What About Rail?

[citizen72]

quote:Originally posted by Chicken Little

quote:Originally posted by PonderInc

This event will be an opportunity to address how all the pieces of the of the transit puzzle fit together.  Rail is one component of the discussion, but it doesn't end there.  Consideration for busses, bikes, pedestrians and, yes, even cars, must factor into any real mobility strategy.  

The goal is to create a viable, comprehensive, user-friendly transit system that will benefit Tulsa both economically and environmentally, while increasing quality of life for all Tulsans.  

TulsaNow has talked about sponsoring a forum such as this for several years.  I hope everyone who has ever ridden public transit in other cities and said "Wouldn't it be great if we had this in Tulsa?" will show up and learn more!

And density, I hope.  Bates still thinks rail is a boondoggle, but his argument against it is narrow, i.e., that Tulsa does not currently have the density to support rail.

I find this ironic.  For one, he claims to be a champion of walkability, livable neighborhoods, and managing finite resources.  It's painfully obvious, at least to me, that Tulsa is out-of-balance.  We create low-density development that offers little of none of this, and it's unsustainable to boot.  And then we are nervy enough to ask why we can't sustain it.  

To that I say, "Duh!"  In order to acheive the principled and lofty goals that Bates supports,  we need to look at building at more efficient and sustainable densities.  This then ipso facto demonstrates that we have, or should be working towards, densities that support trains.

And second, Bates does not seem to understand that density and fixed rail routes are mutually supportive objectives.  With one comes the other.  Conversely, it's hard to deliver one without committing to the other.

Some good points Chickenlittle, but wouldn't you agree that with suburban sprawl the densities you are talking about will remain non-existent. It rather seems that we will have to artificially create those densities by having mass boarding locations. That is, you get up in the morning in your suburban home and drive to a central remote location to board a train. But, then again, as you suggested, where in the heck will the trains go that would require such conveyances?

 When you have employers scattered all over town it seems a mass transportation system such as a train would be out of place and inefficient. But, that was one of your points.

[booWorld]

Since he has lived somewhere much denser than Tulsa is, I think Michael Bates has a good understanding of density and mass transportation.  I also think many or most Tulsans enjoy low densities, hence the RE and RS zoning districts.  It's fairly easy to drive around Tulsa, and that's why so many people do.

Rail transit doesn't make much sense in Tulsa's current milieu.

[T-TownMike]

I think it's funny that so many Tulsans think in terms of "I" all the time. How can "I" benefit from this? They fail to see the forest through the trees because it's all about THEM and their immediate NEEDS.

Mass transit gets MASSES to POINTS of destinations and interest. Tulsans have a hard time with this concept because they aren't used to having DESTINATIONS. I think where many are missing the large point is, it's about getting big groups in and out with as much convience and less congestion as possible. I would gladly hang up the keys and spend an evening in Jenks followed by a concert in Downtown to be able to have an adult evening out on the town without stress and hassle.

[booWorld]

MASS transit of any type doesn't make much sense in Tulsa's current milieu, especially rail transit.  Most Tulsans, individually and collectively, prefer low density suburban type development.  Viable mass transit requires higher urban densities which many or most Tulsans are not willing to accept.

[Conan71]

I may actually take the invitation to attend to learn more.  

The biggest problem against it is the backlog of existing maintenance badly needed for our most prevalent form of transportation in the area.  I was listening to a snippet on KRMG or KTOK this afternoon, and Oklahoma is in peril of losing something like $127mm in road funding if we don't meet 3% growth objectives (okay that's where they lost me).

The struggle in making this fly is that Tulsa has sprawled square mile after square mile.  Urban density in older cities makes it far more viable and practical.

I'm not pissing all over your parade again Patrick, at least I'm willing to listen with an open mind.

[citizen72]

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

I may actually take the invitation to attend to learn more.  

The biggest problem against it is the backlog of existing maintenance badly needed for our most prevalent form of transportation in the area.  I was listening to a snippet on KRMG or KTOK this afternoon, and Oklahoma is in peril of losing something like $127mm in road funding if we don't meet 3% growth objectives (okay that's where they lost me).

The struggle in making this fly is that Tulsa has sprawled square mile after square mile.  Urban density in older cities makes it far more viable and practical.

I'm not pissing all over your parade again Patrick, at least I'm willing to listen with an open mind.

Agreed..

[sgrizzle]

I'm thinking the way to make this work is to start small. The BA or Jenks line is a huge investment. They didn't start the new trolley service connecting Bass Pro to downtown, so why should a train have to build the longest possible line first?

Tulsa is reaching the limits to which it can reasonably expand it's roadways and highways. We have to think alternatives. If we start small, density will start building up around the line. Who wouldn't want to walk from their door to a train that takes them to work?

[Chicken Little]

Citizen and Boo,

I think that you two, like Bates, may have a somewhat constricted view of Tulsa, in terms of geography, time, and the people who live here.

Tulsa, as with every city, changes over time.  To take a snapshot of Tulsa today and imply that Tulsa is done, complete, or otherwise "built-out" is not realistic.  Be assured that Tulsa will continue to evolve through opportunity and necessity. In the words of Heraclitus, "Change alone is unchanging".  With this in mind, you should ask yourselves if we can shape a better future through thoughtful contemplation.  Can we plan and coordinate this change to our mutual benefit?

And, while I tend to agree that parts of midtown and south Tulsa are fairly stable, that is only a fraction of our city.  There are areas in North, West, and East Tulsa that are ready for change.  Further, I'd argue the people that live there are willing to contemplate that change.  As for trains, I'd ask you to study a google map and look at the existing tracks.  It may surprise you to learn that the track run in North, West, and East Tulsa...not midtown and south Tulsa.

Finally, saying Tulsans prefer low-density development is an artificial construct.  In some ways it's like claiming that Americans preferred Henry Ford's black model T's.  If that is the only thing that is offered, you can certainly draw that conclusion...but it's not exactly accurate to do so.  If Tulsans are presented with a real choice, i.e., that low densities have higher maintenance costs and, necessarily, higher taxes, what would they say then?  

Change is possible and, in fact, inevetible.  To throw your hands in the air and say things like trains are not worth contemplating is not only fatalistic, it's unrealistic.

[pfox]

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

I may actually take the invitation to attend to learn more.  

The biggest problem against it is the backlog of existing maintenance badly needed for our most prevalent form of transportation in the area.  I was listening to a snippet on KRMG or KTOK this afternoon, and Oklahoma is in peril of losing something like $127mm in road funding if we don't meet 3% growth objectives (okay that's where they lost me).

The struggle in making this fly is that Tulsa has sprawled square mile after square mile.  Urban density in older cities makes it far more viable and practical.

I'm not pissing all over your parade again Patrick, at least I'm willing to listen with an open mind.

Hey...that's all we ask!  Come, listen, contribute, discuss.

My research indicates that, increasingly, existing density has little to do with the success of mass transit. Tulsa has absolutely grown with the automobile in mind, but that being said, we certainly haven't grown to the point of 'no return' so to speak.  Comparing a mature transit system like the 'T' in Boston to what a new system in Tulsa would be like on opening day is unfair.  I think about transit in regards to how our city should "grow" in the future.  Future needs, not current need should be driving our transportation decisions.  That is how Dallas and Atlanta an Houston got into the trouble they are in.  They lost control of their traffic long before they ever started a serious mass transit system, because they only dealt with what was right in front of their faces.  So they built more and more roads and expressways, and it only made their traffic problem worse.  For once, we in Tulsa want to be proactive.  I hope we don't wait until we "need" it.  That would be the shame.

But that is why we are going to talk about this...together.

[PonderInc]

Here's a TENTATIVE list of the panelists we expect to have for the evening session (open to the public):

Jack Crowley, Special Advisor to Mayor Taylor on Urban Planning;

Cal Marsella, Executive Director of the Denver Regional Transportation District, which oversees the light rail, commuter rail, bus rapid transit, and park & ride systems for Denver;

John Cowman, Mayor of Leander, TX, a city that implemented smart codes along with a transit-oriented development district to connect to Austin on the Capital MetroRail line;

Kelly Nordini, co-founder of the Denver Transit Alliance, a non-profit coalition of 42 business associations, citizen groups, and local governments promoting expanded rail and bus transit in the Denver Metro region;

Fregonese Associates, the Portland, OR consulting firm chosen to help Tulsa formulate its new Comprehensive Plan.

[booWorld]

Rail and other forms of mass transit are worth consideration.

Change is bound to happen.

There's a trend to down-zone for less density in central Tulsa, not increased density.

PreserveMidtown has been promoting a Neighborhood Conservation District ordinance.  For the most part, the purpose of NCDs would be to perpetuate non-sustainable low densities, not to promote denser sustainable infill.

Our elected officials, our appointed officials, and our land use policies reflect what Tulsans in general want to see, and that's low density.

[PonderInc]

I would encourage anyone with specific questions about various types of transit options to attend.  (Light rail, commuter rail, monorail, bus rapid transit, etc, etc.  Even using these "buzzwords" I think there are a lot of differences and distinctions to be made among each one.)  Come enjoy this opportunity to learn!

One thing to consider, when talking about density, is to consider how transit oriented developments can create density (and increase the tax base).  

I don't claim to be an expert, but here's one scenario I can imagine...

Imagine taking an underutilized space within the city limits, and connecting it via rail to vital services and venues downtown.  Downtown Tulsa is a destination that includes both TCC and OSU-Tulsa, several major corporations, various dining and entertainment venues, the BOK arena, the PAC, OSU Medical Center, City of Tulsa government...and hopefully the Drillers, etc. (With more things coming in the future.)

Next remember that development follows transporation...currently this means roads before development, but....  

If you connect the two places via fast, efficient rail...all of a sudden, there's a reason to build density in the underutilized space.  You have just brought everything downtown has to offer to a remote location, and made it reliabe, quick and convenient to move between the two.  

This way, you spur development on both ends of the line, and you attract the people who want to live car-free (for environmental, economic, or convenience reasons).  It gives people a new option, a new choice: do I want to be in my car all the time, or is there a better way to spend my time?  

Some people love their cars.  Others don't.  No problem.  No need to change people.  But, if you can offer a new, desireable choice,  I think you'd be surprised at how many people will take you up on that offer.  

One example: the needs of aging babyboomers (I love saying that: "aging babyboomers"!).  These are people who soon won't need the big house, the big yard, and who might appreciate urban density and how it brings people together. (Not all retirees enjoy the isolation of suburban living.)  Driving might become less appealing as they age due to vision problems.  Or they might appreciate the health benefits of walking more and driving less.  This is just one group of people that I could totally envision "jumping on" to the concept of Transit Oriented Development.

Again, I don't pretend to be an expert.  I will be attending the forum to ask questions and learn.  But I can imagine making Tulsa a more sustainable and livable city.  I can see underutilized spaces, and imagine something better being built there.

It's important to question and ask "why?" and I appreciate everyone on this forum who engages in rational, civil debate.  Skeptics are needed as much as optimists...but open minds are important.  I hope everyone will attend with an open mind b/c closed minds can't receive the necessary input to make informed decisions.

[booWorld]

I can imagine making Tulsa a more sustainable city, also.  Increasing the density would be a good start.  I gave the TMAPC and INCOG several suggestions on how to make Tulsa more sustainable and mass transit more viable.  They weren't interested.  They had their down-zoning plan to carry out in an effort to make central Tulsa less dense, not more so.  

The trend is toward more sprawl and less density.  Currently, there's no market for rail transit in Tulsa.  There aren't enough people clustered near origins and destinations to make a rail system viable.  This could change in the future, but it's unlikely unless our land use policies change.

[tulsasignnazi]

quote:Originally posted by JoeMommaBlake

Of all of the large cities in which I've lived or visited, I can't think of one that beats Tulsa and L.A. in car reliance.

I'm not an expert, but it seems to me that one of our biggest issues in implementing viable public transit is a psychological one. How to we get car-reliant people to hang up the keys, especially if the implementation of public transit also means more walking (which it does)?

L.A. probably has more transvestite prostitutes blatantly outraging public decency on Hollywood Blvd.  But, their transportation DNA is the same as our prostitutes.  It's not like the johns are picking up the 'ho's on bicycles.

Santa might SING NAKED 4 $1.  But, he would NEVER allow a passenger on his bike, unless YOU pay.

[Chicken Little]

quote:Originally posted by booWorld

There's a trend to down-zone for less density in central Tulsa, not increased density.

That's midtown.  And as I said, other parts of Tulsa see things differently.  The Pearl District is asking for form-based codes, which, if I'm not mistaken, would increase density.  I suspect that they'd love to talk about trains in their neighborhood, too.  

As I have said before, I think your notion of what and who Tulsa is is fairly constricted.  Tulsa is over 200 square miles in size.  I don't think you can talk about the 10 square miles that is midtown, or even the 50 square miles that comprises south Tulsa, and fairly draw conclusions about the what people want in the future.  In the end, these places comprise about a third of the city, in area and population.  The other two-thirds may have some very different ideas about the growth of their neighborhoods.

The counterintuitive part of this argument is that, if, say, you actually are a person in midtown that wants to be left alone, then your best strategy is to perhaps promote the h*ll out of sustainable growth in other parts of the city.  In the long run, the efficient parts of town will subsidize your low-density lifestyle, keep your taxes low, etc.  To remain conservative (small cee), you might need to embrace bold strategies, albeit not in your backyard.  But to simply fight change everywhere, under any circumstance, is a strategy that ends in a death spiral, with B-B-billion dollar street projects every few years.  Yikes!