Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

PlaNiTulsa Scenarios Transportation Highlights 051509

670 views

Published on

Published in: Business
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

PlaNiTulsa Scenarios Transportation Highlights 051509

  1. 1. Scenario Transportation Highlights
  2. 2. Comparing the Scenarios This slideshow highlights the range of transportation alternatives and outcomes for each of the four PLANiTulsa scenarios
  3. 3. SCENARIO A Tulsa’s transportation investments go almost entirely to roads New Road Investments New Transit Investments
  4. 4. Scenario A Transit SCENARIO A Commuter Rail Light Rail Streetcar Bus Rapid Transit High Frequency Bus Express Bus
  5. 5. SCENARIO A
  6. 6. SCENARIO A
  7. 7. SCENARIO A
  8. 8. SCENARIO A
  9. 9. SCENARIO B About 41% of transportation investments are devoted to transit New Road Investments New Transit Investments
  10. 10. Scenario B Transit SCENARIO B Commuter Rail Light Rail Streetcar Bus Rapid Transit High Frequency Bus Express Bus
  11. 11. SCENARIO B
  12. 12. SCENARIO B
  13. 13. SCENARIO B
  14. 14. SCENARIO B
  15. 15. SCENARIO C About 41% of transportation investments are devoted to transit New Road Investments New Transit Investments
  16. 16. Scenario C Transit SCENARIO C Commuter Rail Light Rail Streetcar Bus Rapid Transit High Frequency Bus Express Bus
  17. 17. SCENARIO C
  18. 18. SCENARIO C
  19. 19. SCENARIO C
  20. 20. SCENARIO C
  21. 21. SCENARIO D Most transportation investments are devoted to transit New Road Investments New Transit Investments
  22. 22. Scenario D Transit SCENARIO D Commuter Rail Light Rail Streetcar Bus Rapid Transit High Frequency Bus Express Bus
  23. 23. SCENARIO D
  24. 24. SCENARIO D
  25. 25. SCENARIO D
  26. 26. SCENARIO D
  27. 27. How Tulsans Will Get Around Investment priorities will have a have a big impact on how Tulsans get around
  28. 28. How Much Time In the Car Each scenario also has a big impact on how much time Tulsans will spend in the car
  29. 29. Other Indicators Scenario A would result in more total lane miles than the others. New Lane-Miles of Road Constructed 2,500 2,000 604 504 454 434 Added Lane- Miles 1,500 1,000 Existing Lane- 1,526 1,526 1,526 1,526 Miles 500 0 A B C D
  30. 30. Other Indicators On per-capita basis, Scenario A would require more new roads for fewer new residents. Lane Miles of New Road Per 1,000 New Residents 25 21.1 20 Lane Miles 15 Added per 1,000 New 10 Residents 6.9 4.5 4.2 5 0 A B C D
  31. 31. Other Indicators Scenarios B, C, and D would result in Tulsans driving fewer miles than Scenario A. Per Capita Vehicle Miles Traveled (City) 40 40 33 31 30 30 VMT per capita (miles) 20 10 0 A B C D
  32. 32. Other Indicators Scenarios B and D would result in the least amount of fuel wasted due to traffic congestion Gallons of Fuel Wasted Annually Due to Congestion 10,730,000 9,420,000 10,290,000 10,000,000 8,760,000 7,500,000 Gallons of Fuel Wasted 5,000,000 Annually 2,500,000 0 A B C D
  33. 33. Other Indicators Scenarios B and D would result in the least amount of lost time due to traffic congestion. Citywide Value of Time Lost Due to Congestion (Annually, in millions) $400 $346 $304 $332 $283 $300 Value of Time $200 Lost (per year) $100 $0 A B C D
  34. 34. 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
  35. 35. Regional Survey Results Satisfaction with Various Aspects of Transportation 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) Ease of travel from your home to work 22% 33% 25% 20% Ease of travel by car on highways 9% 41% 25% 25% Ease of east/west travel 6% 31% 34% 30% Ease of north/south travel 6% 29% 33% 33% Ease of travel by car on major city streets 5% 27% 32% 36% Ease of travel by walking 11% 16% 25% 48% Trans. services (seniors&persons w/disabilities) 9% 16% 27% 48% Ease of travel by bicycle 7% 11% 29% 54% Adequacy of public transportation services 5% 11% 23% 62% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Very Satisfied (5) Satisfied (4) Neutral (3) Dissatisfied (1/2) Source: ETC Institute (August 2008)
  36. 36. PLANiTulsa Survey Results Level of satisfaction with Tulsa’s transportation system: Very satisfied 27% Somewhat satisfied 43% Not satisfied 29%
  37. 37. How Tulsans Get Around Town Source: US Census (2000)
  38. 38. Comparison: Roadways and Transit 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)
  39. 39. Albuquerque, NM Metro Population: 729,649 City Population: 448,607 Transit Ridership: 8,751,698 Total Lane Miles: 2,334
  40. 40. Charlotte, NC Metro Population: 1,330,448 City Population: 540,828 Transit Ridership: 21,176,801 Total Lane Miles: 1,274 http://www.uncc.edu/admissions/tour/downtown.html http://www.lightrailnow.org/images02/sj-lrt-inaugural-trn-ar- Downtown-Campbell-stn-pax-20051001x_Peter-Ehrlich.jpg
  41. 41. Transit Indicators: Ridership Comparison Source: National Transit Database (2006)
  42. 42. Salt Lake City, UT Metro Population: 968,858 City Population: 181,743 Transit Ridership: 38,594,690 Total Lane Miles: 864 2007 Recipient American Planning Association “Great Streets” Designation: South Temple Street
  43. 43. Network Design Boston Tulsa Salt Lake City San Francisco
  44. 44. Cost of Transportation http://farm1.static.flickr.com/107/315072192_27861ff3e4.jpg?v=0
  45. 45. Technical Findings 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 http://farm1.static.flickr.com/107/315072192_27861ff3e4.jpg?v=0 •Potential for increased commuter transit along congested freeway corridors and new transit markets
  46. 46. POTENTIAL TRANSPORTATION TOOLS Street Level Urban Redesign Potential corridors for this tool
  47. 47. Low Congestion = Flexibility in Design
  48. 48. Gridley, California: State Highway 99
  49. 49. Potential Transportation Tools 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
  50. 50. Street-scale Urban Redesign 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.
  51. 51. Cotati, California: Old Redwood Highway looking north
  52. 52. Highway Urban Redesign: Example: Seoul, South Korea
  53. 53. Volume/Capacity Analysis: Lanes with Level of Service D or Worse http://www.cornelius-tulsa.com/Misc._-_Downtown.jpg
  54. 54. Potential Transportation Tools 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.
  55. 55. Potential Transportation Tools 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
  56. 56. Potential Transportation Tools The following slides summarize a variety of transportation improvements that Tulsa could potentially use over the next 30 years.
  57. 57. Bus Rapid Transit Source” http://www.streetsblog.org BUS RAPID TRANSIT -Functions in exclusive R.O.W. to increase efficiency -Station spacing: 1-2 miles
  58. 58. Express Bus www.itsdocs.fhwa.dot.gov EXPRESS BUS CORRIDOR -Functions in mixed traffic - Station spacing: ½ Mile - Intelligent system operation - Priority & Preemption - Real-time transit information systems - GPS tracking
  59. 59. Light Rail LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT - Functions in exclusive R.O.W. or in traffic - Station spacing: 1-2 miles
  60. 60. Commuter Rail Source: http://fdot-srtna.c-b.com/fdotdocumentreview/PressPackage.htm COMMUTER RAIL - Functions in exclusive R.O.W. on owned or existing freight rail lines - Station spacing: 2-5 miles
  61. 61. Streetcar Source: Chris Phan/Flickr STREETCAR - Functions in mixed traffic - Station spacing: ¼ mile Irvine
  62. 62. Roadway Widening Source: Dan Burden COMMUTER CORRIDORS - Access managed principal arterials
  63. 63. New Roadway Irvine
  64. 64. Multi-Modal Street Design Source: CompleteStreets.org MULTI-MODAL CORRIDORS - Emphasis in bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure - Connected pathways and bikeways -Increases ability to use alternative modes to reach destinations Irvine
  65. 65. Multi-Use Path Irvine
  66. 66. Transit Oriented Development TRANSIT-ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT - Higher density development - Pedestrian friendly - 50% reduction in trips during peak hours

×