transportation highlights

ScenarioTransportationHighlights

This slideshow highlights the range of transportation alternatives and outcomes for each of the four PLANiTulsa scenarios

Comparing the Scenarios

How the Scenarios Compare

Tulsa’s transportation investments go almost entirely to roads

New Road Investments

New Transit Investments

31,000 Daily Transit Trips

• 1% Transit share in ridership

• Limited regional transit in Tulsa area

• Trend ridership for 2030:

Scenario A


About 41% of transportation investments are devoted to transit



Scenario B


About 41% of transportation investments are devoted to transit



Scenario C


Most transportation investments are devoted to transit



Scenario D


Investment priorities will have a have a big impact on how Tulsans get around


Each scenario also has a big impact on how much time Tulsans will spend in the car

Transportation

1,526 1,526 1,526 1,526

604 504 454 434

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

A B C D

Added Lane-Miles

Existing Lane-Miles

New Lane-Miles of Road Constructed

Scenario A would result in more total lane miles than the others.

Transportation

21.1

6.94.5 4.2

0

5

10

15

20

25

A B C D

Lane MilesAdded per1,000 NewResidents

Lane Miles of New Road Per 1,000 New Residents

On per-capita basis, Scenario A would require more new roads for fewer new residents.

Transportation

303133

40

0

10

20

30

40

A B C D

VMT per capita(miles)

Per Capita Vehicle Miles Traveled (City)

Scenarios B, C, and D would result in Tulsans driving fewer miles than Scenario A.

Transportation

8,760,000

10,290,0009,420,00010,730,000

0

2,500,000

5,000,000

7,500,000

10,000,000

A B C D

Gallons of FuelWastedAnnually

Gallons of Fuel Wasted Annually Due to Congestion

Scenarios B and D would result in the least amount of fuel wasted due to traffic congestion

Transportation

$283

$332$304$346

$0

$100

$200

$300

$400

A B C D

Value of TimeLost (per year)

Citywide Value of Time Lost Due to Congestion (Annually, in millions)

Scenarios B and D would result in the least amount of lost time due to traffic congestion.

PLANiTULSA Transportation Element

Excerpted presentation from PLANiTulsa’s transportation consultant, Kimley-Horn and Associates

Preparing the PLANiTulsa Transportation Element includes 3 components:

• Public participation (hands-on and survey)• Technical Analysis• Local expert input

Regional Survey Results

22%

9%

6%

6%

5%

11%

9%

7%

5%

33%

41%

31%

29%

27%

16%

16%

11%

11%

25%

25%

34%

33%

32%

25%

27%

29%

23%

20%

25%

30%

33%

36%

48%

48%

54%

62%

Ease of travel from your home to work

Ease of travel by car on highways

Ease of east/west travel

Ease of north/south travel

Ease of travel by car on major city streets

Ease of travel by walking

Trans. services (seniors&persons w/disabilities)

Ease of travel by bicycle

Adequacy of public transportation services

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Very Satisfied (5) Satisfied (4) Neutral (3) Dissatisfied (1/2)

Satisfaction with Various Aspects ofTransportation in the Tulsa Area

by percentage of respondents who rated the item as a 1 to 5 on a 5-point scale (excluding don't knows)

Source: ETC Institute (August

PLANiTulsa Survey Results

Level of satisfaction with Tulsa’s transportation

system:

Very satisfied 27%Somewhat satisfied 43%Not satisfied 29%

Source: US Census (2000)

How Tulsans Get Around Town

http://www.cornelius-tulsa.com/Misc._-_Downtown.jpg

Source: Tulsa: INCOG (2006)Albuquerque: Mid-Region COG (2000)Charlotte: Kimley-Horn & Associates (2000)Salt Lake City: Wasatch Front Regional Council (2005)

Comparison: Roadways and Transit

Metro Population: 729,649

City Population: 448,607

Transit Ridership: 8,751,698

Total Lane Miles: 2,334

Albuquerque, NM

Metro Population: 1,330,448



Total Lane Miles: 1,274

http://www.lightrailnow.org/images02/sj-lrt-inaugural-trn-ar-Downtown-Campbell-stn-pax-20051001x_Peter-Ehrlich.jpg

http://www.uncc.edu/admissions/tour/downtown.html

Charlotte, NC

Source: National Transit Database (2006)

Transit Indicators: Ridership Comparison

Metro Population: 968,858



Total Lane Miles: 864

2007 Recipient American Planning Association “Great Streets” Designation: South Temple Street

Salt Lake City, UT

Tulsa

San FranciscoSalt Lake City

Boston

Network Design

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/107/315072192_27861ff3e4.jpg?v=0

Cost of Transportation

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/107/315072192_27861ff3e4.jpg?v=0

Highway and Roadway Network Capacity• Many opportunities for redesign and construction to achieve higher performance

Multi-modal Demand•Opportunity for street scale urban redesign of arterials that will create new economic opportunities

Transit Capacity•Potential for increased commuter transit along congested freeway corridors and new transit markets

Technical Findings

POTENTIAL TRANSPORTATION TOOLS

Street Level Urban Redesign

Potential corridors for this tool

Low Congestion = Flexibility in Design

Gridley, California:

State Highway 99

Street Level Urban Redesign

A redesign can do many things to improve the function,

appearance and safety of a roadway. It can be

accomplished by:

- Removing lanes from a multi-lane roadway

- 4 lane to 3 lane conversions

- Create parking and/or bike lanes out of existing

lanes

- Widening sidewalks to encourage pedestrian

activity

Potential Transportation Tools

Four-Lane Undivided Roadway Conversion to a Three-Lane Cross Section are viable for roadways with a maximum ADT of 16,000. They have been accomplished up to 24,000 ADT.

Street-scale Urban Redesign

Cotati, California:

Old Redwood Highway looking north

Highway Urban Redesign:Example: Seoul, South Korea

http://www.cornelius-tulsa.com/Misc._-_Downtown.jpg

Volume/Capacity Analysis:Lanes with Level of Service D or Worse

Regional Commuter Rail

Commuter rail service connects the large master planned

communities around the region, the surrounding towns

and villages, and even nearby cities, with the urban core.


Rapid Transit Technologies

Bus Rapid Transit has the unique ability to function in

either an exclusive right-of-way or in mixed traffic,

however, the most common application assumes an

exclusive right-of-way for operational efficiency and

safety.

E 71st Street


The following slides summarize a variety of transportation improvements that Tulsa could potentially use over the next 30 years.


Bus Rapid TransitBus Rapid Transit

BUS RAPID TRANSIT-Functions in exclusive R.O.W. to increase efficiency-Station spacing: 1-2 miles

Source” http://www.streetsblog.org

Express BusExpress Bus

EXPRESS BUS CORRIDOR-Functions in mixed traffic- Station spacing: ½ Mile- Intelligent system operation

- Priority & Preemption- Real-time transit information systems- GPS tracking

www.itsdocs.fhwa.dot.gov

Light RailLight Rail

LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT- Functions in exclusive R.O.W. or in traffic- Station spacing: 1-2 miles

Commuter RailCommuter Rail

COMMUTER RAIL- Functions in exclusive R.O.W. on owned or existing freight rail lines - Station spacing: 2-5 miles

Source: http://fdot-srtna.c-b.com/fdotdocumentreview/PressPackage.htm

IrvineIrvine

StreetcarStreetcar

STREETCAR- Functions in mixed traffic- Station spacing: ¼ mile

Source: Chris Phan/Flickr

Roadway Roadway WideningWidening

COMMUTER CORRIDORS- Access managed principal arterials

Source: Dan Burden

IrvineIrvine

New RoadwayNew Roadway

IrvineIrvine

Multi-Modal Street Multi-Modal Street DesignDesign

MULTI-MODAL CORRIDORS- Emphasis in bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure- Connected pathways and bikeways-Increases ability to use alternative modes to reach destinations

Source: CompleteStreets.org

IrvineIrvine

Multi-Use PathMulti-Use Path

Transit Oriented Development

TRANSIT-ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT- Higher density development- Pedestrian friendly- 50% reduction in trips during peak hours

transportation highlights

Business

transit ridership

transportation new lanemiles

transit share

transit indicators

cost of transportation

new roads

total lane miles

planitulsa scenarios