Nashville commuter rail

[Oil Capital]

Here are some more actual real-world numbers.  Just some additional food for thought.

Nashville has a commuter rail somewhat similar to what is planned here (but twice as long 50% more station, 50% more runs each day, and of course a much larger, faster growing, and congested metropolitan area).  The first year ridership projected by their team of experts.  1,300. Actual ridership at the peak last summer:  640.

No reason at all to question a 2,200 projection for Tulsa... no reason at all...  ;-)

[perspicuity85]

Instead of traditional commuter rails, Tulsa needs streetcars around Downtown and some Midtown areas.  There is more demand for a transportation product when it has a differentiated appeal, such as tourism, nostalgia, or elegance, all of which are often perceived of streetcars.  Little Rock implemented streetcars in their downtown area, and they are marvelously succussful.  And Little Rock has 200,000 less people in the city proper, and 250,000 less in the MSA than Tulsa.

[MichaelBates]

quote:Originally posted by perspicuity85

Instead of traditional commuter rails, Tulsa needs streetcars around Downtown and some Midtown areas.  There is more demand for a transportation product when it has a differentiated appeal, such as tourism, nostalgia, or elegance, all of which are often perceived of streetcars.  Little Rock implemented streetcars in their downtown area, and they are marvelously succussful.  And Little Rock has 200,000 less people in the city proper, and 250,000 less in the MSA than Tulsa.

Little Rock's light rail system carries only 520 passengers a day.

[TURobY]

quote:Originally posted by MichaelBates


Little Rock's light rail system carries only 520 passengers a day.

Over what kind of area? If it is only downtown, I'd say that sounds pretty decent. If it is all over Little Rock, then those numbers aren't so hot.

[Chicken Little]

Life on the Rail:  All aboard the Transit Oriented Development Express? (Nashville)

First, your numbers are already stale:

quote: Allyson Shumate, project manager at the Regional Transit Authority, says about 634 people rode the Star per day in the months
of June, July and August. RTA's goal is to attract 1,500 a day, and although the Star is trending in the right direction (between March and June, ridership numbers increased by about 200 people per day), a TOD is likely to give the numbers a major boost.
"All it would take is one serious developer to do a bona fide TOD, and the ridership would quadruple," Davis says.

Second, it's the development that offers the promise for Nashville, and Tulsa:

quote: While hundreds are utilizing the new rail as an alternative to traffic jams and high gas prices, many are also recognizing the Star's potential as a catalyst for development. Yet, some Wilson County officials and others assisting with city planning efforts are not
touting just any kind of development—they have
something specific in mind.
"I'm hoping that we can aim a little higher and create transit-oriented development," says T.K. Davis, design director of the Nashville Civic Design Center and an associate professor at the University of Tennessee School of Architecture. "TOD is different from conventional development that happens to be adjacent to a transit stop. It's integrated carefully at all levels to make it work cohesively."

Perhaps a foreign concept to many, transit-oriented development is a growing trend that's more than just a buzz word in cities such as Charlotte, N.C., Denver and Portland, Ore. The idea is to create a mixed-use, walkable community offering housing, retail, restaurants
and offices within about a 2,000-foot radius of a transit station. Driven by smart growth initiatives, TOD promises to reduce sprawl and traffic congestion, while satisfying a burgeoning demand (by singles and retiring baby boomers) for smaller homes in quality urban areas.

quote: The city is already constructing a walking and biking trail system that connects the commuter rail with the town square. The trail, which will open this spring, cuts through
The Mill at Lebanon, an old woolen mill that has been converted to a 15-acre, 200,000-square-foot space for retail, entertainment, office and
residential use. The Mill spokesperson Diane Parness says there's also room for a boutique hotel and spa, making The Mill and Lebanon a destination point. Meanwhile, farther west, Mt. Juliet officials are interested in TOD-like opportunities that coincide with plans to create a traditional town square. Davis, who has had UT students design TOD plans for Mt. Juliet as part of their curriculum, believes Mt. Juliet has the most immediate potential for change because it has so much open land surrounding its transit station.

One such piece of land, says Kenneth Martin,
economic and community development director for
Mt. Juliet, is a county-owned, 12-acre lot across from the transit station (once home to an elementary school) that was recently rezoned for development as a commercial town center.
"We're looking for something there that will generate a lot of foot traffic," Martin says. "I'd like to see upscale, multi-family condos where people can walk out their door and visit a retail area. On the front end would be the town center concept with loft-style apartments above smaller shops, so business owners could rent space, live at the top and have a store
at the bottom."

Based on the information in this article, it looks like the train is already having a catalytic effect on development.  Wouldn't you agree?  And, if new development occurs would ridership go a) UP, or b) DOWN?

[Chicken Little]

quote:Originally posted by perspicuity85

Instead of traditional commuter rails, Tulsa needs streetcars around Downtown and some Midtown areas.  There is more demand for a transportation product when it has a differentiated appeal, such as tourism, nostalgia, or elegance, all of which are often perceived of streetcars.  Little Rock implemented streetcars in their downtown area, and they are marvelously succussful.  And Little Rock has 200,000 less people in the city proper, and 250,000 less in the MSA than Tulsa.

The Little Rock streetcar (italicized for the persnickety) is a 2.5 mile tourist trolley.


FWIW, I think it is a success in that it does what it's supposed to...get tourists across the River.

[cannon_fodder]

Hey look, it's the discussion of a passenger rail service in Tulsa:


As much as I'd like it, it is not economical and it hasn't worked outside of very congested areas that (to at least some extent) grew up with rail service (Seattle, New York, Chicago).

Albuquerque has what is considered a successful rail program running a 50 mile straight shot from Southern Suburb, to the airport, downtown and then to a Northern Suburb (9 stops, including 5 suburbs/commuter lots, the airport, downtown - AmTrack line + Greyhound + local bus station, shopping etc).  It fare is between $1 to $3 to ride and the parking is usually free.

It cost $135,000,000 to build this phase (phase II goes to Sante Fe) and is subsidized to the tune of an additional $10,000,000 a year.  Average daily ridership is nearing 2,500 a day and growing.   The cost is $19 per passenger (ave. $2 paid by the passenger, $11 direct and an additional ~$6 per day on the note).  Federal funding for the project never materialized.

A great deal for the 2500 people that ride it daily and it would be nice for people in the suburbs to ride into town for entertainment.  I'd love it if it went within walking distance of my house to TU, downtown, Woodland Hills...whatever.  But the fact remains it's a hard sell when the government has to kick in $8.50 for every dollar the 2500 people who use it spend.

http://www.nmrailrunner.com/FAQ.asp
- - -

It would be interesting to see where the existing rail lines in Tulsa are.  Other than downtown, near the airport, and probably a link near most suburbs - the destinations dont have a link nearby (TU, ORU, Woodland Hills/Promenade, Cherry Street, brookside).  It would end up being a commuter line to downtown and little else - which in Tulsa seems to severely limit ridership.

[si_uk_lon_ok]

I think we have to face the fact that almost all public transport systems are subsidised. This isn't a bad thing though, the roads are massively subsidised and rather than bringing benefits, they produce massive negative effects they produce more pollution, more accidents, encourage sprawl and severe communities in ways that rail doesn't. It also allows the city to focus development and dense up allowing the city to retain more growth. In the next decade Tulsa is going to have to spend a fortune on renewing its roads and its right to look at all the alternatives especially those that provide long term solutions and that are sustainable and benefit the city. Rail is a long term solution and some of the benefits such as development will take a few years to fully be quantified.

[Chicken Little]

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder

As much as I'd like it, it is not economical and it hasn't worked outside of very congested areas that (to at least some extent) grew up with rail service (Seattle, New York, Chicago).

Albuquerque has what is considered a successful rail program running a 50 mile straight shot from Southern Suburb, to the airport, downtown and then to a Northern Suburb (9 stops, including 5 suburbs/commuter lots, the airport, downtown - AmTrack line + Greyhound + local bus station, shopping etc).  It fare is between $1 to $3 to ride and the parking is usually free.

It cost $135,000,000 to build this phase (phase II goes to Sante Fe) and is subsidized to the tune of an additional $10,000,000 a year.  Average daily ridership is nearing 2,500 a day and growing.   The cost is $19 per passenger (ave. $2 paid by the passenger, $11 direct and an additional ~$6 per day on the note).  Federal funding for the project never materialized.

A great deal for the 2500 people that ride it daily and it would be nice for people in the suburbs to ride into town for entertainment.  I'd love it if it went within walking distance of my house to TU, downtown, Woodland Hills...whatever.  But the fact remains it's a hard sell when the government has to kick in $8.50 for every dollar the 2500 people who use it spend.

http://www.nmrailrunner.com/FAQ.asp
- - -

It would be interesting to see where the existing rail lines in Tulsa are.  Other than downtown, near the airport, and probably a link near most suburbs - the destinations dont have a link nearby (TU, ORU, Woodland Hills/Promenade, Cherry Street, brookside).  It would end up being a commuter line to downtown and little else - which in Tulsa seems to severely limit ridership.

I don't know if I'd hang my hat on the subsidies that Albuquerque's paying on a two year old system.  But for sake of argument, I guess that's fine...what's it...$17 million a year, divided by 819,000?  $20 a year per person?

What do you think they are going to be asking us to pay to subsidize the streets?  $100,000,000 a year?  That's $254 per person per year.  And that's just to keep us from getting an "F".  If we really want "nice" streets, are we going to be doubling or tripling that number?  I'm happy to be wrong on these numbers (who wouldn't be?), but my point is illustrative.  We subsidize streets, too.

All forms of transit are subsidized one way or another, even sidewalks are repaired on our dime.  I'm happy to look at the cost vs. benefit of any form of transit, as long as it's a fair look.

But also note that Albuquerque and Bernalillo are working on transit oriented development plans.  If this plays out, you'd have to factor that in on the benefit side in terms of efficient growth, right?

UPDATE:  Si said it better...as usual.

[cannon_fodder]

Very good point about streets.  If the rail replaced the street system I'd whole heartedly support it and perhaps in the long run it will to some extent.  I love urban streetscapes, huddles of shops and bars around rail stations in Chicago, brown stones near the subways in Brooklyn, or even the downtown station are near Albuquerque... But with a city like Tulsa that has grown up with expressways and the grid, the demand for those roads wouldn't drop much and they will still have to be paid for.

The BA handles 50,000+ cars per day and is the busiest commuter corridor.  Pretending that they are each occupied by a single person and we have as much success as Albuquerque the traffic reduction would be at most, 5-10% (I'm unsure if the data is two way, or one way).  Not nearly enough to justify $130 million+ in subsidies from a "savings on roads" perspective.

Riverside has 20,000+ it's entire length (high of 31,000).  And on and on.  The number of cars vs. the number of rail users indicates the road budget would not change at all.
http://www.cityoftulsa.org/CityServices/Streets/documents/2006-COUNTS.pdf

I really wish it made sense.  But it just doesn't.  It could be neat, but without a real commitment and some density it just doesn't make economic sense.  And yes, I understand it is a chicken or the egg argument - to which I have no good answer.  But 2500 daily riders is the equivalent of spending $150 million to have a commuter line so the 2500 citizens of Bristow that work in Tulsa can get to work each day.

It just doesn't make sense.

[Chicken Little]

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder

Very good point about streets.  If the rail replaced the street system I'd whole heartedly support it and perhaps in the long run it will to some extent.  I love urban streetscapes, huddles of shops and bars around rail stations in Chicago, brown stones near the subways in Brooklyn, or even the downtown station are near Albuquerque... But with a city like Tulsa that has grown up with expressways and the grid, the demand for those roads wouldn't drop much and they will still have to be paid for.

The BA handles 50,000+ cars per day and is the busiest commuter corridor.  Pretending that they are each occupied by a single person and we have as much success as Albuquerque the traffic reduction would be at most, 5-10% (I'm unsure if the data is two way, or one way).  Not nearly enough to justify $130 million+ in subsidies from a "savings on roads" perspective.

Riverside has 20,000+ it's entire length (high of 31,000).  And on and on.  The number of cars vs. the number of rail users indicates the road budget would not change at all.
http://www.cityoftulsa.org/CityServices/Streets/documents/2006-COUNTS.pdf

I really wish it made sense.  But it just doesn't.  It could be neat, but without a real commitment and some density it just doesn't make economic sense.  And yes, I understand it is a chicken or the egg argument - to which I have no good answer.  But 2500 daily riders is the equivalent of spending $150 million to have a commuter line so the 2500 citizens of Bristow that work in Tulsa can get to work each day.

It just doesn't make sense.

CF, you've got an excellent handle on the situation, and I agree that it's really hard to find a "good answer".

We will always have to maintain the street network we have, and there are only a couple of variables you can play with to save money, since tearing out streets is not really an option.  

1) We've already played out the first option, which is to defer maintenance.  Oh well, it was fun while it lasted.

2) You can limit the rate of expansion of the street network.  I know a lot of south Tulsans live on  "undersized" streets, but it's an option.  The reality is, most of these streets are only undersized for about 30 minutes in the morning and evening.  If people staggered their departure times by 15 minutes, we could probably save tens of millions in lane widening...even in the short term.  Just a politically unpopular thought.

3) You've said this already, but if we could make a real commitment to density, we could have more people to share the burden of maintaining the street network.   I for one, am willing to share this burden.

It'd be challenging to grow this way, but I don't think that it's crazy.  Doing nothing seems way crazier to me.  Cities are always in transition, whether or not we choose to notice:  six years ago Kingspointe Village was a crummy old abandoned Sipes;  twenty-five years ago our streets were decent;  and sixty years ago Tulsa was a compact city with streetcars.  So, where do we want to be in the next 20 years?  60 years?

We've got   1,339 lane miles of arterials and 3,999 lane miles of residential streets.  For a little perspective, the average family pays to maintain 88 feet of 2-lane street.  That's more surface area than a driveway, and probably bigger than your whole front lawn.  If we do nothing, then we'll still be taking care of that same 88 feet of street when we're 88 ourselves.  But if we start to build "up" instead of "out", and make more efficient use of the streets we have, then we could reduce that 88 feet of street to what?  66 feet?  44?

I think the thing that is so appealing about trains is that we still have the tracks in lots of places: Downtown, North Tulsa, East Tulsa, and West Tulsa.  And these areas around the tracks are pretty affordable; they are typically underutilized industrial areas.  A large fraction of industry has switched to trucking.  Over the last few decades, they've physically abandoned these old districts in favor of highway locations.

These underutilized industrial areas represent a  relatively painless way for Tulsa to grow.  We can preserve the quality neighborhoods we have, and quietly grow in places long forgotten.

I don't exactly see what's so magical, or overly-risky, or even new about this...freaking Plano  is doing it.  So, in the end, it's all about the development for me.  If the train existed only on paper and it was able to spark this growth pattern, I'd be happy as a clam.  But unfortunately, it doesn't look like it works that way.

In the long run, though, doing nothing is the thing that doesn't make sense to me.  Do you see any other way out of our "un-smart" (for lack of a better term) growth dilemma?

[TeeDub]

quote:Originally posted by Chicken Little
We've got   1,339 lane miles of arterials and 2,999 lane miles of residential streets.  For a little perspective, the average family pays to maintain 88 feet of 2-lane street.  That's more surface area than a driveway, and probably bigger than your whole front lawn.  If we do nothing, then we'll still be taking care of that same 88 feet of street when we're 88 ourselves.  But if we start to build "up" instead of "out", and make more efficient use of the streets we have, then we could reduce that 88 feet of street to what?  66 feet?  44?

Growing up instead of out won't reduce the number of streets we have.  And I can guess what kind of reception you will get from taxpayers when you tell them they will not only have to fix the streets but also build an inconvenient and little used rail system.  Growing up would fix the density problems, and make a rail more financially plausible.  

The real problem with Oklahoma is we like our space.   We live farther and farther from the things we need to visit on a regular basis, but not concentrated enough either in housing or destination to make a proper mass transit system viable.

We can't make Tulsa transit work.  The Sand Springs trolley went out even when there was a lot of ridership.  What makes you think a light rail will do any better now?

Sand Springs line history
http://books.google.com/books?id=qfPShIW8uzwC&pg=PA71&lpg=PA71&dq=sand+springs+trolley&source=web&ots=aIt09iLvvE&sig=WdjGKOXQ49PGEXnEia3qoqSkCak#PPA77,M1

[si_uk_lon_ok]

quote:Originally posted by TeeDub

quote:Originally posted by Chicken Little
We've got   1,339 lane miles of arterials and 2,999 lane miles of residential streets.  For a little perspective, the average family pays to maintain 88 feet of 2-lane street.  That's more surface area than a driveway, and probably bigger than your whole front lawn.  If we do nothing, then we'll still be taking care of that same 88 feet of street when we're 88 ourselves.  But if we start to build "up" instead of "out", and make more efficient use of the streets we have, then we could reduce that 88 feet of street to what?  66 feet?  44?

Growing up instead of out won't reduce the number of streets we have.  And I can guess what kind of reception you will get from taxpayers when you tell them they will not only have to fix the streets but also build an inconvenient and little used rail system.  Growing up would fix the density problems, and make a rail more financially plausible.  

The real problem with Oklahoma is we like our space.   We live farther and farther from the things we need to visit on a regular basis, but not concentrated enough either in housing or destination to make a proper mass transit system viable.

We can't make Tulsa transit work.  The Sand Springs trolley went out even when there was a lot of ridership.  What makes you think a light rail will do any better now?

Sand Springs line history
http://books.google.com/books?id=qfPShIW8uzwC&pg=PA71&lpg=PA71&dq=sand+springs+trolley&source=web&ots=aIt09iLvvE&sig=WdjGKOXQ49PGEXnEia3qoqSkCak#PPA77,M1

I feel that Oklahomans don't know their options. I think there are very very few people on this board even who have lived in dense mixed use urban areas and these are the urbanists of Tulsa. People really can't get there heads around what the advantages of this could be. It's not something that only young people would like a dense urban area is a huge boon for everyone from children to the infirm. I don't think you can ignore an urban form or claim people won't like it without experiencing it.

Growing up instead of out will reduce the financial burden of our street network. It will intensify land use meaning more sales and property tax for each mile of road.

I think we can get into the old chestnut of the chicken and egg. Do we need density or do we need mass transit first? I really think that when you consider the length of time that mass transit infrastructure is operational for I'd wait for the density to catch up with the system.

I've also read When Oklahoma Took the Trolley and I think the Sand Springs line closed as the rail road moved towards freight not due to profitability issues.

[Chicken Little]

quote:Originally posted by TeeDub

Growing up instead of out won't reduce the number of streets we have.  And I can guess what kind of reception you will get from taxpayers when you tell them they will not only have to fix the streets but also build an inconvenient and little used rail system.  Growing up would fix the density problems, and make a rail more financially plausible.  

The real problem with Oklahoma is we like our space.   We live farther and farther from the things we need to visit on a regular basis, but not concentrated enough either in housing or destination to make a proper mass transit system viable.

We can't make Tulsa transit work.  The Sand Springs trolley went out even when there was a lot of ridership.  What makes you think a light rail will do any better now?

Sand Springs line history
http://books.google.com/books?id=qfPShIW8uzwC&pg=PA71&lpg=PA71&dq=sand+springs+trolley&source=web&ots=aIt09iLvvE&sig=WdjGKOXQ49PGEXnEia3qoqSkCak#PPA77,M1

Growing "up", i.e.., increasing density,  doesn't reduce the size of the street network, it just allows for more people to maintain the same amount of streets.  Get it?

It wasn't lack of popularity that killed streetcars in Tulsa it was  conspiracy by General Moters, Firestone, Standard Oil of California, Phillips Petroleum.  Their dummy holding company, National City Lines bought and shut down over 100 streetcar systems around the country.  They manipulated the market, they were found guilty in court, and they were fined.

The Sand Springs Interurban held on for another decade and a half, but the company running this operation found that it could make more money by running freight.  Now, if you exclude all that happened before this, I suppose you could call it a free-market choice.  But NCL manipulating America by closing 100 trolley systems around the nation? Not so much.

Maybe the problem is indeed that we "like our space"...why don't you treat it like a problem?  If we don't change, we are going to have to pay a lot more to maintain this lifestyle.   Are you okay to see your taxes increase (probably permanently) to pay for streets?  Our streets have fallen apart because we refused to pay to maintain what we built.  There's no way we can avoid it from here forward.  What else have we ignored in order to enjoy our space? This isn't scare tactics, it's simple math.

But I think that we can change.  Dallas and Denver love their space, too.  But they have created successful mass transit systems.

[booWorld]

quote:Originally posted by Oil Capital

Here are some more actual real-world numbers.  Just some additional food for thought.

Nashville has a commuter rail somewhat similar to what is planned here (but twice as long 50% more station, 50% more runs each day, and of course a much larger, faster growing, and congested metropolitan area).  The first year ridership projected by their team of experts.  1,300. Actual ridership at the peak last summer:  640.

No reason at all to question a 2,200 projection for Tulsa... no reason at all...  ;-)

A consultant team headed by Lockwood, Andrews, and Newnam (LAN) prepared the Broken Arrow to Tulsa commuter rail study for Tulsa Transit last year.  LAN used two models for the ridership projections, as explained in their final report.

quote:from LAN's Executive Summary of the BA/Tulsa Mass Transit Study, page 4

The achievement of any [ridership] projection may be affected by fluctuating economic conditions and depends on the occurrence of future events that cannot be assured.  Therefore, the actual results achieved may vary from the projections, and the variations could be significant.

LAN estimated a range of initial capital costs based on location of a midtown station (Sheridan or Memorial) and on the type of equipment used for the trains.

I looked at both estimates in terms of the highest, the lowest, and the average cost per trip to build and operate the system from 2010 to 2030 -- based on the figures in LAN's report.  

For Model 1, the worst scenario is assuming a Memorial Station with the most expensive equipment and lowest ridership projection.  Average cost per trip = $4.44

For Model 1, the best scenario is assuming a Sheridan Station with the least expensive equipment and highest ridership projection.  Average cost per trip = $1.59

For Model 2, the worst scenario is assuming a Memorial Station with the most expensive equipment.  Average cost per trip = $5.68

For Model 2, the best scenario is assuming a Sheridan Station with the least expensive equipment.  Average cost per trip = $5.20

For both models, the Sheridan Station location resulted in the lower average cost per trip.

For Model 1, assuming a Sheridan Station, the average cost per trip is $2.92 -- this is an average based on the high/low ridership projections and the high/low equipment costs.  

For Model 1, assuming a Memorial Station, the average cost per trip is $3.04 -- again, this is an average based on the extremes of ridership projections and equipment costs.

For Model 2, assuming a Sheridan Station, the average cost per trip is $5.24 -- this is an average based on the high/low equipment costs.

For Model 2, assuming a Memorial Station, the average cost per trip is $5.64 -- this is an average based on the high/low equipment costs.

Finally, I looked at the mean cost per trip based on the averages for each ridership projection model at each station location over the same 20 year period:

Using both Model 1 and Model 2, the mean cost per trip assuming a Sheridan Station = $4.08

Using both Model 1 and Model 2, the mean cost per trip assuming a Memorial Station = $4.34

I'm not certain about what LAN would consider to be a "significant variation" between their projections and actual ridership, but according to the information in Oil Capital's initial post, the ridership projections for Nashville's commuter rail were over-estimated by a factor of 2.

I did the calculations quickly by hand -- so they could be wrong.  I was trying to see how much of a subsidy the BA-Tulsa commuter train might require based on LAN's numbers.  Actually, the averages weren't as bad as I suspected they would be.  But if I mis-calculated, or if LAN over-estimated projected ridership by 100%....