quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
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.
You brought up some very interesting points in this part of your post, Artist. I agree with you, the region should be considered, not just the city. Cities often compete against each other for jobs and other amenities based on the size of the MSA, not the city. For example, Tulsa's city population is larger than St. Louis or Cincinnati's, but the MSA pop. of those two cities is over 2 million compared to Tulsa's 900,000. Tulsa serves as the brand positioning anchor for the MSA, which includes seven counties and over 6,000 square miles.
In terms of marketing to potential employers, job seekers, and tourists, it is important for Tulsa to speak for the whole region. The city and outlying area both benefit by associating with the positive attributes of each. It's important for people to have a since of community within their hometown, but often it can be easier to market collectively instead of individually. For instance, it's often easier for a company to attract corporate employees to Claremore if it is well-known that Claremore is part of the Tulsa metro area.
Does the association of the aggregate Tulsa area with the city affect sprawl? That's an interesting question that certainly could affect the politics of the rail transit study (if it hasn't already). I actually don't think that rail transit and regional marketing will contribute to sprawl very much. People move to the edge of suburbia for a couple of reasons:
1) cheap land = bigger house for less
2) negative perceptions (true or not) about urban areas, specifically school districts
3) consumer preferences for larger lots or country living (closely related to reason #1)
4) simply following the crowd of a given demographic or social group.
While it makes sense that people that already want to live out of town may choose to live further away, based upon the prospect of a shorter commute; I don't think Tulsa's urban core would suffer in terms of loss of population. People that want to live a suburban lifestyle already do. Expanded transportation systems will likely only change the minds of a few people. Perhaps some people would choose to live in Collinsville over Owasso, for example, but then the four aforementioned reasons really just come into play again. Even with rapidly rising gas prices, thousands in the Tulsa area are content to live in the suburbs already.
In my opinion, the main thing Tulsa needs to do to combat sprawl is market the urban core of the city. If the urban core is marketed effectively, rail transit would provide a connection from the outlying area to a well-marketed urban core, thus bringing people into the city. In this case, the rail passengers would not have a personal auto with them, thus possibly decreasing the amount of space "needed" for parking lots.
Lastly, I think it may be possible that a rail line could provide for infill development. Specifically, a rail line could provide infill opportunities between west Tulsa and Jenks, and Owasso and northeast Tulsa.
Artist, you brought up a subject that warrants a professional comprehensive study: does the expansion of rail transit to suburban areas contribute to sprawl? That sounds like a thesis topic. I have done some research about sprawl in college, but it has been on a much broader scale. I'm going to look into this a bit-- I will post any interesting info.
