The document compares four transportation scenarios (A, B, C, D) for Tulsa in terms of investments in roads vs transit and key outcomes. Scenario A invests mostly in roads, Scenario B invests 41% in transit, Scenario C also invests 41% in transit, and Scenario D invests most in transit. Scenario A results in more driving, congestion, and wasted fuel/time, while Scenarios B, C and D result in less driving, congestion, and wasted resources through greater transit investments and multi-modal options. The document outlines various transportation tools and strategies Tulsa could employ over the next 30 years to improve its system under different investment scenarios.

1. Scenario
Transportation
Highlights

2. Comparing the Scenarios
This slideshow
highlights the range of
transportation
alternatives and
outcomes for each of
the four PLANiTulsa
scenarios

3. SCENARIO A
Tulsa’s transportation investments
go almost entirely to roads
New Road Investments New Transit Investments

4. Scenario A Transit
SCENARIO A Commuter Rail
Light Rail
Streetcar
Bus Rapid Transit
High Frequency Bus
Express Bus

5. SCENARIO A

6. SCENARIO A

7. SCENARIO A

8. SCENARIO A

9. SCENARIO B
About 41% of transportation
investments are devoted to transit
New Road Investments New Transit Investments

10. Scenario B Transit
SCENARIO B Commuter Rail
Light Rail
Streetcar
Bus Rapid Transit
High Frequency Bus
Express Bus

11. SCENARIO B

12. SCENARIO B

13. SCENARIO B

14. SCENARIO B

15. SCENARIO C
About 41% of transportation
investments are devoted to transit
New Road Investments New Transit Investments

16. Scenario C Transit
SCENARIO C Commuter Rail
Light Rail
Streetcar
Bus Rapid Transit
High Frequency Bus
Express Bus

17. SCENARIO C

18. SCENARIO C

19. SCENARIO C

20. SCENARIO C

21. SCENARIO D
Most transportation investments are
devoted to transit
New Road Investments New Transit Investments

22. Scenario D Transit
SCENARIO D Commuter Rail
Light Rail
Streetcar
Bus Rapid Transit
High Frequency Bus
Express Bus

23. SCENARIO D

24. SCENARIO D

25. SCENARIO D

26. SCENARIO D

27. How Tulsans Will Get Around
Investment
priorities will have a
have a big impact
on how Tulsans get
around

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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. PLANiTulsa Survey Results
Level of satisfaction with Tulsa’s transportation system:
Very satisfied 27%
Somewhat satisfied 43%
Not satisfied 29%

37. How Tulsans Get Around Town
Source: US Census (2000)

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. Albuquerque, NM
Metro Population: 729,649
City Population: 448,607
Transit Ridership: 8,751,698
Total Lane Miles: 2,334

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. Transit Indicators: Ridership Comparison
Source: National Transit Database (2006)

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. Network Design
Boston Tulsa
Salt Lake City San Francisco

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

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. POTENTIAL TRANSPORTATION TOOLS
Street Level Urban Redesign
Potential corridors for this tool

47. Low Congestion = Flexibility in Design

48. Gridley, California:
State Highway 99

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. 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. Cotati, California:
Old Redwood Highway looking north

52. Highway Urban Redesign:
Example: Seoul, South Korea

53. Volume/Capacity Analysis:
Lanes with Level of Service D or Worse
http://www.cornelius-tulsa.com/Misc._-_Downtown.jpg

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

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

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. Streetcar
Source: Chris Phan/Flickr
STREETCAR
- Functions in mixed traffic
- Station spacing: ¼ mile
Irvine

62. Roadway Widening
Source: Dan Burden
COMMUTER CORRIDORS
- Access managed principal arterials

63. New Roadway
Irvine

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. Multi-Use Path
Irvine

66. Transit Oriented Development
TRANSIT-ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT
- Higher density development
- Pedestrian friendly
- 50% reduction in trips during peak
hours