What About Rail?

[T-TownMike]

This really could be an excited possibilty for Tulsa and I'm glad to see some discussion about the pros and cons of it.

[pfox]

*****UPDATED PRESENTERS/PANELIST LIST*****

We are excited about the caliber of presenters who have agree to participate in the public open house.

Presenters/Panelists:

Sonya Lopez - Principal Planner, Austin

Cal Marsella - General Manager of the Regional Transportation District, Denver

Dr. Jack Crowley- Special Advisor to the Mayor

Panelists:

Andrew Howard - Kimley-Horn, consulting firm studying the integration of land-use and transit for the City of Tulsa Comprehensive Plan

Dwayne Weeks-Federal Transit Administration, New Starts and Small Starts project review team).

You can submit questions for these presenters starting today. Questions can be added as comments to the blog or email to transportation@incog.org . Please include your name, city of residents or organization with the question. There will also be time before and during the open house to submit your questions.

[mac]

I want rail travel in Tulsa and TO Tulsa!!! I would love to be able to roll my suit case a couple of blocks to a rail station that took me to the airport or to another rail station which connected with Oklahoma City or Kansas City. I could go all the way from my house to Chicago, New York, Alaska, Portland OR without getting into a car.

[cannon_fodder]

Per the suburb comment from a few days ago...

Screw the suburbs IF catering to them destroys Tulsa.  My neighborhood has a 6 lane freeway through it.  The North Side is cut off.  Greenwood was all but destroyed.  Now the I-44 corridor is forcing more businesses South.

More freeways through Tulsa means less tax base FOR Tulsa while simultaneously making it more convenient for people to use Tulsa as nothing but a place to work.  The result is money flowing from Tulsa to the suburbs, at the expense of Tulsa.

I'm not trying to sound bitter or like I hate the suburbs.  But why would someone living in Tulsa want to enable other communities to take away from Tulsa?  The entire point of the BA is to allow people to get the hell out of Tulsa at 5pm as fast as possible.  Do not stick around for supper, do not catch a movie, do not allow a local business to collect $200.  

We replaced houses and Tulsa businesses with a way for people to live in BA and shop at BA businesses.  I understand freeways are needed, but they do not foster the density, the walk ability, efficiency, or many other positives beyond convenience (I differentiate commuter freeways from highways used for commerce).  

I'm not against freeways wholesale, but... Bah.   Does this ramble make any sense?

[dsjeffries]

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder

Per the suburb comment from a few days ago...

Screw the suburbs IF catering to them destroys Tulsa.  My neighborhood has a 6 lane freeway through it.  The North Side is cut off.  Greenwood was all but destroyed.  Now the I-44 corridor is forcing more businesses South.

More freeways through Tulsa means less tax base FOR Tulsa while simultaneously making it more convenient for people to use Tulsa as nothing but a place to work.  The result is money flowing from Tulsa to the suburbs, at the expense of Tulsa.

I'm not trying to sound bitter or like I hate the suburbs.  But why would someone living in Tulsa want to enable other communities to take away from Tulsa?  The entire point of the BA is to allow people to get the hell out of Tulsa at 5pm as fast as possible.  Do not stick around for supper, do not catch a movie, do not allow a local business to collect $200.  

We replaced houses and Tulsa businesses with a way for people to live in BA and shop at BA businesses.  I understand freeways are needed, but they do not foster the density, the walk ability, efficiency, or many other positives beyond convenience (I differentiate commuter freeways from highways used for commerce).  

I'm not against freeways wholesale, but... Bah.   Does this ramble make any sense?

Yes, yes it does.  I feel 'ya.

[RecycleMichael]

I went to the rail forum tonight. I showed up late and left early (I have the attention span of a gnat).

There was a good crowd. I counted 124 people in attendance. I heard the Austin woman speak and the Tulsa guy Jack Crowley speak.

I didn't know what to expect. I like the concept of rail, but I love my car too (I think it is called auto-eroticism). I also don't trust out-of-town consultants and know that rail spelled backwards is liar.

Jack Crowley started off saying all the reasons that rail wouldn't work here. He used many of the same arguments on this thread, most importantly, we just don't have the density. Then he told us how it could work...how properly planned new development could enhance assets like the new arena, Williams Tower, Osu-Tulsa and property on the west bank owned by the city. He made some good points. Rail transit will build density, cars fight density.

I am glad I went. I hope that we build something soon.

[mrhaskellok]

quote: er the suburb comment from a few days ago... Screw the suburbs IF catering to them destroys Tulsa. My neighborhood has a 6 lane freeway through it. The North Side is cut off. Greenwood was all but destroyed. Now the I-44 corridor is forcing more businesses South.

More freeways through Tulsa means less tax base FOR Tulsa while simultaneously making it more convenient for people to use Tulsa as nothing but a place to work. The result is money flowing from Tulsa to the suburbs, at the expense of Tulsa.

I'm not trying to sound bitter or like I hate the suburbs. But why would someone living in Tulsa want to enable other communities to take away from Tulsa? The entire point of the BA is to allow people to get the hell out of Tulsa at 5pm as fast as possible. Do not stick around for supper, do not catch a movie, do not allow a local business to collect $200.

We replaced houses and Tulsa businesses with a way for people to live in BA and shop at BA businesses. I understand freeways are needed, but they do not foster the density, the walk ability, efficiency, or many other positives beyond convenience (I differentiate commuter freeways from highways used for commerce).

I'm not against freeways wholesale, but... Bah. Does this ramble make any sense?

It makes perfect sense...ever thought of running for office?  []

I personally enjoy "examples" so here are my thoughts....take a strong look at Portland Oregon.  Semi-same situation (river, strong hwy grid) but they have some of the highest ratings of quality of life and overall happiness of their citizens.  Perhaps we need to send our officials up there and have them spend a month or two getting the tour.

Here is the google map link of their community.
Portland
And here is the wiki on their transportation system Portland Trans

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder

Per the suburb comment from a few days ago...

Screw the suburbs IF catering to them destroys Tulsa.  My neighborhood has a 6 lane freeway through it.  The North Side is cut off.  Greenwood was all but destroyed.  Now the I-44 corridor is forcing more businesses South.

More freeways through Tulsa means less tax base FOR Tulsa while simultaneously making it more convenient for people to use Tulsa as nothing but a place to work.  The result is money flowing from Tulsa to the suburbs, at the expense of Tulsa.

I'm not trying to sound bitter or like I hate the suburbs.  But why would someone living in Tulsa want to enable other communities to take away from Tulsa?  The entire point of the BA is to allow people to get the hell out of Tulsa at 5pm as fast as possible.  Do not stick around for supper, do not catch a movie, do not allow a local business to collect $200.  

We replaced houses and Tulsa businesses with a way for people to live in BA and shop at BA businesses.  I understand freeways are needed, but they do not foster the density, the walk ability, efficiency, or many other positives beyond convenience (I differentiate commuter freeways from highways used for commerce).  

I'm not against freeways wholesale, but... Bah.   Does this ramble make any sense?

I hate suburbs.  After we are done with Iraq, I hear that's next....

[Renaissance]

quote:Originally posted by RecycleMichael

I like the concept of rail, but I love my car too (I think it is called auto-eroticism).

Just got back from the bar, and that is g0dd@mn hilarious.

Thanks for the report.

[TheArtist]

I spent aaaaall day at the different meetings today. Have talked about this in other meetings with people. After doing some reading, debating on other forums, hearing what the locals and the "out of towner" have to say, and also being on here arguing both sides of the issue.  I think I have gathered enough perspective and insight to make some decent comments on the matter.

Will do that tomorrow though. I am sleepy right now lol.

[Composer]

Suburbs help the city just like the city helps the suburbs.  Broken Arrow is 3rd in manufacturing in the state of Oklahoma, not to mention Tulsa is going to benefit from the LPGA in Broken Arrow in just a couple of weeks.  Hotel rooms will be booked and restaurants on 71st will be busy.  Not everything in the suburbs is bad.

[perspicuity85]

Does the rail discussion include anything about trolley cars?  Personally I like the idea of trolley cars because they differentiate public transportation into being more than just a way of getting from point A to point B.  They differentiate into tourist appeal.  The route itself is important, not just the destinations.  My dream trolley line would run along the entire length of Riverside Dr., between the park and the street.  Trolley Tracks can be laid onto the street itself, making use of existing traffic arteries.  I would love to see trolleys connect Downtown with TU, Cherry St., Brookside, and the river.  I envision a regular commuter rail line running from Broken Arrow to a Downtown public transportation hub that would feed into the entire trolley system.  This hub would likely be located in the East End, and feature a parking structure. Furthermore, I would like to explore the possibilities of federal transit grants for public transportation infrastructure.  Perhaps a federal grant to fund trolley lines could help pay for some of Tulsa's street infrastructure, lessening the burden on the city.

[TheArtist]

quote:Originally posted by Composer

Suburbs help the city just like the city helps the suburbs.  Broken Arrow is 3rd in manufacturing in the state of Oklahoma, not to mention Tulsa is going to benefit from the LPGA in Broken Arrow in just a couple of weeks.  Hotel rooms will be booked and restaurants on 71st will be busy.  Not everything in the suburbs is bad.

Several of the presenters kept emphasizing that a great city is part of great region. The suburbs are important and a great way to tie them closer to the city,  allowing each to better take advantage of the other, not compete, is by having rail.

One presenter pointed out that he lived in the suburbs, drove 1.5miles to a park-n-ride then took mass transit to the city. Only had to fill his gas tank about once every 6 weeks.

Plus by having park-n-rides you alleviate some of the need for parking downtown, and of course automobile congestion and pollution. Another plus is like you mentioned. Before they couldnt get some conventions and such because downtown didnt have enough hotel rooms. Once you have rail, essentially all the hotels along the line, even in the suburbs become downtown hotels. Or perhaps in your example, BA can host an event and add downtown Tulsas hotels into the number hotel options available. Many people would actually prefer staying in a downtown location versus a suburban one.

Also he pointed out that many times in the suburbs you have strong commercial growth, and in the inner city you have people, often poor, who need work and dont have cars. Rail offers a way for them to get to the suburbs quickly and on time. So rail isnt just from the suburbs to the city, its also from the city to the suburbs.

[pfox]

Hope those of you who attended the event found it informative and useful.  Thanks for coming...for those of you who didn't attend, we video recorded all of our presenters, which we will make available to you, as well as all of the power point presentations.

We received many, many excellent questions for our presenters, and were not able to get to all of them, so we are going to post the questions, and attempt to answer them.  

We have a lot of work ahead of us, but we are committed to approaching this the right way, with as much of your input and participation as we can, to come up with the best options for our region.

[TheArtist]

quote:Originally posted by perspicuity85

Does the rail discussion include anything about trolley cars?  Personally I like the idea of trolley cars because they differentiate public transportation into being more than just a way of getting from point A to point B.  They differentiate into tourist appeal.  The route itself is important, not just the destinations.  My dream trolley line would run along the entire length of Riverside Dr., between the park and the street.  Trolley Tracks can be laid onto the street itself, making use of existing traffic arteries.  I would love to see trolleys connect Downtown with TU, Cherry St., Brookside, and the river.  I envision a regular commuter rail line running from Broken Arrow to a Downtown public transportation hub that would feed into the entire trolley system.  This hub would likely be located in the East End, and feature a parking structure. Furthermore, I would like to explore the possibilities of federal transit grants for public transportation infrastructure.  Perhaps a federal grant to fund trolley lines could help pay for some of Tulsa's street infrastructure, lessening the burden on the city.

Absolutely on both accounts, trolleys and federal grants.

One thing I want to mention first because of the way some of these comments are worded. The stage we are now is not a deciding stage but an exploration and learning stage. An examining the possibilities and "Visioning" stage. What is "discussed" is up to everyone, not just some presenters. Your voice on trolley cars, or anothers on Jitneys[], is equally valid and should be heard. If you bring it up,,, its being discussed.

Walking, biking, cars, jitneys, trolleys, buses, rail.  Each mode of transportation has its pluses and minuses. Things its good at doing and things its not good at doing. Your not going to want to walk to downtown Tulsa from BA for work every day. You dont want to build a rail line from Brookside to Cherry Street(mid towners would launch suicide attacks "using the domestic help of course" at anyone who even suggested it and global chaos would ensue in the wake of their violent uprising).  

What we need to be doing as we start into our comprehensive plan, is "Visioning" what kind of city and region we want in the future. Are we oing to be stagnant, or vibrant and growing. If we choose to be vibrant and growing, that means there are going to be important transportation concerns to address.  What kind of growth and where? Where would be the best places to have different kinds of growth and density? How do we best connect low and high density areas together most efficiently. Some modes of transportation will be better suited for one area or another. Some modes of transportation can enhance and promote different types of future density and growth in certain areas. What areas do we want to be dense and why? Perhaps an area that is already along a potential rail line or major highway?


BRT and Rail have advantages over cars when congestion is high. When the BA is at its worst traffic wise, especially if our cities grow in the future, is when rail is at its best. During commute times is when the traffic is at its worst and when rail can shine, its fast,alleviates traffic and is good at transporting lots of people.

Regular busses and call-n-ride/jitneys are good for short distances within the city, they can even be used to feed into and out from Rail and BRT enhancing both modes.

Some modes of transportation are better for quickly transporting lots of passengers over longer distances. Some are better at trasporting over short distances along slower arterial streets. And even then different circumstances can make exceptions. You just have to look at each situation, each possibility and option, and also envision what kind of future we want and expect for the city... then set about making the best choices.


............The more, different options, a city has the more opportunity for efficiencies. The better each mode can be used at optimum efficiencies. Each mode can do what it does best. If one mode is lacking then another mode will be forced to try and compensate and pick up where the more efficient form would have performed best. A mode, a bus for instance, trying to do what it isnt designed for will only make it less efficient.



I do want to say that the presentations confirmed many of my original assumptions, while also offering some new ideas I hadnt though of.

One thing is that this isnt about putting in rail right now, (except for possibly working towards a small starter line downtown) its about our long range expectations for growth and how we should handle it.

One presenter from Austin mentioned one of the regrets they ran into with their situation. They looked back and wished they had started thinking about rail as early as we are. One of the problems they ran into was that they did not own much property around where the rail stations were going to be placed. One of my early arguments was that even if we do not put in rail or BRT, say along the BA line for another 20 years or so, we need to be planning for it now. Buying up land around the prospective stations and land banking them. There are several reasons why we need to do this at this time.




1.  Land is much cheaper now than it will be. You will need to have park-n-ride facilities at the main stops. Pay less now for that parking, or likely much more in the future.

2.  If we envision, plan and zone with the expectation that a future rail line will go in along a particular route, we can get a small jump start on getting the kind of development we want around those stations and by using "TOD Framework Ordinances" general "TOD Zoning Overlays" (TOD development is several entire topics unto itself) we can at the very least prevent the kind of development we absolutely do not want in those areas. (btw, even if we choose not to put rail or BRT in in the future, I still think its a good idea to promote higher density, walkable districts in areas, particularly next to major transportation corridors like the BA.

3. A large property can initially be used for park-n-ride, so even if you dont see immediate development on it, it is still important to have. However once you do se development occur you can then sell or lease chunks of that property and build parking garages. Eventually ramping up your density in that way.

4.  By owning the property, when developers build on that property you can lease the property and it will help either pay for the rail or structured parking and or be used as leverage for affordable housing. You want to have affordable housing in the city and by these rail lines, for people of all income levels to utilize this investment. By owning the property you have extra leverage with which to get the developers to have a percentage of their housing be affordable housing.

The people in Austin regret that they did not envision this a long time ago and have the property in hand to do these things when it came time to install the rail.

So you see, this is one example of how, even if we do not intend to put in rail soon, we must consider what our future needs will be and act now to make that future, if we decide rail it has rail in it or not, to run smoothly and more  efficiently.


One of the things I think I had wrong in conceptualizing possible rail was this... Many of the presenters noted how rail changed the dynamic and thoughs of the region as a whole. Distances and commutes became much shorter. My first reaction is, Wouldnt that create even more sprawl? The sprawl is going to happen anyway, is happening anyway. What this does is alleviate pollution, traffic, drive for more parking in our downtown, and this is very important... puts more money into the local economy. Instead of gas money going to the middle east to those who do not like us or to build fancy skyscrapers elsewhere. It allows people to take the money they would otherwise spend on gas and spend it in the local economy. Even spending it on local rail would be better because its employing people here and offering more opportunity here.  Cant we decrease gas usage and trips by building more urban, dense walkable, districts? You dont have to have rail to do that?...Of course and we should do that, but in addition to that rail and BRT, can act as an additional boost, incentive, a means to an end. By considering rail you absolutely have to consider land use and by default force the city to move in the direction of creating areas that have the proper zoning, land use,dense,  urban, pedestrian freiendly environments we want. We hope that it happens anyway, but with rail, it must.

So back to the "change in regional dynamics". Even if you are a suburb at the end of the line. You can promote your suburb by noting how close you now are to the city and its amenities. This is important if for no other reason than it helps the Region, the County, compete with other regions and counties by having this added benefit. No matter where you live you have easy, quick access to both the suburbs and the city. People who like an urban lifestyle can live in the city and work in the burbs. People who like a suburban lifestyle can live in the suburbs and work and enjoy the amenities of the city. All the while actually lessening the need for long car trips. The distance from some place in the city to the center of the city is, with rail, now about the same distance from some place in the suburb to the center of the city. 61st and Yale to downtown Tulsa is, with rail, now about the same as driving several miles from some place in BA to the Park-n-Ride. The concepts of distances, time and efficiencies shift. More options are available both ways as I have mentioned in other posts.

Our thoughts are to make the region better not just the city. In essence the region becomes the city. Downtown becomes the regions downtown. Even more the logical gathering place for events, destinations and attractions.  


I do want to mention that there seem to be 2 very different things happening with respect to rail.

1. The short distance "starter line" in and near downtown. There seems to be a push to get it done sooner than later.

2. The long range "envisioning" and planning that will take place within the comprehensive planning process in which we will consider all modes of transportation and the possibilities of future rail lines to BA, Jenks, etc.

They both intersect but also appear to be on different "implementation trajectories". So in our discussions about rail it might be good to remember those differences.