Bates phones it in again: Transit

[USRufnex]

Here's one from Nov. 2006...

NOVEMBER 8, 2006
In And Around, On a Rail
Mass transit in the Tulsa area draws closer to reality
BY JAMIE PIERSON

Many Tulsans have probably never needed to have the enigmatic experience of inspecting a train schedule. But soon, travel between downtown and the suburbs may depend upon it.

On Thurs., Oct. 26 the Tulsa Transit Authority unveiled the beginning of a Broken Arrow to Tulsa Mass Transit Feasibility Study that will attempt to define needs and choices for improvements and the feasibility of a mass transit system along the Broken Arrow Expressway and the Union Pacific Railroad.

Originally proposed in 1993, explored in the Indian Nations Council of Government's (INCOG) Destination 2030 Long Range Transportation Plan, this plan is being funded by federal and state money. It will be conducted by a Houston firm, Lockwood, Andrews and Newnam who have implemented mass transit in Houston, Austin, San Antonio, Dallas and Virginia.

The study will focus on four basic questions; what kinds of services are needed? What kinds of improvements are needed? What kinds of facilities are needed? What are the trade-offs between the different alternatives?

The need and opportunity, said Tim Schmidt from Lockwood, Andrews and Newnam, are definitely here. Broken Arrow's population is growing 3.9 percent annually, and will near 100,000 by 2010. Ridership on the Express Park and Ride routes 902 and 909 has increased 80 percent to 35 percent, though it was made clear that these are small capacity routes, and any increases in ridership seem large. However, the average commute from Broken Arrow to downtown 22 minutes. The mass transit system would alleviate the traffic and wear and tear on the highway.

"Simply adding lanes to the Broken Arrow Expressway," said Schmidt, "would disrupt neighborhoods west of Sheridan."

The proposed route would start from downtown in the vicinity of the old Union Station and run roughly along the BA Expressway and the Union Pacific Railroads, ending on Main Street in Broken Arrow, with a stop somewhere in the middle, likely near where the route will cross I-44.

There are three forms of mass transit that would be viable for this kind of a project. Commuter rail trains, light rail trains, and bus rapid transit or BRT.

Commuter rail runs like a regular "push pull" locomotive, but its engine is a hybrid known as diesel multiple unit or DMU. It could run on existing track or on new track that could be installed in the streets themselves, making the trains "street running".

Stations on a commuter rail line are typically around 4 miles apart. These trains can go up to 70mph and carry 184 passengers per car. Austin, TX recently purchased 6 DMU street running trains, and New Mexico laid 20 miles of commuter rail track in July with plans to add another 34 miles by the end of the year. The Dallas Trinity Railway Express, a commuter rail train that operates as an element of Dallas Area Rapid Transit, carried 2.16 million people in 2004. Commuter rail trains can cost between $2.5 million and $15 million per mile.

Light rail trains can also run on standard train tracks, but they operate via overhead electrical cables. They can also be "street running" but they can't travel as fast nor carry as many people. Their stations are typically between half a mile and one mile apart and are somewhat better suited to denser areas. Light rail can cost $33 million per mile.

Bus Rapid Transit or BRT is a newer form of mass transit that has caught on in a few American cities. They are 60 foot long biarticulated buses. BRTs have street level boarding and sleek designs like a train but are much more flexible, in that they can run on regular streets.

They do however, have "dedicated running ways", as in lanes dedicated specifically to BRTs on streets and highways and can run on tracks and guideways for automation. The stations would employ railway components like automated ticket machines and turnstiles. BRT costs are similar to those of commuter rail.

Any or all of these elements could be used to create a suitable transit system for Tulsa and combined with our current bus programs.

"All this is designed for interface," explained Schmidt, "Connectivity is key."

The stations would be "comfy and inviting", said Schmidt, and use a system called Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) that utilizes low barriers and removes any shady corners in which sneaky characters might hide. The stations would be designed to fit the neighborhoods and be easily expandable as the rail program was phased in. They could also contain retail and office space.

The costs of the project will be determined through this study, and no estimates are available at this time. Schmidt explained that no transit system will pay for itself. Fares and advertising will "contribute a percentage" but that operating costs must be maintained through taxes or grants. There is federal and state money available for this project, though it must be matched by local funds.

Bill Cartwright, general manager of Tulsa Transit, encouraged Tulsa to take advantage of these funds, saying, "What I always tell people about federal money for public transit is 'We're already paying for it, we might as well get in on it.'"

Cartwright described the civic benefits of cutting down on our city's ozone emissions with a commuter mass transit system.

"Every year we get dangerously closer to nonattainment (being out of compliance with the Clean Air Act), this year we've had 13 exceedances," said Cartwright. "If you're in manufacturing, you don't want to locate to a dirty city."

Transit-oriented development is predicted to be another boon from this project. One station in Dallas created $100 million in surrounding investment for mixed use development. In fact, zoning laws were changed to accommodate and facilitate development surrounding rail stations.

The next steps for the consulting firm include: reviewing options and the feasibility of the project, identifying the preferred alternative for Tulsa, preparing an implementation plan, making a recommendation to Tulsa Transit, holding public hearings, and finally, presenting a complete feasibility report to the city.

It'll take a little time.

Schmidt recalled how when his firm was building the DART system in Dallas, how it was controversial and disdained.

"'You'll never get a Texan out of their truck,' they said, but now they can't build it fast enough."

If you can' teach an old Texan new tricks, getting comfortably cosmopolitan Tulsans on rapid transit ought to be a breeze.

[TheArtist]

quote:Originally posted by booWorld

quote:Originally posted by TheArtist

This new study is what the city is considering. Not the ancient incog study from two decades ago.

Perhaps Bates was asleep during the presentation of the new study?

Not sure about Michael Bates, but I snoozed right through  last year's Tulsa Transit train study.

I may be odd but I found it immensly fascinating lol.  I was wrong on remembering the estimates, they were for around 45 mill for the transit line.

But its interesting to notice how things have already changed since this plan was being worked out back in 2006. They had included the possiblility of an East End development happening downtown. So far that has not happened, but again, even if we were to decide today to do this it would take about 10 years or so to implement. Things could can change in that time. They were projecting BA to be almost at 100,000 in population in 2010. Some estimates already have it at that. Downtown BA developments are moving along and a station there would no doubt draw more. Again, this wouldnt happen till about 2020 even if we decided to start today.  

IMO the 15th and Lewis and a 6th and Utica station have much potential. Cherry street is steadily experiencing infill and will likely continue. Implimentation of the 6th street corridor and the Pearl District will create higher density nodes in that area. Plus the 15th and Lewis Station is near Utica Square and the large Hospitals. Plus both of those stations are near TU. The area around the 15th and Lewis station, I think its actually 13th, would be seen as a great location for some midrise and higher density developments.  

All in all I think their ridership estimates are still reasonable if not a bit conservative.

[Chicken Little]

quote:Originally posted by booWorld

In his opinion piece, Michael Bates offered an alternative to spending millions of dollars on a light rail system that would be used by very few Tulsans, not a "solution" to anything:

It will only "be used by few Tulsans" if Tulsans forcibly choose to ignore the development potential near trains.  It took Dallas 20 years to figure out that trains can spur new development.  Why can't we be smarter about it?  Bates advocates urban-style development in and around downtown.  That's great, but for a fraction of what we'd spend on a street bond, we could begin to work on "transit villages" all over the city.  We have railroads radiating from downtown in almost every direction with the potential to spark a heck of a lot of growth in places that could really, really use some help...not just midtown.

Oh, and you can get off of the "light rail" train.  Everybody here seems to be advocating mass transit ideas that cost a fraction of old-school light-rail stuff.  The costs seem to be on par with routine street widenings, which by the way do very little to help Tulsa's bottom line. Bates seems to be behind the times and behind the curve on this issue, and his positions seem to support the "status quo":  sprawling development and more infrastructure per household than more efficient cities.  That translates into higher costs, and higher taxes.

When Bates tries to torpedo an idea, he typically throws up a red herring to confuse his  friends.  "Trust in the free market" he says.  He sounds smart, and his rhetoric is appealing...but that's where it stops.

quote: That doesn't necessarily mean spending more money on Tulsa Transit. It's funny, we know from history that free markets are superior to centrally planned economies, and yet we expect a centrally planned bus network to succeed. In many parts of the world, privately-owned vehicles provide public mobility. The free market is the most efficient way to allocate supply to meet demand.

Sweet, sweet, rhetoric...but meaningless.  Where did the street underneath those privately-owned vehicles come from?  From us, the taxpayers.  Who maintains that street?  We do.  Even in America, there are certain things that we must do "centrally".

I've already said that I think jitney routes and taxi stands should be allowed, but don't be confused.  Outside of third world countries that cannot even contemplate public mass transit, share taxis are a supplement, and generally operate along the busiest mass transit routes.  It's another red herring.  How many share taxis will it take to spur the development of a new mid-rise like the one over in Utica Square?  The answer is, that's not how it works.  They "follow" the market, they don't define it.  But if the city puts a commuter train down, then that's a substantial, permanent, commitment.  If I'm a developer, that's where I'm going to spend my money, even if it is in some old abandoned industrial zone along the tracks.  Why do we know this?  Because that's what is happening in Dallas and all of these other places where trains have gone in.

[booWorld]

Here's what I get from the Tulsa Transit study:

Most optimistic scenario at end of first year (in 2010 dollars):  
$46.1 million to construct and operate rail system from Main Street BA to Tulsa CBD; 2.5 million rides
= $18.44 per ride.

Least optimistic scenario at end of first year of operation:
$52.1 million to construct and operate rail system; 0.6 million rides
= $86.83 per ride.

Most optimistic scenario averaged over the first 20 years of operation:
$5.25 million average per year to build/maintain/operate system; average 3.3 million rides per year
= $1.59 per ride.

Least optimistic scenario averaged over the first 20 years of operation:
$5.55 million average per year to build/maintain/operate system; average 1.25 rides per year
= $4.44 per ride.

Offhand, it sounds as though it would be a hassle to get to the stations, but I'm accustomed to getting where I want to go quickly on foot, by shuttle, by car, or by bus.  Also, even if I lived on Main Street BA and needed to travel to downtown Tulsa on a regular basis, I really would not want to wait an average of 36 minutes in order to pay $2 to ride a train which moved at an average speed of 27 miles per hour.

[Chicken Little]

quote:Originally posted by booWorld

Here's what I get from the Tulsa Transit study:

Most optimistic scenario at end of first year (in 2010 dollars):  
$46.1 million to construct and operate rail system from Main Street BA to Tulsa CBD; 2.5 million rides
= $18.44 per ride.

Least optimistic scenario at end of first year of operation:
$52.1 million to construct and operate rail system; 0.6 million rides
= $86.83 per ride.

Most optimistic scenario averaged over the first 20 years of operation:
$5.25 million average per year to build/maintain/operate system; average 3.3 million rides per year
= $1.59 per ride.

Least optimistic scenario averaged over the first 20 years of operation:
$5.55 million average per year to build/maintain/operate system; average 1.25 rides per year
= $4.44 per ride.

Offhand, it sounds as though it would be a hassle to get to the stations, but I'm accustomed to getting where I want to go quickly on foot, by shuttle, by car, or by bus.  Also, even if I lived on Main Street BA and needed to travel to downtown Tulsa on a regular basis, I really would not want to wait an average of 36 minutes in order to pay $2 to ride a train which moved at an average speed of 27 miles per hour.

Again, you are presuming that a train goes in and nothing else changes; no new development at all.  That's unrealistic.

[booWorld]

In theory, the idea of light rail corridors could work.  But it depends on the density of surrounding development.

Remember that this is Tulsa.  The TMAPC has been on a mission of down-zoning neighborhoods which could benefit from more intensity, not less.  Passenger rail won't be viable in Tulsa with the TMAPC's suburban mindset.  Personally, I don't want to foot the bill to fund a rail transit system while the TMAPC is in sprawl mode.  That doesn't make sense.

[Chicken Little]

quote:Originally posted by booWorld

In theory, the idea of light rail corridors could work.  But it depends on the density of surrounding development.

Remember that this is Tulsa.  The TMAPC has been a mission of down-zoning neighborhoods which could benefit from more intensity, not less.  Passenger rail won't be viable in Tulsa with the TMAPC's suburban mindset.  Personally, I don't want to foot the bill to fund a rail transit system while the TMAPC is in sprawl mode.  That doesn't make sense.

Yaaaay!  We finally aren't talking past each other.  If trains are to happen, then it absolutely must be based on the precondition that there are places to build around these stops.  If nobody wants to change the density, then there is no point in doing this.  But, the beauty of looking at rail corridors is that, historically, no residents wanted to be near them.  Industry was clustered around them.  And now, since industry depends more on highway than it does on rail, many businesses have moved out to industrial parks with better highway access.  There is a lot of underutilized industrial land that could be used if someone were to get serious about it.

[booWorld]

I did not make presumptions about the Tulsa Transit study.  The assumptions and presumptions were in the study.  I added and divided the numbers listed in the study and then typed them in a few paragraphs before posting.  

My calculations could be wrong, but I did not presume anything, except perhaps that the TMAPC won't adjust their mindset and/or their behavior quickly enough to allow for the type of intense development necessary to make passenger rail feasible.  From what I've seen, the TMAPC wants Tulsa to be more spread out, not more compact.

[Chicken Little]

quote:Originally posted by booWorld

I did not make presumptions about the Tulsa Transit study.  The assumptions and presumptions were in the study.  I added and divided the numbers listed in the study and then typed them in a few paragraphs before posting.  

My calculations could be wrong, but I did not presume anything, except perhaps that the TMAPC won't adjust their mindset and/or their behavior quickly enough to allow for the type of intense development necessary to make passenger rail feasible.  From what I've seen, the TMAPC wants Tulsa to be more spread out, not more compact.

Looking through it, they don't seem to be predicting increased ridership based on new development.  It just looks like an engineering study for the rail, not a market study.  The only thing you might conclude from the new study is that starting up a rail system is possibly a lot cheaper that we thought.  I still think that we'd need a broader cost vs. benefit analysis of this corridor and a lot of others before we started sinking dollars into it.  

We have to look at the kinds of development that is happening around the DART system in other places  and see if we actually have room for it here.  I suspect we do, but, since the train follows the highway to BA, the land is a lot more valuable.  It might make much more sense in west Tulsa to the south along the River and in north Tulsa to the airport.

UPDATE:  Ooops, I take that back.  The ridership forecasts at the high end reflect Transit Oriented Development:

quote:The range of ridership forecasts varies. The low end uses current demographic data
which does not include TOD resulting from yet-to-be available rail service. The high
end, which is a more optimistic demographic data, takes advantage of future TOD which
has been shown in other cities to be encouraged by the introduction of passenger rail
service. The ridership study (which reflects boardings) concluded that 2010 ridership
would range between 1.4 million and 5.0 million, and that by the year 2030 between 1.9
million and 4.1 million people would board the train during an average year, depending
on the extent to which TOD occurred. This assumes no increase in service hours. Should
hours of operation and service be increased, ridership numbers would be expected to
increase as well.

The ridership forecasts on page 45 tell the story.  You get FIVE times the ridership if you build around the stations...which sort of underscores the point that building a train without new development is stupid.

[booWorld]

The study made some marketing assumptions.  But by their own admission, the authors of the study explain that the market surveys are probably skewed because they got their results from a select group of Tulsans open to the idea of mass transit to begin with.

Between 6am and 6pm, wait an average of 36 minutes to ride a train from Main Street BA to dowtown Tulsa at an average speed of 27 miles per hour.  Fare:  $2.  Give the finger to Santa as he pedals ahead past the train along the BA.  Perhaps visit INCOG and pick up a lot split application if the the staffers there are not too busy discussing white chocolate hot chocolate.

[Oil Capital]

quote:Originally posted by booWorld

The study made some marketing assumptions.  But by their own admission, the authors of the study explain that the market surveys are probably skewed because they got their results from a select group of Tulsans open to the idea of mass transit to begin with.

Between 6am and 6pm, wait an average of 36 minutes to ride a train from Main Street BA to dowtown Tulsa at an average speed of 27 miles per hour.  Fare:  $2.  Give the finger to Santa as he pedals ahead past the train along the BA.  Perhaps visit INCOG and pick up a lot split application if the the staffers there are not too busy discussing white chocolate hot chocolate.

You're actually being a little too generous.  There is no "6 AM - 6 PM" service.  The plan is for rush hour service only.  Two trains inbound in the morning... two trains outbound in the evening rush hour.  

This is is typical of commuter rail services elsewhere in the country, and is one of the reasons that, contrary to the assumptions made in the study and despite the fondest wishes and dreams of many on this board, commuter rail does not typically spawn much in the way of transit oriented development.

[Chicken Little]

quote:Originally posted by Oil Capital

...contrary to the assumptions made in the study and despite the fondest wishes and dreams of many on this board, commuter rail does not typically spawn much in the way of transit oriented development.

Forgive me if I don't swallow your argument.  From the City of San Jose's Website:

quote: Here you will find a map of transit-oriented development projects, totaling over 40,000 units, which have been approved or built (since 1990) in close proximity to existing or planned transit opportunities in the City of San Jose. You can also download a data table that contains the name, unit count, and link to a photograph of these projects along with their associated density (expressed as dwelling units per acre, or DU/Ac).

40,000 units in San freakin' Jose.  That's not just a train system, that's a whole growth strategy.  Do you have a better one for Tulsa?  Or do you just want to continue to live in a flat growth city with rising infrastructure costs?  Is San Jose the exception or the rule?  You want to have a contest to find out?  Start digging.

[Oil Capital]

quote:Originally posted by Chicken Little

quote:Originally posted by Oil Capital

...contrary to the assumptions made in the study and despite the fondest wishes and dreams of many on this board, commuter rail does not typically spawn much in the way of transit oriented development.

Forgive me if I don't swallow your argument.  From the City of San Jose's Website:

quote: Here you will find a map of transit-oriented development projects, totaling over 40,000 units, which have been approved or built (since 1990) in close proximity to existing or planned transit opportunities in the City of San Jose. You can also download a data table that contains the name, unit count, and link to a photograph of these projects along with their associated density (expressed as dwelling units per acre, or DU/Ac).

40,000 units in San freakin' Jose.  That's not just a train system, that's a whole growth strategy.  Do you have a better one for Tulsa?  Or do you just want to continue to live in a flat growth city with rising infrastructure costs?  Is San Jose the exception or the rule?  You want to have a contest to find out?  Start digging.

Take it down a notch, sister.

For starters, "San freakin' Jose is a metro area twice the size of Tulsa's and is embedded in a Combined Metro area approximately  nine times the size of Tulsa's.

Second.  That was over a period of SEVENTEEN years.  2352 apartment and condo units per year.

Third.  That was built and approved.  They didn't say how many of those have actually been built.

Fourth.  The VAST majority of those developments are on LIGHT RAIL lines, NOT commuter rail.

Fifth.  The commuter rail there appears to operate an all-day schedule in both directions and at pretty frequent intervals.  NONE of those things are true about the commuter rail planned for Tulsa.

Keep digging if you please.  But try to be more careful;  your San Jose information didn't exactly support your argument.  I'll keep digging as well.  I'll let you know if I come across any significant TOD around a commuter rail system similar to that planned in Tulsa.

I encourage everyone to take a look at the http://www.sanjoseca.gov/planning/smartgrowth/tod_house.asp they provide of the TOD they are so proud of... a rather large majority of them are apartment complexes that would be perfectly at home in the sprawl of south Tulsa.

[TheArtist]

Are we going to widen BA or not? If we were it would cost a lot of money so then this light rail would be viable.

Does anyone forsee a need, or desire, to widen the BA in the future?

If not then just encouraging Tulsa and BA in general to become more dense would in itself start removing trips and shortening trip times.

Though both cities populations may grow it wouldnt increase the road traffic as much because people wouldnt be driving as far and as often.

I do think we should encourage high density areas. But how and where? Some people in mid-town already scream when you tear out a house and replace it with something larger. I can only imagine that they wouldnt want midrise or highrise buildings going in near them.

So where should these high density areas be?   We either spend money and effort trying to get people to build in "undesirable, run down" areas. Or throw a fit when someone tries to building something in the areas that are desirable. Thats kind of a tough way to go about getting new development and "encouraging density".  

Should we plan on widening roads to hold more traffic? Or say, if you dont want traffic live closer to where you want to go?

What about the suburbs like BA? If the traffic on the "feeder roads" into the city start getting clogged, do we even bother with it? Not widen the roads or doing rail. Again saying, live and work in BA and dont bother us with your problem lol? Or move to Tulsa and live and work here?  

Rail, is honestly no big deal, we could do fine without it for the rest of my lifetime I am sure. But no matter what we do, I personally would rather NOT widen more roads, period.

If I look around and think about priorities and spending 40 or 50 mill, I would say do the Pearl District plan first. Much higher priority at this point and is a prime place to create a higher density, pedestrian friendly environment.


So basically I guess I am coming to the conclusion. Dont widen BA, and do the Pearl. Dont worry about traffic on the BA, if people dont like it, move some place else. Either the Pearl or stay in BA lol.

[Chicken Little]

quote:Originally posted by Oil Capital

Take it down a notch, sister.

For starters, "San freakin' Jose is a metro area twice the size of Tulsa's and is embedded in a Combined Metro area approximately  nine times the size of Tulsa's.

Second.  That was over a period of SEVENTEEN years.  2352 apartment and condo units per year.

Here's an apples to apples comparisons for you.  From 1990 to 2000 the number of housing units in Tulsa grew by 2%.  In the same period in San Jose, housing units grew by 9%.

Neither city changed land area much over the decade they have 175 square miles, we have 183.

They are landlocked by terrain, and we are somewhat landlocked by suburban communities.

quote:Third.  That was built and approved.  They didn't say how many of those have actually been built.

Fourth.  The VAST majority of those developments are on LIGHT RAIL lines, NOT commuter rail.

We aren't talking about light rail, as Michael Bates asserts.  The BA feasibility study is for commuter rail using existing tracks, and it's about $3,000,000 a mile with stops.  

quote:Fifth.  The commuter rail there appears to operate an all-day schedule in both directions and at pretty frequent intervals.  NONE of those things are true about the commuter rail planned for Tulsa.

Let's say we'd want to run it all day and all night.  So operations would need to triple, say, to $10,000,000 per year?  How many new people along that line would we need, minimum, to pay for that line?

According to the census, retail sales per household in 1997 citywide were $13,448.  With inflation and assuming there will be some more expensive households in a transit development, I'm going to call it $25,000 per housing unit.  Unless I'm wrong, you'd need to add 400 new housing units along these lines in order to pay for the whole system.  That doesn't seem like an unreasonable number.  I think we could get that and then some.  So, any growth on top of that would benefit everyone, right?  More density, more shoppers per square foot, right?  And that sales tax number does not even account for the property tax that would be pumped into the schools.  

quote:
Keep digging if you please.  But try to be more careful;  your San Jose information didn't exactly support your argument.  I'll keep digging as well.  I'll let you know if I come across any significant TOD around a commuter rail system similar to that planned in Tulsa.

I encourage everyone to take a look at the http://www.sanjoseca.gov/planning/smartgrowth/tod_house.asp they provide of the TOD they are so proud of... a rather large majority of them are apartment complexes that would be perfectly at home in the sprawl of south Tulsa.

Sorry about the venom, Cappy, but one of the subtexts in this thread is about shooting your mouth off and not caring to even make a case.  It's not aimed at you.

UPDATE:  Oh, geez, I knew I missed something.  The City only gets 5 percent of that.  So it'd take 8,000 housing units.  That's more ambitious.  I guess that why these things charge fares.