latter group did not include a significant number of projects in very large urbanized areas, and concerns were raised about the degree of construction cost comparability between medium-sized cities and much larger ones.
For the 2006 C&P report, additional project cost data were collected for large urbanized areas, rural mountainous regions, and high-cost capacity improvements. These data were used to update the HERS improvement cost matrix, which was also modified to include a new category for major urbanized areas over 1 million in population. The HERS improvement cost matrix was adjusted further for this report, based on some additional analysis of the data previously collected.
Exhibit A-3 identifies the costs per lane mile assumed by HERS for different types of capital improvements. For rural areas, separate cost values are applied by terrain type and functional class, while costs are broken down for urban areas by population area size and type of highway. These costs are intended to reflect the typical values for these types of projects in 2006. However, the project level data on which these estimates are based reveal a considerable amount of variability in costs, which can be attributed to a number of location-specific factors. For example, while the unit costs per lane mile for adding an additional lane are based on project data that reflect the costs of improving bridges, modifying interchanges, and addressing environmental issues, these values represent the average costs for a typical project. However, a project with a large number of bridges, complicated interchanges, major environmental issues, and/or other extreme engineering issues would be expected to cost considerably more that a less complex project.
Exhibit A-3

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/2008cpr/appa.htm

The table doesn't copy as a table so go to the link and scroll to the bottom of the page.

Little Rock Trolley:
http://www.lightrailnow.org/news/n_lr_001.htm

[nathanm]

I just don't know if there are enough of them to justify even the one proposed trolley route given the prohibitive cost to construct.  

I have to take exception to the characterization of the cost as prohibitive. The downtown circulator would cost about the same as a couple of intersection widening projects in south Tulsa.

dbacks: Few are asking for full on light rail with dedicated right of way, which would indeed cost a mint. Bringing up those sorts of projects and their high costs in a discussion about a street running trolley only serves to confuse the issue. And personally, I don't want the BA line to be built at all if they plan to run it the way that has been discussed in the past. There's little point in a service that only runs around rush hour, and ridership will be correspondingly poor. That poor ridership will be used by the reflexive rail opponents as an argument against any rail at all, leaving us worse off than doing nothing at all.

[dbacksfan 2.0]

I have to take exception to the characterization of the cost as prohibitive. The downtown circulator would cost about the same as a couple of intersection widening projects in south Tulsa.

No argument there, a downtown circulator is a good idea, and maybe two of them working in opposite directions could decrease wait time and increase usage.

dbacks: Few are asking for full on light rail with dedicated right of way, which would indeed cost a mint. Bringing up those sorts of projects and their high costs in a discussion about a street running trolley only serves to confuse the issue. And personally, I don't want the BA line to be built at all if they plan to run it the way that has been discussed in the past. There's little point in a service that only runs around rush hour, and ridership will be correspondingly poor. That poor ridership will be used by the reflexive rail opponents as an argument against any rail at all, leaving us worse off than doing nothing at all.

I was just referencing two systems I have used, Phoenix and Portland, and one that people seem to reference quite a bit DART, in Dallas. When they did the rail in Phoenix, there wasn't a lot of right of way that needed to be purchased because they ran the tracks, a two track system, down the center of the streets until they reach downtown near the main bus transfer station where they split and form a ring around downtown, then go back to parallel, placed all of the stations between the tracks, except downtown, and the best or smartest is they ran it through part of ASU.

I have used Tri Met, and I find it a bit confusing as I don't spend that much time in Portland proper the times that I have been there. As for the labor talks, they are still going on I believe, and think about this for a moment, the labor discussions are entering it's fifth year.

The rail line between DT and BA has always looked inviting, but as a single line it would only be useful, just my thinking as an inbound in the mornings and outbound in the evenings, but just doesn't seem doable, and I wonder what the freight carrier on that line thinks of sharing.

If you guys want some interesting reading on highway costs, checkout this article about replacing the I-5 bridge between Portland and Vancouver.

http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2014/01/columbia_river_crossing_buildi.html

If you know any investors, the cost is only $2.8 Billion.

[nathanm]

Little Rock claims to have spent approximately $8 Million/track mile on their initial 2-1/2 mile system including trolleys and maintenance facilities in 2003.  The inflation calculator puts that about $10 Million/track mile in 2013 dollars, $8.7 Million/track mile in 2006.

To be fair, that's a heritage trolley that has few to no amenities at any of its stops, so the rolling stock and station costs are both lower than what we would probably want here outside of the downtown circulator. That said, it's much closer to what we'd be looking at than a light rail project or even Seattle's $30 million a mile cost.

[Red Arrow]

To be fair, that's a heritage trolley that has few to no amenities at any of its stops, so the rolling stock and station costs are both lower than what we would probably want here outside of the downtown circulator. That said, it's much closer to what we'd be looking at than a light rail project or even Seattle's $30 million a mile cost.

I've seen the Little Rock system but the group I was with wanted to see the Clinton Library more than ride the trolley and there wasn't time for both.  At least I got them on the trolley in Memphis.  I chose the Little Rock system because I too think it's more like what we would need than a full blown light rail system.

[Red Arrow]

The rail line between DT and BA has always looked inviting, but as a single line it would only be useful, just my thinking as an inbound in the mornings and outbound in the evenings, but just doesn't seem doable, and I wonder what the freight carrier on that line thinks of sharing.

I believe that is how the New Mexico Rail Runner got started.
http://www.nmrailrunner.com/maps/rail-runner-system-map