Article (//%22http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/5845374.html%22)
Great quote:
quote:
"I'll say it loud and clear: No longer is the city of Houston waffling on rail," Councilman Peter Brown said. "With gas headed to $8 a gallon and oil to $200 a barrel, we have to rethink Houston as the happy motoring paradise."
Houston gets it.
Houston. How about it, Tulsa?
Discuss.
Does size matter?
Houston metro is now almost 6 million.
Additionally, Houston commutes are horrendously high compared to Tulsa.
I'm pushing for rail here, but it is no surprise that it would be better embraced there than here. People only change when they are inconvenienced long enough. Maybe when all of the Tulsa roads are torn up, then Tulsans will start pushing for different forms of transportation?
But culturally speaking, don't you find it interesting that the biggest city in Texas (and the headquarters city for so many oil companies) has attempted to fast-track these lines? People said light rail wouldn't catch on in Dallas, but it has. Now Houston is getting on track (pun intended).
I honestly thought that if there was one major city guaranteed to be dead last in pursuing light rail, it would be Houston.
Or that the 2nd most sprawling city in the nation (next to OKC) can do it... Remember this next time you hear someone say "That would never work in Tulsa b/c all our development has been based on the car.")
The thing about Tulsa is getting people to think about the future, and realizing that what worked in 1950 won't work in 2050. Everyone assumes that nothing will ever change. But we need to start planning NOW. We need to be proactive, not reactive like Houston.
We're starting to get an appreciation for what happens when the price of gas quadruples. So, what's next? Anybody believe that the next 20 years will bring a return to cheap oil? (I hope it will bring a lot of great alternatives to fossil fuels...but regardless...)
Do we want to make decisions strategically that will position Tulsa to thrive in the future? Or do we want to stick with the status quo...a system that has worked OK (in a mediocre sort of way) for the past 50 years?
They are bulding a light rail system here in Phoenix that is scheduled to open December of this year that will have links to park and ride lots as well as links to bus routes.
http://www.valleymetro.org/METRO_light_rail/Default.asp (//%22http://%22)
It has plans for a stop to connect with the airport and plans to connect to other parts of the valley thru 2025. I think that the opening of it will be a success with the current and future gas prices. Some of the people who said in the past that it won't work are those that are already filling up regular and express bus routes. I can speak from experience that the amount of traffic on the freeway has changed quite a bit from the same time last year.
The one gripe that alot of people have here is that when they passed highway funding back in the mid 80's there was a seperate plan to place commuter rail lines down the center of all of the freeways that would meet at a central area in downtown and operate in both directions so that feasibly you could live downtown and work in the outlying areas or vice versa. The voters voted it down from what I've been told that they thought is was a boondoggle. 20/20 hindsight for them now.
Anyway I think that a well planned light rail would work, but they would have to coordinate or revamp bus routes to make it work.
Does MTTA still run through residential sections, or have they moved to more of a grid system?
I'm not trying to crap on the parade, but let's look at all the various needs and wants of our citizens and leaders in the Tulsa MSA. The list keeps growing, problem is, how do you fund every good idea in a community without local and county taxes becoming 25% of someone's annual income:
Light rail
River development
Street repair
Street widening and expansion
Bike lanes
Denser infill development
More money thrown at education
Upgrades to the sewage treatment system
Improvements to Expo Square
Downtown baseball stadium
Etc., etc. etc.
How many of these are things which could be addressed and prioritized in the comp plan?
With a metro area of 6mm, Houston has a much broader tax base to draw from.
You couldn't make it work anywhere if you're just talking about "4.5 people per sq. mile" (as the dark areas on these maps reflect). You would have to plan for high-density, walkable, mixed-use developments along rail stops in conjunction with rail that would serve exsiting populations via park-and-rides.
The idea is not that a train stops in front of your house. But that enough people can quickly and conveniently jump on board via 1) denser neighborhoods or 2) park and rides 3) job/education/entertainment centers.
Now that gas is so expensive, Owasso suddenly wants an express bus line to downtown Tulsa. A couple years ago, you would have had to rip the steering wheels of their 8-cylindar Dodge Ram trucks from their cold, dead fingers. Things are changing already. They're going to change some more.
I keep hearing a quote that I like: "The future is not going to be like the past, or the present."
Even if we say "no" or "that's impossible" to every proposal, Tulsa won't stay the same. The world will simply pass us by, and our lives will be different because of that.
2010 Projection for MAricopa County average 448 people/sq mile.
http://www.gpec.org/greater_phoenix/2010_Population_Density.pdf (//%22http://%22)
Light rail is really, really, really expensive.
I think we have to focus on retrofitting our commuter rail lines to BA and Jenks and do the connector line in the middle of town.
Tulsa County needs to stop worrying about parking for exotic horse shows and start worrying about tying the suburbs and the airport to the city center via train.
quote:
Originally posted by PonderInc
You couldn't make it work anywhere if you're just talking about "4.5 people per sq. mile" (as the dark areas on these maps reflect). You would have to plan for high-density, walkable, mixed-use developments along rail stops in conjunction with rail that would serve exsiting populations via park-and-rides.
The 4.5 was in thousands. 4,500 is slightly more dense than 4.5 people [:)].
quote:
Originally posted by twizzler
quote:
Or that the 2nd most sprawling city in the nation (next to OKC) can do it... Remember this next time you hear someone say "That would never work in Tulsa b/c all our development has been based on the car.")
Sprawl does not necessarily mean there is no density.
Which of these metros would make most sense for light rail based on population density? (note: The scale of the maps is identical)
Houston
(http://www.ersys.com/usa/48/images/den4835000a.png)
Oklahoma City
(http://www.ersys.com/usa/40/images/den4055000a.png)
Tulsa
(http://www.ersys.com/usa/40/images/den4075000a.png)
(http://www.ersys.com/images/scle_den.gif)
Very interesting maps. But they almost make it look as though Oklahoma City is more densely developed than Tulsa. But everyone knows that is not true. There must be something wrong with my monitor.
quote:
Originally posted by Floyd
Light rail is really, really, really expensive.
I think we have to focus on retrofitting our commuter rail lines to BA and Jenks and do the connector line in the middle of town.
Tulsa County needs to stop worrying about parking for exotic horse shows and start worrying about tying the suburbs and the airport to the city center via train.
Floyd, I don't know if you are back in Tulsa yet or if you have been here since they tore up the entire fair midway, but driving around the old Bell's area now, it's pretty clear the Fair Board wanted space to pave a new state-of-the-art midway and space to park their construction equipment.
No wonder those bastards wanted another $283mm last fall. They could find enough projects at Expo to blow that kind of money at the rate they are going.
quote:
Originally posted by Floyd
Light rail is really, really, really expensive.
I think we have to focus on retrofitting our commuter rail lines to BA and Jenks and do the connector line in the middle of town.
Tulsa County needs to stop worrying about parking for exotic horse shows and start worrying about tying the suburbs and the airport to the city center via train.
Light rail is expensive up front. For an on-going system, light rail can be less expensive than buses. See www.lightrailnow.org Go to the Myths and Facts sections.
quote:
Originally posted by Red Arrow
quote:
Originally posted by Floyd
Light rail is really, really, really expensive.
I think we have to focus on retrofitting our commuter rail lines to BA and Jenks and do the connector line in the middle of town.
Tulsa County needs to stop worrying about parking for exotic horse shows and start worrying about tying the suburbs and the airport to the city center via train.
Light rail is expensive up front. For an on-going system, light rail can be less expensive than buses. See www.lightrailnow.org Go to the Myths and Facts sections.
All I know is that the 28-mile light rail Green Line under construction in Dallas is costing $1.8 billion. They got $700 million from the feds for it as well. And that line is on time and on budget. They're having issues with cost overruns and timelines on other lines.
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/localnews/transportation/stories/041208dnmetdart.52f58e4e.html
Trolleys are cheaper and could be built into the streets plan. Commuter heavy rail with just a few stops is much cheaper and could be built into the streets plan or have the costs split among the municipalities it serves. But building light rail lines involves new right of ways, new technology, and major infrastructure overhaul.
Still, Average Joe's point stands--Tulsa should be talking seriously about expanding our commuter options NOW, in the most efficient way possible. I also don't know why it seems these things have to be couched in terms of spurring development. At this point, simply relief of commute costs seems like a pragmatic selling point that would have a great deal of salience with voters county-wide. Gas prices are only going up.
It also surprises me that NONE of the principals in the ongoing streets plan discussion are talking about including including transit in the streets discussion. People are obviously wanting to leave their cars in the garage as much as possible, and so giving them options to reduce road wear should be a part of any comprehensive streets plan. In my head. Seems to me that with reasonably quick action the BA line could be ready just in time for $7/gallon gas.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
quote:
Originally posted by Floyd
Light rail is really, really, really expensive.
I think we have to focus on retrofitting our commuter rail lines to BA and Jenks and do the connector line in the middle of town.
Tulsa County needs to stop worrying about parking for exotic horse shows and start worrying about tying the suburbs and the airport to the city center via train.
Floyd, I don't know if you are back in Tulsa yet or if you have been here since they tore up the entire fair midway, but driving around the old Bell's area now, it's pretty clear the Fair Board wanted space to pave a new state-of-the-art midway and space to park their construction equipment.
No wonder those bastards wanted another $283mm last fall. They could find enough projects at Expo to blow that kind of money at the rate they are going.
I've been back but haven't been to the fairgrounds recently. I mean, I think it's in Tulsa's best interests to have excellent fairground infrastructure. But given all of the other priorities right now, City of Tulsa really should annex that sucker and take away the County's little Fairgrounds fiefdom. Maybe then the commissioners would focus more clearly on what they're supposed to be doing--day to day management of county infrastructure and services.
quote:
Originally posted by Floyd
Light rail is really, really, really expensive.
[and from another post]
All I know is that the 28-mile light rail Green Line under construction in Dallas is costing $1.8 billion.
I'm sure there are many bus, rail, and streetcar options that have varying costs, and we should probably look at all of them. And when we do compare them, we need to take a sober look at the costs of creating and maintaining roads, which are also really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, expensive.
The I-40 Crosstown reloc in OKC will cost over $500 million...and for what? The I-44 widening will cost over $100 million a mile. OUR Street maintenance bond will spend $2 billion to take our streets from a "D" grade to a "C". Does that mean we'd need to spend SIX BILLION DOLLARS to get to an "A" grade?
Somehow, we can talk about billions and billions
(http://affordablehousinginstitute.org/blogs/us/wp-content/uploads/2007/10/imagescarl-sagan-small.jpg)
billions and billions billions and billions of road improvements without batting an eye...but when mass transit is mentioned, things suddenly start sounding "expensive"? Why is that?
quote:
Originally posted by AVERAGE JOE
But culturally speaking, don't you find it interesting that the biggest city in Texas (and the headquarters city for so many oil companies) has attempted to fast-track these lines? People said light rail wouldn't catch on in Dallas, but it has. Now Houston is getting on track (pun intended).
I honestly thought that if there was one major city guaranteed to be dead last in pursuing light rail, it would be Houston.
why? It only makes sense that one of the largest cities in the country (based on population) and one with an extremely high commute time would invest in rail. I am honestly shocked it has taken them this long. Chicago has the subway, and the metra which travels to the suburbs. I am very surprised it has taken Houston this long to get on board with this. Especially since people in Texas have a certain persona (per se) about themselves.
quote:
Originally posted by Oil Capital
quote:
Originally posted by twizzler
quote:
Or that the 2nd most sprawling city in the nation (next to OKC) can do it... Remember this next time you hear someone say "That would never work in Tulsa b/c all our development has been based on the car.")
Sprawl does not necessarily mean there is no density.
Which of these metros would make most sense for light rail based on population density? (note: The scale of the maps is identical)
Houston
(http://www.ersys.com/usa/48/images/den4835000a.png)
Oklahoma City
(http://www.ersys.com/usa/40/images/den4055000a.png)
Tulsa
(http://www.ersys.com/usa/40/images/den4075000a.png)
(http://www.ersys.com/images/scle_den.gif)
Very interesting maps. But they almost make it look as though Oklahoma City is more densely developed than Tulsa. But everyone knows that is not true. There must be something wrong with my monitor.
must be a very old map of Tulsa. It doesn't show the Creek turnpike that connects to the Turner, or the creek turnpike that runs through BA.
quote:
Originally posted by TUalum0982
must be a very old map of Tulsa. It doesn't show the Creek turnpike that connects to the Turner, or the creek turnpike that runs through BA.
Which, btw, cost $362 million.
One of my favorite Q/A's from What about Rail
quote:
Q: What is the cost comparison to road widening/maintenance?
A: Rail-based transit projects range in cost. These costs are largely dependent on the type of technology chosen for the project along with any special circumstances, such as varying topography and urban conditions. Our research has shown project costs ranging from $9 million dollars per mile in Austin to $ 21 million dollars per mile in Denver. In addition to these issues, right of way, overhead electrification, and the often volatile pricing of construction materials affect capital costs. By comparison, the I-44 expansion currently under way in Tulsa between the Arkansas River and Yale Avenue has an estimated cost of approximately $100 million per mile. Arterial expansion costs are significantly lower than highway projects. The City of Tulsa estimates, for CIP purposes, arterial expansion to range from $11 million per mile for 5 lane (from 2 lanes) expansion, to $13 million per mile for 6 lane expansion (from 4 lanes). This cost includes design, right of way acquisition, construction, and utility relocation.
Emphasis mine.
http://www.whataboutrail.blogspot.com/
Mile for mile, we can get one form or another of fixed rail transit for roughly the same cost as an arterial expansion. So next time you see a road project, maybe you should put it all in perspective...could have been a streetcar; could have been a BRT; or could have been 3 or
4 new on-street buses. If we started investing "road-sized" money in mass transit infrastructure, we'd be transit-friendly very quickly.
quote:
Originally posted by Chicken Little
quote:
Originally posted by TUalum0982
must be a very old map of Tulsa. It doesn't show the Creek turnpike that connects to the Turner, or the creek turnpike that runs through BA.
Which, btw, cost $362 million.
One of my favorite Q/A's from What about Rail
quote:
Q: What is the cost comparison to road widening/maintenance?
A: Rail-based transit projects range in cost. These costs are largely dependent on the type of technology chosen for the project along with any special circumstances, such as varying topography and urban conditions. Our research has shown project costs ranging from $9 million dollars per mile in Austin to $ 21 million dollars per mile in Denver. In addition to these issues, right of way, overhead electrification, and the often volatile pricing of construction materials affect capital costs. By comparison, the I-44 expansion currently under way in Tulsa between the Arkansas River and Yale Avenue has an estimated cost of approximately $100 million per mile. Arterial expansion costs are significantly lower than highway projects. The City of Tulsa estimates, for CIP purposes, arterial expansion to range from $11 million per mile for 5 lane (from 2 lanes) expansion, to $13 million per mile for 6 lane expansion (from 4 lanes). This cost includes design, right of way acquisition, construction, and utility relocation.
Emphasis mine.
http://www.whataboutrail.blogspot.com/
Mile for mile, we can get one form or another of fixed rail transit for roughly the same cost as an arterial expansion. So next time you see a road project, maybe you should put it all in perspective...could have been a streetcar; could have been a BRT; or could have been 3 or 4 new on-street buses. If we started investing "road-sized" money in mass transit infrastructure, we'd be transit-friendly very quickly.
I wasn't knocking the idea of rail, I was just throwing out there that since the maps aren't updated, maybe the population density could/would be different based on todays population as well? I was in a hurry and didn't check to see when the date of the maps provided.
quote:
Originally posted by Floyd
It also surprises me that NONE of the principals in the ongoing streets plan discussion are talking about including transit in the streets discussion.
That doesn't surprise me at all.
quote:
People are obviously wanting to leave their cars in the garage as much as possible, and so giving them options to reduce road wear should be a part of any comprehensive streets plan. In my head. Seems to me that with reasonably quick action the BA line could be ready just in time for $7/gallon gas.
I remember a topic about the BA line which quickly degenerated into personal attacks directed toward Michael Bates in particular and which was locked down by the TN Forum Admin. When I posted facts from the BA commuter rail study itself, I was accused of not accounting for Transit Oriented Development or assuming the wrong type of locomotive technology. We can't seem to have a civil discussion of
facts on this forum, so it does not surprise me that the officials behind the street plan discussion do not want to include public transit. But I haven't heard anyone say that discussion of public transit of any kind is off the table.
I am curious as to their calculations on this matter. Has anyone on the council even mentioned rail when talking about the streets package?
Do they think the inclusion of some funds for the downtown starter line and or the BA line just wouldnt fly?
Can some of the new street funds be used for that anyway and they just dont want to take the risk of mentioning it?
Or do they not think rail is any sort of real priority at the moment?
I wish the TW or one of the other news outlets would do a poll to get a feel for how voters would respond to spending some of that tax money on a commuter line. Would it help the vote pass or hurt it if rail were included?
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
Has anyone on the council even mentioned rail when talking about the streets package?
Do they think the inclusion of some funds for the downtown starter line and or the BA line just wouldnt fly?
My guess is that least some of the Councilors think the downtown starter line and/or the BA line to be politically unwise.
quote:
Can some of the new street funds be used for that anyway and they just dont want to take the risk of mentioning it?
Or do they not think rail is any sort of real priority at the moment?
Again, my guess would yes to both questions. Why don't you ask the City Council yourself?
quote:
I wish the TW or one of the other news outlets would do a poll to get a feel for how voters would respond to spending some of that tax money on a commuter line. Would it help the vote pass or hurt it if rail were included?
I wish the TW would not acquire buildings downtown, raze them, and replace them with surface parking lots.
In my case, it will hurt to include rail in any street package. If funding for rail is included, I almost certainly will vote against the tax package.
quote:
Originally posted by AVERAGE JOE
But culturally speaking, don't you find it interesting that the biggest city in Texas (and the headquarters city for so many oil companies) has attempted to fast-track these lines? People said light rail wouldn't catch on in Dallas, but it has. Now Houston is getting on track (pun intended).
I honestly thought that if there was one major city guaranteed to be dead last in pursuing light rail, it would be Houston.
No, AJ, you are absolutely right. Texas is a good cultural comparator to Oklahoma...attitude-wise, they encountered much of the same dismissive arguments: You'll never get at Texan out of his truck, we love our cars, ____ was built primarily after the advent of the automobile, we don't have the density, oil as the major economic drivers in the cities, etc.
The difference is the crisis. Dallas' crisis was economic development (growth management) and congestion. Houston's would seemingly be traffic, but the tipping point is really two fold: costs of commuting, and desire to invigorate the center city (downtown).
Remember, Portland was Tulsa when they decided to commit to intermodal transportation. The same size, population wise, a rotting, desolate downtown, an ignored waterfront, a stagnant economy. Not that rail changed all of that in one fell swoop, but they are an example of proactive planning and investment. Doing it before the crisis.
Well, our crisis is upon us. Rising gas prices, an aging, decrepit transportation system, rapid suburban growth, and a downtown and central core in serious need of a proverbial booster shot.
Portland established growth boundaries which are helping the urbanized areas to become more densely developed while preserving the surrounding forests and agricultural land. Tulsa continues to sprawl.
I think some physical growth boundaries for Tulsa were proposed by Ian McHarg's consulting firm during Robert LaFortune's administration in the late 1960s, but instead the TMAPC has been on a mission of zoning for extremely low densities -- too low to support viable public transit options. Paragraph edited by booWorld. Robert LaFortune might have been the mayor pro-tem at the time, but I'm not certain. Anyway, a study by Wallace and McHarg identified some ecologically sensitive areas which they recommended be preserved.
As far as Portland's major downtown revitilization effort goes, they are already 35 years ahead of us if we formulated a plan and implemented it today. A "crisis" in the eyes of some is "business as usual" in the eyes of others, and I don't think most Tulsans would think we have a crisis on our hands here -- not yet.
quote:
Originally posted by booWorld
Portland established growth boundaries which are helping the urbanized areas to become more densely developed while preserving the surrounding forests and agricultural land. Tulsa continues to sprawl.
I think some physical growth boundaries for Tulsa were proposed by Ian McHarg's consulting firm during Robert LaFortune's administration in the late 1960s, but instead the TMAPC has been on a mission of zoning for extremely low densities -- too low to support viable public transit options. Paragraph edited by booWorld. Robert LaFortune might have been the mayor pro-tem at the time, but I'm not certain. Anyway, a study by Wallace and McHarg identified some ecologically sensitive areas which they recommended be preserved.
As far as Portland's major downtown revitilization effort goes, they are already 35 years ahead of us if we formulated a plan and implemented it today. A "crisis" in the eyes of some is "business as usual" in the eyes of others, and I don't think most Tulsans would think we have a crisis on our hands here -- not yet.
Jim Hewgley, Jr., was mayor from 1966-1970. Bob LaFortune was street commissioner and oversaw annexation from 1964-1970, then was mayor from 1970-1978. Vision 2000 happened during LaFortune's mayoral administration.
quote:
Originally posted by MichaelBates
quote:
Originally posted by booWorld
Portland established growth boundaries which are helping the urbanized areas to become more densely developed while preserving the surrounding forests and agricultural land. Tulsa continues to sprawl.
I think some physical growth boundaries for Tulsa were proposed by Ian McHarg's consulting firm during Robert LaFortune's administration in the late 1960s, but instead the TMAPC has been on a mission of zoning for extremely low densities -- too low to support viable public transit options. Paragraph edited by booWorld. Robert LaFortune might have been the mayor pro-tem at the time, but I'm not certain. Anyway, a study by Wallace and McHarg identified some ecologically sensitive areas which they recommended be preserved.
As far as Portland's major downtown revitilization effort goes, they are already 35 years ahead of us if we formulated a plan and implemented it today. A "crisis" in the eyes of some is "business as usual" in the eyes of others, and I don't think most Tulsans would think we have a crisis on our hands here -- not yet.
Jim Hewgley, Jr., was mayor from 1966-1970. Bob LaFortune was street commissioner and oversaw annexation from 1964-1970, then was mayor from 1970-1978. Vision 2000 happened during LaFortune's mayoral administration.
Thank you for the clarification. I had been reading about the creation of Tulsa Transit in 1968 and about Portland's "equivalent" (Tri-Met), which assumed the operation of Rose City Transit about 1969 or so. Robert LaFortune signed the documentation establishing the Metropolitan Tulsa Transit Authority as Mayor Pro-Tem. I'm guessing that he signed as Mayor Pro-Tem for legal reasons because the City of Tulsa is the beneficiary of the MTTA Trust and Jim Hewgley, Jr. signed as a Trustor. Anyway, I realized the error of my original post immediately, and that's why I made the edits quickly and in
red text. I encourage clarifications, corrections, and refutations of my posts when they are needed.
What I'm questioning is whether Tulsa is the same now as Portland was at some time in the past. Tulsa and Portland both had some sort of local passenger rail service which ended in the 1950s. Portland began their current light rail service (MAX) in the mid-1980s. When exactly did Portland's intermodal transportation planning begin? In 1970? If so, then it took Portland about 15 years from the beginning of planning until the initial light rail line was in operation.
Assuming 1970 for the sake of discussion, what was Portland's population then and what was Tulsa's population then (and now)? Area-wise, how large was each city then (and now)? What were the population densities of each city and their corresponding metro areas then, and what are they now?
quote:
Remember, Portland was Tulsa when they decided to commit to intermodal transportation. The same size, population wise, a rotting, desolate downtown, an ignored waterfront, a stagnant economy.
Tulsa's downtown is rotting? After reading about all of the nostalgic acorn light fixtures, the brick-like concrete unit pavers being installed hither and yon, the heralded proposed replacement of the "recently" closed Boulder Avenue bridge, the proposed hushing of the train horns, the repair of the small fountain at 5th & Main, the proposed Drillers stadium, the proposed conversion of one-way streets to two-way, the proposed clean up or demolition of the Tulsa Club Building -- I thought downtown Tulsa was on the cusp of transcending from great to Eden or Nirvana.
Seriously, what were (and are) the figures for Portland and Tulsa? Employment? Housing costs? Average commute times? Cost of living?
Is Portland a good cultural comparison to Tulsa? I'm guessing it isn't, but I could be wrong. What I don't see clearly is a light rail system being a magic pill to make things better. What are the true costs and benefits? Who will pay and who will benefit?
Tulsans cherish the freedom of personal transportation in private vehicles. Tulsans adore living in spread-out subdivisions, with lots of space between dwelling units. The cost of living in Tulsa is relatively low compared to other cities such as Portland.
Even with the rise in gasoline prices and even considering the discussion of a very expensive streets tax package, I really don't think most Tulsans would consider our current situation to be a crisis.
quote:
Originally posted by PonderInc
Do we want to make decisions strategically that will position Tulsa to thrive in the future?
A few Tulsans want to make strategic decisions, but most do not want to think about making choices or planning for the future. Most Tulsans are immersed in the present.
quote:
Or do we want to stick with the status quo...a system that has worked OK (in a mediocre sort of way) for the past 50 years?
Most Tulsans are satisfied with the relative abundance and blessings they enjoy today. Mediocrity is completely satisfying to many or most Tulsans because the average and commonplace here is better than conditions are in many other parts of the nation and around the globe. Many Tulsans want to enjoy the great fortune of our status quo rather than fret about what might happen in the future or worry about something Houston has but Tulsa doesn't have.
Go ahead Boo World. Pick apart my post sentence by sentence. But lets cut to the chase. You are against this, and will cite and scrap for any reason why it will fail and fail miserably.
Here is the thing though. It won't.
You aren't unique. The same arguments against this are regurgitated in every town where this has been implemented or proposed. 99% of the time, those arguments are proven to be unfounded, if not downright wrong.
Personally, I don't have time to list the reasons why Portland IS a good cultural comparator, but, in my professional opinion, it is.
Downtown Tulsa my not be rotting if you were only to look at the last few years, but if you look at it from a larger temporal cycle, it has been, to put it mildly, on a downswing for about 40 years.
The growth boundary is significant, but effectively, the City of Tulsa does have a growth boundary. While the suburbs have fewer expansion limitations, Tulsa itself does. This means that we need to start looking inward for expansion...so the essence of what happened in Portland can absolutely happen here. To answer your question, Rose City Bus System went bankrupt in the early 1970's. The planning and initiatives that put Tri-Met in place as the transit agency began around 1969, I believe, but they were a bus only agency until 1979, when they began pursuing federal funding for its first light rail line, which was approved in 1980. Up until then they were notable for introducing Fareless Square. Basically, they made buses free in Downtown Portland.
I encourage your participation. Hopefully, you will begin to see the forest for the trees. If not, at least you will have participated in the civic process.
quote:
Originally posted by pfox
Go ahead Boo World. Pick apart my post sentence by sentence. But lets cut to the chase. You are against this, and will cite and scrap for any reason why it will fail and fail miserably.
Incorrect. I'm not against planning for rail transit. Notice that many sentences in my post are questions, not statements of fact. I wasn't sure when Portland began planning their light rail system. From what I read about Tri-Met and Portland's downtown plan, I was guessing about 1970 at the earliest. If so, then it took Portland about 15 years to get their first MAX light rail line up and running. If they starting planning for light rail around 1980, then it took them a decade less than I guessed. I'm trying to get an idea of how long it might be before Tulsa could have a rail system in operation, and to compare a proposed time frame for Tulsa to what has happened in other cities. Thanks for your PM. It gave me a time range for the downtown starter line.
I have no idea whether or not a light rail system for Tulsa would fail and fail miserably. It depends on too many factors.
I do think that many or most Tulsans are satisfied with the status quo, however. Commute times are not that painfully long, gasoline prices are not that unbearably high (yet), and the large-lot, spread-out developments seem to be popular. Most Tulsans feel blessed and relatively comfortable with what they have.
quote:
Here is the thing though. It won't.
If a successful light rail system is Tulsa's certain and guaranteed destiny, then why have the discussion?
quote:
You aren't unique.
I'm one of a kind, but share some characteristics with others.
quote:
The same arguments against this are regurgitated in every town where this has been implemented or proposed. 99% of the time, those arguments are proven to be unfounded, if not downright wrong.
Personally, I don't have time to list the reasons why Portland IS a good cultural comparator, but, in my professional opinion, it is.
I haven't made too many arguments against light rail in Tulsa, because I haven't seen a specific proposal yet. I don't think light rail will be very successful here given Tulsa's low-density zoning districts. That could change, of course. But the general trend for decades has been toward lower densities in central Tulsa and higher densities at the periphery of the metro area.
You know more about Portland than I do, but in my opinion, Portlanders, in general, have a more liberal mindset than do Tulsans. Portland seems to be more concerned about green issues than Tulsa is, and Portland seems to have a much stronger philosophy and more clearly defined policies about land use and urbanization than Tulsa has.
quote:
Downtown Tulsa my not be rotting if you were only to look at the last few years, but if you look at it from a larger temporal cycle, it has been, to put it mildly, on a downswing for about 40 years.
I agree, to put it mildly.
quote:
The growth boundary is significant, but effectively, the City of Tulsa does have a growth boundary. While the suburbs have fewer expansion limitations, Tulsa itself does. This means that we need to start looking inward for expansion...so the essence of what happened in Portland can absolutely happen here.
The emphasis is mine, because "can" is the key word. Of course many things "can happen" in Tulsa. We have many options. But how likely is something to happen? How much will it cost to make that something happen? Who will pay? Who will benefit?
Portland's goal was to set some physical limits on urbanization to force infill to happen. Is this what Tulsans want to do? What are the ramifications on housing affordibility? Are people moving to Portland at a faster rate than they are moving to places with no urban growth boundaries or light rail systems?
quote:
To answer your question, Rose City Bus System went bankrupt in the early 1970's. The planning and initiatives that put Tri-Met in place as the transit agency began around 1969, I believe, but they were a bus only agency until 1979, when they began pursuing federal funding for its first light rail line, which was approved in 1980. Up until then they were notable for introducing Fareless Square. Basically, they made buses free in Downtown Portland.
So, did planning for Portland's light rail system begin in 1979?
quote:
I encourage your participation. Hopefully, you will begin to see the forest for the trees. If not, at least you will have participated in the civic process.
My vision is not as myopic as all that, but sometimes it's difficult to see the trees for the cars. I live a more urban existence than the vast majority of Tulsans do, and I have much broader and comprehensive view of Tulsa than most Tulsans do, also.
http://wamu.org/programs/dr/08/06/12.php#20828
These guys are far more eloquent than I...
I'd like to note, that in addition to transit advocates, Congressman Earl Blumenauer,
Robert F. Puentes, Fellow, Metropolitan Policy Program, The Brookings Institution, and Mayor Greg Nickels, Mayor of Seattle, this show also features Randall OToole, senior fellow, Cato Institute, who is a notable critic of public transportation.
Of course he is also author of:
(http://americandreamcoalition.org/greatestmed.jpg)
He might have a bias. Maybe.
Tyler Duvall, Acting Under-Secretary, Department of Transportation also speaks on the subject.
The fact is, we have spent the past 60 to 70 years building up our roadway infrastructure...it's past time to diversify our investments.
This is a discussion about providing options.
Some people may prefer to drive their cars to and from work and sacrifice that time to the act of driving and the joys of radio/music/cell phones. Others may prefer to sit on a train, and relax, work on email, surf the web, write, read, chat with neighbors, prepare for upcoming meetings, etc. Some people prefer big houses, big yards, big cars, and low density. Others may prefer higher density, mixed-use neighborhoods, walking to the store, less time working in the yard/more time for entertainment, etc.
Why are we arguing about either/or, when we could have both? You may like driving everywhere. I will choose the train if I can.
I think most people who would use rail in Tulsa would still own a car. But perhaps, in the future, you wouldn't need a car for every member of your family. Imagine the savings (both financial and environmental) if every family of four could eliminate a single car from their "fleet!"
Give people a smart, workable option, and you'll be amazed how many folks will exercise that option.
It's just a hunch, but I bet I've taken more trips on trains, buses, and planes per annum than most people on this forum and almost certainly more than most Tulsans have.
Some people do prefer to drive their cars to and from an almost unlimited number of places, and they don't mind the sacrifice of their time and money to the act of departing when they choose and parking within a few feet of their destination, the joys of radio/music/cell phones at a volume which they control, the ability to stop their cars when they wish and where they want, the option of expelling naughty passengers, etc.
Others may prefer to sit on a train, and try to relax while a toddler whines loudly to an indifferent parent a few feet away, try to work on email or surf the web as a toothless hag spits out her life story for everyone aboard to hear, write or read while the train shakes and sways along its tracks, chat with neighbors (preferably who have bathed themselves and brushed their teeth within the past three weeks), prepare for upcoming meetings (preferably with other freshly bathed and groomed people), etc.
Some do prefer big houses, big yards, big cars, and low densities. Others may prefer higher density, mixed-use neighborhoods, walking to the store -- and some of those may purchase real estate in a mixed-use neighborhood within walking distance of several stores and the Central Business District and train station, zoned for higher density (and targeted in the Comprehensive Plan for higher density infill development) -- only to have their property re-zoned against their wishes through a series of long "public" hearings at the hands of counter-productive bureaucrats who wouldn't take public transportation on an [8D]zone Alert! day even if it were offered to them free of charge, to a ridiculously low density which can not support viable public transportation of any sort, with only one choice of land use by right (detached single family dwelling).
Giving people options implies the means to give them (or to deprive them of) those options. "Giving" usually costs somebody something. The most likely way that I and most Tulsans can "give" anyone else the option of riding a train is to fork over some taxes. If a train system is funded by user fees, then that's another matter. In that case, people wouldn't be "given" the option of rail service, they'd be paying for it.
Most Tulsans have a finite amount of money to spend. Deprive them of their options of how spend their own money, and you might be amazed by how many smart, working folks become exercised over the loss of those options.
You done lecturing yet? Let us know, so we can get on with our conversation.
This is a discussion about providing options.
No one is depriving anyone else the option of conversation. Converse away!
I view retrofitting freight lines and building commuter stations as the same infrastructure investment as building roads and bridges. What's the difference in your mind? I don't know where gas prices are going to settle out in the near future, but it's probably north of $5 over the next two years. I think a forward-looking approach to infrastructure development would anticipate hightened demand for public transit, caused by these rising prices.
Not advocating light rail, Houston-style. Just suggesting that there might be some cost-effective options for Tulsa that can't be dismissed as yuppie fun-rides or development boondoggles.
The difference in my mind between retrofitting freight lines/building commuter stations and building roads is that street and road networks give people so many more options of where and when they can go (in cars or buses or on bikes or on foot) to many, many places. Passenger rail doesn't provide the same range of options.
I think there will be heightened demand for mass transit as gasoline prices increase, and I don't think planning for light rail or commuter rail or other forms of mass transit should be off the table. We need to consider many options.
What I want to see is authentic comprehensive planning. I want productive communication between the land planning department and the transportation department at INCOG, and I want them to get on the same page. I want to see more public participation in the planning process.
If we are going to have a public investment in any rail system, then I want to see those train routes and stations very carefully placed in locations which will allow for intense development around each station. Some of the routes discussed such as the BA and Jenks lines run through very sparsely developed areas laden with NIMBYs and very restrictive single family zoning districts. The Planning Commission would need to make a profound change in their mindset for this to happen.
I think the downtown starter line could work, but I prefer it be funded by private investors and/or TIF districts if the allowed development near the stations is dense enough.
I don't want to dismiss any cost-effective transit options for Tulsa as yuppie fun-rides. I really don't think that's what a rail system for Tulsa would be. Actually, I think it would be the opposite -- not so pleasant rides for those less well-to-do. But without carefully coordinated goals and clearly executed land use policies, I imagine that rail transit in Tulsa will be another planning boondoggle.