From Urban Tulsa (//%22http://www.urbantulsa.com/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid%3A19173%22):
quote:
That said, a light rail system in Tulsa would be a colossal waste of money, just as it has been for most American cities that have built systems in recent years. The practical and economic advantages of rail-based transit vanished by about 1920. While rail still works in cities like Boston, New York and Chicago that were built around it, it doesn't make sense for a city that has had most of its growth during the reign of the automobile.
Emphasis mine. Mr. "Urban Husbandry" fails to grasp the potential of mass transit to spur denser, more efficient, more walkable, more sustainable growth. Exactly the same kind of growth that he purports to want.
First, I should say jitney routes (//%22http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Share_taxi%22) are a fine idea, as are taxi stands. The antiquated laws that prevent these need to be repealed immediately. Taxi services can
enhance mass transit, but I'd like him to provide an example of a single American city where they have successfully
replaced a public mass transit system.
Second, in his enlightening history of trolleys in Tulsa, he failed to mention that Tulsa was one of the 45 American cities included in the Great American Streetcar Scandal (//%22http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_streetcar_conspiracy%22), wherein over 100 streetcar lines were bought and systematically dismantled. The "free market" killed mass transit alright. Unfortunately, it was through conspiracy and collusion by General Motors, Firestone Tire, Standard Oil of California and Phillips Petroleum.
quote:
By the time the scandal was brought to court and its perpetrators identified and penalized, its intended result had already been achieved. The judge presiding thought that the scandal was of little real consequence: GM was fined $5,000 and each executive was ordered to pay a fine of $1.
Third, no mass transit system will operate efficiently in our "one-size-fits all" car-oriented town. But, with time and changes in land use and density, it certaily will. Redevelopment of underutilized rail corridors could bring enormous economic growth to Tulsa...with much more potential than the a park along the River. It's a chicken or egg thing. It has to start someplace, and our competitor cities are already taking the leap. Consider Salt Lake City (//%22http://www.metromodemedia.com/features/Transitdensity0020.aspx%22):
quote:
Salt Like City isn't a poster child for urban density either. Its metro area has been totally dependent, and infatuated, with the automobile for generations. It embraced the western American ideal of wide open spaces. Understandably there was a significant faction dead set again light rail when its initial line was proposed.
"We had public officials claiming this was going to be a huge failure," says Chad Saley, a spokesman for the Utah Transit Authority. "They didn't support it at all. Now they're some of our biggest supporters. They can't wait until they get their own extensions."
Dennis Nordfelt, mayor of West Valley City, a Salt Lake City suburb, was one of those people. He made the arguments that his hometown wasn't dense enough to support light rail and people wouldn't leave their cars to take the train. Today Nordfelt is "very proud" of the light rail line and calls its expansion an "absolutely important" issue on par with water.
He also admits that "crow tastes pretty good if you put enough salt on it."
"I was just flat out wrong," Nordfelt says.
Fourth, sure, mass transit is subsidized. Is he telling us that streets aren't? I think there's a half a billion dollar street bond issue coming up that might prove otherwise. If he doesn't want subsidized transit, then maybe we should put a meter in every car and truck on the road and bill them by the mile.
Fifth, a lot of Tulsans are asking for mass transit options. Did he not read all that planitulsa.com or does he just not
care what Tulsans think? Gas prices are high and they aren't going down. Some people need options, others just want them. You ain't gonna get a workable mass transit system unless you start planning for it. But, apparently, Michael Bates thinks that's a waste.
What else? Energy independence? Drunk driving? Mobility and independence for seniors? Population growth? Increased sales tax and a stable city
without regular tax hikes? A disincentive for sprawl?
If Michael were just another right wing libertarian type who hated everything beyond his fence, then maybe I could give him a pass. But this guy thinks that urban spaces are a cool thing.
quote:
First, let's do what we can to rebuild and reconnect the urban core of our city, to recreate an area where car-free living would be practical. The small zone that was developed before streetcars gave way to automobiles, roughly between Pine and 21st Street, Union and Harvard, has lost population to urban renewal, expansion of hospitals and universities, freeway construction, and the relentless expansion of downtown parking lots. An area that was home to more than 60,000 Tulsans in 1960 had less than half that population in 2000.
How ya gonna "reconnect" that core, Michael? With cars? Cars neet to park, parking chews up space that can be used for your urban stuff. Isn't that a little self-defeating? But, you're right. Those areas you describe
were built around streetcars, so, why exactly, is it a sin to think that streetcars might be part of this urban solution? Until you can provide a better argument than what you pecked out today, I don't think you have any business telling Tulsa what it should do "first" or second, or at all. Man, am I dissappointed. I'd expect provincial thinking like that from Glenpool's city fathers, but you are supposed to be smarter than that.
For me, the problem is that the whole article is spent knocking down a straw man of his own creation. Bates takes "passenger rail implementation" and turns it into "light rail." But he should know that when the streets panel and Tulsa Transit and INCOG talk about passenger rail, they're not talking about creating some sort of tram network out of thin air. What they're referring to is a specific commuter rail line from downtown Broken Arrow to downtown Tulsa, as well as a potential second commuter line from Jenks to downtown Tulsa.
Bates - you are usually so well informed, but you may have missed the train (heh heh) on this one. Let me help you out.
Start here for the BA link: http://www.tulsatransit.org/news-info/commuter-rail-study/
And then go here for some thoughts on the Jenks link: http://www.tulsanow.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=8040
Maybe next week we can get some reasoned thoughts on the viability of commuter rail, rather than a polemic against a made-up trolley system?
But seriously, keep up the good work. I enjoy your articles.
You can read my response after the article. "William"
I like it anytime someone gives voice to increasing density and creating walkable districts. But this line in particular was kind of going a bit crazy.
"Let's imagine for a moment what car-free living would be like in the most optimistic scenario for Tulsa: Light rail tracks running down every arterial street, with streetcars coming by every 15 minutes."
I cant imagine anyone in the past, now, or in the future ever possibly suggesting such a thing. Thats not an optimistic scenario, thats absurdity. Its setting up a disingenuous comparison.
Why stop there, Artist? It only gets worse.
Bates said:
quote:
Let's imagine for a moment what car-free living would be like in the most optimistic scenario for Tulsa: Light rail tracks running down every arterial street, with streetcars coming by every 15 minutes. Now think about your typical weekday--going to work, shopping, running errands at lunch, taking your children to school and to after-school activities.
Think about the time you'd spend waiting for each trip and for transfers between lines. Think about how far you'd have to walk from where the streetcar drops you off on the street to the front door of your destination. Think about walking those distances, likely across a vast parking lot, carrying packages and herding a small child. Think about walking those distances in the cold, the rain, or the sweltering August heat.
Awful. Yes Michael, it rains, that's what umbrellas are for. They've only been around for a few thousand years, is it too soon for parasols, too?
Look, you can read Dostoyevsky at the train stop, or talk to the neighbor-lady from down the street. Try doing that in your car. And God forbid a person should have to walk anywhere, anytime, for any reason. Sure, walking 10 minutes a day might keep you 20 pounds lighter and allow you to live a couple of extra decades...but if it means getting sweaty, then how could it possibly be worth it? I love my car too, Michael, but not in ways that I'd need to confess to my priest.
Michael, your "optimistic" view of Tulsa retrofits an inefficient mass transit system on a sprawling town. Yeah, that would suck. Instead, let's imagine a city that has districts with the density to support a bodega, bookshop, and bistro within a a block of your house. Imagine these places north, south, west, and east, along rail lines that are already there (Get out your street map). Now imagine being a seven minute ride from an evening on the town with the kids, capped with an NCAA basketball game...and you don't have to worry about parking. Now,
that's optimistic. How would this
ever be an option for Tulsa
without mass transit?
Again, you have to think regionally. Light rail advantages far outweigh any negatives. Just like the talking heads to want to keep Tulsa back in the 1970s a little longer. The opportunities are there and have been there, but everybody just focuses on the negative. Is it any wonder downtown is still empty during the evenings? How about some forward thinking for a change? Bates' argument is laughable.
I think what he is ignoring is that rail would change the urban form. It would allow the densing up of neighbourhoods surrounding stations, and it would have to go that way round. If the rail isn't in first people are less likely to use it than if they move into an area that has it already.
If rail goes ahead and people block development around the stations with preservation districts and historic areas and there isn't the density in the local area then the rail will likely fail, but if rail is allowed to spur urban nodes around each of the stations it would likely be successful. It would also allow development to become increasingly focussed in downtown and help turn Tulsa back into the city she once was. Jitneys while good at taking people from A-B are terrible at focussing development or encouraging density in one location. Rail which is based much more on nodes much more would allow an invigorated downtown. Also every person who takes the train into downtown is one less surface parking space, get rid of 1000 of them and you have a block of development in the very least, which means new offices, housing, retail and leisure. That's more demand for rail and more tax dollars for the city.
I think rail has a future in Tulsa and could have a massive positive impact on downtown and surrounding areas.
the term is so common in the vernacular that it has really lost some of its resonance but, that being said, bates is a dude...
he could not be more wrong about transit...
this is exactly what we need to focus on...
build the transit and the development will occur around it...
now, as for mr. bates... sure looks like he was one of the MIT blackjack cheats...
MIT balckjack team... (//%22http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIT_Blackjack_Team%22)
search his blog for the term "blackjack"...
then watch the discovery channel special, you'll see his doppleganger (obscured by black bars across the eyes, he is still easy to spot)...
next time you see him ask him...
I would be so impressed if Michael was one of the card counters.
I don't think he is...it is just that all math nerds look alike.
1) the MIT team did not cheat, card counting in your head is perfectly legal. Though, casino's reserve the right to boot your butt out for doing it. Also, with continuous shoes it is now impossible (jerks) & with Indian anti it might be impossible to win even with that advantage (don't EVER play blackjack with anti. Dumbest thing ever).
2) Light Rail would be cool and COULD work, but I don't think it would. The city grew up around the (stupid) car. Everyone living here is used to instant transportation gratification.
The vast majority of people need a car for day to day existence, and would even with a light rail system. Having said car, they are likely to use it instead of the rail if the rail present any inconvenience at all. Other than a commuter line, I think it would fail.
I would, however, if a rail system went in I would like to see lines from Brookside, to Cherry Street, Utica Square, Downtown (Bus Station & new city hall [close to Brady + blue dome + PAC also], and maybe to Promenade mall. Of course with several stops along the way. Coupled with the commuter line(s) to Broken Arrow (and maybe Jenks Riverwalk area).
Maybe OSU Tulsa, TU, and Oral Roberts for possible future expansion?
I don't know, far fetched anyway. You need people to use it to make it worthwhile, but you need good lines to get people to use it. And with all the roads, parking, and habits to overcome - I really don't see a functional rail network happening anytime in the next 50 years.
Too bad everyone got rid of their trolleys/light rails in the 50's. America could be a much less car-oil dependent place.
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
1) the MIT team did not cheat, card counting in your head is perfectly legal. Though, casino's reserve the right to boot your butt out for doing it. Also, with continuous shoes it is now impossible (jerks) & with Indian anti it might be impossible to win even with that advantage (don't EVER play blackjack with anti. Dumbest thing ever).
Agreed.
Counting only works best towards the end of the deck when you have a better idea what is left and what the odds are. A good dealer should have shuffled the pack well well before you have any idea what is or isn't left.
You maybe able to do it in the classroom or at home, but I doubt you could pull it off in a casino.
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
1) the MIT team did not cheat, card counting in your head is perfectly legal. Though, casino's reserve the right to boot your butt out for doing it. Also, with continuous shoes it is now impossible (jerks) & with Indian anti it might be impossible to win even with that advantage (don't EVER play blackjack with anti. Dumbest thing ever).
2) Light Rail would be cool and COULD work, but I don't think it would. The city grew up around the (stupid) car. Everyone living here is used to instant transportation gratification.
The vast majority of people need a car for day to day existence, and would even with a light rail system. Having said car, they are likely to use it instead of the rail if the rail present any inconvenience at all. Other than a commuter line, I think it would fail.
I would, however, if a rail system went in I would like to see lines from Brookside, to Cherry Street, Utica Square, Downtown (Bus Station & new city hall [close to Brady + blue dome + PAC also], and maybe to Promenade mall. Of course with several stops along the way. Coupled with the commuter line(s) to Broken Arrow (and maybe Jenks Riverwalk area).
Maybe OSU Tulsa, TU, and Oral Roberts for possible future expansion?
I don't know, far fetched anyway. You need people to use it to make it worthwhile, but you need good lines to get people to use it. And with all the roads, parking, and habits to overcome - I really don't see a functional rail network happening anytime in the next 50 years.
Too bad everyone got rid of their trolleys/light rails in the 50's. America could be a much less car-oil dependent place.
I think Tulsa did grow up with trolleys, rail and busses before it dismissed them for cars. Sixth street from downtown to TU had a trolley, as well as SS line. Jenks/Sapulpa had something if I remember right. Union Depot was bustling and busses carried maids to Maple Ridge.
However, I don't dismiss your argument that Tulsa is fatally addicted to its auto lifestyle. Even when gasl. hits $5 a gallon the good little capitalist Calvinists of Tulsa will ignore the pain. Like Bruno captions, "..behind the curve since 1898".
I keep wondering just how expensive auto travel has to be and how much subsidizing highways we have to do for accountants to stop saying mass transit doesn't make financial sense. I suspect that when GM can make more money off of mass transit than cars, the epiphany will happen.
When talking about light rail for Tulsa I think all of us can agree that it certainly wont be for ALL of Tulsa. At best, it would be for a commuter line from BA to Downtown and high density nodes along that path and perhaps a line from the River District, aka downtown Jenks, possibly including a trolley from the River District to the Riverwalk and a rail connector there, to Downtown Tulsa and nodes that could be grown along that. Those are the obvious and most likely places to start a rail and work on improving the density needed.
When we talk about rail for Tulsa thats what is really being considering at this point so it wont be for ALL of Tulsa it will only be for those most likely areas. And even those are to be considered in a long term planning mode, not something immediately set up, but considered so that choices can be made that will make it more easily possible in the future. So to muddle the topic with the idea of more lines in more areas and having anything at this point in time is of course going to set up a situation where rail would not look like a viable option because of course it wouldnt be in that kind of situation. Such talk creates a false and deceptive argument which is what it appears Bates tried to do, and I think that was mean spirited and wrong because he knew danged well what he was doing.
Be careful about lumping commuter rail and light rail into the same category. Otherwise you'll make the same mistake Bates made and muddle the debate. They are, by definition, different.
Commuter rail services use the same "heavy rail" system that freight trains use, in order to take economic advantage of preexisting lines. They typically run from the suburbs to the city center with few stops in between. If you've been to Chicago, think Metra, not the El. Light rail is exactly what it sounds like--tracks built for a lighter load, such as a tram or trolley. Typically these have more stops and have the "urban" feel. In my opinion, such a system for Tulsa is far, far away.
BUT, we are so close to having commuter rail between Broken Arrow and Tulsa it's almost a joke. It is imperative for both the growth of the metro region and the continuing vitality of downtown that we include commuter rail money in the upcoming street bonds package. Let's say, in theory (very theoretical - heh) that a tech company were looking at downtown Tulsa as a place to move a significant number of employees. Don't think for a second that the presence of a commuter rail line from the city's largest suburb wouldn't influence that decision. They have actuarial tables for these things, and there is a column for public transit.
quote:
waterboy wrote
I suspect that when GM can make more money off of mass transit than cars, the epiphany will happen.
Well, they haven't made money selling cars for nearly a decade - so maybe the time is now! Heck, if they could just break even on trolley's they'd be way, way ahead of the curve. [:P]
Okay, if
mass transit is a gamble, then I suggest that we have been counting cards for 20 years.
Firstly, I think we can all agree that
Dallas is at
least as nutty about their cars as we are.
Take a look at this interesting story (//%22http://dallasobserver.com/2004-12-09/news/slow-ride/%22) from the Dallas Observer in 2004. The interview with the developer who specializes in train stops shows that Dallas has learned something in the last 15 years:
quote:
...He said a couple of things. First of all, when he was pitching Mockingbird Station to money people in the mid-1990s, it was tough enough to do what he did. His basic vision of Dallas, he said, is "an East Coast city with a West Coast lifestyle," but that was not the first thing he wanted to say to the checkbook guys.
"We had to finance that deal based just more on its common market fundamentals: great corner, great neighborhood, good atmosphere, things which help any kind of development, whether it's transit-oriented or otherwise. But we sort of sold the financial end of the deal as, 'Oh, and by the way, there's this rail station.'"
...But this is 10 years later. Believe it or not, in 10 years a lot has changed...
And four years later, even clumsy old DART has figured out a few things about promoting promoting their "transit villages" (//%22http://www.dart.org/about/economicimpact.asp%22):
quote:
In fact, the number of home buyers and renters nationwide who want to reside within walking distance of public transportation is expected to more than double in the next 20 years, new research says. And the Dallas area will be one of the top cities in the country for such construction. According to the Center for Transit Oriented Development, demand for it will increase here more than any other city besides Los Angeles. With DART preparing to add about two dozen suburban transit stops in its next expansion, the Federal Transit Administration predicts that the Dallas area the demand for transit-oriented housing will increase to more than 260,000 units by 2025 – a 364% increase.
It took them 20 years to figure out what seems to work. We can learn from that. Isn't learning from their experience the of equivalent of being at the end of a deck?
quote:
Originally posted by si_uk_lon_ok
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
1) the MIT team did not cheat, card counting in your head is perfectly legal. Though, casino's reserve the right to boot your butt out for doing it. Also, with continuous shoes it is now impossible (jerks) & with Indian anti it might be impossible to win even with that advantage (don't EVER play blackjack with anti. Dumbest thing ever).
Agreed.
Counting only works best towards the end of the deck when you have a better idea what is left and what the odds are. A good dealer should have shuffled the pack well well before you have any idea what is or isn't left.
You maybe able to do it in the classroom or at home, but I doubt you could pull it off in a casino.
i never said it was illegal... but collusion as a card counting team in blackjack cheats the other (non-team) players at the table... but i'll clarify that with bates next time see him...
ANYWHO, back on topic-
the light rail concept could be awesome even if it were done as a short-line run (from the arena? to ??)... just an initial line to get the concept rolling (literally)... but i agree with CL, you have to use cabs and buses as an adjunct...
and bates' crap about a rail down every street is wackooooooo!... last time i was in san fran and boston, i was in the middle of the business district and still had to hoof it 1/2 a mile to get to the subway/el... bfd, everyone does it and not a single person appeared to be that put out... i certainly was not... talk about a country mouse, it genuinely felt liberating to be able to walk 4 blocks get on a train, then transfer to a bus and be at my destination some 5 miles away, all without ever turning a key...
the beauty of this, is that we could actually be ahead of the game for once, our downtown is stunted... and as a result, we still have rail corridors all over the place and a ripe for redevelopment in and immediately adjacent to downtown... it would be easy to nurse these light rails in... we wait 20 years and we'll be like kansas city and denver who putting rail and struggling to fit it into a (relatively) dense urban core... do these light rails first and dollars to donuts says the burbs will be looking to tie in...
screw big-box retail, baseball, soccer and the river... this is our "build it and they will come" idea...
what would light rail cost per mile?
back to bates- why this topic? why now? does he see it as wedge to be used against the streets bond? is just against anything and everything? or has he feckin stroked out?
quote:
Originally posted by brunoflipper
quote:
Originally posted by si_uk_lon_ok
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
1) the MIT team did not cheat, card counting in your head is perfectly legal. Though, casino's reserve the right to boot your butt out for doing it. Also, with continuous shoes it is now impossible (jerks) & with Indian anti it might be impossible to win even with that advantage (don't EVER play blackjack with anti. Dumbest thing ever).
Agreed.
Counting only works best towards the end of the deck when you have a better idea what is left and what the odds are. A good dealer should have shuffled the pack well well before you have any idea what is or isn't left.
You maybe able to do it in the classroom or at home, but I doubt you could pull it off in a casino.
i never said it was illegal... but collusion as a card counting team in blackjack cheats the other (non-team) players at the table... but i'll clarify that with bates next time see him...
Hate to keep the threadjack alive, but you're not quite right. Card counters play statistically perfect blackjack, just like the little cheatsheet card tells you--you know, always hit 16, hit on soft 17, always double on 11, etc. They're not altering play based on their counting, they're altering their bets. Their counting tells them when they're statistically likely to have a high count--18, 19, 20, or 21--and they bet heavy when this is the case. When they're likely to have a low cout--12, 13, 14, 15, 16--they're likely to hit and bust, and so they pull back to the minimum. Nobody's being cheated. They're just detecting when the odds are in their favor, and highly leveraging those odds. And getting quickly detected and kicked out.
quote:
Originally posted by brunoflipper
ANYWHO, back on topic-
the light rail concept could be awesome even if it were done as a short-line run (from the arena? to ??)... just an initial line to get the concept rolling (literally)... but i agree with CL, you have to use cabs and buses as an adjunct...
and bates' crap about a rail down every street is wackooooooo!... last time i was in san fran and boston, i was in the middle of the business district and still had to hoof it 1/2 a mile to get to the subway/el... bfd, everyone does it and not a single person appeared to be that put out... i certainly was not... talk about a country mouse, it genuinely felt liberating to be able to walk 4 blocks get on a train, then transfer to a bus and be at my destination some 5 miles away, all without ever turning a key...
the beauty of this, is that we could actually be ahead of the game for once, our downtown is stunted... and as a result, we still have rail corridors all over the place and a ripe for redevelopment in and immediately adjacent to downtown... it would be easy to nurse these light rails in... we wait 20 years and we'll be like kansas city and denver who putting rail and struggling to fit it into a (relatively) dense urban core... do these light rails first and dollars to donuts says the burbs will be looking to tie in...
screw big-box retail, baseball, soccer and the river... this is our "build it and they will come" idea...
what would light rail cost per mile?
back to bates- why this topic? why now? does he see it as wedge to be used against the streets bond? is just against anything and everything? or has he feckin stroked out?
Back to the topic at hand: if it's going to happen, the best of all possible (and I mean feasible in the next 5-8 years) worlds would be to have the Broken Arrow commuter line funded and approved with the inclusion of stops at 13th and Lewis and 6th and Peoria. Not all the trains would stop there; some would be express routes. But if there are small stations established, MTTA could then run rubber wheeled trolley loops. One could include TU and Cherry Street, and the other could run up Peoria and Riverside to connect the Pearl, Brookside, and the Jenks river developments.
That's the best case in the real world we live in. I guess I could imagine a trolley rail line being integrated into the 6th Street plan, to connect TU, Pearl and downtown, but that's just pipe dreaming. The BA line and rubber wheeled trolleys . . . that could happen in less than 10 years. That's what we need to push. That, and a sister study for the Jenks line. Where's pfox? Talk to us, rail guy.
You're right (of course) there is no way you'd run light rail down every major artery. You don't design any mass transit system like that you run it between key origins and destinations. You run a system that attempts to hook up as many key sources of travel and as many places people want to go. Running a long down 21st street because its straight is not how you plan for mass transit.
He also forgets the reason destinations and origins are currently dispersed is due to low density. It's hard to achieve high density if everyone has to drive to where they are going then park out front. If mass transit lead to density increasing you'd quickly find the shop you need next to the station you pass on your way home.
The beauty with a mass transit system is that more users benefit everyone. If more people take the rail, it makes more money and the service increases, making it better for the users. If more people start to drive to work everyone gets there slower, Tulsa really needs light rail no matter what people like Bates say.
Oh, and just so you know: Light rail is incredibly expensive, like millions and millions per mile. Dallas' DART costs are spiraling out of hand. We're talking over a billion dollars in the next decade. It's too much money for Tulsa at the moment. http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/localnews/stories/DN-dartletter_11met.ART0.West.Edition1.375da94.html
But certainly, it does awesome things for development. http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/classifieds/news/homecenter/realestate/stories/011108dnbustods.29812b1.html
But I want to keep the threadjack alive...
I am a good card counter. I count aces and tens from all blackjack games and play very consistent. If there are more chances for me to get a 21, I increase my wager slightly...if less, I have the discipline to walk away.
Gambling, like business and marriage, is about both money management and risk management combined with luck.
INCOG conducted a fixed guideway mass transit feasibility study around 1990. There might have been some updates since then -- I don't know.
The conclusion of that study would support the points Michael Bates made in his opinion column. In general, Tulsa does not have the density to support trolleys. Flexible route schemes with vehicles such as jitneys make more sense in places developed as sparsely as Tulsa is.
The INCOG study included several potential rail routes, with the Tulsa-BA route being the most feasible. One of the problems with that route is that the tracks are in the middle of the highway for several miles. Station design and access in the middle of the BA expressway would be expensive and difficult. Also, the TMAPC has been on a mission of down-zoning older neighborhoods to incredibly low suburban densities -- nothing close to what could support a viable light rail system.
With few exceptions, Tulsa has been planned to be very spread out with wide separations between buildings and between use districts. The price of gasoline is a factor, but until the TMAPC allows for urban densities, mass transit systems will not be feasible. There are too few people spread out over too much land.
quote:
Originally posted by Floyd
Oh, and just so you know: Light rail is incredibly expensive, like millions and millions per mile. Dallas' DART costs are spiraling out of hand. We're talking over a billion dollars in the next decade. It's too much money for Tulsa at the moment. http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/localnews/stories/DN-dartletter_11met.ART0.West.Edition1.375da94.html
But certainly, it does awesome things for development. http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/classifieds/news/homecenter/realestate/stories/011108dnbustods.29812b1.html
I believe they estimated the BA to Downtown Tulsa route with several stops/transportation nodes would cost about 40 mill. The rail line is already there. It would be the perfect start between our biggest suburb. BA wants to start having higher density nodes"part of their downtown long range plan has a possible stop along the line there with midrise living around it, and the places where there would be stops along that line in Tulsa are already near high travel areas and some high density areas to boot. Getting it started along that line and then promoting that to developers, allowing developers to use that as a selling point for placing say midrise condos, lofts, apartments, retail, etc. near those stops would spur those areas to become all the more dense and walkable. We are VERY lucky to have right of ways, relativly high population areas, and a rail line already in place there. It wont cost billions at all.
It would be a dream scenario in any other city. We are at just the right place in our growth and development to start thinking ahead for having a rail line there in say 10 or 15 years time. If you say this is part of the plan, that you ARE going to do it. The city can begin getting the properties they will need for stations and parking when they are available and relatively cheap. PLUS developers knowing that those areas will in a few year shave access to light rail, will begin developeing with that in mind and the city can also encourage and zone for more high density development to be going in during that 10-15 year time span. So that by the time that you are ready to start the service, most of your ducks will be in a row.
If for instance we agreed with BA to have the rail. They could buy up property for their station and encourage purposeful growth around it rather than waiting until something else is built there and wishing you had planned ahead.
Saying your going to do it along that line doesn't mean you do it immediately. It would be smarter to say it WILL be done, we are planning for it to happen, and then take steps during that time to make sure the growth around it serves that plan.
I am kind of puzzled by peoples responses on here. There were studies, then meetings and public discussions on this, just this last year and how it would all work "timeline wise, expense, demographic, and development wise" if we were to adopt that line as something we wanted to do as a city.
Deciding that we will or want to do it is not the same as saying we are going to put it in right this moment. Even if we decided we wanted to do it right now it would take a decade or more to implement. And the longer you take to decide, the more you push that date further back as well. Plus the more expensive the properties become. For example there is still some available property near one of the planned stations near BA. That area is infilling and if you wait too long someone may buy it and build on that property. It is one of the few available good spots left to buy. It will cost a whoooole lot more to buy if it gets built on. The Wal-Mart that the Blue Cross just bought on memorial was another location where they planned for a stop to be. It is a large piece of property they could have gotten fairly cheaply, had lots of parking, is right on the rail, right on a busy corridor with connecting bus routes, etc. The longer time goes by the more missed opportunities for land purchase and encouraging the right kind of development we will lose.
Nobody was saying it would be something we would start right this second, but saying we "are going" "future tense" to do it and its a definite part of the plan will allow us to NOW begin taking the sort of steps we need to in order to make it more easily and cheaply happen in the near future.
Yes. The BA line would be heavy commuter rail. It is absolutely feasible and in my opinion should absolutely be funded by the upcoming street bond. The study was completed less than a year ago, and it's ready to roll. We just have to be intelligent and integrate commuter transit into our street plan.
Light rail, on the other hand, would be incredibly expensive. No one is seriously considering a light rail system in Tulsa at this time. I mean, dream away, and maybe in 10 years it'll be time to plan the beginnings of a light rail system. But we ARE seriously considering heavy commuter rail, right now. Everyone should make sure they understand the difference, starting with Bates the opinion maker. If you convince people that street money is going to go to some sort of tram system, rather than sensible commuter rail, you're doing a disservice to the community by confusing voters.
continuation of thread jack, for those that want to read past.quote:
Bruno said...but collusion as a card counting team in blackjack cheats the other (non-team) players at the table.
Blackjack is a game against the house, a given players actions have no statistical impact on the other players. If I split my tens and double down against a 19 - it really doesnt effect you. If I'm on third base and decide to hit a 16 against dealers 15 - it doesnt matter. In spite of the jerks at the table that insist you are stealing their mojo, it is just as likely to get them a better card as it is to "steal" their card.
Likewise, if I count cards and up my bet when the shoot is hot it has no effect on the other players at all.
For that matter, if I had perfect knowledge of the deck and played my hand accordingly, it would have no effect on the other players.
Very simply, it is a game against the house. A players actions have no statistical (large number) consequence against other players. I might take your good card, or take your bust card... but in the long run there is no effect.
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
continuation of thread jack, for those that want to read past.
quote:
Bruno said...but collusion as a card counting team in blackjack cheats the other (non-team) players at the table.
Blackjack is a game against the house, a given players actions have no statistical impact on the other players. If I split my tens and double down against a 19 - it really doesnt effect you. If I'm on third base and decide to hit a 16 against dealers 15 - it doesnt matter. In spite of the jerks at the table that insist you are stealing their mojo, it is just as likely to get them a better card as it is to "steal" their card.
Likewise, if I count cards and up my bet when the shoot is hot it has no effect on the other players at all.
For that matter, if I had perfect knowledge of the deck and played my hand accordingly, it would have no effect on the other players.
Very simply, it is a game against the house. A players actions have no statistical (large number) consequence against other players. I might take your good card, or take your bust card... but in the long run there is no effect.
ok, so you count cards and statistically odds are high that the next card in the deck is a face/10 card... you've got a a pair of 3's showing... the dealer is showing an 8... by all rights you should hit... but you're buddy michael to your left has 11... and since you're cahoots you stand... he gets his ten and winds up at 21... so is this still legit?
i always thought it was the team play rather than the card counting that got them into trouble...
quote:
Originally posted by booWorld
INCOG conducted a fixed guideway mass transit feasibility study around 1990. There might have been some updates since then -- I don't know.
The conclusion of that study would support the points Michael Bates made in his opinion column.
That's kind of the point, Booworld. Michael is making a case using stale assumptions. And he's offering a "solution" that is not really a solution in first-world countries. Jitneys are a potential enhancement, but not a suitable replacement for mass transit.
quote:
Originally posted by booWorld
INCOG conducted a fixed guideway mass transit feasibility study around 1990. There might have been some updates since then -- I don't know.
The conclusion of that study would support the points Michael Bates made in his opinion column. In general, Tulsa does not have the density to support trolleys. Flexible route schemes with vehicles such as jitneys make more sense in places developed as sparsely as Tulsa is.
The INCOG study included several potential rail routes, with the Tulsa-BA route being the most feasible. One of the problems with that route is that the tracks are in the middle of the highway for several miles. Station design and access in the middle of the BA expressway would be expensive and difficult. Also, the TMAPC has been on a mission of down-zoning older neighborhoods to incredibly low suburban densities -- nothing close to what could support a viable light rail system.
With few exceptions, Tulsa has been planned to be very spread out with wide separations between buildings and between use districts. The price of gasoline is a factor, but until the TMAPC allows for urban densities, mass transit systems will not be feasible. There are too few people spread out over too much land.
There was a new study done just this last year. It was in the news, there were public meetings and presentations. It mapped out where the stations would be. How much different stations would cost. How it would link in with the bus service. Gave cost and time estimates for several different scenarios and showed that it would be feasible for a Downtown BA run. One estimate was about 40 mill. Even had schedules for times the train could run, they had worked out possible agreements with Union Pacific who owns the rail for time slots, and they even gave different estimates for the costs of tickets. Showed projected ridership numbers, low and high range, and how it would likely evolve over time ridership wise and cost wise. It was a very stripped down basic "starter line" intended to just "get things rolling". I thought they did a very good job of being frugal and yet having a workable system. Not your usual city plan that seems to want to spend lots of money. They looked at ways to get the most impact for the least amount of money to get a rail started in Tulsa.
Wasnt there an earlier thread on here about all of this that had pics of the maps showing the route and likely stations, costs, etc?
This new study is what the city is considering. Not the ancient incog study from two decades ago.
Perhaps Bates was asleep during the presentation of the new study?
In his
opinion piece, Michael Bates offered an
alternative to spending millions of dollars on a light rail system that would be used by very few Tulsans, not a "solution" to anything:
quote:
Rather than spend millions to build a rail system that few Tulsans would use, there are a couple of things we could do to make it possible for more Tulsans to get around without a car.
First, let's do what we can to rebuild and reconnect the urban core of our city, to recreate an area where car-free living would be practical. The small zone that was developed before streetcars gave way to automobiles, roughly between Pine and 21st Street, Union and Harvard, has lost population to urban renewal, expansion of hospitals and universities, freeway construction, and the relentless expansion of downtown parking lots. An area that was home to more than 60,000 Tulsans in 1960 had less than half that population in 2000.
Implementing the city's Pearl District plan would be a good first step. Stormwater improvements would remove the Sixth Street corridor between downtown and TU from the flood plain. Putting the district under form-based development rules, as a replacement for zoning, would facilitate high-density, mixed-use redevelopment.
Step two is to improve public transit within that urban core, with more frequent service connecting residents with workplaces, shopping, entertainment, the Utica medical corridor, TCC, TU, and OSU-Tulsa, and downtown.
That doesn't necessarily mean spending more money on Tulsa Transit. It's funny, we know from history that free markets are superior to centrally planned economies, and yet we expect a centrally planned bus network to succeed. In many parts of the world, privately-owned vehicles provide public mobility. The free market is the most efficient way to allocate supply to meet demand.
Let's end the ban on jitneys. Someone with a van ought to be able to offer rides to his neighbors to take them to jobs, shopping, and doctors and to charge them a fare to cover his expenses and his time. Unlike a taxi, jitneys would allow a large number of passengers to share the cost of a trip.
A jitney owner might choose to run a regular route or might shift routes as demand shifts over the course of the day. Some jitneys might work on a "call-ahead" reservation basis. Where city bus trips usually require at least one transfer, smaller, more flexible jitneys could provide point-to-point service, making it more practical for people to do without a car.
Jitneys could not only serve this central district, but could provide convenient transportation to people who can't or would rather not drive, wherever they live.
While some rules would be needed, barriers to entry and regulation should be kept to a minimum. The city's role could be to help potential riders understand how to use jitneys and to encourage shopping centers and office parks to allow jitneys to drop off and pick up passengers.
Before we tie ourselves to the train tracks, let's give free markets and entrepreneurial energy a chance to meet Tulsa's public transportation needs.
It's difficult to rebuild and reconnect the
urban core of Tulsa between Pine and 21st, Union and Harvard with the TMAPC pushing down-zoning in that area of the city to ridiculously low
suburban densities. The de-population of central Tulsa and sprawl of the surrounding suburbs is a by-product of decades and decades of intentional planning and zoning policies aimed at spreading people and buildings farther apart. The suburban mindset is deeply ingrained here, and a light rail system won't change that fact.
Allowing jitneys seems to be worth trying. Perhaps I missed it, but I don't see anything in Michael's
opinion column proposing that jitneys replace Tulsa Transit.
As far as stale assumptions go, what has changed in Tulsa since 1990 which invalidates Michael's suggestions? The price of gas has remained relatively inexpensive. Are there more or fewer cars per capita now than there were 17 years ago? Are there more or fewer persons per square mile living in Tulsa today as compared to 1990? In general, are streets in better or worse shape now than they were then? Have demand for and usage of Tulsa Transit increased or decreased during the past 17 years? Are there more or fewer bus routes now compared to 1990? How about headways and travel times on Tulsa now? Are they longer or shorter than they were in 1990? Are taxes higher or lower now than they were then?
If it comes to a question of whether to raise taxes in order to fund a light rail system, then I will be unwilling to pay for something that won't be very useful. In a city which can't afford to operate public swimming pools, street lights, and fountains, we need to look at what is pragmatic. Thinking that a light rail system will work for Tulsa now or anytime in the near future is naive and somewhat stale itself. We don't have the population density or the demand for mass transit to warrant such an enormous expenditure.
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
quote:
Originally posted by booWorld
INCOG conducted a fixed guideway mass transit feasibility study around 1990. There might have been some updates since then -- I don't know.
The conclusion of that study would support the points Michael Bates made in his opinion column. In general, Tulsa does not have the density to support trolleys. Flexible route schemes with vehicles such as jitneys make more sense in places developed as sparsely as Tulsa is.
The INCOG study included several potential rail routes, with the Tulsa-BA route being the most feasible. One of the problems with that route is that the tracks are in the middle of the highway for several miles. Station design and access in the middle of the BA expressway would be expensive and difficult. Also, the TMAPC has been on a mission of down-zoning older neighborhoods to incredibly low suburban densities -- nothing close to what could support a viable light rail system.
With few exceptions, Tulsa has been planned to be very spread out with wide separations between buildings and between use districts. The price of gasoline is a factor, but until the TMAPC allows for urban densities, mass transit systems will not be feasible. There are too few people spread out over too much land.
There was a new study done just this last year. It was in the news, there were public meetings and presentations. It mapped out where the stations would be. How much different stations would cost. How it would link in with the bus service. Gave cost and time estimates for several different scenarios and showed that it would be feasible for a Downtown BA run. One estimate was about 40 mill. Even had schedules for times the train could run, they had worked out possible agreements with Union Pacific who owns the rail for time slots, and they even gave different estimates for the costs of tickets. Showed projected ridership numbers, low and high range, and how it would likely evolve over time ridership wise and cost wise. It was a very stripped down basic "starter line" intended to just "get things rolling". I thought they did a very good job of being frugal and yet having a workable system. Not your usual city plan that seems to want to spend lots of money. They looked at ways to get the most impact for the least amount of money to get a rail started in Tulsa.
Wasnt there an earlier thread on here about all of this that had pics of the maps showing the route and likely stations, costs, etc?
This new study is what the city is considering. Not the ancient incog study from two decades ago.
Perhaps Bates was asleep during the presentation of the new study?
I'll need to get a copy of the most recent study to compare with the 1990 study. My guess is that there won't be much of a difference in the numbers, including fuel costs. $40 million seems like a bunch of money to me for a city which can't afford the basics.
Density is the key. If the TMAPC remains bent on forcing low, low suburban densities, then a light rail system will not be feasible.
Wait -- if concrete unit pavers are installed between the light rail tracks and around all the stations, then the system has a much better chance of success. Concrete pavers can fix nearly any problem.
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
This new study is what the city is considering. Not the ancient incog study from two decades ago.
Perhaps Bates was asleep during the presentation of the new study?
Not sure about Michael Bates, but I snoozed right through last year's Tulsa Transit train study (//%22http://www.tulsaworld.com/webextra/content/2007/pdfs/studyreport.pdf%22).
Here's one from Nov. 2006...
NOVEMBER 8, 2006
In And Around, On a Rail
Mass transit in the Tulsa area draws closer to reality
BY JAMIE PIERSON
Many Tulsans have probably never needed to have the enigmatic experience of inspecting a train schedule. But soon, travel between downtown and the suburbs may depend upon it.
On Thurs., Oct. 26 the Tulsa Transit Authority unveiled the beginning of a Broken Arrow to Tulsa Mass Transit Feasibility Study that will attempt to define needs and choices for improvements and the feasibility of a mass transit system along the Broken Arrow Expressway and the Union Pacific Railroad.
Originally proposed in 1993, explored in the Indian Nations Council of Government's (INCOG) Destination 2030 Long Range Transportation Plan, this plan is being funded by federal and state money. It will be conducted by a Houston firm, Lockwood, Andrews and Newnam who have implemented mass transit in Houston, Austin, San Antonio, Dallas and Virginia.
The study will focus on four basic questions; what kinds of services are needed? What kinds of improvements are needed? What kinds of facilities are needed? What are the trade-offs between the different alternatives?
The need and opportunity, said Tim Schmidt from Lockwood, Andrews and Newnam, are definitely here. Broken Arrow's population is growing 3.9 percent annually, and will near 100,000 by 2010. Ridership on the Express Park and Ride routes 902 and 909 has increased 80 percent to 35 percent, though it was made clear that these are small capacity routes, and any increases in ridership seem large. However, the average commute from Broken Arrow to downtown 22 minutes. The mass transit system would alleviate the traffic and wear and tear on the highway.
"Simply adding lanes to the Broken Arrow Expressway," said Schmidt, "would disrupt neighborhoods west of Sheridan."
The proposed route would start from downtown in the vicinity of the old Union Station and run roughly along the BA Expressway and the Union Pacific Railroads, ending on Main Street in Broken Arrow, with a stop somewhere in the middle, likely near where the route will cross I-44.
There are three forms of mass transit that would be viable for this kind of a project. Commuter rail trains, light rail trains, and bus rapid transit or BRT.
Commuter rail runs like a regular "push pull" locomotive, but its engine is a hybrid known as diesel multiple unit or DMU. It could run on existing track or on new track that could be installed in the streets themselves, making the trains "street running".
Stations on a commuter rail line are typically around 4 miles apart. These trains can go up to 70mph and carry 184 passengers per car. Austin, TX recently purchased 6 DMU street running trains, and New Mexico laid 20 miles of commuter rail track in July with plans to add another 34 miles by the end of the year. The Dallas Trinity Railway Express, a commuter rail train that operates as an element of Dallas Area Rapid Transit, carried 2.16 million people in 2004. Commuter rail trains can cost between $2.5 million and $15 million per mile.
Light rail trains can also run on standard train tracks, but they operate via overhead electrical cables. They can also be "street running" but they can't travel as fast nor carry as many people. Their stations are typically between half a mile and one mile apart and are somewhat better suited to denser areas. Light rail can cost $33 million per mile.
Bus Rapid Transit or BRT is a newer form of mass transit that has caught on in a few American cities. They are 60 foot long biarticulated buses. BRTs have street level boarding and sleek designs like a train but are much more flexible, in that they can run on regular streets.
They do however, have "dedicated running ways", as in lanes dedicated specifically to BRTs on streets and highways and can run on tracks and guideways for automation. The stations would employ railway components like automated ticket machines and turnstiles. BRT costs are similar to those of commuter rail.
Any or all of these elements could be used to create a suitable transit system for Tulsa and combined with our current bus programs.
"All this is designed for interface," explained Schmidt, "Connectivity is key."
The stations would be "comfy and inviting", said Schmidt, and use a system called Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) that utilizes low barriers and removes any shady corners in which sneaky characters might hide. The stations would be designed to fit the neighborhoods and be easily expandable as the rail program was phased in. They could also contain retail and office space.
The costs of the project will be determined through this study, and no estimates are available at this time. Schmidt explained that no transit system will pay for itself. Fares and advertising will "contribute a percentage" but that operating costs must be maintained through taxes or grants. There is federal and state money available for this project, though it must be matched by local funds.
Bill Cartwright, general manager of Tulsa Transit, encouraged Tulsa to take advantage of these funds, saying, "What I always tell people about federal money for public transit is 'We're already paying for it, we might as well get in on it.'"
Cartwright described the civic benefits of cutting down on our city's ozone emissions with a commuter mass transit system.
"Every year we get dangerously closer to nonattainment (being out of compliance with the Clean Air Act), this year we've had 13 exceedances," said Cartwright. "If you're in manufacturing, you don't want to locate to a dirty city."
Transit-oriented development is predicted to be another boon from this project. One station in Dallas created $100 million in surrounding investment for mixed use development. In fact, zoning laws were changed to accommodate and facilitate development surrounding rail stations.
The next steps for the consulting firm include: reviewing options and the feasibility of the project, identifying the preferred alternative for Tulsa, preparing an implementation plan, making a recommendation to Tulsa Transit, holding public hearings, and finally, presenting a complete feasibility report to the city.
It'll take a little time.
Schmidt recalled how when his firm was building the DART system in Dallas, how it was controversial and disdained.
"'You'll never get a Texan out of their truck,' they said, but now they can't build it fast enough."
If you can' teach an old Texan new tricks, getting comfortably cosmopolitan Tulsans on rapid transit ought to be a breeze.
quote:
Originally posted by booWorld
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
This new study is what the city is considering. Not the ancient incog study from two decades ago.
Perhaps Bates was asleep during the presentation of the new study?
Not sure about Michael Bates, but I snoozed right through last year's Tulsa Transit train study (//%22http://www.tulsaworld.com/webextra/content/2007/pdfs/studyreport.pdf%22).
I may be odd but I found it immensly fascinating lol. I was wrong on remembering the estimates, they were for around 45 mill for the transit line.
But its interesting to notice how things have already changed since this plan was being worked out back in 2006. They had included the possiblility of an East End development happening downtown. So far that has not happened, but again, even if we were to decide today to do this it would take about 10 years or so to implement. Things could can change in that time. They were projecting BA to be almost at 100,000 in population in 2010. Some estimates already have it at that. Downtown BA developments are moving along and a station there would no doubt draw more. Again, this wouldnt happen till about 2020 even if we decided to start today.
IMO the 15th and Lewis and a 6th and Utica station have much potential. Cherry street is steadily experiencing infill and will likely continue. Implimentation of the 6th street corridor and the Pearl District will create higher density nodes in that area. Plus the 15th and Lewis Station is near Utica Square and the large Hospitals. Plus both of those stations are near TU. The area around the 15th and Lewis station, I think its actually 13th, would be seen as a great location for some midrise and higher density developments.
All in all I think their ridership estimates are still reasonable if not a bit conservative.
quote:
Originally posted by booWorld
In his opinion piece, Michael Bates offered an alternative to spending millions of dollars on a light rail system that would be used by very few Tulsans, not a "solution" to anything:
It will only "be used by few Tulsans" if Tulsans forcibly choose to ignore the development potential near trains. It took Dallas 20 years to figure out that trains can spur new development. Why can't we be smarter about it? Bates advocates urban-style development in and around downtown. That's great, but for a fraction of what we'd spend on a street bond, we could begin to work on "transit villages" all over the city. We have railroads radiating from downtown in almost every direction with the potential to spark a heck of a lot of growth in places that could really, really use some help...not just midtown.
Oh, and you can get off of the "light rail" train. Everybody here seems to be advocating mass transit ideas that cost a fraction of old-school light-rail stuff. The costs seem to be on par with routine street widenings, which by the way do very little to help Tulsa's bottom line. Bates seems to be behind the times and behind the curve on this issue, and his positions seem to support the "status quo": sprawling development and more infrastructure per household than more efficient cities. That translates into higher costs, and higher taxes.
When Bates tries to torpedo an idea, he typically throws up a red herring to confuse his friends. "Trust in the free market" he says. He sounds smart, and his rhetoric is appealing...but that's where it stops.
quote:
That doesn't necessarily mean spending more money on Tulsa Transit. It's funny, we know from history that free markets are superior to centrally planned economies, and yet we expect a centrally planned bus network to succeed. In many parts of the world, privately-owned vehicles provide public mobility. The free market is the most efficient way to allocate supply to meet demand.
Sweet, sweet, rhetoric...but meaningless. Where did the street underneath those privately-owned vehicles come from? From us, the taxpayers. Who maintains that street? We do. Even in America, there are certain things that we must do "centrally".
I've already said that I think jitney routes and taxi stands should be allowed, but don't be confused. Outside of third world countries that cannot even contemplate public mass transit, share taxis are a
supplement, and generally operate along the
busiest mass transit routes. It's another red herring. How many share taxis will it take to spur the development of a new mid-rise like the one over in Utica Square? The answer is, that's not how it works. They "follow" the market, they don't define it. But if the city puts a commuter train down, then that's a substantial, permanent, commitment. If I'm a developer, that's where I'm going to spend my money, even if it is in some old abandoned industrial zone along the tracks. Why do we know this? Because that's what is happening in Dallas and all of these other places where trains have gone in.
Here's what I get from the Tulsa Transit study:
Most optimistic scenario at end of first year (in 2010 dollars):
$46.1 million to construct and operate rail system from Main Street BA to Tulsa CBD; 2.5 million rides
= $18.44 per ride.
Least optimistic scenario at end of first year of operation:
$52.1 million to construct and operate rail system; 0.6 million rides
= $86.83 per ride.
Most optimistic scenario averaged over the first 20 years of operation:
$5.25 million average per year to build/maintain/operate system; average 3.3 million rides per year
= $1.59 per ride.
Least optimistic scenario averaged over the first 20 years of operation:
$5.55 million average per year to build/maintain/operate system; average 1.25 rides per year
= $4.44 per ride.
Offhand, it sounds as though it would be a hassle to get to the stations, but I'm accustomed to getting where I want to go quickly on foot, by shuttle, by car, or by bus. Also, even if I lived on Main Street BA and needed to travel to downtown Tulsa on a regular basis, I really would not want to wait an average of 36 minutes in order to pay $2 to ride a train which moved at an average speed of 27 miles per hour.
quote:
Originally posted by booWorld
Here's what I get from the Tulsa Transit study:
Most optimistic scenario at end of first year (in 2010 dollars):
$46.1 million to construct and operate rail system from Main Street BA to Tulsa CBD; 2.5 million rides
= $18.44 per ride.
Least optimistic scenario at end of first year of operation:
$52.1 million to construct and operate rail system; 0.6 million rides
= $86.83 per ride.
Most optimistic scenario averaged over the first 20 years of operation:
$5.25 million average per year to build/maintain/operate system; average 3.3 million rides per year
= $1.59 per ride.
Least optimistic scenario averaged over the first 20 years of operation:
$5.55 million average per year to build/maintain/operate system; average 1.25 rides per year
= $4.44 per ride.
Offhand, it sounds as though it would be a hassle to get to the stations, but I'm accustomed to getting where I want to go quickly on foot, by shuttle, by car, or by bus. Also, even if I lived on Main Street BA and needed to travel to downtown Tulsa on a regular basis, I really would not want to wait an average of 36 minutes in order to pay $2 to ride a train which moved at an average speed of 27 miles per hour.
Again, you are presuming that a train goes in and
nothing else changes; no new development at all. That's unrealistic.
In theory, the idea of light rail corridors could work. But it depends on the density of surrounding development.
Remember that this is Tulsa. The TMAPC has been on a mission of down-zoning neighborhoods which could benefit from more intensity, not less. Passenger rail won't be viable in Tulsa with the TMAPC's suburban mindset. Personally, I don't want to foot the bill to fund a rail transit system while the TMAPC is in sprawl mode. That doesn't make sense.
quote:
Originally posted by booWorld
In theory, the idea of light rail corridors could work. But it depends on the density of surrounding development.
Remember that this is Tulsa. The TMAPC has been a mission of down-zoning neighborhoods which could benefit from more intensity, not less. Passenger rail won't be viable in Tulsa with the TMAPC's suburban mindset. Personally, I don't want to foot the bill to fund a rail transit system while the TMAPC is in sprawl mode. That doesn't make sense.
Yaaaay! We finally aren't talking past each other. If trains are to happen, then it
absolutely must be based on the precondition that there are places to build around these stops. If nobody wants to change the density, then there is no point in doing this. But, the beauty of looking at rail corridors is that, historically, no residents wanted to be near them. Industry was clustered around them. And now, since industry depends more on highway than it does on rail, many businesses have moved out to industrial parks with better highway access. There is a lot of underutilized industrial land that could be used if someone were to get serious about it.
I did not make presumptions about the Tulsa Transit study. The assumptions and presumptions were in the study. I added and divided the numbers listed in the study and then typed them in a few paragraphs before posting.
My calculations could be wrong, but I did not presume anything, except perhaps that the TMAPC won't adjust their mindset and/or their behavior quickly enough to allow for the type of intense development necessary to make passenger rail feasible. From what I've seen, the TMAPC wants Tulsa to be more spread out, not more compact.
quote:
Originally posted by booWorld
I did not make presumptions about the Tulsa Transit study. The assumptions and presumptions were in the study. I added and divided the numbers listed in the study and then typed them in a few paragraphs before posting.
My calculations could be wrong, but I did not presume anything, except perhaps that the TMAPC won't adjust their mindset and/or their behavior quickly enough to allow for the type of intense development necessary to make passenger rail feasible. From what I've seen, the TMAPC wants Tulsa to be more spread out, not more compact.
Looking through it, they don't seem to be predicting increased ridership based on new development. It just looks like an engineering study for the rail, not a market study. The only thing you might conclude from the new study is that starting up a rail system is possibly a lot cheaper that we thought. I still think that we'd need a broader cost vs. benefit analysis of this corridor and a lot of others before we started sinking dollars into it.
We have to look at the kinds of development that is happening around the DART system in other places and see if we actually have room for it here. I suspect we do, but, since the train follows the highway to BA, the land is a lot more valuable. It might make much more sense in west Tulsa to the south along the River and in north Tulsa to the airport.
UPDATE: Ooops, I take that back. The ridership forecasts at the high end reflect Transit Oriented Development:
quote:
The range of ridership forecasts varies. The low end uses current demographic data
which does not include TOD resulting from yet-to-be available rail service. The high
end, which is a more optimistic demographic data, takes advantage of future TOD which
has been shown in other cities to be encouraged by the introduction of passenger rail
service. The ridership study (which reflects boardings) concluded that 2010 ridership
would range between 1.4 million and 5.0 million, and that by the year 2030 between 1.9
million and 4.1 million people would board the train during an average year, depending
on the extent to which TOD occurred. This assumes no increase in service hours. Should
hours of operation and service be increased, ridership numbers would be expected to
increase as well.
The ridership forecasts on page 45 tell the story. You get FIVE times the ridership if you build around the stations...which sort of underscores the point that building a train
without new development is stupid.
The study made some marketing assumptions. But by their own admission, the authors of the study explain that the market surveys are probably skewed because they got their results from a select group of Tulsans open to the idea of mass transit to begin with.
Between 6am and 6pm, wait an average of 36 minutes to ride a train from Main Street BA to dowtown Tulsa at an average speed of 27 miles per hour. Fare: $2. Give the finger to Santa as he pedals ahead past the train along the BA. Perhaps visit INCOG and pick up a lot split application if the the staffers there are not too busy discussing white chocolate hot chocolate.
quote:
Originally posted by booWorld
The study made some marketing assumptions. But by their own admission, the authors of the study explain that the market surveys are probably skewed because they got their results from a select group of Tulsans open to the idea of mass transit to begin with.
Between 6am and 6pm, wait an average of 36 minutes to ride a train from Main Street BA to dowtown Tulsa at an average speed of 27 miles per hour. Fare: $2. Give the finger to Santa as he pedals ahead past the train along the BA. Perhaps visit INCOG and pick up a lot split application if the the staffers there are not too busy discussing white chocolate hot chocolate.
You're actually being a little too generous. There is no "6 AM - 6 PM" service. The plan is for rush hour service only. Two trains inbound in the morning... two trains outbound in the evening rush hour.
This is is typical of commuter rail services elsewhere in the country, and is one of the reasons that, contrary to the assumptions made in the study and despite the fondest wishes and dreams of many on this board, commuter rail does
not typically spawn much in the way of transit oriented development.
quote:
Originally posted by Oil Capital
...contrary to the assumptions made in the study and despite the fondest wishes and dreams of many on this board, commuter rail does not typically spawn much in the way of transit oriented development.
Forgive me if I don't swallow your argument. From the City of San Jose (//%22http://www.sanjoseca.gov/planning/smartgrowth/tod_map.asp%22)'s Website:
quote:
Here you will find a map of transit-oriented development projects, totaling over 40,000 units, which have been approved or built (since 1990) in close proximity to existing or planned transit opportunities in the City of San Jose. You can also download a data table that contains the name, unit count, and link to a photograph of these projects along with their associated density (expressed as dwelling units per acre, or DU/Ac).
40,000 units in San freakin' Jose. That's not just a train system, that's a whole growth strategy. Do you have a better one for Tulsa? Or do you just want to continue to live in a flat growth city with rising infrastructure costs? Is San Jose the exception or the rule? You want to have a contest to find out? Start digging.
quote:
Originally posted by Chicken Little
quote:
Originally posted by Oil Capital
...contrary to the assumptions made in the study and despite the fondest wishes and dreams of many on this board, commuter rail does not typically spawn much in the way of transit oriented development.
Forgive me if I don't swallow your argument. From the City of San Jose (//%22http://www.sanjoseca.gov/planning/smartgrowth/tod_map.asp%22)'s Website: quote:
Here you will find a map of transit-oriented development projects, totaling over 40,000 units, which have been approved or built (since 1990) in close proximity to existing or planned transit opportunities in the City of San Jose. You can also download a data table that contains the name, unit count, and link to a photograph of these projects along with their associated density (expressed as dwelling units per acre, or DU/Ac).
40,000 units in San freakin' Jose. That's not just a train system, that's a whole growth strategy. Do you have a better one for Tulsa? Or do you just want to continue to live in a flat growth city with rising infrastructure costs? Is San Jose the exception or the rule? You want to have a contest to find out? Start digging.
Take it down a notch, sister.
For starters, "San freakin' Jose is a metro area twice the size of Tulsa's and is embedded in a Combined Metro area approximately nine times the size of Tulsa's.
Second. That was over a period of SEVENTEEN years. 2352 apartment and condo units per year.
Third. That was built
and approved. They didn't say how many of those have actually been built.
Fourth. The VAST majority of those developments are on LIGHT RAIL lines, NOT commuter rail.
Fifth. The commuter rail there appears to operate an all-day schedule in both directions and at pretty frequent intervals. NONE of those things are true about the commuter rail planned for Tulsa.
Keep digging if you please. But try to be more careful; your San Jose information didn't exactly support your argument. I'll keep digging as well. I'll let you know if I come across any significant TOD around a commuter rail system similar to that planned in Tulsa.
I encourage everyone to take a look at the http://www.sanjoseca.gov/planning/smartgrowth/tod_house.asp (//%22pictures%22) they provide of the TOD they are so proud of... a rather large majority of them are apartment complexes that would be perfectly at home in the sprawl of south Tulsa.
Are we going to widen BA or not? If we were it would cost a lot of money so then this light rail would be viable.
Does anyone forsee a need, or desire, to widen the BA in the future?
If not then just encouraging Tulsa and BA in general to become more dense would in itself start removing trips and shortening trip times.
Though both cities populations may grow it wouldnt increase the road traffic as much because people wouldnt be driving as far and as often.
I do think we should encourage high density areas. But how and where? Some people in mid-town already scream when you tear out a house and replace it with something larger. I can only imagine that they wouldnt want midrise or highrise buildings going in near them.
So where should these high density areas be? We either spend money and effort trying to get people to build in "undesirable, run down" areas. Or throw a fit when someone tries to building something in the areas that are desirable. Thats kind of a tough way to go about getting new development and "encouraging density".
Should we plan on widening roads to hold more traffic? Or say, if you dont want traffic live closer to where you want to go?
What about the suburbs like BA? If the traffic on the "feeder roads" into the city start getting clogged, do we even bother with it? Not widen the roads or doing rail. Again saying, live and work in BA and dont bother us with your problem lol? Or move to Tulsa and live and work here?
Rail, is honestly no big deal, we could do fine without it for the rest of my lifetime I am sure. But no matter what we do, I personally would rather NOT widen more roads, period.
If I look around and think about priorities and spending 40 or 50 mill, I would say do the Pearl District plan first. Much higher priority at this point and is a prime place to create a higher density, pedestrian friendly environment.
So basically I guess I am coming to the conclusion. Dont widen BA, and do the Pearl. Dont worry about traffic on the BA, if people dont like it, move some place else. Either the Pearl or stay in BA lol.
quote:
Originally posted by Oil Capital
Take it down a notch, sister.
For starters, "San freakin' Jose is a metro area twice the size of Tulsa's and is embedded in a Combined Metro area approximately nine times the size of Tulsa's.
Second. That was over a period of SEVENTEEN years. 2352 apartment and condo units per year.
Here's an apples to apples comparisons for you. From 1990 to 2000 the number of housing units in Tulsa grew by 2%. In the same period in San Jose, housing units grew by 9%.
Neither city changed land area much over the decade they have 175 square miles, we have 183.
They are landlocked by terrain, and we are somewhat landlocked by suburban communities.
quote:
Third. That was built and approved. They didn't say how many of those have actually been built.
Fourth. The VAST majority of those developments are on LIGHT RAIL lines, NOT commuter rail.
We aren't talking about light rail, as Michael Bates asserts. The BA feasibility study
is for commuter rail using existing tracks, and it's about $3,000,000 a mile with stops.
quote:
Fifth. The commuter rail there appears to operate an all-day schedule in both directions and at pretty frequent intervals. NONE of those things are true about the commuter rail planned for Tulsa.
Let's say we'd want to run it all day and all night. So operations would need to triple, say, to $10,000,000 per year? How many new people along that line would we need, minimum, to pay for that line?
According to the census, retail sales per household in 1997 citywide were $13,448. With inflation and assuming there will be some more expensive households in a transit development, I'm going to call it $25,000 per housing unit. Unless I'm wrong, you'd need to add 400 new housing units along these lines in order to pay for the whole system. That doesn't seem like an unreasonable number. I think we could get that and then some. So, any growth on top of that would benefit everyone, right? More density, more shoppers per square foot, right? And that sales tax number does not even account for the property tax that would be pumped into the schools.
quote:
Keep digging if you please. But try to be more careful; your San Jose information didn't exactly support your argument. I'll keep digging as well. I'll let you know if I come across any significant TOD around a commuter rail system similar to that planned in Tulsa.
I encourage everyone to take a look at the http://www.sanjoseca.gov/planning/smartgrowth/tod_house.asp (//%22pictures%22) they provide of the TOD they are so proud of... a rather large majority of them are apartment complexes that would be perfectly at home in the sprawl of south Tulsa.
Sorry about the venom, Cappy, but one of the subtexts in this thread is about shooting your mouth off and not caring to even make a case. It's not aimed at you.
UPDATE: Oh, geez, I knew I missed something. The City only gets 5 percent of that. So it'd take 8,000 housing units. That's more ambitious. I guess that why these things charge fares.
quote:
Originally posted by Chicken Little
Here's an apples to apples comparisons for you. From 1990 to 2000 the number of housing units in Tulsa grew by 2%. In the same period in San Jose, housing units grew by 9%.
Neither city changed land area much over the decade they have 175 square miles, we have 183.
They are landlocked by terrain, and we are somewhat landlocked by suburban communities.
Not sure what your point is here. Are you saying they added housing units at a faster pace because they have commuter rail? That's a HUGE stretch, to say the least.quote:
Third. That was built and approved. They didn't say how many of those have actually been built.
Fourth. The VAST majority of those developments are on LIGHT RAIL lines, NOT commuter rail.
We aren't talking about light rail, as Michael Bates asserts. The BA feasibility study
is for commuter rail using existing tracks, and it's about $3,000,000 a mile with stops.
[/quote]
Uhh, yeah, I know and that is why all of the so-called Transit oriented development occurring around San Jose's LIGHT RAIL lines could hardly be less relevant. quote:
Fifth. The commuter rail there appears to operate an all-day schedule in both directions and at pretty frequent intervals. NONE of those things are true about the commuter rail planned for Tulsa.[/quote] Let's say we'd want to run it all day and all night. So operations would need to triple, say, to $10,000,000 per year? How many new people along that line would we need, minimum, to pay for that line?
According to the census, retail sales per household in 1997 citywide were $13,448. With inflation and assuming there will be some more expensive households in a transit development, I'm going to call it $25,000 per housing unit. Unless I'm wrong, you'd need to add 400 new housing units along these lines in order to pay for the whole system. That doesn't seem like an unreasonable number. I think we could get that and then some. So, any growth on top of that would benefit everyone, right? More density, more shoppers per square foot, right? And that sales tax number does not even account for the property tax that would be pumped into the schools. [/quote]
Wow, you're going crazy with the numbers there, big fella. First, your 86% jump in retail sales per housing unit is, well, quite a remarkable (and unsupported) jump. But even if that number is correct, it's a remarkable leap to say that 400 hundred households (and there's another assumption without supporting evidence) spending $25000 each in retail in Tulsa would somehow "pay" for the $10 million cost of running largely empty rail cars back and forth between BA and Tulsa. With that kind of economic "analysis" any kind of government spending project ever conceived could be easily justified. (At 8% (for ease of calculation), that $10,000,000 of retail sales would produce $800,000 of tax revenue per year, leaving you with a deficit of 10,200,000 per year. And that is leaving aside the fact that the majority of those 400 units will not be truly additive to the Tulsa economy, but merely substitutive; i.e., they are built at a rail station, but otherwise would have been built on 151st and Memorial or South Riverside Drive.
quote:
Keep digging if you please. But try to be more careful; your San Jose information didn't exactly support your argument. I'll keep digging as well. I'll let you know if I come across any significant TOD around a commuter rail system similar to that planned in Tulsa.
I encourage everyone to take a look at the http://www.sanjoseca.gov/planning/smartgrowth/tod_house.asp (//%22pictures%22) they provide of the TOD they are so proud of... a rather large majority of them are apartment complexes that would be perfectly at home in the sprawl of south Tulsa.
[/quote]Sorry about the venom, Cappy, but one of the subtexts in this thread is about shooting your mouth off and not caring to even make a case. It's not aimed at you.
[/quote]
I appreciate that, but if it's not aimed at me, you might consider not including it in a response to me. ;-)
You're are going to have to point out the substantive difference between commuter rail and light rail. I've traveled both, and subways, Amtrak, etc. I don't see why a person would ride one but not the other.
And I arrived at those numbers arithmetically. Though it took me two tries. To get $10,000,000 annually in sales tax, you'd need to add about 8,000 households. You give me a number for revenue per household and we can use that.
And, I should say that remark is no longer aimed at you. In your first post, it looked like you were going to try and sweep this under the rug by calling it a "colossal waste" or something [;)]
quote:
Originally posted by Chicken Little
You're are going to have to point out the substantive difference between commuter rail and light rail. I've traveled both, and subways, Amtrak, etc. I don't see why a person would ride one but not the other.
As I mentioned in an earlier post, the substantive difference (at least when discussing the type of commuter rail being proposed in Tulsa) is that the commuter rail operates at very infrequent intervals, often in one direction (inbound in the morning, outbound in the evening) and very limited hours (the Tulsa proposal is for two inbounds in the morning, 72 minutes apart; two outbounds in the evening, 72 minutes apart. That does not necessarily tell us that a person would not ride commuter rail, but it has an effect on what sorts of development one can expect near the rail stations.
Commuter rails stations of this sort will not have a flow of passengers throughout the day. They will have large parking lots, and they will have two small bursts of people in the morning and two small bursts of people in the evening. Most of those people will just want to get out of their car and into the train to get to work and the reverse in the evening. Not a particularly beneficial location for businesses, etc.
I was looking at where the existing tracks intersect with current destinations downtown. I totally agree that each stop could become a magnet for new development.
I wonder where the stations will be?
The existing tracks run just three blocks north of Central Park, four blocks south from OSU Tulsa, one block north of the BOK Tower and the Performing Arts center, one block west of the new arena, and two blocks west of Tulsa Regional Hospital and the new museum at Riverside Drive and Southwest Boulevard. Each of these locations have an anchor destination to stop and available land to redevelop.
How many stops could there be and where?
quote:
Originally posted by Oil Capital
quote:
Originally posted by Chicken Little
You're are going to have to point out the substantive difference between commuter rail and light rail. I've traveled both, and subways, Amtrak, etc. I don't see why a person would ride one but not the other.
As I mentioned in an earlier post, the substantive difference (at least when discussing the type of commuter rail being proposed in Tulsa) is that the commuter rail operates at very infrequent intervals, often in one direction (inbound in the morning, outbound in the evening) and very limited hours (the Tulsa proposal is for two inbounds in the morning, 72 minutes apart; two outbounds in the evening, 72 minutes apart. That does not necessarily tell us that a person would not ride commuter rail, but it has an effect on what sorts of development one can expect near the rail stations.
Commuter rails stations of this sort will not have a flow of passengers throughout the day. They will have large parking lots, and they will have two small bursts of people in the morning and two small bursts of people in the evening. Most of those people will just want to get out of their car and into the train to get to work and the reverse in the evening. Not a particularly beneficial location for businesses, etc.
Commuter rails can offer transit oriented development around them. DART does. And they operate 5 AM to 1 AM. It seems to me that you'd have people living in these ares...lots of them. So, how would it not be a benefit to businesses?
quote:
Originally posted by Chicken Little
You're are going to have to point out the substantive difference between commuter rail and light rail. I've traveled both, and subways, Amtrak, etc. I don't see why a person would ride one but not the other.
And I arrived at those numbers arithmetically. Though it took me two tries. To get $10,000,000 annually in sales tax, you'd need to add about 8,000 households. You give me a number for revenue per household and we can use that.
And, I should say that remark is no longer aimed at you. In your first post, it looked like you were going to try and sweep this under the rug by calling it a "colossal waste" or something [;)]
Here are some further complications with your all-day plan:
First, your $10 million operating cost estimate is way too low. That is, IIRC 3 times the estimated cost for the proposed system. So for $10 million of operating costs, we'd get roughly 6 inbounds and 6 outbounds, rather than 2. Nowhere near the frequency you would need to start garnering real TOD benefits.
Second, to run all-day service at reasonable frequencies would require a much larger capital investment in train sets, adding to the costs you'd need to recover.
Third, and perhaps most important. We have to share the tracks with the freight railroads. So all day service of any significant frequency is probably not possible.
quote:
Originally posted by Chicken Little
quote:
Originally posted by Oil Capital
quote:
Originally posted by Chicken Little
You're are going to have to point out the substantive difference between commuter rail and light rail. I've traveled both, and subways, Amtrak, etc. I don't see why a person would ride one but not the other.
As I mentioned in an earlier post, the substantive difference (at least when discussing the type of commuter rail being proposed in Tulsa) is that the commuter rail operates at very infrequent intervals, often in one direction (inbound in the morning, outbound in the evening) and very limited hours (the Tulsa proposal is for two inbounds in the morning, 72 minutes apart; two outbounds in the evening, 72 minutes apart. That does not necessarily tell us that a person would not ride commuter rail, but it has an effect on what sorts of development one can expect near the rail stations.
Commuter rails stations of this sort will not have a flow of passengers throughout the day. They will have large parking lots, and they will have two small bursts of people in the morning and two small bursts of people in the evening. Most of those people will just want to get out of their car and into the train to get to work and the reverse in the evening. Not a particularly beneficial location for businesses, etc.
Commuter rails can offer transit oriented development around them. DART does. And they operate 5 AM to 1 AM. It seems to me that you'd have people living in these ares...lots of them. So, how would it not be a benefit to businesses?
DART is NOT commuter rail. DART is light rail. They operate all day, in both directions at reasonable frequencies. See my earlier post as to why a commuter rail (especially of the type contemplated in Tulsa) would not be much of a benefit to businesses.
Look, all you have to do is to give me some numbers for household sales tax and property tax generated and we can arithmetically arrive at how many new housing units it would take for the development to pay for this system at no additional cost to you, right?
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
If I look around and think about priorities and spending 40 or 50 mill, I would say do the Pearl District plan first. Much higher priority at this point and is a prime place to create a higher density, pedestrian friendly environment.
Develop the Pearl District instead of spending $45 million on a passenger train between Tulsa and Broken Arrow ... interesting idea. Seems as though I've read that suggestion recently.
Oh yes, I remember now: Michael Bates suggested that in his
opinion column in that trashy, pornographic
Urban Tulsa Weekly.
quote:
Originally posted by Floyd
For me, the problem is that the whole article is spent knocking down a straw man of his own creation. Bates takes "passenger rail implementation" and turns it into "light rail." But he should know that when the streets panel and Tulsa Transit and INCOG talk about passenger rail, they're not talking about creating some sort of tram network out of thin air. What they're referring to is a specific commuter rail line from downtown Broken Arrow to downtown Tulsa, as well as a potential second commuter line from Jenks to downtown Tulsa...
...Maybe next week we can get some reasoned thoughts on the viability of commuter rail, rather than a polemic against a made-up trolley system?
But seriously, keep up the good work. I enjoy your articles.
Michael Bates did not create the "light rail" straw man, Floyd. The Complete Our Streets Advisory Council (COSAC) specifically mentions light rail in its report (//%22http://www.cityoftulsa.org/CityServices/Streets/documents/ReportofFinanceCommittee_1_000.pdf%22).
The COSAC Finance Committee recommends the creation of yet another authority: the Tulsa Transportation Authority or TTA. The TTA would have the "ability to consider the implementation of a
light rail system connecting Tulsa to the various cities and towns around Tulsa such as Broken Arrow, Claremore, Owasso, Sand Springs, Sapulpa, Bixby, and Jenks..."
Michael has written his opinion on the idea of a light rail system for Tulsa, but he did not fabricate the notion from nothing.
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
I wonder where the stations will be?...
...How many stops could there be and where?
Look at page 8 of this pdf (//%22http://www.tulsatransit.org/media/files/StudyPresentation.pdf%22), and pages 22, 23, and 48-53 of this one (//%22http://www.tulsaworld.com/webextra/content/2007/pdfs/studyreport.pdf%22).
quote:
Originally posted by Oil Capital
quote:
Originally posted by booWorld
The study made some marketing assumptions. But by their own admission, the authors of the study explain that the market surveys are probably skewed because they got their results from a select group of Tulsans open to the idea of mass transit to begin with.
Between 6am and 6pm, wait an average of 36 minutes to ride a train from Main Street BA to dowtown Tulsa at an average speed of 27 miles per hour. Fare: $2. Give the finger to Santa as he pedals ahead past the train along the BA. Perhaps visit INCOG and pick up a lot split application if the the staffers there are not too busy discussing white chocolate hot chocolate.
You're actually being a little too generous. There is no "6 AM - 6 PM" service. The plan is for rush hour service only. Two trains inbound in the morning... two trains outbound in the evening rush hour.
This is is typical of commuter rail services elsewhere in the country, and is one of the reasons that, contrary to the assumptions made in the study and despite the fondest wishes and dreams of many on this board, commuter rail does not typically spawn much in the way of transit oriented development.
How's this?
Between 6am and 6pm, wait an average of 3 hours to ride a train from Main Street Broken Arrow to dowtown Tulsa at an average speed of 27 miles per hour. Fare: $2. Wave to Santa as he pedals ahead past the train along the BA Expressway and watch his figure diminish to a dingy, red-ish dot far in the distance. After reaching downtown Tulsa and making it through the rough unit pavers and open pits, perhaps visit the "planners" at INCOG to pick up a lot split application for some property near one of the train stations if they are not too busy discussing the aspects of white chocolate hot chocolate.
Just checked back in. I don't understand what the argument against commuter rail is. We're talking about basic infrastructure. It's a way to take the load off our roads. It's not expensive relative to expanding the expressway. It's scalable relative to demand.
It makes perfect sense and is the sort of investment cities are *supposed* to make. Unless you have uncontrollable contrarian urges (like so many in this lovely city), there's no reason to waste breath arguing against it.
Chicken Little began this topic began with a link to a column by Michael Bates and/or his copy editor.
The column is critical of the idea of a trolley system for Tulsa. Several posters have accused Michael Bates of confusing the issue by fabricating an argument about light rail when the real argument ought to be about commuter rail. Michael's column is about the subject of light rail. He didn't pull the subject out of thin air. The Complete Our Streets Advisory Committee recommended that a new Tulsa Transportation Authority be created, and studying the potential light rail system was recommended as one of the new authority's abilities.
The topic shifted to the subject of commuter rail because some posters chose to spin it that way. Michael Bates didn't. It's interesting and mildly amusing how some forum users will take any opportunity to criticize other users instead of discussing the actual topic at hand. It's also interesting but annoying to see so many posts made in ignorance of the topic of discussion.
One of my favorite quotes from Tulsa Transit's April 2007
Broken Arrow/Tulsa Mass Transit Study (//%22http://www.tulsaworld.com/webextra/content/2007/pdfs/studyreport.pdf%22), which is on page 18 of the report (and on page 29 of the pdf (//%22http://www.tulsaworld.com/webextra/content/2007/pdfs/studyreport.pdf%22)):
quote:
...it is our recommendation that the next step should be implemented as soon as practical, before there is any let down in the public's desire to see this [idea of mass transit improvements in the Broken Arrow to Tulsa corridor] move forward. This project needs a champion, someone to keep the ball rolling. All indications are that this has the support, including funding support.
If it's such a wonderful idea, then why would it be in any danger of losing public support? Shouldn't it be able to stand on its own merits without a champion to keep the momentum going?
quote:
Originally posted by booWorld
Chicken Little began this topic began with a link to a column by Michael Bates and/or his copy editor.
The column is critical of the idea of a trolley system for Tulsa. Several posters have accused Michael Bates of confusing the issue by fabricating an argument about light rail when the real argument ought to be about commuter rail. Michael's column is about the subject of light rail. He didn't pull the subject out of thin air. The Complete Our Streets Advisory Committee recommended that a new Tulsa Transportation Authority be created, and studying the potential light rail system was recommended as one of the new authority's abilities.
The topic shifted to the subject of commuter rail because some posters chose to spin it that way. Michael Bates didn't. It's interesting and mildly amusing how some forum users will take any opportunity to criticize other users instead of discussing the actual topic at hand. It's also interesting but annoying to see so many posts made in ignorance of the topic of discussion.
The conversation didn't "spin", the actual rail study recommends commuter rail. It's cheaper and it looks feasible. Michael "and/or" his copy editor (shades of Ron Paul?) should have been paying attention to current events, instead of relying on old and/or incomplete information.
And, by the way, you are flat wrong. The Complete Our Streets (//%22http://www.cityoftulsa.org/CityServices/Streets/CompleteOurStreets.asp%22) the recommendation of the smart urban design committee, the one that Michael references, does not mention "light rail":
quote:
Establish a dedicated source of funds, e.g. sales tax,
for public transportation purposes to include planning,
operations and maintenance to improve the system as
well as initiating the necessary analyses for passenger
rail implementation
Michael then says:
quote:
In other words, they want us to start planning to build a taxpayer-funded light rail system.
In other words, Michael leaps to this conclusion by picking the least feasible "passenger rail" option and proceeded to knock it down. Either it was on purpose or by accident. Either way, it's not a fair knock.
quote:
Originally posted by booWorld
Chicken Little began this topic began with a link to a column by Michael Bates and/or his copy editor.
The column is critical of the idea of a trolley system for Tulsa. Several posters have accused Michael Bates of confusing the issue by fabricating an argument about light rail when the real argument ought to be about commuter rail. Michael's column is about the subject of light rail. He didn't pull the subject out of thin air. The Complete Our Streets Advisory Committee recommended that a new Tulsa Transportation Authority be created, and studying the potential light rail system was recommended as one of the new authority's abilities.
The topic shifted to the subject of commuter rail because some posters chose to spin it that way. Michael Bates didn't. It's interesting and mildly amusing how some forum users will take any opportunity to criticize other users instead of discussing the actual topic at hand. It's also interesting but annoying to see so many posts made in ignorance of the topic of discussion.
I must admit that before this conversation I myself have never distinguished between light rail and commuter rail, so it may be that they are talking about commuter rail and are just using the common light rail moniker. The main beef I had against Bates column was his characterization of the issue by putting out an example where there were rail lines down every arterial street. Its setting up a false argument that distracts from what we should truthfuly be talking about or considering. As far as I know all anyone is or would be considering, for any type of rail, is the BA to Downtown Tulsa line.
One of his over all points, that it would be smarter to do the Pearl and go for more density to lessen car trips etc. as I have considered the issue I have come to the conclusion that this in fact may be a very good point. But framing it the way he did with a false comparison will only serve to confuse the issue doing more harm to the truth of the matter.
It was like the river thing where they showed renderings of all that stuff in BA thinking it would make the plan look more attractive, but it backfired and actually cause more resentment and reason to not believe what the officials were saying and not trust them even more. Even if your right its not going to help to pull deceptive or exaggerated stunts. It may backfire. It turned out, after weeding through and dismissing a lot of his crap, I actually agreed with some of what he said, but because he framed it the way he did, your first reactions were to disagree and argue.
As for jinteys, I would have to know specifically what you were talking about in a Tulsa context. What regulations would be in place etc. But they are not an either or issue, just like encouraging the riding of bikes, they would work in conjunction with a mass transit rail line, bus routes, cars, taxis. Each form of transportation has its pluses and minuses. Each better for different distances. There are times and places when one is better than the other.
There is no way I would have taken a Jitney to a lot of places in Paris. The rail was fast and not going to get stuck in traffic. Walking was often faster than the traffic in many areas lol. I love using the subway and rail, it was quick and even relaxing for longer distances. I loved walking and bikeriding short to medium distances, everywhere was beautiful. Bus routes were occasionally convenient. I personally abhore car taxis, they just seem depressing, always smell funky, are clausterphobic I dont like sitting in the back of a car, and remind me of bad times. Shuttle buses remind me of vacations, they are open bouncy and offer a good view, so those are fine lol[:D]. But depending on if a jitney was a car or a bus, and clean lol, would determine whether I would ride it.
quote:
Originally posted by booWorld
If it's such a wonderful idea, then why would it be in any danger of losing public support? Shouldn't it be able to stand on its own merits without a champion to keep the momentum going?
That finance committee is a different group than the smart design committee. The finance committee recommends that this authority "determine the financial feasibility and operation of mass transit systems, including an interconnected light rail system.", and the smart urban design committee recommends an authority to conduct "planning, operations and maintenance to improve the system as well as initiating the necessary analyses for passenger rail implementation"
Neither group recommends wasting colossal amounts of money, but Bates apparently thinks that the idea shouldn't even be studied. We already have a Champion for keeping us in the dark. So, yes it looks like it will need Champions just to get it studied, let alone built.
quote:
Originally posted by Chicken Little
The conversation didn't "spin", the actual rail study recommends commuter rail. It's cheaper and it looks feasible.
Which rail study? The Complete Our Streets report recommends that consideration be given to the implementation of light rail and passenger rail.
quote:
Michael "and/or" his copy editor (shades of Ron Paul?) should have been paying attention to current events, instead of relying on old and/or incomplete information.
I don't understand the Ron Paul reference. In one of his previous columns and on his blog, Michael explained that his copy editor sometimes changes what he has written. The entire column is not necessarily written by Michael, and revisions are not necessarily made with Michael's knowledge or approval prior to publication. So I don't actually know which words were written by Michael and which if any were written by his copy editor.
What old or incomplete information are you talking about? Michael cited the Complete Our Streets recommendations which were made last month. In my book, that's current.
quote:
And, by the way, you are flat wrong. The Complete Our Streets (//%22http://www.cityoftulsa.org/CityServices/Streets/CompleteOurStreets.asp%22) the recommendation of the smart urban design committee, the one that Michael references, does not mention "light rail":
quote:
Establish a dedicated source of funds, e.g. sales tax,
for public transportation purposes to include planning,
operations and maintenance to improve the system as
well as initiating the necessary analyses for passenger
rail implementation
Michael then says:
quote:
In other words, they want us to start planning to build a taxpayer-funded light rail system.
In other words, Michael leaps to this conclusion by picking the least feasible "passenger rail" option and proceeded to knock it down.
There is a
possibility that I am flat wrong. I don't know what Michael was thinking. Perhaps he will clarify in a future column, on his blog, and/or on this forum. But I don't think it is much of a leap to conclude that a tax-supported rail system is under serious consideration, especially since the phrase "passenger rail" was used once in the Smart Urban Design Committee report and the phrase "light rail" was mentioned five times in the Finance Committee Report.
quote:
Either it was on purpose or by accident. Either way, it's not a fair knock.
Since there is the possibility that Michael's conclusion that the Smart Urban Design Committee was thinking "light rail" when it mentioned passenger rail, then is Michael getting a fair knock when he is accused of purposely muddying the issue or for being sloppy with his research? Within the first few replies to your intitial post, Michael was accused of setting up a straw man out of thin air. I don't see it that way. In my opinion, that's spin.
I also don't see how sidetracking the thread with the implication that Michael was involved in a card counting scheme was productive to this discussion. In my opinion, that's more spin. There are many merits to commuter rail and to light rail systems. Those merits can be considered and weighed. As I understand his column, Michael thinks there are better ways to spend our scarce tax dollars than investing in a light rail system. His column is not an argument for maintaining the status quo. In fact, he suggests a couple of things we could do to make it easier for Tulsans to get around without cars.
quote:
Originally posted by Chicken Little
quote:
Originally posted by booWorld
If it's such a wonderful idea, then why would it be in any danger of losing public support? Shouldn't it be able to stand on its own merits without a champion to keep the momentum going?
That finance committee is a different group than the smart design committee. The finance committee recommends that this authority "determine the financial feasibility and operation of mass transit systems, including an interconnected light rail system.", and the smart urban design committee recommends an authority to conduct "planning, operations and maintenance to improve the system as well as initiating the necessary analyses for passenger rail implementation"
Neither group recommends wasting colossal amounts of money, but Bates apparently thinks that the idea shouldn't even be studied. We already have a Champion for keeping us in the dark. So, yes it looks like it will need Champions just to get it studied, let alone built.
First, the report I quoted was the April 2007 Tulsa Transit report, not the December 2007 Complete Our Streets report.
Second, I know one of the members of the Smart Urban Design Committee quite well, and I see him frequently. We've spoken about the Complete Our Streets study, but not about the wording in the final report. Next chance I get (which likely will be later today), I will ask him what the Smart Urban Design Committee meant by "passenger rail". Perhaps he'll remember if they meant to include "light rail" and/or "commuter rail" in the "passenger rail" phrase.
Third, Michael has made it clear that
in his opinion, a light rail system for Tulsa would be an colossal waste of money. He explains why he thinks so. I fail to see how his opinion is forcing Tulsa to remain in the dark.
quote:
Originally posted by Chicken Little
Look, all you have to do is to give me some numbers for household sales tax and property tax generated and we can arithmetically arrive at how many new housing units it would take for the development to pay for this system at no additional cost to you, right?
You already have the number up to 8,000. I had thought even you would have realized a commuter rail train making two runs a day is not likely to spawn the construction of 8,000 living units around its four stations. I mean, get serious. That would require 2,000 units surrounding each of the four stations. Even the wildly ambitious East Village proposal only provided 600 units.
And more importantly, the 8,000 number does not consider the fact that the vast majority of any such housing construction will not be additive to the Tulsa market, but only substitutive, and therefore will have zero beneficial impact on sales tax collections.
quote:
Originally posted by Chicken Little
And, by the way, you are flat wrong. The Complete Our Streets (//%22http://www.cityoftulsa.org/CityServices/Streets/CompleteOurStreets.asp%22) the recommendation of the smart urban design committee, the one that Michael references, does not mention "light rail":
[/quote]
Perhaps Michael read the whole report, including all of the subcommittee reports. The finance subcommittee report discusses rail as well, and they specifically and exclusively discuss LIGHT rail.
Does anyone know how or where we could see the Appendices? They have hidden a lot of crucial information in there.
The more I look at this "study", the more it starts to look like a Kathy Taylor special... you know... Here, please do this study for us. We'll pay you $X. And if you reach the results we want, we'll pay you $2X. (For those who don't recall, that's how we got the highly-flawed (one might say fraudulent) "study" recommending the city hall move.)
In any event, I'd really like to see the information in the appendices in order to fairly judge the study.
quote:
Originally posted by Oil Capital
quote:
Originally posted by Chicken Little
Look, all you have to do is to give me some numbers for household sales tax and property tax generated and we can arithmetically arrive at how many new housing units it would take for the development to pay for this system at no additional cost to you, right?
You already have the number up to 8,000. I had thought even you would have realized a commuter rail train making two runs a day is not likely to spawn the construction of 8,000 living units around its four stations. I mean, get serious. That would require 2,000 units surrounding each of the four stations. Even the wildly ambitious East Village proposal only provided 600 units.
And more importantly, the 8,000 number does not consider the fact that the vast majority of any such housing construction will not be additive to the Tulsa market, but only substitutive, and therefore will have zero beneficial impact on sales tax collections.
Now you are whining. Nitpicking is easy...read Bates article for pointers.
That 8,000 number was without fares. I wanted to show that development itself could support the system. An influx of citizens, or a growth strategy in general, can pay for things without costing people like you any money. But it's clear that you don't believe Tulsa can grow anyway. I don't even know what you mean by "substitutive" and "zero"...the "vast majority" of people don't abandon their suburban homes. Provide some proof of this. The kind of housing this might offer would be different than anything we have today, it'll fill up with people who want it, but there's no evidence that it would be a "zero" growth thing.
In my opinion, if we aren't growing, we're shrinking. In which case, have fun paying your taxes. You, like Bates, can try to smother ideas if you want. It only provides us with a clear look at your true nature.
quote:
Originally posted by Chicken Little
quote:
Originally posted by Oil Capital
quote:
Originally posted by Chicken Little
Look, all you have to do is to give me some numbers for household sales tax and property tax generated and we can arithmetically arrive at how many new housing units it would take for the development to pay for this system at no additional cost to you, right?
You already have the number up to 8,000. I had thought even you would have realized a commuter rail train making two runs a day is not likely to spawn the construction of 8,000 living units around its four stations. I mean, get serious. That would require 2,000 units surrounding each of the four stations. Even the wildly ambitious East Village proposal only provided 600 units.
And more importantly, the 8,000 number does not consider the fact that the vast majority of any such housing construction will not be additive to the Tulsa market, but only substitutive, and therefore will have zero beneficial impact on sales tax collections.
Because you are whining. You are not participating, merely taking unsubstantiated pokes at those who do. Nitpicking is easy...read Bates article.
That 8,000 number was without fares. I wanted to show that development itself could support the system. An influx of citizens, or a growth strategy in general, can pay for things without costing people like you any money. But it's clear that you don't believe Tulsa can grow anyway. I don't even know what you mean by "substitutive" and "zero"...the "vast majority" of people don't abandon their suburban homes. Provide some proof of this. This kind of housing this might offer would be different than anything we have today, it'll fill up with people who want it, but there's no evidence that it would be a "zero" growth thing.
In my opinion, if we aren't growing, we're shrinking. In which case, have fun paying your taxes. You, like Bates, can try to smother ideas if you want. It only proves your true nature.
Wow, talk about proving one's true nature... ;-)
I know what you are trying to do. What I've shown is that what you are trying to do is well nigh impossible. A commuter rail will not spawn "new" growth sufficient to pay for itself. I defy you to find any honest studies that say it will.
By substitutive, I mean very simply, that even if 8,000 units were to be built near the commuter rail stations, that does not mean that they would be occupied by 8,000 families/individuals who would otherwise not be living and shopping in the Tulsa metro. The vast majority of them would be occupied by people who otherwise would live in housing units built elsewhere in Tulsa. It just shifts the housing demand from one spot to another. It does not create new housing demand.
To be clear, that is not to say that it might not be a good idea to shift that demand in such a way. But we need to be honest that the rail will not "pay for itself". And causing that shift in demand in a slightly more urban, dense direction is not without cost (the cost of building the rail).
quote:
Originally posted by Oil Capital
Does anyone know how or where we could see the Appendices?
I wondered that myself. The pdf link on the
Tulsa World website (//%22http://www.tulsaworld.com/webextra/content/2007/pdfs/studyreport.pdf%22) appears to be truncated at the end, with lots of information missing. Tulsa Transit's website (//%22http://tulsatransit.org/news-info/commuter-rail-study/%22) has links to the study report, but not the same version of the report as the
Tulsa World.
Honestly, it certainly can pay for itself through a combination of fares, increased numbers of shoppers, and increased property values. Pronouncing that it will not "pay for itself" and then poking your head in the sand doesn't work anymore. 20 years ago, when the technology was untried and the equipment was imported from Europe, you could afford to be so confident. But mass transit is a spark for growth in so many American cities now that you cannot sit there and nitpick ideas to death and expect to sound credible.
quote:
Originally posted by Chicken Little
Honestly, it certainly can pay for itself through a combination of fares, increased numbers of shoppers, and increased property values. Pronouncing that it will not "pay for itself" and then poking your head in the sand doesn't work anymore. 20 years ago, when the technology was untried and the equipment was imported from Europe, you could afford to be so confident. But mass transit is a spark for growth in so many American cities now that you cannot sit there and nitpick ideas to death and expect to sound credible.
Evidence? Support? Sources? Mass transit is more of a response to growth than a spark for growth. Where are all of these American cities where growth has been caused by mass transit?
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
I was looking at where the existing tracks intersect with current destinations downtown. I totally agree that each stop could become a magnet for new development.
I wonder where the stations will be?
The existing tracks run just three blocks north of Central Park, four blocks south from OSU Tulsa, one block north of the BOK Tower and the Performing Arts center, one block west of the new arena, and two blocks west of Tulsa Regional Hospital and the new museum at Riverside Drive and Southwest Boulevard. Each of these locations have an anchor destination to stop and available land to redevelop.
How many stops could there be and where?
I found this Channel 6 video of the proposed route (//%22http://www.kotv.com/e-clips/news/?id=4970%22) today. I wish they had included voice commentary and overlay graphics at the proposed stations. Proposed Broken Arrow Main Street Station (//%22http://maps.live.com/default.aspx?v=2&cp=36.04800~-95.7905&lvl=17&style=h%22) approximately at 00:10 in video; Memorial Station (//%22http://maps.live.com/default.aspx?v=2&cp=36.102250~-95.887500&lvl=17&style=h%22) at 00:41; Sheridan Station (//%22http://maps.live.com/default.aspx?v=2&cp=36.113050~-95.9040&lvl=17&style=h%22) at 00:43; Lewis Station (//%22http://maps.live.com/default.aspx?v=2&cp=36.14350~-95.9565&lvl=17&style=h%22) at 00:58. The alternative locations for a downtown Tulsa station begin at 01:01.
quote:
Originally posted by Oil Capital
Evidence? Support? Sources? Mass transit is more of a response to growth than a spark for growth. Where are all of these American cities where growth has been caused by mass transit?
So very glad you asked. It's taken decades, but what you see today are cities that use combinations of mass transit and transit-oriented development as a growth strategy. And it seems to be working well for them. San Jose was already mentioned, as was Salt Lake City.
Denver (//%22http://www.denvergov.org/TOD/StationTypology/tabid/395260/Default.aspx%22) has already thought through a mass transit framework, and how they want it to fit on their town. From their transportation district's 2007 status report (//%22http://www.rtd-fastracks.com/media/uploads/main/12-21-07RTDTODStatus2007.pdf%22) on transit oriented development:
quote:
10,999 residential units, 3,729 hotel rooms, 2.8 million square feet of retail, 4 million square feet of office space, 1.6 million square feet of government space, 137,000 square feet of cultural facilities, and 2.3 million square feet of convention/sports space have either been built or are currently under construction at station areas and bus transfer facilities. The transit-oriented development (TOD) product delivered to the real estate market in 2007 represents 7.5% growth in residential units, 17.6% in hotel rooms, 4.3% in retail space, 7.2% in office space, and 7.6% in institutional space.
An additional 7,381 residential units, 1,736 hotel rooms, 1.8 million square feet of retail, 3.3 million square feet of office, and 850,000 square feet of convention/sports space are either in the local government development review process or have been proposed.
Now, I now what you are thinking, you are thinking, "But the Denver Metro is three times our size." Okay fine, divide all of those figures by three. We're still stagnant.
Overall, the number of housing units in Denver grew by 5% from 1990 to 2000 and Tulsa grew 2%, as stated previously. And that's despite being more landlocked than us by terrain and suburbs.
Do you at least agree that growth is an imperative? I mean, if we are shrinking, then fewer of us will have to pay for the same infrastructure. To me, that means higher costs per person and higher taxes. Would you agree?
Here's the bottom line, Cappy. You don't have a strategy for the future growth of this city efficient, inefficient, or other. That's okay, neither have the past and present governments. We've actually LOST people since 2000, although, as of today, we are probably slightly up. You can sit there and fret about how transit is not the way to grow, but cities are making it work.
I can't believe that a transit stop for a commuter train wouldn't spur development.
I would like two or three stations downtown.
I think an OSU-Tulsa station would fit in well with the new development planned by the Greenwood Chamber...
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=20080111_1_A1_hAGre83223
Obviously, a station next to the largest office building in the state would spur lots of users and would fit nicely with riders going north into the entertainment area of Brady.
A station on the west side of the arena could compliment the assisted living center there and the large state office complex.
I ride the subway in Washington DC every few months and they stop about a half a mile apart in the area between the White House and the Capital.
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
I can't believe that a transit stop for a commuter train wouldn't spur development.
I can. So much depends on the TMAPC's willingness to allow for increased residential densities. When the TMAPC proposed down-zoning my property from a maximum development potential of 29.25 dwelling units per acre to a maximum of 2.66 dwelling units per acre (without a special exception for a duplex which would bring the density to 5.32 dwelling units per acre), I told them that I wasn't interested. I told them that many of my neighbors did not have cars and that a public transit system required high residential densities to be viable. 2.66 dwelling units per acre does not make for a sustainable urban core.
My property is within easy walking distance of the core of the CBD, the Civic Center, and the river. Downzoning from 29.25 to 2.66 dwelling units per acre wasn't my idea. The TMAPC made the proposal. INCOG staff fought me tooth and nail on the issue -- I was satisfied with the zoning as it was because I wanted to increase the density with some residential infill development. But the City Council agreed with the TMAPC that my property should be down-zoned to a maximum of 2.66 dwelling units per acre regardless of what I wanted, and so it was down-zoned.
I'm not saying that a rail transit system can't work for Tulsa, but it certainly can't work with our current mindset and land use policies. A few of us here on the forum would like to see more intense residential development in Tulsa, but many Tulsans want the opposite. Many or most Tulsans enjoy the empty space that separates them from their neighbors and from the street. They enjoy driving their private cars from one end of the city to the other in a relatively short amount of time. They (and the zoning code in most cases) insist on having dedicated off-street parking where they live, where they worship, where they work, and where they shop.
The April 2007 Tulsa Transit report had a large variation in the estimated potential ridership of trains along the Tulsa-BA corridor. When I see those kinds of wild variations, I am doubtful. There are too many unknowns and there's too much guessing for me to be convinced that a passenger rail system would be a wise public investment.
quote:
Originally posted by booWorld
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
I can't believe that a transit stop for a commuter train wouldn't spur development.
I can. So much depends on the TMAPC's willingness to allow for increased residential densities. When the TMAPC proposed down-zoning my property from a maximum development potential of 29.25 dwelling units per acre to a maximum of 2.66 dwelling units per acre (without an exception for a duplex), I told them that I wasn't interested. I told them that many of my neighbors did not have cars and that a public transit system req;uired high residential densities to be viable. 2.66 dwelling units per acre does not make for a sustainable urban core.
My property is within easy walking distance of the core of the CBD, the Civic Center, and the river. Downzoning from 29.25 to 2.66 dwelling units per acre wasn't my idea. The TMAPC made the proposal. INCOG staff fought me tooth and nail on the issue -- I was satisfied with the zoning as it was because I wanted to increase the density with some residential infill development. But the City Council agreed with the TMAPC that my property should be down-zoned to a maximum of 2.66 dwelling units per acre regardless of what I wanted, and so it was down-zoned.
I'm not saying that a rail transit system can't work for Tulsa, but it certainly can't work with our current mindset and land use policies. A few of us here on the forum would like to see more intense residential development in Tulsa, but many Tulsans want the opposite. Many or most Tulsans enjoy the empty space that separates them from their neighbors and from the street. They enjoy driving their private cars from one end of the city to the other in a relatively short amount of time. They (and the zoning code in most cases) insist on having dedicated off-street parking where they live, where they worship, where they work, and where they shop.
The April 2007 Tulsa Transit report had a large variation in the estimated potential ridership of trains along the Tulsa-BA corridor. When I see those kinds of wild variations, I am suspect. There are too many unknowns and too much guessing for me to be convinced that a passenger rail system would be a wise public investment.
The large variation is precisely because one scenario assumes transit oriented development, and the other does not. As for getting the TMAPC, or the citizens of Tulsa in general, to embrace more efficient growth patterns, well, that's precisely why ideas like this need Champions. Not to force through bad ideas, but to simply make sure that people don't try to squash them before they are even thought through. That's why this stuff about, "colossal waste", pouring rain, August heat, and "free market" jitneys is so disturbing. Michael is trying to be preemptive, which he is prone to do. But in this case he is offering advice based on instinct and tired old news, which makes him hardly any different than the TMAPC or all of the other dysfunctional organizations that are delivering mediocrity at best.
The estimate for ridership in 2010 ranges from 600,000 to 2.5 million !
I think it's very unrealistic to count on that much TOD in the initial year of train service. I'm being realistic. Things like that don't happen fast here in Tulsa. I doubt if INCOG staff can finish delving into the aspects of white chocolate hot chocolate by 2010.
quote:
Originally posted by Chicken Little
quote:
Originally posted by Oil Capital
Evidence? Support? Sources? Mass transit is more of a response to growth than a spark for growth. Where are all of these American cities where growth has been caused by mass transit?
So very glad you asked. It's taken decades, but what you see today are cities that use combinations of mass transit and transit-oriented development as a growth strategy. And it seems to be working well for them. San Jose was already mentioned, as was Salt Lake City.
Denver (//%22http://www.denvergov.org/TOD/StationTypology/tabid/395260/Default.aspx%22) has already thought through a mass transit framework, and how they want it to fit on their town. From their transportation district's 2007 status report (//%22http://www.rtd-fastracks.com/media/uploads/main/12-21-07RTDTODStatus2007.pdf%22) on transit oriented development:
quote:
10,999 residential units, 3,729 hotel rooms, 2.8 million square feet of retail, 4 million square feet of office space, 1.6 million square feet of government space, 137,000 square feet of cultural facilities, and 2.3 million square feet of convention/sports space have either been built or are currently under construction at station areas and bus transfer facilities. The transit-oriented development (TOD) product delivered to the real estate market in 2007 represents 7.5% growth in residential units, 17.6% in hotel rooms, 4.3% in retail space, 7.2% in office space, and 7.6% in institutional space.
An additional 7,381 residential units, 1,736 hotel rooms, 1.8 million square feet of retail, 3.3 million square feet of office, and 850,000 square feet of convention/sports space are either in the local government development review process or have been proposed.
Now, I now what you are thinking, you are thinking, "But the Denver Metro is three times our size." Okay fine, divide all of those figures by three. We're still stagnant.
Overall, the number of housing units in Denver grew by 5% from 1990 to 2000 and Tulsa grew 2%, as stated previously. And that's despite being more landlocked than us by terrain and suburbs.
Do you at least agree that growth is an imperative? I mean, if we are shrinking, then fewer of us will have to pay for the same infrastructure. To me, that means higher costs per person and higher taxes. Would you agree?
Here's the bottom line, Cappy. You don't have a strategy for the future growth of this city efficient, inefficient, or other. That's okay, neither have the past and present governments. We've actually LOST people since 2000, although, as of today, we are probably slightly up. You can sit there and fret about how transit is not the way to grow, but cities are making it work.
NONE of that comes anywhere near showing that Transit caused the growth. It is laughable to suggest that the transit system caused the growth of San Jose. Likewise Denver. How do you explain the growth of non-transit cities during the 1990s (and by the way, Denver had very little if any transit during the 1990s.) And again, when convenient for you, you blithely mix light rail with commuter rail. There is a difference, you know.
Stop attacking me and focus on the facts and proposals before us.
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
I can't believe that a transit stop for a commuter train wouldn't spur development.
I would like two or three stations downtown.
I think an OSU-Tulsa station would fit in well with the new development planned by the Greenwood Chamber...
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=20080111_1_A1_hAGre83223
Obviously, a station next to the largest office building in the state would spur lots of users and would fit nicely with riders going north into the entertainment area of Brady.
A station on the west side of the arena could compliment the assisted living center there and the large state office complex.
I ride the subway in Washington DC every few months and they stop about a half a mile apart in the area between the White House and the Capital.
But of course, with the exception of a station near the state's largest office building, none of that is being proposed or discussed. There is no light rail or subway line or urban rail system (such as they have in DC) being planned or discussed. There is no plan for a rail line with stops every half mile. There is a proposal for a commuter rail that will run twice a day in each direction and stop at four stations: downtown Broken Arrow, downtown Tulsa and two stops in between. There is a dearth of evidence supporting the idea that any large, urban, development is likely to occur at commuter rail stops. Largely for reasons I have discussed in several earlier posts.
But here it is again. VERY infrequent service, very limited stops (therefore it provides access to a limited number of people), and service is limited to morning and evening rush hours. Unlike a light rail or urban rail system station, there will be no steady stream of passengers throughout the day, so the benefit for any business to locate there is very limited.
quote:
Originally posted by Chicken Little
quote:
Originally posted by booWorld
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
I can't believe that a transit stop for a commuter train wouldn't spur development.
I can. So much depends on the TMAPC's willingness to allow for increased residential densities. When the TMAPC proposed down-zoning my property from a maximum development potential of 29.25 dwelling units per acre to a maximum of 2.66 dwelling units per acre (without an exception for a duplex), I told them that I wasn't interested. I told them that many of my neighbors did not have cars and that a public transit system req;uired high residential densities to be viable. 2.66 dwelling units per acre does not make for a sustainable urban core.
My property is within easy walking distance of the core of the CBD, the Civic Center, and the river. Downzoning from 29.25 to 2.66 dwelling units per acre wasn't my idea. The TMAPC made the proposal. INCOG staff fought me tooth and nail on the issue -- I was satisfied with the zoning as it was because I wanted to increase the density with some residential infill development. But the City Council agreed with the TMAPC that my property should be down-zoned to a maximum of 2.66 dwelling units per acre regardless of what I wanted, and so it was down-zoned.
I'm not saying that a rail transit system can't work for Tulsa, but it certainly can't work with our current mindset and land use policies. A few of us here on the forum would like to see more intense residential development in Tulsa, but many Tulsans want the opposite. Many or most Tulsans enjoy the empty space that separates them from their neighbors and from the street. They enjoy driving their private cars from one end of the city to the other in a relatively short amount of time. They (and the zoning code in most cases) insist on having dedicated off-street parking where they live, where they worship, where they work, and where they shop.
The April 2007 Tulsa Transit report had a large variation in the estimated potential ridership of trains along the Tulsa-BA corridor. When I see those kinds of wild variations, I am suspect. There are too many unknowns and too much guessing for me to be convinced that a passenger rail system would be a wise public investment.
The large variation is precisely because one scenario assumes transit oriented development, and the other does not. As for getting the TMAPC, or the citizens of Tulsa in general, to embrace more efficient growth patterns, well, that's precisely why ideas like this need Champions. Not to force through bad ideas, but to simply make sure that people don't try to squash them before they are even thought through.
Perhaps I overlooked it; Where did you get the idea that the large variation in forecasts is because one scenario assumes TOD and the other does not? How could that possibly be the case for the 2010 projections, at which point there would clearly be no TOD near the stations (No sane developer is going to build a TOD on the
promise that a rail station will be built.)
quote:
Originally posted by Oil Capital
But here it is again. VERY infrequent service, very limited stops (therefore it provides access to a limited number of people), and service is limited to morning and evening rush hours.
Don't forget SLOW service. An average speed of 27 miles per hour makes for a rather long trip from BA to Tulsa.
Remember, when we are talking price we would most likely consider doing the rail instead of widening the highway. If the highway is projected to have easy convenient traffic flow, then there isnt much reason to spend money alleviating it.
There are possible station areas along the proposed route that would be great areas for high density growth that would not "upset too many neighbors". Many of these areas would be prime locations for redevelopment and higher densities regardless of whether we do light rail or not so trying to encourage that kind of development, as Bates even mentioned, wouldnt be any harm. There was a mention of the possibility of a 6th street station. I think that would be a great area, especially if we do the 6th street Pearl District redevelopment plan FIRST while doing it and having in mind that "in this location we will eventually put in a rail station so go ahead and attain the property for that future station and let developers know that around this spot is a place they might want to look at building and we would zone it for high density". The same could be said for the downtown BA station. Go ahead and snag the property before someone builds something on it and you have to fight and pay more to get it later. Plus zone the property around where you plan to eventually build the station to be higher density and not say, let a Wal-Mart build there. Again, it wont hurt to have those areas be higher density anyway, and if or if we do not end up putting in passenger rail, you have done something worth while imo. If in 20 years the city decides it does not want or need to do the light rail, it can just sell the lots it owns and be done with it. If it does turn out to be a good idea to start in 20 years or so, then they will be in a much better situation to do so than if they hadnt planned ahead. Win, win, if you ask me.
As for Bates straw man. I dont know what else you could call this...
"Let's imagine for a moment what car-free living would be like in the most optimistic scenario for Tulsa: Light rail tracks running down every arterial street, with streetcars coming by every 15 minutes."
Thats not an optimistic scenario for any city. Thats patently absurd and to suggest that is what anyone is considering is nonsense. Can anyone show me anything else anywhere where someone has suggested this for Tulsa?
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
Remember, when we are talking price we are considering that we are doing the rail instead of widening the highway.
Are we? I haven't heard of any plans to widen the BA and I doubt there will be any serious need to do so for at least 25 years. (They do need to re-build the inner portions of the BA, north of 31st or so, but that will need to be done with or without commuter rail.)
quote:
Originally posted by Chicken Little
As for getting the TMAPC, or the citizens of Tulsa in general, to embrace more efficient growth patterns, well, that's precisely why ideas like this need Champions. Not to force through bad ideas, but to simply make sure that people don't try to squash them before they are even thought through. That's why this stuff about, "colossal waste", pouring rain, August heat, and "free market" jitneys is so disturbing.
None of that disturbs me at all, and I doubt if it disturbs most Tulsans. In the pouring rain and in the August heat it would be more convenient to travel by jitney than by a train on a fixed route. Flexible route transit makes more sense in Tulsa than does fixed guideway transit. That fact is unlikely to change in the near or even in the distant future.
quote:
Michael is trying to be preemptive, which he is prone to do.
There is nothing wrong with being pre-emptive. Last time I checked, Michael wasn't calling the shots on what could be considered or discussed amongst Tulsans. A colossal public expenditure on infrastructure does not guarantee a better city or significant private investment. The Main Maul is a good example. Main Maul has been re-done three times since the mid-1960s, but it's barren and dead most of the time. I wish Michael or someone else could have pre-empted that fiasco.
quote:
But in this case he is offering advice based on instinct and tired old news, which makes him hardly any different than the TMAPC or all of the other dysfunctional organizations that are delivering mediocrity at best.
No one is being forced to take Michael's advice that we focus our efforts on increasing density between Pine and 21st, Union and Harvard and that we drop the ban on jitneys. He is merely suggesting that we do a couple of things in lieu of squandering a colossal amount on a transit rail system.
quote:
Originally posted by Oil Capital
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
Remember, when we are talking price we are considering that we are doing the rail instead of widening the highway.
Are we? I haven't heard of any plans to widen the BA and I doubt there will be any serious need to do so for at least 25 years. (They do need to re-build the inner portions of the BA, north of 31st or so, but that will need to be done with or without commuter rail.)
Thats what I took away from the meetings I went to. Even if we were to say right at this moment we wanted to make this happen, it would easily be 10 years before it really could. They were projecting the growth of traffic flows. The growth of BA and Tulsa and I remember them specifically talking about how difficult it would be to widen. The costs involved, removing more homes, right of ways, etc. But they went with a perspective that... ok, if we were going with the rail option, would it be feasible at this point, 10 years, 20 years, would it work? What could we reasonably expect even with current "possible ridership"? It sounded like it could work. I remember them talking about the sheridan or memorial stations and how you could link the bus routes that went down those corridors to be timed so that they could bring people to and from the stations from a larger area, etc. They also mentioned that it was likely that in some areas higher density growth could help the rail be even more feasible over time. Not something you could count on, but didnt need to because future projections showed that it would work regardless. Any more development at all would just be icing on the cake. They did show that it happened in other cities. Downtown BA was wanting development to happen. Their new PAC, farmers market is near where the new station would be and if they build a parking garage for the PAC it could serve dual use as parking for the rail station. And around that they were planning for mixed-use and midrise living.
quote:
Originally posted by Oil Capital
I haven't heard of any plans to widen the BA and I doubt there will be any serious need to do so for at least 25 years.
It would be very expensive and difficult to widen it because the right-of-way is relatively narrow.
The BA gets congested in the morning and evening rush hours. Most of the time it is a quick and convenient expressway. If a commuter train was put into service and if commuters actually rode it, then congestion on the BA would ease up. When congestion eased, then more people would stop riding the train and get back in their cars on the BA where they might be about to drive 29 miles an hour and beat the train by a few seconds. Ridership would ebb and flow over time depending on the price of gas and the frustration level of commuters.
The BA is so convenient now. If I had to make the trip, I think I'd prefer driving my own car faster than 27 miles per hour to the option of sitting on a slow train.
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
quote:
Originally posted by Oil Capital
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
Remember, when we are talking price we are considering that we are doing the rail instead of widening the highway.
Are we? I haven't heard of any plans to widen the BA and I doubt there will be any serious need to do so for at least 25 years. (They do need to re-build the inner portions of the BA, north of 31st or so, but that will need to be done with or without commuter rail.)
Thats what I took away from the meetings I went to. Even if we were to say right at this moment we wanted to make this happen, it would easily be 10 years before it really could. They were projecting the growth of traffic flows. The growth of BA and Tulsa and I remember them specifically talking about how difficult it would be to widen. The costs involved, removing more homes, right of ways, etc. But they went with a perspective that... ok, if we were going with the rail option, would it be feasible at this point, 10 years, 20 years, would it work? What could we reasonably expect even with current "possible ridership"? It sounded like it could work. I remember them talking about the sheridan or memorial stations and how you could link the bus routes that went down those corridors to be timed so that they could bring people to and from the stations from a larger area, etc. They also mentioned that it was likely that in some areas higher density growth could help the rail be even more feasible over time. Not something you could count on, but didnt need to because future projections showed that it would work regardless. Any more development at all would just be icing on the cake. They did show that it happened in other cities. Downtown BA was wanting development to happen. Their new PAC, farmers market is near where the new station would be and if they build a parking garage for the PAC it could serve dual use as parking for the rail station. And around that they were planning for mixed-use and midrise living.
Not sure where you got the idea this commuter rail would take 10 or 20 years to implement. The fact that the study made projections starting with 2010 suggests they have in mind something quite a lot earlier than that.
What examples did they show of development by rail stations? Did they use the same ones they show in the study document? If so, that is less than honest and less than instructive. The examples they show in the study are light rail stations... frequent service, many stations, all-day service etc etc.
quote:
Originally posted by booWorld
quote:
Originally posted by Chicken Little
As for getting the TMAPC, or the citizens of Tulsa in general, to embrace more efficient growth patterns, well, that's precisely why ideas like this need Champions. Not to force through bad ideas, but to simply make sure that people don't try to squash them before they are even thought through. That's why this stuff about, "colossal waste", pouring rain, August heat, and "free market" jitneys is so disturbing.
None of that disturbs me at all, and I doubt if it disturbs most Tulsans. In the pouring rain and in the August heat it would be more convenient to travel by jitney than by a train on a fixed route. Flexible route transit makes more sense in Tulsa than does fixed guideway transit. That fact is unlikely to change in the near or even in the distant future.
quote:
Michael is trying to be preemptive, which he is prone to do.
There is nothing wrong with being pre-emptive. Last time I checked, Michael wasn't calling the shots on what could be considered or discussed amongst Tulsans. A colossal public expenditure on infrastructure does not guarantee a better city or significant private investment. The Main Maul is a good example. Main Maul has been re-done three times since the mid-1960s, but it's barren and dead most of the time. I wish Michael or someone else could have pre-empted that fiasco.
quote:
But in this case he is offering advice based on instinct and tired old news, which makes him hardly any different than the TMAPC or all of the other dysfunctional organizations that are delivering mediocrity at best.
No one is being forced to take Michael's advice that we focus our efforts on increasing density between Pine and 21st, Union and Harvard and that we drop the ban on jitneys. He is merely suggesting that we do a couple of things in lieu of squandering a colossal amount on a transit rail system.
I agree that there are a lot of things we should do before any rail goes in. One of those things may very well be planning for a future rail line.
Saying you are or are not going to want a rail in 20 years will determine a lot of choices between now and then. If your deciding now that you are not going to do rail in 20 years will cause you to make different choices on a lot of matters than planning for a situation where rail is part of the equation.
The question is...Do we include this rail line in our long range planning or not? I dont think anyone is saying we should do it today. I certainly am not. But it does look like it is something we should decide now on whether or not we will eventually put one in. There are a lot of long range descisions that are going to need to be made for the next "long range plan" the city is currently working on, that will hinge on which direction we take on this issue. If your gonna make long range plans for the city a fundamental, basic part would be to decide if your going to put rail in or not and where. Whats the point in making long range plans if you dont decide issues like that? Its connected to a lot of other stuff.
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
quote:
Originally posted by booWorld
quote:
Originally posted by Chicken Little
As for getting the TMAPC, or the citizens of Tulsa in general, to embrace more efficient growth patterns, well, that's precisely why ideas like this need Champions. Not to force through bad ideas, but to simply make sure that people don't try to squash them before they are even thought through. That's why this stuff about, "colossal waste", pouring rain, August heat, and "free market" jitneys is so disturbing.
None of that disturbs me at all, and I doubt if it disturbs most Tulsans. In the pouring rain and in the August heat it would be more convenient to travel by jitney than by a train on a fixed route. Flexible route transit makes more sense in Tulsa than does fixed guideway transit. That fact is unlikely to change in the near or even in the distant future.
quote:
Michael is trying to be preemptive, which he is prone to do.
There is nothing wrong with being pre-emptive. Last time I checked, Michael wasn't calling the shots on what could be considered or discussed amongst Tulsans. A colossal public expenditure on infrastructure does not guarantee a better city or significant private investment. The Main Maul is a good example. Main Maul has been re-done three times since the mid-1960s, but it's barren and dead most of the time. I wish Michael or someone else could have pre-empted that fiasco.
quote:
But in this case he is offering advice based on instinct and tired old news, which makes him hardly any different than the TMAPC or all of the other dysfunctional organizations that are delivering mediocrity at best.
No one is being forced to take Michael's advice that we focus our efforts on increasing density between Pine and 21st, Union and Harvard and that we drop the ban on jitneys. He is merely suggesting that we do a couple of things in lieu of squandering a colossal amount on a transit rail system.
I agree that there are a lot of things we should do before any rail goes in. One of those things should be deciding IF we are or are not going to put in a rail line there in the future.
Saying you are or are not going to want a rail in 20 years will determine a lot of choices between now and then. If your deciding now that you are not going to do rail in 20 years will cause you to make different choices on a lot of matters than planning for a situation where rail is part of the equation.
The question is...Do we include this rail line in our long range planning or not? I dont think anyone is saying we should do it today. I certainly am not. But it does look like it is something we should decide now on whether or not we will eventually put one in. That descision will help you make other descisions that will need to be made.
I thought that had already been "decided". It's already in the 2030 plans, is it not?
Edit: yes, I just checked. It says it right there in the first paragraph of the study: This commuter rail corridor is already included in INCOG's 2030 transportation plan.
Interestingly, it also says that the discussion of this rail line was in connection with the widening of the BA that was completed several years ago. Perhaps that's what Artist remembers them discussing. (Equally interesting is that the INCOG 2030 plan appears to include NO improvements to the BA.
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
I agree that there are a lot of things we should do before any rail goes in. One of those things should be deciding IF we are or are not going to put in a rail line there in the future.
Saying you are or are not going to want a rail in 20 years will determine a lot of choices between now and then. If your deciding now that you are not going to do rail in 20 years will cause you to make different choices on a lot of matters than planning for a situation where rail is part of the equation.
The question is...Do we include this rail line in our long range planning or not? I dont think anyone is saying we should do it today. I certainly am not. But it does look like it is something we should decide now on whether or not we will eventually put one in. That descision will help you make other descisions that will need to be made.
We ought to consider the potential of this rail line and others in our long range planning. Since at least 1990, the BA-Tulsa route has received serious consideration as a future passenger rail corridor. Of the various proposed routes included in INCOG's fixed guideway transit study conducted around 1990, the BA-Tulsa route was singled out as being the most feasible.
Transportation planning is one thing. To make rail transit viable, the TMAPC will need to drop their low-density down-zoning mentality.
Well, if its already been decided. What the heck is this discussion about then? 2030 isn't that far off. We are going to have to start in about 10 years cause it will take about 10 more years after we start to get it up and running. That gives us the next 10 years to get the Pearl and some other things done before we start on the rail. Sounds like a plan, lets do it lol.
quote:
Originally posted by Oil Capital
Equally interesting is that the INCOG 2030 plan appears to include NO improvements to the BA.
First, the BA is hemmed in, so widening the roadway isn't very practical.
Second, there really isn't that much congestion on the BA, at least not in comparison to other cities I've visited where traffic slows to a crawl during rush hours.
quote:
Originally posted by booWorld
quote:
Originally posted by Oil Capital
Equally interesting is that the INCOG 2030 plan appears to include NO improvements to the BA.
First, the BA is hemmed in, so widening the roadway isn't very practical.
Second, there really isn't that much congestion on the BA, at least not in comparison to other cities I've visited where traffic slows to a crawl during rush hours.
I completely agree. That, among other things, leads to some skepticism on their ridership projections for this rail plan.
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
Sounds like a plan, lets do it lol.
Now, all we need is a mere $45 million for the "seed" money.... lmbfclpao
quote:
Originally posted by Oil Capital
NONE of that comes anywhere near showing that Transit caused the growth.
Wrong. "10,999 residential units, 3,729 hotel rooms, 2.8 million square feet of retail, 4 million square feet of office space, 1.6 million square feet of government space, 137,000 square feet of cultural facilities, and 2.3 million square feet of convention/sports space have either been built or are currently under construction
at station areas and bus transfer facilities." I put that last part in bold for you. The transit and the development go together; that's the successful model. Where have you been?
quote:
It is laughable to suggest that the transit system caused the growth of San Jose.
No, your tactics are laughable. You offer nothing and expect people to take you seriously. They don't. You won't even take a stand on the simplest of questions...is growth an imperative for a city?
I think that it is. And I think that many smart cities are using transit and transit oriented development, in combination, to grow smart, dense, and fast.
quote:
Likewise Denver. How do you explain the growth of non-transit cities during the 1990s
(and by the way, Denver had very little if any transit during the 1990s.)
Keep laughing Mr. Big Ideas; we are struggling and these other places are not. The fastest growing city in the country, with or without a fixed guideway system, is Las Vegas. Oh, it seems that they are moving forward with an environmental study for a 33 mile rail (//%22http://www.rtcsouthernnevada.com/rfg/project_info.htm#status%22). Seems like many successful cities are looking into rail.
Albuquerque - regional rail under construction, LRT proposed
Atlanta - regional rail and streetcar projects in planning
Austin - light railway project under way, streetcar proposed
Bayonne - streetcar in development
Birmingham - in planning
Boise - LRT (interurban, streetcar) proposed
Boulder - streetcar proposed
Charlotte - historic trolley upgrade under construction, modern LRT planned
Charlottesville - streetcar proposed
Cincinnati - LRT (interurban, streetcar) in planning
Columbus - LRT (interurban, streetcar) in planning
Corpus Christi - streetcar in planning
Dayton - streetcar proposed
Des Moines - LRT proposed
Detroit - interurban LRT and regional passenger rail proposed
El Paso - LRT streetcar system proposed
Fayette - LRT or regional rail proposed
Ft. Lauderdale - streetcar and high-performance LRT proposed
Glendale (Ca) - streetcar proposed
Ft. Worth - streetcar proposed
Grand Rapids (Mi) - streetcar proposed
Harrisburg - regional rail in development
Honolulu - light rail proposed
Huntington, WV - heritage streetcar proposed
Huntington Beach, Ca - LRT proposed
Indianapolis - proposed
Kansas City - proposed
Lancaster - heritage streetcar proposed
Las Vegas - proposed
Louisville - LRT proposed
Madison - regional rail and streetcar proposed
Memphis - heritage streetcar in operation, modern LRT planned
Miami - streetcar projects in planning
Milwaukee - interurban and streetcar LRT, regional passenger rail proposed
Minneapolis - modern LRT in operation, streetcar proposed
Montgomery - heritage streetcar proposed
Nashville - regional "commuter" rail project under way
Norfolk - interurban LRT project under way
Ogden - modern streetcar proposed
Omaha - heritage streetcar proposed
Orange County (Ca) - LRT (interurban or streetcar) in planning
Orlando - in planning
Phoenix - interurban LRT project under construction; regional rail and streetcar system proposed
Raleigh - regional rail system in planning
Richmond - heritage streetcar proposed
Roanoke - heritage streetcar proposed
Rochester - proposed
Salem, Or - streetcar proposed
San Antonio - proposed
Savannah - heritage streetcar (self-propelled) project under way
Seattle - Regional rail and heritage streetcar in operation, interurban LRT and modern streetcar projects under way
Spokane - light railway proposed
Tampa - historic streetcar in operation, modern LRT streetcar proposed
Toledo - streetcar proposed
Tucson - heritage streetcar system being expanded, LRT proposed
Union County, NJ - LRT project under development
Washington - LRT in planning
Winston-Salem - streetcar project in planning
If they are so wasteful and such a bad idea, then how come all of these cities are thinking about rail projects? Geez, there are so many smart people in those places. What makes you and Bates smarter than them?
quote:
And again, when convenient for you, you blithely mix light rail with commuter rail. There is a difference, you know.
Stop attacking me and focus on the facts and proposals before us.
Which proposal? The one that recommends we ask people smarter than me and you (especially you) to seriously start looking at mass transit and efficient land use? I'm all for it. You are not. Bates is not. And between you, this is the best idea you can come up with:
(http://lemonodor.com/images/pakistani-bus-s.jpg)
Jitneyed!
Development around rail stops is a red herring. The purpose of commuter rail is not to spark real estate development. The purpose is to support continued population growth in the metro area. It makes sense. It's what cities do. Stop nitpicking and get on board.
quote:
Originally posted by Oil Capital
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
quote:
Originally posted by Oil Capital
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
Remember, when we are talking price we are considering that we are doing the rail instead of widening the highway.
Are we? I haven't heard of any plans to widen the BA and I doubt there will be any serious need to do so for at least 25 years. (They do need to re-build the inner portions of the BA, north of 31st or so, but that will need to be done with or without commuter rail.)
Thats what I took away from the meetings I went to. Even if we were to say right at this moment we wanted to make this happen, it would easily be 10 years before it really could. They were projecting the growth of traffic flows. The growth of BA and Tulsa and I remember them specifically talking about how difficult it would be to widen. The costs involved, removing more homes, right of ways, etc. But they went with a perspective that... ok, if we were going with the rail option, would it be feasible at this point, 10 years, 20 years, would it work? What could we reasonably expect even with current "possible ridership"? It sounded like it could work. I remember them talking about the sheridan or memorial stations and how you could link the bus routes that went down those corridors to be timed so that they could bring people to and from the stations from a larger area, etc. They also mentioned that it was likely that in some areas higher density growth could help the rail be even more feasible over time. Not something you could count on, but didnt need to because future projections showed that it would work regardless. Any more development at all would just be icing on the cake. They did show that it happened in other cities. Downtown BA was wanting development to happen. Their new PAC, farmers market is near where the new station would be and if they build a parking garage for the PAC it could serve dual use as parking for the rail station. And around that they were planning for mixed-use and midrise living.
Not sure where you got the idea this commuter rail would take 10 or 20 years to implement. The fact that the study made projections starting with 2010 suggests they have in mind something quite a lot earlier than that.
What examples did they show of development by rail stations? Did they use the same ones they show in the study document? If so, that is less than honest and less than instructive. The examples they show in the study are light rail stations... frequent service, many stations, all-day service etc etc.
I mentioned it would take around 10 years if we started now. Though when we could get to that descision is anyones guess. Process? Timeline anyone?
The mass transit study shows a possible timeline after we get a thumbs up to go for it...
Phase 1. Organization, 6months to 18 months
This is Tulsa it will easily take 18 months but lets say 1year.
Phase2. Federal review and approval, Environmental etc. about 2 years.
Phase3. Once approval is granted designs can begin. (look at the river dam controversy if you want any indication of how that works. They arent going to spend any real money on final designs until they know they can actually build it and any changes, alterations to the plan that need to be made and incorporated) 6 months to 2 years. Though some construction could be started while the rest is being designed. We will be optimistic and say 6 months.
Phase 4. Construction and Procurement. They estimate 2-3 years. We all know how this stuff goes, I say 3.5 years at best lol.
Phase 5. Testing and start up. 6 months.
Add er up and I get.... 7.5 years from the word go. Add to that however long it takes to get to the word go. Any ideas on that timescale and the process it takes just to that point?
Knowing this town, I would guess its possible we could have rail as early as, oh, 2018 if we really pushed for it.
As for development around the stations. I dont think they were counting on anything to get their numbers. They wanted to play it safe it seemed to me. IF we got development it would certainly help, and they said there is a good chance we could expect some. I believe they did show BAs plan for downtown and what they hope for the area around a downtown station. And as I have mentioned, areas like the Pearl and 6th street where we are wanting growth anyway, I hope, was also mentioned as a place for a possible station. See the Pearl district plans for their vision.
Optimistically I would like to see Downtown BA and The Pearl district plans underway during the next 10 years with the intention of then likely starting the rail process. That could help direct growth in those areas and help those plans. 10 years to get the pearl and the BA plans underway. Another 7 or 8 to get the rail started after that and those areas growing during that timespan as well. The year 2025 seems like a good year to have this done.
If you believe that energy is going to be vastly more expensive in the future, as many experts do, I don't see how you could oppose at least planning for rail development in Tulsa.
The jitney thing is fine, but it also is a good clue that Michael Bates is getting his anti-rail transit bias from CATO, The Heritage Foundation, and/or the American Enterprise Institute.
These groups have long opposed taxpayer financed rail transit. In addition to toll roads they almost always mention jitneys as the preferred alternative.
Agreed that voluntary/consensus smart growth/new urbanist zoning is essential.
quote:
Originally posted by Chicken Little
quote:
Originally posted by Oil Capital
NONE of that comes anywhere near showing that Transit caused the growth.
Wrong. "10,999 residential units, 3,729 hotel rooms, 2.8 million square feet of retail, 4 million square feet of office space, 1.6 million square feet of government space, 137,000 square feet of cultural facilities, and 2.3 million square feet of convention/sports space have either been built or are currently under construction at station areas and bus transfer facilities." I put that last part in bold for you. The transit and the development go together; that's the successful model. Where have you been? quote:
New construction at transit stops does not equal NEW economic development or NEW growth for a metro area. It is just the same growth in a different place (and possibly in a more dense pattern). Besides which, once again, you are mixing commuter rail and light or urban rail. As I have said over and over, commuter rail does not tend to beget the kinds of development around stations that you can expect from light or urban rail. You have yet to provide a SINGLE example of such development around commuter rail stations in a system such as is being proposed in Tulsa.
quote:
It is laughable to suggest that the transit system caused the growth of San Jose.
No, your tactics are laughable. You offer nothing and expect people to take you seriously. They don't. You won't even take a stand on the simplest of questions...is growth an imperative for a city?
I think that it is. And I think that many smart cities are using transit and transit oriented development, in combination, to grow smart, dense, and fast. quote:
For what it's worth, yes, I think growth is imperative. I didn't really think it was necessary to answer such a ridiculous and off-point question, but there you go. Now, back to the point you are avoiding. Do you really think mass transit has in any way CAUSED the growth of San Jose or Denver or Las Vegas or Dallas Fort Worth or Houston or Phoenix or LA or San Diego? If so, can you point us to ANY evidence supporting that theory. Anything at all? FWIW, I agree that many cities are using transit and transit oriented developments to grow "smart" and dense. Nothing I have said could be taken to say otherwise. But again, you are largely confusing the difference between light or urban rail with commuter rail.
quote:
Likewise Denver. How do you explain the growth of non-transit cities during the 1990s
(and by the way, Denver had very little if any transit during the 1990s.)
Keep laughing Mr. Big Ideas; we are struggling and these other places are not.
Again, there is a dearth of evidence that any of those cities are successful BECAUSE they have rail or that Tulsa is struggling BECAUSE we don't have rail. As I said in a previous post, rail is largely a response to growth, not a cause of growth.
The fastest growing city in the country, with or without a fixed guideway system, is Las Vegas. Oh, it seems that they are moving forward with an environmental study for a 33 mile rail (//%22http://www.rtcsouthernnevada.com/rfg/project_info.htm#status%22).
Ummmm, yeah. Thanks for proving my point. Rail follows growth, it does not cause growth.
Seems like many successful cities are looking into rail.
Albuquerque - regional rail under construction, LRT proposed
Atlanta - regional rail and streetcar projects in planning
Austin - light railway project under way, streetcar proposed
Bayonne - streetcar in development
Birmingham - in planning
Boise - LRT (interurban, streetcar) proposed
Boulder - streetcar proposed
Charlotte - historic trolley upgrade under construction, modern LRT planned
Charlottesville - streetcar proposed
Cincinnati - LRT (interurban, streetcar) in planning
Columbus - LRT (interurban, streetcar) in planning
Corpus Christi - streetcar in planning
Dayton - streetcar proposed
Des Moines - LRT proposed
Detroit - interurban LRT and regional passenger rail proposed
El Paso - LRT streetcar system proposed
Fayette - LRT or regional rail proposed
Ft. Lauderdale - streetcar and high-performance LRT proposed
Glendale (Ca) - streetcar proposed
Ft. Worth - streetcar proposed
Grand Rapids (Mi) - streetcar proposed
Harrisburg - regional rail in development
Honolulu - light rail proposed
Huntington, WV - heritage streetcar proposed
Huntington Beach, Ca - LRT proposed
Indianapolis - proposed
Kansas City - proposed
Lancaster - heritage streetcar proposed
Las Vegas - proposed
Louisville - LRT proposed
Madison - regional rail and streetcar proposed
Memphis - heritage streetcar in operation, modern LRT planned
Miami - streetcar projects in planning
Milwaukee - interurban and streetcar LRT, regional passenger rail proposed
Minneapolis - modern LRT in operation, streetcar proposed
Montgomery - heritage streetcar proposed
Nashville - regional "commuter" rail project under way
Norfolk - interurban LRT project under way
Ogden - modern streetcar proposed
Omaha - heritage streetcar proposed
Orange County (Ca) - LRT (interurban or streetcar) in planning
Orlando - in planning
Phoenix - interurban LRT project under construction; regional rail and streetcar system proposed
Raleigh - regional rail system in planning
Richmond - heritage streetcar proposed
Roanoke - heritage streetcar proposed
Rochester - proposed
Salem, Or - streetcar proposed
San Antonio - proposed
Savannah - heritage streetcar (self-propelled) project under way
Seattle - Regional rail and heritage streetcar in operation, interurban LRT and modern streetcar projects under way
Spokane - light railway proposed
Tampa - historic streetcar in operation, modern LRT streetcar proposed
Toledo - streetcar proposed
Tucson - heritage streetcar system being expanded, LRT proposed
Union County, NJ - LRT project under development
Washington - LRT in planning
Winston-Salem - streetcar project in planning
If they are so wasteful and such a bad idea, then how come all of these cities are thinking about rail projects? Geez, there are so many smart people in those places. What makes you and Bates smarter than them?
quote:
And again, when convenient for you, you blithely mix light rail with commuter rail. There is a difference, you know.
Stop attacking me and focus on the facts and proposals before us.[/quote]Which proposal? The one that recommends we ask people smarter than me and you (especially you) to seriously start looking at mass transit and efficient land use? I'm all for it. You are not. Bates is not. And between you, this is the best idea you can come up with:
(http://lemonodor.com/images/pakistani-bus-s.jpg)
Jitneyed!
[/quote]
You can have all the fun you can stand with your straw man arguments, your misdirection, and your personal attacks.
But IF you ever decide you want to have a mature, intelligent, fact-based conversation, let me know
And try to pay better attention to what you are reading... I have never said or implied that we should not study rail, although it would be nice to see a more honest, reliable study than the one we have before us.
I have never said or implied that rail is a bad thing or that we should not consider building some rail at some point.
I have never said that light or urban rail systems cannot spur TOD around their stations.
I have only said that we need to be honest about what we can expect this proposed commuter rail to do.
If you can provide the slightest bit of evidence that THIS TYPE of rail system is likely to spur any TOD, I'm all eyes.
If you can provide the slightest bit of evidence that ANY rail system in Tulsa could reasonably be expected to CAUSE any significant economic growth for the metro area, I would truly love to see it.
We need to also be honest about the costs; It will NOT pay for itself by any stretch of the imagination.
Again, as I have said before, that does not necessarily mean it should not be done, but the surest way to bad choices for Tulsa is to base those decisions on delusions and bad assumptions.
I really with a rail system would work... But we just don't have the densities needed to make it feasible.
(http://lemonodor.com/images/pakistani-bus-s.jpg)
Interesting looking vehicle...
It appears to have tires, so I assume that it could operate on most streets near where people live and work and shop.
It also appears to be a relatively small investment compared to a rail transit system. I think colorful buses such as this one would serve sprawling Tulsa better than fixed guideway transit.
There is no way in hell I would ride that lol.
Challenge: Someone take a picture of a Tulsa Transit Bus full of people. I've never seen one?
The novelty of a light rail system would wear off quickly in a city where transportation time is low and parking is free & plentiful.
We are not New York or Chicago. We don't have a lower class that has to pay as much for a parking spot as they do for a mortgage. We are not living in a country where only the wealthiest can afford a car. We don't need something just because other people have it.
DO WE NEED IT?
NO
WILL WE USE IT?
(Hmm. . . we don't ride the bus.)
NO
WILL IT SPUR ECONOMIC GROWTH?
(Do bus stops spur economic growth?)
NO
WILL IT BECOME AN ASSET OR A BURDEN TO OUR CITY?
BURDEN
ARE THERE MORE IMPORTANT THINGS THAN A $80,000,000 "BUS ON A TRACK"?
UH HUH!
Ok, then lets move on.
quote:
Originally posted by booWorld
Interesting looking vehicle...
It appears to have tires, so I assume that it could operate on most streets near where people live and work and shop.
It also appears to be a relatively small investment compared to a rail transit system. I think colorful buses such as this one would serve sprawling Tulsa better than fixed guideway transit.
The rationale for placing fixed guideways as a catalyst for growth is that a developer would have some assurance that this corridor will be prominent, if not dominant, over time. The rail becomes an attractive factor in a locational decision for the developers who are looking for an edge. This is exactly what's playing out in Dallas right now, where properties within walking distance of DART are rapidly rising in value. It's very similar to developers seeking prime locations along freeways for retail, or wanting to be near natural amenities for housing, etc.
I used to have the exact same point of view as you. Why invest in fixed rail when rubber tire systems can adapt to change so easily? It didn't add up. But then I started to read about what was happening in Dallas and other western cities where they have begun to recognize the interplay between transportation and land value. Developers are now specializing in transit villages. If
we could transform underutilized industrial rail corridors into mixed-use corridors, it'd be a real coup for us. I think, with a
precise game plan, Tulsa could really translate this into some very good growth that will benefit all of us.
I share your frustration with various hot chocolate lovers in this town, and I think it would be a real win for someone to say officially, that this is a "future rail corridor", even if it still might be a decade away. Perhaps that is enough to attract the attention of developers. But the bottom line is this, it won't happen by itself. Somebody has to draw a line on a map. And that's what honks me off about Bates' article. He apparently wants those folks to holster their pens and get back to their hot chocolate. That, to me, is unacceptable.
Our freeway building days are nearly done. We've got some outer loop stuff contemplated in the far east, in the west, and up in Osage, but we really won't capture all of the benefit of that. We need to look for different ways to grow, and this seems as viable as any I've heard, and
much more tested and proven than river development. Plus, the existing rail corridors go through parts of town that could really, really, use the development: east, west, and north.
quote:
Originally posted by spoonbill
Challenge: Someone take a picture of a Tulsa Transit Bus full of people. I've never seen one?
I've been ON one...this year. Funny how high gas prices can take a can opener to one's long held beliefs.
When gas hits $5 a gal this summer I think a lot of you will be singing a different tune to mass transit.
quote:
Originally posted by inteller
When gas hits $5 a gal this summer I think a lot of you will be singing a different tune to mass transit.
No kidding. For those that think mass transit is a joke (Spoonbill), note this:
From the Tulsa Transit website (//%22http://www.tulsatransit.org/news-info/tulsa-transit-facts/%22):
Ridership FY'05 FY'06
Fixed Route 1,790,800 2,293,500
Ridership jumped 28% in a single year; gas prices are serious business to a lot of people in this town.
quote:
Second, to run all-day service at reasonable frequencies would require a much larger capital investment in train sets, adding to the costs you'd need to recover.
Third, and perhaps most important. We have to share the tracks with the freight railroads. So all day service of any significant frequency is probably not possible.
I agree that sharing the tracks with the freight trains is a problem...as is the fact that only one track runs down the BA expressway. (I would want trains to run both directions simultaneously!)
Re: costs. I haven't seen anyone mention federal grants for transit. I believe that federal funding is often matched with local funding at a rate of 80% federal to 20% local. (Quite a bargain, in my opinion!)
One place to learn more is on the Federal Transit Administration website: http://www.fta.dot.gov/funding/grants_financing_263.html I'm sure there are other programs available to help communities like Tulsa...and if we're talking about federal $$, it's money that will be spent SOMEWHERE...why not spend it here in Tulsa?
quote:
Originally posted by Chicken Little
quote:
Originally posted by inteller
When gas hits $5 a gal this summer I think a lot of you will be singing a different tune to mass transit.
No kidding. For those that think mass transit is a joke (Spoonbill), note this:
From the Tulsa Transit website (//%22http://www.tulsatransit.org/news-info/tulsa-transit-facts/%22):
Ridership FY'05 FY'06
Fixed Route 1,790,800 2,293,500
Ridership jumped 28% in a single year; gas prices are serious business to a lot of people in this town.
is that you CL?
(http://www.angrywhiteboy.org/wp-content/uploads/2007/07/chicken-train.png)
quote:
Originally posted by Chicken Little
quote:
Originally posted by inteller
When gas hits $5 a gal this summer I think a lot of you will be singing a different tune to mass transit.
No kidding. For those that think mass transit is a joke (Spoonbill), note this:
From the Tulsa Transit website (//%22http://www.tulsatransit.org/news-info/tulsa-transit-facts/%22):
Ridership FY'05 FY'06
Fixed Route 1,790,800 2,293,500
Ridership jumped 28% in a single year; gas prices are serious business to a lot of people in this town.
Hmm. . . Thanks for the link. What I glean from their statistics is that they have the capacity to provide transportation for 1.05% of the Tulsa population (8,500 folks a day) Oh! wait, this is broken into passenger trips, so it would be half of that .5% of the Tulsa population.
And they currently only transport less than a half of that (about 3,400 a day). Or approximately 36 people, to and from work per bus, every day.
Wow! Each one of those busses runs around, burnin fuel, all day, and only provides transportation for 36 people.So, I would give them at least until they can fill the busses half-way until we start thinking about filling an 80 million dollar train half-way.[;)]
I mean, we can only loose so much money right now! Ya know?
quote:
Originally posted by Transport_Oklahoma
If you believe that energy is going to be vastly more expensive in the future, as many experts do, I don't see how you could oppose at least planning for rail development in Tulsa.
The jitney thing is fine, but it also is a good clue that Michael Bates is getting his anti-rail transit bias from CATO, The Heritage Foundation, and/or the American Enterprise Institute.
These groups have long opposed taxpayer financed rail transit. In addition to toll roads they almost always mention jitneys as the preferred alternative.
Agreed that voluntary/consensus smart growth/new urbanist zoning is essential.
Good find in pointing out the CATO Institute's fascination with "jitneys"... until now, I thought that was some kinda indian spice the english like to use in jelly...
But I don't see how Bates' opinion piece is unreasonable.
Per usual, the people who will push hard for expensive new taxpayer funded infrustructure for this are the same folks who'd make sure east Tulsa had 2 lane dirt roads, if they had their druthers... I remember hearing the exact same arguments for a monorail back in the 70s as a kid-- but hey, I was 10 years old, and it sounded like a great plan to fight the "energy crisis" at the time, then Tulsa could be really cool, ya know, just like Disneyworld!?! [8D]
You know, I've bought monthly passes to ride Chicago's "L" and Boston's "T" and like the idea of public transit and the use of public dollars for transit over a "roads-only" strategy. But I lived in areas of both cities (northside Chicago and East Boston) that weren't even in the city center... yet midrise buildings and 2-story ad 3-story brownstones were still dominant, unlike the ranch-style bungalows in Tulsa... and this ain't changing anytime soon...
I've tried taking the bus in Tulsa a few times over the past year and have never been in one that was even close to being full... and that route was at the tail end of rush hour... maybe that much ballyhooed 28% increase in ridership means there are 4 people on the bus instead of 3??? Also, if I go to a few of my local "watering holes," I can pretty much count cars and that's how many people will be inside... and that includes bars around downtown and midtown, too...
I know that most Tulsans are not as "transit-friendly" as I am... or even as Michael Bates is. I suspect that if gas goes up to $10 per gal and Tulsa has a reasonable light rail, I'd ride it for awhile, then save up some money for a car that gets much higher gas mileage than my car does now... beyond that, I'd maybe even carpool...
When it takes me only 10+ minutes to drive from my east Tulsa apt to a free parking space less than 50-feet from the front door of McNellies', I'm not nearly as likely to take transit in Tulsa, even if it were full service and convenient to where I live. You see, in cities where transit is a good option, it has more to do with using the train/bus to avoid parking and traffic nightmares. At night, if traffic and poor side streets weren't enough, it can often take 30-45 mins to find a parking spot in popular areas of Chicago like Lincoln Park and Wrigleyville.
Arguing that a light rail in Tulsa will somehow "create demand" has little basis in reality. We can't even get one "East End"-style mixed use complex built or even a grocery store downtown.
Commuter rail is a different story though. I could see the upside of rush hour trains running to/from Catoosa-Claremore... or BA/Coweta/Wagoner... or Jenks/Glenpool/Sapulpa, etc... which, ironically, could contribute to so-called sprawl but would actually satisfy a potential future demand...
quote:
Originally posted by USRufnex
Quote
But I don't see how Bates' opinion piece is unreasonable.
* * * *
Commuter rail is a different story though. I could see the upside of rush hour trains running to/from Catoosa-Claremore... or BA/Coweta/Wagoner... or Jenks/Glenpool/Sapulpa, etc... which, ironically, could contribute to so-called sprawl but would actually satisfy a potential future demand...
Bates' piece is unreasonable because he sets up light rail as a red herring. As I tried pointing out earlier, nothing in the Blue Ribbon Panel's recommendation that a street plan include funding for passenger rail suggests that they want to criss-cross Tulsa with a new light rail system. Although the report is not specific, it is HIGHLY likely that the panel was referring to utilizing existing rail lines for commuter service. Most everyone seems to concede that it's a reasonable plan, and it's the focus of Tulsa Transit's studies. Bates should know this.
But instead of discussing this possibility, he sets up a light rail straw man and knocks it down. Why would Mr. Bates, an educated, highly informed citizen, do this? I don't know his motivation, but I'll guess at two possibilities: 1) under deadline, he simply made a hurried and mistaken assumption about the intention of the Streets Panel report; or 2) he is being intentionally misleading about the Streets Panel's intentions in order to strike a preemptive blow against what is sure to be a very large streets bond issue coming in the next 12-18 months.
Either way, it's not being biased to point out where Bates' argument is flawed, particularly on a topic of such vital importance to Tulsa's infrastructure and growth.
In the late 1980s and early 1990s, I was enthused about the possibility of rail transit in Tulsa. But then I read INCOG's study on fixed guideway transit. The basic reality of that study is that Tulsa doesn't have the intensity of development to support passenger rail service.
In the late 1990s the TMAPC began pushing the idea of down-zoning some land I'd purchased near downtown by a factor of 11. That is, the TMAPC thought that the development potential should be limited to 2.66 dwelling units per acre instead of 29.25. Although I begged the TMAPC and the City Council not to down-zone to such low densities, they decided that they knew what was best for my land instead of me. It did not matter what the comprehensive plan said, and my futile pleas were ignored. I tried to use the argument of developing a viable mass transit in Tulsa by bolstering the population density of our older neighborhoods. No, the TMAPC thought that greater setbacks and lower densities were what Tulsa needed. They got their way.
Now, after having been through the wringer at INCOG, I'm convinced that we won't get past this sprawling suburban mindset in Tulsa anytime soon. It's too entrenched in our way of thinking and in our everyday behavior. I think most Tulsans are satisfied with it this way. If a large public funding proposal for passenger rail transit goes to the voters of Tulsa, I predict that it will be defeated.
(http://lemonodor.com/images/pakistani-bus-s.jpg)
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
There is no way in hell I would ride that lol.
What if it made a stop at Philbrook? Still no way?
quote:
Originally posted by Chicken Little
quote:
Originally posted by inteller
When gas hits $5 a gal this summer I think a lot of you will be singing a different tune to mass transit.
No kidding. For those that think mass transit is a joke (Spoonbill), note this:
From the Tulsa Transit website (//%22http://www.tulsatransit.org/news-info/tulsa-transit-facts/%22):
Ridership FY'05 FY'06
Fixed Route 1,790,800 2,293,500
Ridership jumped 28% in a single year; gas prices are serious business to a lot of people in this town.
Spoonbill is right. Those numbers show that mass transit in Tulsa IS pretty much a joke. (Before you start setting up straw men again, note that I am NOT in any way saying we should abolish it. It's a necessary public function IMO.)
This discussion of Tulsa Transit ridership points to one of the problems I have with the "Study". The methodology of their ridership estimates.
If one wants to estimate how many people are likely to ride mass transit from Broken Arrow to downtown Tulsa, doesn't it make intuitive sense to at least look at the number of people currently using mass transit from Broken Arrow to downtown Tulsa?
Tulsa Transit runs express buses from Broken Arrow to downtown Tulsa. They run more often than the proposed rail and they make the run almost as fast.
Yet the study ignores that completely. One suspects the ridership is pretty low and using that as a starting point would not have gotten them the answer they were looking for (a Kathy Taylor Special). Yes, there is a rail bias but the current mass transit usage is a pretty obvious starting point.
Instead they base their ridership estimates on rail usage in something like 21 other rail systems (the identity of those systems is hidden away in the mysterious appendices). That is fundamentally flawed because that would require them to be using data from systems that are completely unlike what is being discussed here in Tulsa in cities that are completely unlike Tulsa (i.e., highly congested)
And FWIW, the line is already drawn on the map. This line is in INCOG's 2030 Transportation Plan. However, no sane developer will ever build a development based on government "plans".
I'm with Artist (I think it was he). In our efforts to urbanize/densify Tulsa, our resources would be much better spent on the East End, or Brady District or Pearl District developments.
Someone else mentioned Federal funds. I believe the split on mass transit projects is 50/50.
Some just don't get it. They don't want the city to grow so they'll look for any an every excuse there is to shoot things down. I'm glad I don't live there anymore. Too much bickering and not enough progress. The vocal minority are penny pinchers who realy don't care about growth. If you can't see the benefits of light rail maybe you shouldn't discuss it. Stay in the 1970's, Tulsa.
Yes, I would like to see some of those infill areas well on their way before we get too involved with that rail line. BUT, though this is a minor point I think it would be helpful while doing those projects in Tulsa and BA, to purchase property and maintain right of ways for future possible stations, and even do some zoning for high density right around the possible stations. Even perhaps lay out a timeline saying "Current expectation is to have rail service on the BA to Tulsa line by about 2025-2030". Buying those properties and doing those other things, makes the rail line seem more certain to happen and could give a little more impetus for growth around those areas... many of which we want to grow with high density regardless. And if those areas in and near both downtowns do grow as we hope, then it will make the line all the more likely and useful.
Remember, this is a very limited "starter" service as currently stated. Only a few commuter trips during rush hour periods. Possible ridership by that time for such a service should be more than adequate.
quote:
Originally posted by T-TownMike
Some just don't get it. They don't want the city to grow so they'll look for any an every excuse there is to shoot things down. I'm glad I don't live there anymore. Too much bickering and not enough progress. The vocal minority are penny pinchers who realy don't care about growth. If you can't see the benefits of light rail maybe you shouldn't discuss it. Stay in the 1970's, Tulsa.
LOL Indeed, some really
don't get it and prefer delusions over a factual analysis. There are plenty of things Tulsa could do and should do to improve its future. ANY rail at this time would be foolish and a serious misallocation of of obviously scarce resources.
I just love the argument that if one disagrees one shouldn't even be in the discussion. With that kind of attitude, let me just say that I too am glad you don't live here anymore. ;-)
(and since you apparently haven't been paying the slightest bit of attention to the actual discussion... we are discussing
commuter rail, not light rail.)
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
Yes, I would like to see some of those infill areas well on their way before we get too involved with that rail line. BUT, though this is a minor point I think it would be helpful while doing those projects in Tulsa and BA, to purchase property and maintain right of ways for future possible stations, and even do some zoning for high density right around the possible stations. Even perhaps lay out a timeline saying "Current expectation is to have rail service on the BA to Tulsa line by about 2025-2030". Buying those properties and doing those other things, makes the rail line seem more certain to happen and could give a little more impetus for growth around those areas... many of which we want to grow with high density regardless. And if those areas in and near both downtowns do grow as we hope, then it will make the line all the more likely and useful.
Remember, this is a very limited "starter" service as currently stated. Only a few commuter trips during rush hour periods. Possible ridership by that time for such a service should be more than adequate.
That all sounds pretty good to me. Especially the idea of zoning around the areas of potential stations (within reason; I'm not a huge fan of highly restrictive zoning).
It might be a bit difficult to sell the idea of investing money to buy right of way etc with the plan of letting it sit for 15-20 years. Not usually considered a good use of public money... But it could be worthwhile.
quote:
Originally posted by T-TownMike
Some just don't get it. They don't want the city to grow so they'll look for any an every excuse there is to shoot things down. I'm glad I don't live there anymore. Too much bickering and not enough progress. The vocal minority are penny pinchers who realy don't care about growth. If you can't see the benefits of light rail maybe you shouldn't discuss it. Stay in the 1970's, Tulsa.
Mike, We discuss here, not bicker. Our wonderful city is in far better shape than your vision reveals.
Tulsa is an affordable place to live. Our quality of life is very high. Though our sales taxes are steep, we don't have the burdens that other cities have, driving up property values and shackling development.
Yes, burdens exist and we are fighting to eliminate them. But, projects that serve only to be municipal phallic symbols are not in the best interest of Tulsans. If we have legitimate need for a project we pursue it. Tulsa was built on private money, and, as is the case for most cities, it is best kept that way.
When the Emotionocrats, get jealous of what other cities have and go into the "I want one!" mode, we must temper them with some reality.
So far, no one has been able to propose any real reason for Tulsa to jump on a Rail program that makes any fiscal sense.
We are not stuck in the 70's. We are far better off than most cities. Our population, productivity, and growth numbers are healthy and increasing at a comfortable rate. Our biggest problem, that we need to continue to address, is how to stimulate private development within the city of Tulsa.
The proposed rail plan that has been on the books for years has produced none of the desired positive effect on development. In fact, some of it has caused land to be left on the table because the developer viewed the prospect of future rail service as a negative influence on property value.
If we had increasing population density and a prosperous public transportation system, I would be right there with ya! In fact I would probably be drawing up proposals and helping to make it happen.
But I can't get on the bandwagon just for "Instant Municipal Male Enhancement."
Respectfully disagree--I think there is ample statistical and anecdotal evidence that commuter rail is generally utilized once in place, particularly with rising gas costs. It generally catches on among people with a set routine. Density is only needed in two places for commuter rail: the source and the destination. Broken Arrow is dense with commuters; downtown (for now) is (relatively) dense with their jobs.
There's also a cost element that the consumer becomes aware of. Assume, with park and ride, that the train is replacing 30 miles of driving commute. I'll just use gas cost, rather than the AAA per mile cost. Assume a very generous 20 mpg, and $3/gallon gas. That commute currently costs $4.50/day. The train ride, at $2 each way, would be $4 per day.
Assuming 200 workdays per year, that's a savings of $100, plus the psychological savings of not sitting in traffic. Public transit can be very pleasant--I never would have read Crime and Punishment and Anna Karenina if not for a 35 minute express bus commute from Norman to OKC that I was using back in 2002-03. I also got very good at crosswords.
My point is that including commuter rail in a comprehensive streets plan should not be out of the question. It seems like a reasonable infrastructure addition. As gas prices go up and up, it will start to make more and more economic sense.
quote:
Originally posted by Floyd
I think there is ample statistical and anecdotal evidence that commuter rail is generally utilized once in place
Simply stating "
I think there is ample statistical and anecdotal evidence that commuter rail is generally utilized once in place" does not make it into evidence.
If someone can show "statistically or otherwise" that a rail system will be used, we can then analyze that data. But just making an "I think" statement cannot serve to compel.
Why wouldn't the same logical citizens take advantage of the bus system? Unless the rail would cause some odd mental anomaly to take place in Broken Arrow commuters' brains, that would make them hop on a train?
There is still plenty of room on the BA Express bus. . . and we have 60+ more busses that only transport 36 people a day that we can surely divert if this mass mental anomaly becomes a syndrome.
quote:
Originally posted by Floyd
Respectfully disagree--I think there is ample statistical and anecdotal evidence that commuter rail is generally utilized once in place, particularly with rising gas costs. It generally catches on among people with a set routine. Density is only needed in two places for commuter rail: the source and the destination. Broken Arrow is dense with commuters; downtown (for now) is (relatively) dense with their jobs.
Could you point us to some of that statistical and anecdotal evidence that commuter rail is utilized (and utilized enough to make it worthwhile) in cities that are similar to Tulsa?
There's also a cost element that the consumer becomes aware of. Assume, with park and ride, that the train is replacing 30 miles of driving commute. I'll just use gas cost, rather than the AAA per mile cost. Assume a very generous 20 mpg, and $3/gallon gas. That commute currently costs $4.50/day. The train ride, at $2 each way, would be $4 per day.
Assuming 200 workdays per year, that's a savings of $100, plus the psychological savings of not sitting in traffic. Public transit can be very pleasant--I never would have read Crime and Punishment and Anna Karenina if not for a 35 minute express bus commute from Norman to OKC that I was using back in 2002-03. I also got very good at crosswords.
Good point. But those same cost and reading-time benefits can be enjoyed on the current Broken Arrow express buses. And where is the massive congestion in Tulsa that has people sitting in traffic in any significant way? If and when that becomes a serious issue, rail will be a reasonable response.
My point is that including commuter rail in a comprehensive streets plan should not be out of the question. It seems like a reasonable infrastructure addition. As gas prices go up and up, it will start to make more and more economic sense.
As has been noted several times already, there is really no argument about whether commuter rail should be included in a comprehensive long-term plan. IT IS ALREADY IN THE 2030 PLAN.
quote:
Originally posted by spoonbill
quote:
Originally posted by T-TownMike
Some just don't get it. They don't want the city to grow so they'll look for any an every excuse there is to shoot things down. I'm glad I don't live there anymore. Too much bickering and not enough progress. The vocal minority are penny pinchers who realy don't care about growth. If you can't see the benefits of light rail maybe you shouldn't discuss it. Stay in the 1970's, Tulsa.
Mike, We discuss here, not bicker. Our wonderful city is in far better shape than your vision reveals.
Tulsa is an affordable place to live. Our quality of life is very high. Though our sales taxes are steep, we don't have the burdens that other cities have, driving up property values and shackling development.
Yes, burdens exist and we are fighting to eliminate them. But, projects that serve only to be municipal phallic symbols are not in the best interest of Tulsans. If we have legitimate need for a project we pursue it. Tulsa was built on private money, and, as is the case for most cities, it is best kept that way.
When the Emotionocrats, get jealous of what other cities have and go into the "I want one!" mode, we must temper them with some reality.
So far, no one has been able to propose any real reason for Tulsa to jump on a Rail program that makes any fiscal sense.
We are not stuck in the 70's. We are far better off than most cities. Our population, productivity, and growth numbers are healthy and increasing at a comfortable rate. Our biggest problem, that we need to continue to address, is how to stimulate private development within the city of Tulsa.
The proposed rail plan that has been on the books for years has produced none of the desired positive effect on development. In fact, some of it has caused land to be left on the table because the developer viewed the prospect of future rail service as a negative influence on property value.
If we had increasing population density and a prosperous public transportation system, I would be right there with ya! In fact I would probably be drawing up proposals and helping to make it happen.
But I can't get on the bandwagon just for "Instant Municipal Male Enhancement."
I nominate this as the Best Post of this entire topic.
quote:
Originally posted by Oil Capital
quote:
Originally posted by spoonbill
quote:
Originally posted by T-TownMike
Some just don't get it. They don't want the city to grow so they'll look for any an every excuse there is to shoot things down. I'm glad I don't live there anymore. Too much bickering and not enough progress. The vocal minority are penny pinchers who realy don't care about growth. If you can't see the benefits of light rail maybe you shouldn't discuss it. Stay in the 1970's, Tulsa.
Mike, We discuss here, not bicker. Our wonderful city is in far better shape than your vision reveals.
Tulsa is an affordable place to live. Our quality of life is very high. Though our sales taxes are steep, we don't have the burdens that other cities have, driving up property values and shackling development.
Yes, burdens exist and we are fighting to eliminate them. But, projects that serve only to be municipal phallic symbols are not in the best interest of Tulsans. If we have legitimate need for a project we pursue it. Tulsa was built on private money, and, as is the case for most cities, it is best kept that way.
When the Emotionocrats, get jealous of what other cities have and go into the "I want one!" mode, we must temper them with some reality.
So far, no one has been able to propose any real reason for Tulsa to jump on a Rail program that makes any fiscal sense.
We are not stuck in the 70's. We are far better off than most cities. Our population, productivity, and growth numbers are healthy and increasing at a comfortable rate. Our biggest problem, that we need to continue to address, is how to stimulate private development within the city of Tulsa.
The proposed rail plan that has been on the books for years has produced none of the desired positive effect on development. In fact, some of it has caused land to be left on the table because the developer viewed the prospect of future rail service as a negative influence on property value.
If we had increasing population density and a prosperous public transportation system, I would be right there with ya! In fact I would probably be drawing up proposals and helping to make it happen.
But I can't get on the bandwagon just for "Instant Municipal Male Enhancement."
I nominate this as the Best Post of this entire
topic.
The reason that Tulsa should get on the mass transit/ light rail wagon is that it enables land to be better utilised. You can not build to high density and provide amble parking, this means the city loses the possibility of higher tax revenue and the possibility of forming a central agglomeration of growth. If you reduce the need for parking by allowing people to take public transport you free up land for development and in turn tax dollars. I've looked at zoning and the main problem is almost always, not the setbacks or the height limits, its trying to squeeze in the mandatory parking for such a development.
Public transport is also great as you know where people will be going, you have a clear route and with that you can focus people on a central area, as in making downtown the centre of a transport system. In contrast more roads and having a road based system leads to sprawl and the loss of jobs and tax dollars. One of the worse things to happen to Tulsa in my mind was the Broken Arrow Express, it encouraged massive development outside the city boundary. Public transport does the opposite it focuses, development. One of the problems of cost benefit analysis in transport schemes is that until extremely recently no one took into account the agglomeration benefits, I've dealt with schemes that on paper had a time saving of only $9.72bn, but the agglomeration benefits were $72 to $132bn. I think it would be foolish to write off any scheme unless the full economic benefits for the city of Tulsa were calculated.
quote:
Originally posted by T-TownMike
If you can't see the benefits of light rail maybe you shouldn't discuss it.
I agree that ignoring any possible benefits of rail transit is extremely foolish and short-sighted. Equally foolish is the refusal to acknowledge and to weigh the costs of a rail transit system in Tulsa. Such foolishness is further compounded by dismissing the realities of planning and zoning patterns here. Tulsa is sprawling -- by design.
quote:
Originally posted by si_uk_lon_ok
quote:
Originally posted by Oil Capital
quote:
Originally posted by spoonbill
quote:
Originally posted by T-TownMike
Some just don't get it. They don't want the city to grow so they'll look for any an every excuse there is to shoot things down. I'm glad I don't live there anymore. Too much bickering and not enough progress. The vocal minority are penny pinchers who realy don't care about growth. If you can't see the benefits of light rail maybe you shouldn't discuss it. Stay in the 1970's, Tulsa.
Mike, We discuss here, not bicker. Our wonderful city is in far better shape than your vision reveals.
Tulsa is an affordable place to live. Our quality of life is very high. Though our sales taxes are steep, we don't have the burdens that other cities have, driving up property values and shackling development.
Yes, burdens exist and we are fighting to eliminate them. But, projects that serve only to be municipal phallic symbols are not in the best interest of Tulsans. If we have legitimate need for a project we pursue it. Tulsa was built on private money, and, as is the case for most cities, it is best kept that way.
When the Emotionocrats, get jealous of what other cities have and go into the "I want one!" mode, we must temper them with some reality.
So far, no one has been able to propose any real reason for Tulsa to jump on a Rail program that makes any fiscal sense.
We are not stuck in the 70's. We are far better off than most cities. Our population, productivity, and growth numbers are healthy and increasing at a comfortable rate. Our biggest problem, that we need to continue to address, is how to stimulate private development within the city of Tulsa.
The proposed rail plan that has been on the books for years has produced none of the desired positive effect on development. In fact, some of it has caused land to be left on the table because the developer viewed the prospect of future rail service as a negative influence on property value.
If we had increasing population density and a prosperous public transportation system, I would be right there with ya! In fact I would probably be drawing up proposals and helping to make it happen.
But I can't get on the bandwagon just for "Instant Municipal Male Enhancement."
I nominate this as the Best Post of this entire
topic.
The reason that Tulsa should get on the mass transit/ light rail wagon is that it enables land to be better utilised. You can not build to high density and provide amble parking, this means the city loses the possibility of higher tax revenue and the possibility of forming a central agglomeration of growth. If you reduce the need for parking by allowing people to take public transport you free up land for development and in turn tax dollars. I've looked at zoning and the main problem is almost always, not the setbacks or the height limits, its trying to squeeze in the mandatory parking for such a development.
Public transport is also great as you know where people will be going, you have a clear route and with that you can focus people on a central area, as in making downtown the centre of a transport system. In contrast more roads and having a road based system leads to sprawl and the loss of jobs and tax dollars. One of the worse things to happen to Tulsa in my mind was the Broken Arrow Express, it encouraged massive development outside the city boundary. Public transport does the opposite it focuses, development. One of the problems of cost benefit analysis in transport schemes is that until extremely recently no one took into account the agglomeration benefits, I've dealt with schemes that on paper had a time saving of only $9.72bn, but the agglomeration benefits were $72 to $132bn. I think it would be foolish to write off any scheme unless the full economic benefits for the city of Tulsa were calculated.
You have some good points. I agree that parking requirements affect development significantly. I have a few questions and comments about your statements.
So are you suggesting that the city reduce the parking requirement for new developments near public transportation?
I would be all for that! You would see a development spike that would make your head spin!!!
We could start by doing that near existing and new bus routs. I know developers that would probably be willing to buy the city a new bus for each development they could reduce their parking count on.
If you took the existing light rail plan and made a public announcement that you were cutting the parking requirement by 15% to 25% on land near the route, you would have a development explosion. But you have to understand that this boom would only be due to the additional sq./ft. that the developer could make money on.
Your statement that "
One of the worse things to happen to Tulsa in my mind was the Broken Arrow Express, it encouraged massive development outside the city boundary."
Come. . .come. . . now do you really think that the bussing of a couple hundred people every day encouraged "massive development"? Do you really think that was the worst thing to happen to Tulsa. I would suggest that the massive development in Broken Arrow is due to a city that is unbelievably reasonable and inexpensive to develop in, leading to nice large homes on acres of land for the same price as a 1,000 sq/ft cottage in mid-town.
When you look at cities with successful mass transit systems they all have the same things in common:
1. Very long commutes.
2. Limited parking.
3. Dense population centers.
4. Large low income populations.
If you really want a light rail to be successful in Tulsa, you must create some of these items. So here are a few suggestions to help create the environment you so dearly desire:
1. Increase the commute on the BA by reducing it to 1 lane all the way into Tulsa.
2. Do as you suggest and reduce the parking count for businesses. Make it darn hard or impossible to park.
3. Limit new residential development thus inflating home costs. Make apartment living more attractive to the poor than ownership. . . and again, allow the developers of these apartments to provide only 1 parking spot per 800sf.
4. By doing the above, you will naturally increase the number of low income Tulsans. Now you need to increase access to social services and programs to insure that this population grows.
I think that covers it.
quote:
Originally posted by spoonbill
quote:
Originally posted by si_uk_lon_ok
quote:
Originally posted by Oil Capital
quote:
Originally posted by spoonbill
quote:
Originally posted by T-TownMike
Some just don't get it. They don't want the city to grow so they'll look for any an every excuse there is to shoot things down. I'm glad I don't live there anymore. Too much bickering and not enough progress. The vocal minority are penny pinchers who realy don't care about growth. If you can't see the benefits of light rail maybe you shouldn't discuss it. Stay in the 1970's, Tulsa.
Mike, We discuss here, not bicker. Our wonderful city is in far better shape than your vision reveals.
Tulsa is an affordable place to live. Our quality of life is very high. Though our sales taxes are steep, we don't have the burdens that other cities have, driving up property values and shackling development.
Yes, burdens exist and we are fighting to eliminate them. But, projects that serve only to be municipal phallic symbols are not in the best interest of Tulsans. If we have legitimate need for a project we pursue it. Tulsa was built on private money, and, as is the case for most cities, it is best kept that way.
When the Emotionocrats, get jealous of what other cities have and go into the "I want one!" mode, we must temper them with some reality.
So far, no one has been able to propose any real reason for Tulsa to jump on a Rail program that makes any fiscal sense.
We are not stuck in the 70's. We are far better off than most cities. Our population, productivity, and growth numbers are healthy and increasing at a comfortable rate. Our biggest problem, that we need to continue to address, is how to stimulate private development within the city of Tulsa.
The proposed rail plan that has been on the books for years has produced none of the desired positive effect on development. In fact, some of it has caused land to be left on the table because the developer viewed the prospect of future rail service as a negative influence on property value.
If we had increasing population density and a prosperous public transportation system, I would be right there with ya! In fact I would probably be drawing up proposals and helping to make it happen.
But I can't get on the bandwagon just for "Instant Municipal Male Enhancement."
I nominate this as the Best Post of this entire
topic.
The reason that Tulsa should get on the mass transit/ light rail wagon is that it enables land to be better utilised. You can not build to high density and provide amble parking, this means the city loses the possibility of higher tax revenue and the possibility of forming a central agglomeration of growth. If you reduce the need for parking by allowing people to take public transport you free up land for development and in turn tax dollars. I've looked at zoning and the main problem is almost always, not the setbacks or the height limits, its trying to squeeze in the mandatory parking for such a development.
Public transport is also great as you know where people will be going, you have a clear route and with that you can focus people on a central area, as in making downtown the centre of a transport system. In contrast more roads and having a road based system leads to sprawl and the loss of jobs and tax dollars. One of the worse things to happen to Tulsa in my mind was the Broken Arrow Express, it encouraged massive development outside the city boundary. Public transport does the opposite it focuses, development. One of the problems of cost benefit analysis in transport schemes is that until extremely recently no one took into account the agglomeration benefits, I've dealt with schemes that on paper had a time saving of only $9.72bn, but the agglomeration benefits were $72 to $132bn. I think it would be foolish to write off any scheme unless the full economic benefits for the city of Tulsa were calculated.
You have some good points. I agree that parking requirements affect development significantly. I have a few questions and comments about your statements.
So are you suggesting that the city reduce the parking requirement for new developments near public transportation?
I would be all for that! You would see a development spike that would make your head spin!!!
We could start by doing that near existing and new bus routs. I know developers that would probably be willing to buy the city a new bus for each development they could reduce their parking count on.
If you took the existing light rail plan and made a public announcement that you were cutting the parking requirement by 15% to 25% on land near the route, you would have a development explosion. But you have to understand that this boom would only be due to the additional sq./ft. that the developer could make money on.
Your statement that "One of the worse things to happen to Tulsa in my mind was the Broken Arrow Express, it encouraged massive development outside the city boundary."
Come. . .come. . . now do you really think that the bussing of a couple hundred people every day encouraged "massive development"? Do you really think that was the worst thing to happen to Tulsa. I would suggest that the massive development in Broken Arrow is due to a city that is unbelievably reasonable and inexpensive to develop in, leading to nice large homes on acres of land for the same price as a 1,000 sq/ft cottage in mid-town.
When you look at cities with successful mass transit systems they all have the same things in common:
1. Very long commutes.
2. Limited parking.
3. Dense population centers.
4. Large low income populations.
If you really want a light rail to be successful in Tulsa, you must create some of these items. So here are a few suggestions to help create the environment you so dearly desire:
1. Increase the commute on the BA by reducing it to 1 lane all the way into Tulsa.
2. Do as you suggest and reduce the parking count for businesses. Make it darn hard or impossible to park.
3. Limit new residential development thus inflating home costs. Make apartment living more attractive to the poor than ownership. . . and again, allow the developers of these apartments to provide only 1 parking spot per 800sf.
4. By doing the above, you will naturally increase the number of low income Tulsans. Now you need to increase access to social services and programs to insure that this population grows.
I think that covers it.
I would scrap parking requirements in the entire city of Tulsa and introduce maximum parking standards. I wouldn't penalise people developing in transit corridors by forcing them to be any different than others developing in the back of beyond. I understand, what the boom would do it would create demand near the stops and significantly effect ridership in a way that would significantly effect its business case. At first the boom maybe due to the standards, but with time the benefits of living near a transit stop would spread, people would discover that its quite nice to let the train take the strain, read the paper on the way into work, maybe do some work or chat with people.
I'm sorry I was talking about the Broken Arrow Expressway. BA's website proclaims it:
quote:
It was transportation, in fact, which ignited the amazing growth of Broken Arrow beginning in the mid-1960s. The opening of the Broken Arrow Expressway made the trip from Tulsa to Broken Arrow much easier.
I think its crazy that you expect Tulsa to meet all the requirements of a city with a successful mass transit system without a mass transit system. The two are completely linked, you can't have the limited parking without an alternative and you can't have the dense centres without a mass transit system.
There is no reason for your obnoxious and condescending 'suggestions'. Was I rude and condescending to you? Light rail will spur development around the stations that will create even more demand, it will focus development downtown, this will lead to more tax revenue and a richer city overall.
My apologies si_uk_lon_ok. I did not intend to be condescending.
We come from two very different schools of thought on the subject of development.
quote:
Originally posted by spoonbill
My apologies si_uk_lon_ok. I did not intend to be condescending.
We come from two very different schools of thought on the subject of development.
Fair enough, I draw on the Los Angeles School of Urbanism. I think one book that all mayors should read though is 'The Capitalist Imperative'. I think sometimes if people are coming from very different points of view it can be hard to see eye to eye, but its worth trying.
I think the BA Expressway and the other expressways have decimated Tulsa, especially the older neighborhoods. Sadly, we continue to build more of them and to widen those we have already. We have what we planned for.
I love the idea of reducing or dropping the off-street parking requirements in Tulsa. That's a "what if" scenario worth discussing.
Just a reminder to everyone: Michael Bates confessed in his opinion piece that he is a fan of rail-based mass transit systems. If this comes down to an election on whether or not to raise taxes, then we all need to compare the costs to the benefits of rail transit for Tulsa.
It does sound like if this were to come to a vote that we have some ideas that we should impress on the city to consider as part of the development strategy. The lessening of parking requirements for developments around the stations is one. I would also want there to be bike stations by the rail stations as well. Say you get dropped off downtown. Your work or the place you are going may be on the other side. Having a bike station, like the ones at river parks where you swipe your debit card, nearby so you can then conveniently hop on a bike, leave it at a bike station near where you are going, then someone else or yourself can take that bike and go back to the station, etc. It would make the whole transportation experience much quicker and easier and more likely to be used. You could even take your own bike to the station, leave it, or take it on the train.
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
It does sound like if this were to come to a vote that we have some ideas that we should impress on the city to consider as part of the development strategy. The lessening of parking requirements for developments around the stations is one. I would also want there to be bike stations by the rail stations as well. Say you get dropped off downtown. Your work or the place you are going may be on the other side. Having a bike station, like the ones at river parks where you swipe your debit card, nearby so you can then conveniently hop on a bike, leave it at a bike station near where you are going, then someone else or yourself can take that bike and go back to the station, etc. It would make the whole transportation experience much quicker and easier and more likely to be used. You could even take your own bike to the station, leave it, or take it on the train.
Just thought you might be interested in this scheme.
Secure Station Cycle Parks (//%22http://www.tfl.gov.uk/roadusers/cycling/978.aspx%22)
I think a really good way of funding public transport could be a car space tax, which would reduce the demand for parking, raise the cost of parking and encourage development to well connected areas.
Hey everybody... This is a good discussion. I want you to know, there are going to be more public opportunities to continue this discourse in the near future. I hope you all plan on participating.
I have noticed that there has been a lot of debate on both technology and land use. For what it is worth, there has been no determination on technology other than to say that the concerns you all have had regarding both light rail and (traditional) commuter rail are also concerns of ours. There are other choices available that I am personally very excited about, but that need to be tested in the real market for effectiveness. Suffice it to say, cost, cost recovery, Transit Oriented Development potential, appropriate land use designations, among many considerations, will most definitely be a part of any choice we, collectively, will make.
I also want to say that Michael Bates is right about a couple of things. Clearly, there are gaps in our current transit network that can be filled through the private sector. Better taxi service, jitney, coordinated private/NFP sector transportation options should supplement our transit system, and I think there will be opportunity for that. I think Michael would be the first to tell you, also, that in order for any mass transit system to be effective, that it must be comprehensive. Connections from transit stops to a riders final destination must be timely, obvious and simple. Connections must also consider cars, bikes and pedestrians. They are not exclusive to transit. They should compliment each other. This is just one reason why we must give our rubber tire system a fighting chance to succeed. Of course our ridership numbers don't compare to other cities. We run about half of the routes we have planned, and the ones we do have, we don't run frequently enough. In order for it to be successful, the bus system, any transit system,at the very least must run on time, go where you need it to go, and with head ways of no longer than 15 to 20 minutes on most routes. Period. They are not perfect, but Tulsa Transit makes the most out of their meager budget. But that is just this person's opinion.
One thing I would suggest is not to get too hung up on the density issue. Density, particularly around transit, can change. But also, we often have in our minds that transit only works in legacy cities like Chicago, Boston and New York, where traditionally, highly dense neighborhoods support transit. Sure, transit has become a part of the fabric of those places, but there are many, many examples of high capacity transit being successfully implemented in communities, not unlike Tulsa, that "grew up" with the automobile. Denver...Dallas...Salt Lake City...Portland...and now Charlotte and Minneapolis. These places, from both a ridership and a economic development perspective have all displayed measurable success. Perhaps the most telling element is the psychological shift these places have had in their thinking about who would or wouldn't use public transportation. Frankly, places like Dallas and Denver were (and in many ways still are) the poster child for automobile driven sprawl. "You'll never get a Texan out of his truck", right? In 2007 DART carried 7000 passengers an hour at peak hours. That is the equivalent of 3 lanes of expressway. So when you compare the taxpayer funded cost of expanding a highway, and in the case of the I-44 expansion from Yale to Riverside it is over 100 million per mile, to the cost of converting existing track and right of way for passenger use, including stations crossing upgrades, using an extremely conservative number, say 20 million per mile, the cost benefit is really no longer in roadway's favor.
Now, before I get myself into trouble, no one is suggesting that we don't fix our roads. Certainly not me. It should be our top priority from an infrastructure standpoint. But we owe it to ourselves, if for no other reason than for the purpose of fiscal sustainability, to really examine our public transit system and what it's future in our region holds. No pre-determination, just a good, hard, critical, collective look at our options.
Thanks for caring about this issue.
Patrick Fox
Multimodal Transportation Planner
INCOG
quote:
Originally posted by pfox
Hey everybody... This is a good discussion.
I agree...
quote:
One thing I would suggest is not to get too hung up on the density issue. Density, particularly around transit, can change.
I agree again. Density can change. Density can be increased, and it can be drastically decreased as it was with my property against my wishes. The land use "planners" there are INCOG are hung up on
low density, and forcing low density on Tulsans who don't want it is a colossal problem in terms of having viable transit systems. I begged the land use "planners" to drop their down-zoning pursuit, but to no avail. I was satisfied with the zoning of my property as it was. Down-zoning to suburban densities was their idea, not mine. The hang-up about density was theirs, not mine.
quote:
No pre-determination, just a good, hard, critical, collective look at our options.
Once again, I agree.
But unless Tulsa's land use policies are changed to allow for a more-intense pattern instead of pre-determining a less-intense pattern, viable mass transit systems (and especially fixed guideway systems) won't stand a chance.
BTW, Portland isn't much like Tulsa in terms of density and mass transit. It was 35 or 40 years perhaps, but not now.
quote:
Originally posted by pfox
I also want to say that Michael Bates is right about a couple of things.
And I also want to say thank you for not trashing him. That's how this topic began, but there's no need for the attacks to contine. They are counter-productive to the discussion.
I'm sorry, but I think Bates uses poor logic, a fixed view point and with that comes to the wrong conclusion. In doing he backs a transport system, that to the best of my knowledge has only rarely been used in a modern western country and that was only temporarily and when the country in question was attempting to be as third world as possible. That was during the Birmingham Bus Boycott.
I think Bates makes correct observations, but then falls into the trap of assuming that a transport system would have no impact on his observations and should work around them. He's right, for instance, that most people have scattered destinations and places to be during the day, but ignored the potential of mass transit to not only increase density, but also lead to mixed use developments. We've talked a fair bit about density, but mixed use is just as important in creating a viable transport system, if you have destinations all over the place, you'll constantly be changing route. However if you live in a dense mixed use transport hub and work near one it's likely that your supermarket, dry cleaners and children's school will be close to your house, while the gym and café will be close to work. In this case light rail works very well, but you can't expect an area without transit to fit these requirements. A car based area will never have the density to become dense, walkable and have a population large enough to have a wide variety of services within a short distance.
I also find it laughable that Bates wants public transport to operate a free market, while roads have the benefit of central government. There is no way that public transport should be forced to operate in the market in the way he suggests, I'm sure there would be a **** storm if roads did. A free market road system would mean tolls on every road, varying with traffic and time of day, it would mean price discrimination to extract the maximum charge out of you. It would be the bare minimum, no roads to the country, no repairs on little used roads. You cannot expect public transport to operate under conditions that you would never dream of forcing roads to operate under, it's completely hypocritical.
A Jitney will never work in encouraging development, because there has been no investment. A rail line, light rail line and so on shows that there has been a firm investment in that area and it won't go anywhere. This means that developers will invest in the local area too. If you were a developer would you pay a premium on land just because a few mini buses passed through the area (and no guarantee that tomorrow they would), or would you pay a premium if a station had been built?
Not all conservatives believe that new rail transit has been "a colossal waste of money."
Paul Weyrich was a co-founder of the Moral Majority and today is a principle of the Free Congress Foundation, a conservative think tank. He is also a pundit at NewsMax.
In 1999 he co-produced the study "Does Transit Work? A Conservative Reappraisal"
http://www.apta.com/research/info/online/weyrich2new.cfm (//%22Does%20Transit%20Work?%20%20A%20Conservative%20Reappraisal%22)
Weyrich discusses transit on National Public Radio's Talk of the Nation (//%22http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1051577%22)
I've been around Tulsa for a long time. Michael Bates has been here longer than I.
Michael Bates confessed that he is a fan of rail based transit. I'm a fan of that type of transit also. I'm not opposed to buses, either.
But this is Tulsa. There is a huge problem with the planning and land use process here. It's not predictable, and it is not comprehensive in terms of making zoning work hand in hand with public mass transit.
For decades, my neighborhood was targeted for residential development of increased density such as apartments. Then after 40 years or so, the "planners" at INCOG did a 180 and decided it was time for single-family low density development. This area is very near downtown Tulsa and the river -- an area where it would actually make sense to bolster density in order to support mass transit.
The river itself has been targeted for low intensity development or no development at all. Then suddenly, after six Tulsans propose that islands be constructed in the river, the "planners" at INCOG do another 180 and start having public meetings to consider it.
A colossal investment in public infrastructure doesn't mean that there will be an equal or greater benefit of private investment. Basically everything we have now was planned. The problem is that the plans are not coordinated, and they certainly aren't predictable.
so this is a chicken and egg phenomenon?
fine.
i'm tired of sitting on this egg, let's get a chicken (a comprehensive plan with with real mass transit and form based codes) and get on with it...
quote:
...let's get a chicken (a comprehensive plan with with real mass transit and form based codes) and get on with it...
Now that sounds like the kind of idea that Michael Bates has been writing about and advocating for years. And from my perspective, name-calling and throwing out a red herring such as blackjack card counting doesn't help us "get on with" anything other than more bickering.
quote:
Originally posted by si_uk_lon_ok
A Jitney will never work in encouraging development, because there has been no investment. A rail line, light rail line and so on shows that there has been a firm investment in that area and it won't go anywhere.
I haven't had time to participate in this very interesting discussion, and I still don't have time to do more than respond to this one point.
I lived in Brookline, Mass., for five years in the early eighties, about four blocks away from the intersection of Commonwealth and Brighton Avenues, the point at which the MBTA Green Line's "A" branch to Watertown and "B" branch to Boston College split. (The Green Line is a light-rail / streetcar line that uses overhead power and runs partly above and partly below ground. Other MBTA lines draw power from the third rail.)
Although the "A" branch had ceased operation in 1969 -- replaced by bus service -- the tracks, poles, and wires were there until the mid-'80s. If you saw the tracks and wires and decided to wait for the next streetcar, you'd have been waiting a long time. (On rare occasions, "B" branch cars would use the old tracks as a turnaround, but they didn't stop.) The presence of the infrastructure was no guarantee that the MBTA would keep running trains.
Here in Tulsa, Charles Page built a railroad for interurban passenger service and freight service. The tracks are still there and in use, and the Sand Springs Railroad could run passenger service, but they choose not to do so. Likewise for the TSU tracks between Tulsa and Sapulpa. The UP (formerly MK&T) tracks being discussed as a commuter line between Tulsa and BA are already in existence.
So I'm having trouble understanding how the existence of tracks is going to be any more reassuring to a developer than the presence of a bus shelter or a bus stop sign.
quote:
Originally posted by booWorld
I've been around Tulsa for a long time. Michael Bats has been here longer than I.
Michael Bates confessed that he is fan of rail based transit. I'm a fan of that type of transit also. I'm not opposed to buses, either.
But this is Tulsa. There is a huge problem with the planning and land use process here. It's not predictable, and it is not comprehensive in terms of making zoning work hand in hand with public mass transit.
For decades, my neighborhood was targeted for residential development of in increased density such as apartments. Then after 40 years or so, the "planners" at INCOG did a 180 and decided it was time for single-family low density development. This area is very near downtown Tulsa and the river -- an area where it would actually make sense to bolster density in order to support mass transit.
The river itself has been targeted for low intensity development or no development at all. Then suddenly, after six Tulsans propose that islands be constructed in the river, the "planners" at INCOG do another 180 and start having public meetings to consider it.
A colossal investment in public infrastructure doesn't mean that there will be an equal or greater benefit of private investment. Basically everything we have now was planned. The problem is that the plans are not coordinated, and they certainly aren't predictable.
I would just assume that zoning would change in at least the areas around possible station points. Plus other changes would be made to integrate the rail into other planning considerations. Surely that goes without saying...right? This town isnt THAT stupid.
quote:
Originally posted by MichaelBates
quote:
Originally posted by si_uk_lon_ok
A Jitney will never work in encouraging development, because there has been no investment. A rail line, light rail line and so on shows that there has been a firm investment in that area and it won't go anywhere.
I haven't had time to participate in this very interesting discussion, and I still don't have time to do more than respond to this one point.
I lived in Brookline, Mass., for five years in the early eighties, about four blocks away from the intersection of Commonwealth and Brighton Avenues, the point at which the MBTA Green Line's "A" branch to Watertown and "B" branch to Boston College split. (The Green Line is a light-rail / streetcar line that uses overhead power and runs partly above and partly below ground. Other MBTA lines draw power from the third rail.)
Although the "A" branch had ceased operation in 1969 -- replaced by bus service -- the tracks, poles, and wires were there until the mid-'80s. If you saw the tracks and wires and decided to wait for the next streetcar, you'd have been waiting a long time. (On rare occasions, "B" branch cars would use the old tracks as a turnaround, but they didn't stop.) The presence of the infrastructure was no guarantee that the MBTA would keep running trains.
Here in Tulsa, Charles Page built a railroad for interurban passenger service and freight service. The tracks are still there and in use, and the Sand Springs Railroad could run passenger service, but they choose not to do so. Likewise for the TSU tracks between Tulsa and Sapulpa. The UP (formerly MK&T) tracks being discussed as a commuter line between Tulsa and BA are already in existence.
So I'm having trouble understanding how the existence of tracks is going to be any more reassuring to a developer than the presence of a bus shelter or a bus stop sign.
Sorry if I was unclear.
I was indicating that if the city invested money on a new light rail system and new stations it would lead to much more focused development, than jitneys. There are many studies indicating that proximity to rail interchanges has a very significant positive impact on land values. And higher land values lead to a more efficient use of land, which in turn leads to more tax revenues. The impact of jitneys I don't think has ever been measured as it is an extremely uncommon transport system in the first world, however the impact of buses which shares characteristics with jitneys have a much smaller effect than light rail, if it can even be measured.
I was also trying to say that the fact the infrastructure of rail is pretty permanent and it gives people faith to develop the area. An indication of this could be that when rail schemes are typically valued using cost benefit analysis the impact of the scheme up to 70 years in advance is measured, but for buses this is much lower as it is on the whole a lot less permanent. I know that I would pay more to live a lot next to a light rail stop, while I would be totally unconcerned by a properties proximity to a bus stop.
I was also trying to say that a jitney picks up people and drops people off pretty much where they please along the length of the route, while rail sets people off at set destinations. This means that you have people being focussed on a single node rather than having people spread down a whole linear route, this means more footfall and more business.
quote:
Originally posted by MichaelBates
quote:
Originally posted by si_uk_lon_ok
A Jitney will never work in encouraging development, because there has been no investment. A rail line, light rail line and so on shows that there has been a firm investment in that area and it won't go anywhere.
I haven't had time to participate in this very interesting discussion, and I still don't have time to do more than respond to this one point.
I lived in Brookline, Mass., for five years in the early eighties, about four blocks away from the intersection of Commonwealth and Brighton Avenues, the point at which the MBTA Green Line's "A" branch to Watertown and "B" branch to Boston College split. (The Green Line is a light-rail / streetcar line that uses overhead power and runs partly above and partly below ground. Other MBTA lines draw power from the third rail.)
Although the "A" branch had ceased operation in 1969 -- replaced by bus service -- the tracks, poles, and wires were there until the mid-'80s. If you saw the tracks and wires and decided to wait for the next streetcar, you'd have been waiting a long time. (On rare occasions, "B" branch cars would use the old tracks as a turnaround, but they didn't stop.) The presence of the infrastructure was no guarantee that the MBTA would keep running trains.
Here in Tulsa, Charles Page built a railroad for interurban passenger service and freight service. The tracks are still there and in use, and the Sand Springs Railroad could run passenger service, but they choose not to do so. Likewise for the TSU tracks between Tulsa and Sapulpa. The UP (formerly MK&T) tracks being discussed as a commuter line between Tulsa and BA are already in existence.
So I'm having trouble understanding how the existence of tracks is going to be any more reassuring to a developer than the presence of a bus shelter or a bus stop sign.
I am sure what they meant by a "line" being there was that there was going to be service. There are tracks all over the city and its obvious that tracks alone dont equal development. Tracks alone dont equal service. Plus the areas that we are wanting to encourage higher density development in are also near possible stations.
If we want to do the Pearl District. What is it
we are wanting to do that will get the kind of development that is shown in the plan? What will BA be doing in its downtown to encourage higher density development it wants there? Will a little water in a few ponds create development? There are ponds and water in lots of areas already where developers havent built so why would it be any different in the Pearl? "to use the same logic"
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
I would just assume that zoning would change in at least the areas around possible station points. Plus other changes would be made to integrate the rail into other planning considerations. Surely that goes without saying...right? This town isnt THAT stupid.
No, I wouldn't make those assumptions about Tulsa. Remember that virtually everything we have now was planned.
And the recent planning trend in my central Tulsa neighborhood has been to decrease residential densities. Planning-wise, we reap what we sow. It's all a matter of how we choose to utilize the land we have available. We've chosen inefficient methods of land utilization, but most Tulsans probably are satisfied with the sprawl.
Building transit stations might give developers more assurance than bus stop signs, but train stations can be abandoned too. To me, the subject of density absolutely crucial. It all goes to land use and zoning.
quote:
Originally posted by pfox
I want you to know, there are going to be more public opportunities to continue this discourse in the near future. I hope you all plan on participating.
Please be sure to let us know about any and all future opportunities for the public to weigh in on this issue!
quote:
Originally posted by booWorld
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
I would just assume that zoning would change in at least the areas around possible station points. Plus other changes would be made to integrate the rail into other planning considerations. Surely that goes without saying...right? This town isnt THAT stupid.
No, I wouldn't make those assumptions about Tulsa. Remember that virtually everything we have now was planned.
And the recent planning trend in my central Tulsa has been to decrease residential densities. Planning-wise, we reap what we sow. It's all a matter of how we choose to utilize the land we have available. We've chosen inefficient methods of land utilization, but most Tulsans probably are satisfied with the sprawl.
Building transit stations might give developers more assurance than bus stop signs, but train stations can be abandoned too. To me, the subject of density absolutely crucial. It all goes to land use and zoning.
Everyone knows that the old land use planning are outdated and need to be changed. Just as it was changed before to get to this point, people realize we are in a different phase and need to change again. Thats one of the main reasons we are doing the "new comprehensive plan". We wouldnt be doing a new one if we thought the old one was fine. The new comprehensive plan is also why we are talking about the rail because we know we are going to have to make that descision in order to plan for other things that connect to it as well. We are just about spread out all we can. If we want growth in this next phase it will have to be infill. Thats a different animal with different planning needs. The first Form Based Codes area should come online this year which is directly connected to what you are talking about. It will create an area for mixed-use and higher density development. Once it is in place in this one area it can then be overlayed on other parts of the city as desired.
C-O-M-P-R-E-H-E-N-S-I-V-E plan means just that, ALL factors must be considered and coordinated for the next phase of growth and development. We arent going to all this effort to do it half assed and keep things the same.
Everything we are talking about, Zoning changes for areas, buildings and streets, whether to widen or narrow roads, bike lanes or not, trails, parks, rail, redirecting infill for the 71st corridor and mid-town, preservation, etc. etc. etc. all connect together and will be addressed in the new Comprehensive Plan that is being worked on.
Nobody can be, or should be, talking about rail in a vacuum. That would be insane. With thenew comprehensive plan we are embarking on the new form and direction for growth our city will be taking for the next generation. It will have just as much an impact and real world consequences as the old way of doing things you mentioned did.
quote:
Originally posted by booWorld
quote:
...let's get a chicken (a comprehensive plan with with real mass transit and form based codes) and get on with it...
Now that sounds like the kind of idea that Michael Bates has been writing about and advocating for years. And from my perspective, name-calling and throwing out a red herring such as blackjack card counting doesn't help us "get on with" anything other than more bickering.
oh please, he is the one who made the crazy-donkey arguments about "light rail tracks running down every arterial street" huh? is that really how it is done in other towns... short answer, no.... "how far you'd have to walk from where the streetcar drops you off on the street to the front door of your destination" the residents of every other town with rail lines seem to get by... or that they are a "colossal waste of money, just as it has been for most American cities that have built systems in recent years..." really? says who? seems to be the exception not the rule... maybe he meant "for a few American cities..."
talk about non-contributory comments... these are bull**** scare tactics... so from
my perspective, his leaps of logic have as much relevance in this debate as my commenting that he resembles an infamous card-counter and/or a hygiene product... by the way, that was not "bickering," those were ad hominems...
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
Nobody can be, or should be, talking about rail in a vacuum. That would be insane. With thenew comprehensive plan we are embarking on the new form and direction for growth our city will be taking for the next generation. It will have just as much an impact and real world consequences as the old way of doing things you mentioned did.
and that is spot on.
"I am sure what they meant by a "line" being there was that there was going to be service. There are tracks all over the city and its obvious that tracks alone dont equal development. Tracks alone dont equal service. Plus the areas that we are wanting to encourage higher density development in are also near possible stations. "
^Originally posted by the Artist.
When oil hits $150 dollars a barrel, the dollar gets ten or 15 percent weaker than it already is, folks will have little alternative other than to look for some form of relief....
In response to this thread in general, the volumes of collected knowledge being shared, has me in awe....[^]
Please be advised that this sort of discussion may lead to change in the direction of true progress...
quote:
Originally posted by si_uk_lon_ok
quote:
Originally posted by MichaelBates
quote:
Originally posted by si_uk_lon_ok
A Jitney will never work in encouraging development, because there has been no investment. A rail line, light rail line and so on shows that there has been a firm investment in that area and it won't go anywhere.
I haven't had time to participate in this very interesting discussion, and I still don't have time to do more than respond to this one point.
I lived in Brookline, Mass., for five years in the early eighties, about four blocks away from the intersection of Commonwealth and Brighton Avenues, the point at which the MBTA Green Line's "A" branch to Watertown and "B" branch to Boston College split. (The Green Line is a light-rail / streetcar line that uses overhead power and runs partly above and partly below ground. Other MBTA lines draw power from the third rail.)
Although the "A" branch had ceased operation in 1969 -- replaced by bus service -- the tracks, poles, and wires were there until the mid-'80s. If you saw the tracks and wires and decided to wait for the next streetcar, you'd have been waiting a long time. (On rare occasions, "B" branch cars would use the old tracks as a turnaround, but they didn't stop.) The presence of the infrastructure was no guarantee that the MBTA would keep running trains.
Here in Tulsa, Charles Page built a railroad for interurban passenger service and freight service. The tracks are still there and in use, and the Sand Springs Railroad could run passenger service, but they choose not to do so. Likewise for the TSU tracks between Tulsa and Sapulpa. The UP (formerly MK&T) tracks being discussed as a commuter line between Tulsa and BA are already in existence.
So I'm having trouble understanding how the existence of tracks is going to be any more reassuring to a developer than the presence of a bus shelter or a bus stop sign.
Sorry if I was unclear.
I was indicating that if the city invested money on a new light rail system and new stations it would lead to much more focused development, than jitneys. There are many studies indicating that proximity to rail interchanges has a very significant positive impact on land values. And higher land values lead to a more efficient use of land, which in turn leads to more tax revenues. The impact of jitneys I don't think has ever been measured as it is an extremely uncommon transport system in the first world, however the impact of buses which shares characteristics with jitneys have a much smaller effect than light rail, if it can even be measured.
I was also trying to say that the fact the infrastructure of rail is pretty permanent and it gives people faith to develop the area. An indication of this could be that when rail schemes are typically valued using cost benefit analysis the impact of the scheme up to 70 years in advance is measured, but for buses this is much lower as it is on the whole a lot less permanent. I know that I would pay more to live a lot next to a light rail stop, while I would be totally unconcerned by a properties proximity to a bus stop.
I was also trying to say that a jitney picks up people and drops people off pretty much where they please along the length of the route, while rail sets people off at set destinations. This means that you have people being focussed on a single node rather than having people spread down a whole linear route, this means more footfall and more business.
Well said, Si, and you are exactly right. "Focused development" is happening in Dallas around DART stations. It's a fairly new phenomenon, and if one were to read the article (//%22http://dallasobserver.com/2004-12-09/news/slow-ride/%22) I posted earlier, you could see that even DART, the manager of the system, has been slow to recognize the trend. They wasted years trying to figure out something besides "park-n-ride". Unfortunate for them, but we can learn from it.
quote:
Economic Impact takes many forms
Transit-oriented development also drives property values higher, according to earlier research by Weinstein and Clower:
* Between 1997 and 2001, office properties near suburban DART Rail stations increased in value 53% more than comparable properties not served by rail.
* For the same period, values of residential properties near DART Rail stations rose 39% more than a control group of properties not served by rail.
The UNT research found that DART counts when it's time to decide where to develop. And the real estate community agrees. Holliday Fenoglio Fowler LP closed on the sales of four buildings near DART's Mockingbird and Lovers Lane stations in 2003. "Many investors have come to look at proximity to the DART light rail stop as offering a competitive advantage for their properties," the brokerage firm's senior managing director told The Dallas Morning News, adding, "If you look at the buildings that are directly on the rail line, they have had higher occupancy and effective rents."
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
Everyone knows that the old land use planning are outdated and need to be changed. Just as it was changed before to get to this point, people realize we are in a different phase and need to change again. Thats one of the main reasons we are doing the "new comprehensive plan". We wouldnt be doing a new one if we thought the old one was fine. The new comprehensive plan is also why we are talking about the rail because we know we are going to have to make that descision in order to plan for other things that connect to it as well.
I agree that the comp plan update is long overdue. A big problem with the current zoning process is that the comp plan is sometimes ignored or circumvented. The comp plan ought to guide zoning. It should not be a reaction to zoning. We can have the best new comp plan in the world, but unless the TMAPC stops ignoring the comp plan as a guide for zoning decisions, a new comp plan won't be very useful. Take a look at the zoning map of the areas around the proposed Lewis station on the Tulsa-BA rail line. Notice how much of the land to the west and even more land to the east is zoned RS-3. That district is for detached single-family dwelling units. It will take a massive effort to change those neighborhoods into something dense enough to support mass transit. It would drastically changed the look of those neighborhoods.
quote:
We are just about spread out all we can.
Not really. We can choose to decrease density in central Tulsa by razing more buildings and down-zoning more close-in residential neighborhoods.
quote:
If we want growth in this next phase it will have to be infill. Thats a different animal with different planning needs. The first Form Based Codes area should come online this year which is directly connected to what you are talking about. It will create an area for mixed-use and higher density development. Once it is in place in this one area it can then be overlayed on other parts of the city as desired.
Those types of infill developments will be very difficult to sell to many areas of Tulsa because so many Tulsans prefer to live in low-rise buildings surrounded by lots of space, not by other buildings (especially if the other buildings happen to be tall).
We need more clarity on what types of system or systems are being discussed.
From what I've garnered from reading this topic, (and I agree with Rico about the awesome collective knowledge being shared here), the rail line from BA to Tulsa is to be a commuter rail with a couple of runs inbound in the morning and a couple outbound in the evening. Four stations are proposed: Main Street BA, either Memorial or Sheridan (not both), Lewis, and downtown Tulsa. Am I seeing this part of the discussion clearly?
Another issue is the possibility of other rail lines connecting Tulsa to surrounding communities. The Complete Our Streets report was vague as to what "light rail" and "passenger rail" mean. We need to know what is being considered in terms of alignments, type of vehicles, type of locomotion, frequency of runs, and the locations of stations at the bare minimum. If we are going to compare something to DART, then we need to be sure it's comparable.
quote:
Originally posted by booWorld
We can have the best new comp plan in the world, but unless the TMAPC stops ignoring the comp plan as a guide for zoning decisions, a new comp plan won't be very useful. Take a look at the zoning map of the areas around the proposed Lewis station on the Tulsa-BA rail line. Notice how much of the land to the west and even more land to the east is zoned RS-3. That district is for detached single-family dwelling units. It will take a massive effort to change those neighborhoods into something dense enough to support mass transit. It would drastically changed the look of those neighborhoods.
I disagree with the premise that the surrounding neighborhood must have density to support a commuter rail station. The point of a station there would specifically be for Southeast Tulsa commuters whose destination is Midtown. They would likely be health care workers who would catch a waiting transit shuttle to Hillcrest and St. John's hospitals. I don't want to beat a dead horse here, but I still don't understand your insistence that density is necessary for rail transit. Maybe you're getting your paradigm from dense urban areas like Chicago or San Fransciso, but the Tulsa model will look more like Dallas, Denver, or Houston, where rail transit successful employs a park-and-ride model.
quote:
Originally posted by Floyd
I disagree with the premise that the surrounding neighborhood must have density to support a commuter rail station. The point of a station there would specifically be for Southeast Tulsa commuters whose destination is Midtown. They would likely be health care workers who would catch a waiting transit shuttle to Hillcrest and St. John's hospitals. I don't want to beat a dead horse here, but I still don't understand your insistence that density is necessary for rail transit. Maybe you're getting your paradigm from dense urban areas like Chicago or San Fransciso, but the Tulsa model will look more like Dallas, Denver, or Houston, where rail transit successful employs a park-and-ride model.
I understand your point, and I don't disagree with it. If 13th and Lewis is a destination for enough passengers who can catch a train at the other three stations, then it could work without increasing density. But some other posts (not yours) seem to be predicated on the absolute assurance that TOD will happen around the stations. With a commuter line, is this likely to happen and is it desirable? Part of Tulsa Transit's April 2007 study addresses bus rapid transit in lieu of trains. We have park-and-ride already. If we are going to stick with a park-and-ride model, then I think the buses are a better option than the trains. If demand for travel to locations near the stations increased enough, then trains might be an option in the future. I would prefer to see a walk-and-ride (or short shuttle-and-ride or bike-and-ride) scheme instead of a park-and-ride scheme. With a park-and-ride commuter system, we would be displacing parking spots. While I'd rather have a parking space be located in the industrial area near Sheridan or Memorial instead of at the corner of 4th and Boulder, I'd really prefer to eliminate the parking space altogether. That's why I think it's important to have increased densities around the stations. Otherwise, we have basically the same system we have now except commuters would ride a train instead of bus.
Am I missing something?
I think in our case it would be smart to consider both, park and ride, and density. What I got from the meetings was that most of the stations would need parking, bus routes would also be scheduled to coordinate with the train runs. For example, a bus would run down Memorial and the 71st area, pick up or drop off passengers all up and down that corridor in time for people to either catch the train to downtown or go from downtown to along Memorial during the rush hours. However, more density growing around the station areas could only help with ridership. And those are pretty much areas where we want to see growth regardless.
As for the list of stations mentioned, they did also have some secondary possibilities, the 6th street station as one.
I dont see the BA to Downtown line as being some huge immediately transformative event. Its basically the only feasible route at this point in time where it could work. They say the numbers are there to make it work. It is basically a "starter line" thats very inexpensive as these things go, is limited in scope, that we can cut our teeth on and could be nurtured to grow ridership and even perhaps be used as a catalyst around which we can take some different steps developmentally.
I think we are kind of lucky to have a rail line like this already in place, right along a busy corridor that will likely be asked to handle more traffic in the future between us and our largest suburb. I mean how many other cities had a rail line in such a place? It actually enables us to do this first step much easier and probably sooner than other cities could. It gives us a relatively convenient opportunity to shift from one development paradigm into another. All be it on a very small scale, and is not the answer for the whole city transportation wise, but its an opportunity we can use to work into the larger picture. A piece of the puzzle that could fit nicely in this spot.
We could certainly infill and grow without it. And we probably should for another 10 or 15years,,,, while keeping it in mind. But if the ridership is conceivably there to get it started and have it work. I think it would be nice to do and have as a locus around which we can nurture that "new growth paradigm".
In a nutshell...
Its an easy convenient start. It supposedly can work, even if we were to start soon. Its in a great place to grow ridership over time, and goes through some areas where we want encourage higher density infill, anyway.
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
I think in our case it would be smart to consider both, park and ride, and density. What I got from the meetings was that most of the stations would need parking, bus routes would also be scheduled to coordinate with the train runs...
It makes sense that the stations would need at least some parking, but all of these coordinated connecting bus routes sound like somewhat of a hassle to me. If people lived and worked and/or otherwise had a need to go somewhere near the stations, then it would make so much more sense (at least to me). And if it comes to a vote, I really don't want to tax myself in order to perpetuate a suburban lifestyle for others who choose to live far from where they work (or where they need to go on a regular basis).
quote:
...more density growing around the station areas could only help with ridership. And those are pretty much areas where we want to see growth regardless...
I mentioned the proposed Lewis station at 13th because I think the residents in the vicinity would oppose any infill which significantly altered the character of their existing neighborhood. Without rebuilding the area near Sheridan and Memorial (which could be done, BTW), I wonder how many would choose to live in the midst of a largely industrial area.
quote:
...As for the list of stations mentioned, they did also have some secondary possibilities, the 6th street station as one...
It appears to me that 6th and Utica is mentioned as an alternate location for the Lewis station, but it isn't listed as an additional station.
quote:
...I dont see the BA to Downtown line as being some huge immediately transformative event...
Neither do I. But it's something that we could consider for the future.
quote:
...Its basically the only feasible route at this point in time where it could work. They say the numbers are there to make it work...
I'm not convinced. It would help if the pdf link wasn't truncated with the last chapters and appendices missing. But from the portion which is online, it appears as though the effects of TOD were factored into the ridership estimate models. I really have no doubt that the models are much more sophisticated now than they were when Parsons Brinckerhoff prepared the
Oklahoma Fixed Guideway Transportation System Study for ODOT in 1989, and certainly more accurate now than they were in 1983 when ATE Management and Service prepared the
Light Rail Feasibility Study for Tulsa Transit, but I still would like to see those appendices and final chapters of the April 2007 study for Tulsa Transit.
quote:
...It gives us a relatively convenient opportunity to shift from one development paradigm into another...
I don't see it as a significant paradigm shift. But I'm not as informed about this latest study as you are, and in fact I didn't know about the study until you mentioned it in a post a few days ago. Thank you for reminding us about it. After reading the 1983 and the 1989 light rail feasibility studies many years ago, I stopped exploring the subject because I didn't think it would be a viable option in Tulsa for several decades.
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
...Wasnt there an earlier thread on here about all of this that had pics of the maps showing the route and likely stations, costs, etc?
This thread (//%22http://www.tulsanow.net/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=5970%22), perhaps?
quote:
Originally posted by booWorld
We need more clarity on what types of system or systems are being discussed.
From what I've garnered from reading this topic, (and I agree with Rico about the awesome collective knowledge being shared here), the rail line from BA to Tulsa is to be a commuter rail with a couple of runs inbound in the morning and a couple outbound in the evening. Four stations are proposed: Main Street BA, either Memorial or Sheridan (not both), Lewis, and downtown Tulsa. Am I seeing this part of the discussion clearly?
Another issue is the possibility of other rail lines connecting Tulsa to surrounding communities. The Complete Our Streets report was vague as to what "light rail" and "passenger rail" mean. We need to know what is being considered in terms of alignments, type of vehicles, type of locomotion, frequency of runs, and the locations of stations at the bare minimum. If we are going to compare something to DART, then we need to be sure it's comparable.
I'm not sure we do. I think a lot of what has been said could be described as the general principles behind a good rail or light rail systems. Things such as frequency and train types really are variables that can be changed, therefore it's important to look at the general concept rather than a specific scenario which may or may not happen.
quote:
Originally posted by Chicken Little
quote:
Originally posted by si_uk_lon_ok
quote:
Originally posted by MichaelBates
quote:
Originally posted by si_uk_lon_ok
A Jitney will never work in encouraging development, because there has been no investment. A rail line, light rail line and so on shows that there has been a firm investment in that area and it won't go anywhere.
I haven't had time to participate in this very interesting discussion, and I still don't have time to do more than respond to this one point.
I lived in Brookline, Mass., for five years in the early eighties, about four blocks away from the intersection of Commonwealth and Brighton Avenues, the point at which the MBTA Green Line's "A" branch to Watertown and "B" branch to Boston College split. (The Green Line is a light-rail / streetcar line that uses overhead power and runs partly above and partly below ground. Other MBTA lines draw power from the third rail.)
Although the "A" branch had ceased operation in 1969 -- replaced by bus service -- the tracks, poles, and wires were there until the mid-'80s. If you saw the tracks and wires and decided to wait for the next streetcar, you'd have been waiting a long time. (On rare occasions, "B" branch cars would use the old tracks as a turnaround, but they didn't stop.) The presence of the infrastructure was no guarantee that the MBTA would keep running trains.
Here in Tulsa, Charles Page built a railroad for interurban passenger service and freight service. The tracks are still there and in use, and the Sand Springs Railroad could run passenger service, but they choose not to do so. Likewise for the TSU tracks between Tulsa and Sapulpa. The UP (formerly MK&T) tracks being discussed as a commuter line between Tulsa and BA are already in existence.
So I'm having trouble understanding how the existence of tracks is going to be any more reassuring to a developer than the presence of a bus shelter or a bus stop sign.
Sorry if I was unclear.
I was indicating that if the city invested money on a new light rail system and new stations it would lead to much more focused development, than jitneys. There are many studies indicating that proximity to rail interchanges has a very significant positive impact on land values. And higher land values lead to a more efficient use of land, which in turn leads to more tax revenues. The impact of jitneys I don't think has ever been measured as it is an extremely uncommon transport system in the first world, however the impact of buses which shares characteristics with jitneys have a much smaller effect than light rail, if it can even be measured.
I was also trying to say that the fact the infrastructure of rail is pretty permanent and it gives people faith to develop the area. An indication of this could be that when rail schemes are typically valued using cost benefit analysis the impact of the scheme up to 70 years in advance is measured, but for buses this is much lower as it is on the whole a lot less permanent. I know that I would pay more to live a lot next to a light rail stop, while I would be totally unconcerned by a properties proximity to a bus stop.
I was also trying to say that a jitney picks up people and drops people off pretty much where they please along the length of the route, while rail sets people off at set destinations. This means that you have people being focussed on a single node rather than having people spread down a whole linear route, this means more footfall and more business.
Well said, Si, and you are exactly right. "Focused development" is happening in Dallas around DART stations. It's a fairly new phenomenon, and if one were to read the article (//%22http://dallasobserver.com/2004-12-09/news/slow-ride/%22) I posted earlier, you could see that even DART, the manager of the system, has been slow to recognize the trend. They wasted years trying to figure out something besides "park-n-ride". Unfortunate for them, but we can learn from it.
quote:
Economic Impact takes many forms
Transit-oriented development also drives property values higher, according to earlier research by Weinstein and Clower:
* Between 1997 and 2001, office properties near suburban DART Rail stations increased in value 53% more than comparable properties not served by rail.
* For the same period, values of residential properties near DART Rail stations rose 39% more than a control group of properties not served by rail.
The UNT research found that DART counts when it's time to decide where to develop. And the real estate community agrees. Holliday Fenoglio Fowler LP closed on the sales of four buildings near DART's Mockingbird and Lovers Lane stations in 2003. "Many investors have come to look at proximity to the DART light rail stop as offering a competitive advantage for their properties," the brokerage firm's senior managing director told The Dallas Morning News, adding, "If you look at the buildings that are directly on the rail line, they have had higher occupancy and effective rents."
I think that's a really good point. If you think people will complain about rezoning if they live near a station, they'll soon thank you once there property price goes through the roof and the development opportunity on their property increases too.
I think that while any scheme may not need density to be successful, it would be a real shame to miss the opportunity to add density that could easily be achieved around the stations. If you took an average walk distance of around 600m/ 1,968ft to a station (which is very very conservative and low), you'd be looking at around 280 acres worth of development, although if you looked at 75th percentile of walking distance this would be much higher. Now if we assumed that the neighbourhood around the station only became townhouses and a few apartments, nothing even breaking the 35ft barrier you'd be looking at 8,400 properties or around a minimum of 10,080,000 sqft of new taxable income for the city. That's also just one new station, imagine the impact of five, ten of fifteen stations.
In my opinion while Tulsa could build a working system without the density it seems crazy to me to not allow the kind of development that naturally occurs around light rail to occur.
quote:
Originally posted by si_uk_lon_ok
... you'd be looking at 8,400 properties or around a minimum of 10,080,000 sqft of new taxable income for the city. That's also just one new station, imagine the impact of five, ten of fifteen stations.
Whoah, there. Can't let you get away with that one. I do not disagree that it would be desirable to get relatively dense development around rail stations, but there is little, if any, evidence that any significant amount of that development would be "new" development for the city (ie, development that would not have otherwise occurred somewhere else in the city).
While that development MAY have otherwise have gone to suburbs, that seems intuitively unlikely. The market served by relatively dense developments around a rail stop does not strike me as a market that would otherwise flock to the suburbs.
To not allow for increased densities around train stations seems crazy to me also.
But many planning decisions here in sprawling Tulsa seem crazy to me. Down-zoning my property from 29.25 to 2.66 dwelling units per acre seemed crazy to me, considering how close it is to the CBD and considering that I did not request the down-zoning and in fact begged the TMAPC to not re-draw the residential district boundaries to create such low densities. But it did not matter. The TMAPC absolutely had to have it their way. The previous zoning allowed for a variety of low-rise residential options in addition to detached single-family dwelling units such as apartments, townhouses, and duplexes. The current zoning allows for duplexes by special exception, but otherwise it's limited to detached single-family dwellings. As average household sizes decrease, down-zoning inner-city neighborhoods results in a general depopulation of the older portions of Tulsa.
I agree that encouraging development around train stations in general is a better idea than constructing parking facilities next to them, but all this TOD seems a bit contrived when there are already other long-established areas ripe for infill (such as my neighborhood) and property owners willing to work with the TMAPC and the City to bolster population density without destroying the character of historic districts (as I am willing to do). Not only was I denied my basic property rights, I was publicly dragged through the coals during the process. I was suggesting that the TMAPC consider something as simple and innocuous as detached accessory dwelling units above garages. Boy, was that ever a mistake !! The "planners" chewed me up and spit me out, big time.
quote:
Originally posted by Oil Capital
quote:
Originally posted by si_uk_lon_ok
... you'd be looking at 8,400 properties or around a minimum of 10,080,000 sqft of new taxable income for the city. That's also just one new station, imagine the impact of five, ten of fifteen stations.
Whoah, there. Can't let you get away with that one. I do not disagree that it would be desirable to get relatively dense development around rail stations, but there is little, if any, evidence that any significant amount of that development would be "new" development for the city (ie, development that would not have otherwise occurred somewhere else in the city).
While that development MAY have otherwise have gone to suburbs, that seems intuitively unlikely. The market served by relatively dense developments around a rail stop does not strike me as a market that would otherwise flock to the suburbs.
I would disagree. This development will occur in a places with existing infrastructure, which means even if it is stolen from the suburbs or the city fringe it will be development at a lower cost to the city than somewhere remote that requires new roads, sewage, schools etc.
I don't think many Tulsans know what it is to live in a dense neighbourhood. I could see people when they have the choice moving to a transit orientated neighbourhood. I could see these neighbourhoods significantly slowing down the growth in places such as Broken Arrow.
Think of it like this, a dense neighbourhood of around 15,000 people would have pretty much everything you need in walking distance, you wouldn't need to drive to the supermarket, just pop by on the way home, your kids could walk to park, school and would have lots of friends on your block and in the local area. Instead of having three cars, you could cope with one or maybe even none that's a huge boost to your income, that could be spent on the local businesses you'd pass in the neighbourhood. As you walked down the street, you'd bump into people you knew as it would be busy, which would mean it would feel safe rather than walking own an abandoned suburban street (if it even has sidewalks). Old people would like the fact doctors, shops, services and friends were nearby, that would mean getting rid of the car would become a complete disaster leaving them in isolation. There are many many benefits to a dense neighbourhood that I think many people just don't know about yet and find it hard to imagine. I think it's so hard to imagine, because the current urban form in much of Tulsa is so vastly different than what could be.
I think dense neighbourhoods are special in a way that a suburb isn't, they aren't anonymous they have character. In that way I think they will be able to attract people who might not have considered moving to Tulsa by offering something new. I could see that these neighbourhoods would act as a draw for people to move to Tulsa and they would also help retain people who may have left when they graduated.
quote:
Originally posted by booWorld
To not allow for increased densities around train stations seems crazy to me also.
But many planning decisions here in sprawling Tulsa seem crazy to me. Down-zoning my property from 29.25 to 2.66 dwelling units per acre seemed crazy to me, considering how close it is to the CBD and considering that I did not request the down-zoning and in fact begged the TMAPC to not re-draw the residential district boundaries to create such low densities. But it did not matter. The TMAPC absolutely had to have it their way. The previous zoning allowed for a variety of low-rise residential options in addition to detached single-family dwelling units such as apartments, townhouses, and duplexes. The current zoning allows for duplexes by special exception, but otherwise it's limited to detached single-family dwellings. As average household sizes decrease, down-zoning inner-city neighborhoods results in a general depopulation of the older portions of Tulsa.
I agree that encouraging development around train stations in general is a better idea than constructing parking facilities next to them, but all this TOD seems a bit contrived when there are already other long-established areas ripe for infill (such as my neighborhood) and property owners willing to work with the TMAPC and the City to bolster population density without destroying the character of historic districts (as I am willing to do). Not only was I denied my basic property rights, I was publicly dragged through the coals during the process. I was suggesting that the TMAPC consider something as simple and innocuous as detached accessory dwelling units above garages. Boy, was that ever a mistake !! The "planners" chewed me up and spit me out, big time.
I understand that neighbourhoods close to downtown should be allowed to be denser than singly family dwellings and it seems as if you were treated poorly.
By focusing on TOD, I'm not saying, nor do I think anyone else is saying that this should be the only location for increased density. Or that focussing development in TOD should allow everywhere else to remain single family dwellings. I do however think that TOD offers a sustainable location for denser development that isn't likely to have a mode share dominated by the car. There is only so dense you can go, while providing the levels of parking needed if the area is without transit before the streets are clogged with parked cars and all new developments are perched high above structured parking garages.
Most Tulsans (including myself), have never lived in dense neighborhoods, and my guess is that most have not seen dense neighborhoods either. I hope you are able to visit Tulsa again soon, as I enjoyed hearing your urban viewpoint in person.
Prior to my being slammed by the TMAPC with a down-zoning case which I never wanted in the first place, I lived a fairly "urban" lifestyle as far as Tulsa goes -- more "urban" than 99% of Tulsans would be my guess.
As much as I would like to see Tulsa become more intensely developed, I'm wary of Tulsa Transit saying that they have an idea about how to spend my money. If it's anything like DTU's plan for Main Maul and Boston Maul, well --- no, thanks -- I'll pass on that opportunity. If the process resembles the TMAPC's process of down-zoning my property against my wishes, again -- no, thanks. I'd rather not have the development rights stripped from my land near the CBD and then have them transferred to 41st and Memorial as part of a $45 million publicly funded mass transit scheme.
quote:
Originally posted by si_uk_lon_ok
quote:
Originally posted by Oil Capital
quote:
Originally posted by si_uk_lon_ok
... you'd be looking at 8,400 properties or around a minimum of 10,080,000 sqft of new taxable income for the city. That's also just one new station, imagine the impact of five, ten of fifteen stations.
Whoah, there. Can't let you get away with that one. I do not disagree that it would be desirable to get relatively dense development around rail stations, but there is little, if any, evidence that any significant amount of that development would be "new" development for the city (ie, development that would not have otherwise occurred somewhere else in the city).
While that development MAY have otherwise have gone to suburbs, that seems intuitively unlikely. The market served by relatively dense developments around a rail stop does not strike me as a market that would otherwise flock to the suburbs.
I would disagree. This development will occur in a places with existing infrastructure, which means even if it is stolen from the suburbs or the city fringe it will be development at a lower cost to the city than somewhere remote that requires new roads, sewage, schools etc.
I don't think many Tulsans know what it is to live in a dense neighbourhood. I could see people when they have the choice moving to a transit orientated neighbourhood. I could see these neighbourhoods significantly slowing down the growth in places such as Broken Arrow.
Think of it like this, a dense neighbourhood of around 15,000 people would have pretty much everything you need in walking distance, you wouldn't need to drive to the supermarket, just pop by on the way home, your kids could walk to park, school and would have lots of friends on your block and in the local area. Instead of having three cars, you could cope with one or maybe even none that's a huge boost to your income, that could be spent on the local businesses you'd pass in the neighbourhood. As you walked down the street, you'd bump into people you knew as it would be busy, which would mean it would feel safe rather than walking own an abandoned suburban street (if it even has sidewalks). Old people would like the fact doctors, shops, services and friends were nearby, that would mean getting rid of the car would become a complete disaster leaving them in isolation. There are many many benefits to a dense neighbourhood that I think many people just don't know about yet and find it hard to imagine. I think it's so hard to imagine, because the current urban form in much of Tulsa is so vastly different than what could be.
I think dense neighbourhoods are special in a way that a suburb isn't, they aren't anonymous they have character. In that way I think they will be able to attract people who might not have considered moving to Tulsa by offering something new. I could see that these neighbourhoods would act as a draw for people to move to Tulsa and they would also help retain people who may have left when they graduated.
I completely understand how you long for dense neighborhoods and I completely understand that you deeply hope that the existence of such neighborhoods would draw more people to Tulsa (or keep more Tulsans in Tulsa), but do you have any evidence of this actually happening ANYWHERE?
quote:
Originally posted by Oil Capital
quote:
Originally posted by si_uk_lon_ok
quote:
Originally posted by Oil Capital
quote:
Originally posted by si_uk_lon_ok
... you'd be looking at 8,400 properties or around a minimum of 10,080,000 sqft of new taxable income for the city. That's also just one new station, imagine the impact of five, ten of fifteen stations.
Whoah, there. Can't let you get away with that one. I do not disagree that it would be desirable to get relatively dense development around rail stations, but there is little, if any, evidence that any significant amount of that development would be "new" development for the city (ie, development that would not have otherwise occurred somewhere else in the city).
While that development MAY have otherwise have gone to suburbs, that seems intuitively unlikely. The market served by relatively dense developments around a rail stop does not strike me as a market that would otherwise flock to the suburbs.
I would disagree. This development will occur in a places with existing infrastructure, which means even if it is stolen from the suburbs or the city fringe it will be development at a lower cost to the city than somewhere remote that requires new roads, sewage, schools etc.
I don't think many Tulsans know what it is to live in a dense neighbourhood. I could see people when they have the choice moving to a transit orientated neighbourhood. I could see these neighbourhoods significantly slowing down the growth in places such as Broken Arrow.
Think of it like this, a dense neighbourhood of around 15,000 people would have pretty much everything you need in walking distance, you wouldn't need to drive to the supermarket, just pop by on the way home, your kids could walk to park, school and would have lots of friends on your block and in the local area. Instead of having three cars, you could cope with one or maybe even none that's a huge boost to your income, that could be spent on the local businesses you'd pass in the neighbourhood. As you walked down the street, you'd bump into people you knew as it would be busy, which would mean it would feel safe rather than walking own an abandoned suburban street (if it even has sidewalks). Old people would like the fact doctors, shops, services and friends were nearby, that would mean getting rid of the car would become a complete disaster leaving them in isolation. There are many many benefits to a dense neighbourhood that I think many people just don't know about yet and find it hard to imagine. I think it's so hard to imagine, because the current urban form in much of Tulsa is so vastly different than what could be.
I think dense neighbourhoods are special in a way that a suburb isn't, they aren't anonymous they have character. In that way I think they will be able to attract people who might not have considered moving to Tulsa by offering something new. I could see that these neighbourhoods would act as a draw for people to move to Tulsa and they would also help retain people who may have left when they graduated.
I completely understand how you long for dense neighborhoods and I completely understand that you deeply hope that the existence of such neighborhoods would draw more people to Tulsa (or keep more Tulsans in Tulsa), but do you have any evidence of this actually happening ANYWHERE?
You'd like examples of mixed use dense neighbourhoods? Do you honestly think they don't exist and I made up the idea? Or did I misunderstand your question?
quote:
Originally posted by si_uk_lon_ok
quote:
Originally posted by Oil Capital
quote:
Originally posted by si_uk_lon_ok
quote:
Originally posted by Oil Capital
quote:
Originally posted by si_uk_lon_ok
... you'd be looking at 8,400 properties or around a minimum of 10,080,000 sqft of new taxable income for the city. That's also just one new station, imagine the impact of five, ten of fifteen stations.
Whoah, there. Can't let you get away with that one. I do not disagree that it would be desirable to get relatively dense development around rail stations, but there is little, if any, evidence that any significant amount of that development would be "new" development for the city (ie, development that would not have otherwise occurred somewhere else in the city).
While that development MAY have otherwise have gone to suburbs, that seems intuitively unlikely. The market served by relatively dense developments around a rail stop does not strike me as a market that would otherwise flock to the suburbs.
I would disagree. This development will occur in a places with existing infrastructure, which means even if it is stolen from the suburbs or the city fringe it will be development at a lower cost to the city than somewhere remote that requires new roads, sewage, schools etc.
I don't think many Tulsans know what it is to live in a dense neighbourhood. I could see people when they have the choice moving to a transit orientated neighbourhood. I could see these neighbourhoods significantly slowing down the growth in places such as Broken Arrow.
Think of it like this, a dense neighbourhood of around 15,000 people would have pretty much everything you need in walking distance, you wouldn't need to drive to the supermarket, just pop by on the way home, your kids could walk to park, school and would have lots of friends on your block and in the local area. Instead of having three cars, you could cope with one or maybe even none that's a huge boost to your income, that could be spent on the local businesses you'd pass in the neighbourhood. As you walked down the street, you'd bump into people you knew as it would be busy, which would mean it would feel safe rather than walking own an abandoned suburban street (if it even has sidewalks). Old people would like the fact doctors, shops, services and friends were nearby, that would mean getting rid of the car would become a complete disaster leaving them in isolation. There are many many benefits to a dense neighbourhood that I think many people just don't know about yet and find it hard to imagine. I think it's so hard to imagine, because the current urban form in much of Tulsa is so vastly different than what could be.
I think dense neighbourhoods are special in a way that a suburb isn't, they aren't anonymous they have character. In that way I think they will be able to attract people who might not have considered moving to Tulsa by offering something new. I could see that these neighbourhoods would act as a draw for people to move to Tulsa and they would also help retain people who may have left when they graduated.
I completely understand how you long for dense neighborhoods and I completely understand that you deeply hope that the existence of such neighborhoods would draw more people to Tulsa (or keep more Tulsans in Tulsa), but do you have any evidence of this actually happening ANYWHERE?
You'd like examples of mixed use dense neighbourhoods? Do you honestly think they don't exist and I made up the idea? Or did I misunderstand your question?
Uhhh, yeah. You completely misunderstood the question. What I am seeking is examples of transit-spurred mixed use dense neighborhoods that have CAUSED any significant number of people to move to a metro area.
Light rail sucks. If we are going to do something, we might as well make it a monorail.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=xaBe7bMOEL0
quote:
Originally posted by Oil Capital
quote:
Originally posted by si_uk_lon_ok
quote:
Originally posted by Oil Capital
quote:
Originally posted by si_uk_lon_ok
quote:
Originally posted by Oil Capital
quote:
Originally posted by si_uk_lon_ok
... you'd be looking at 8,400 properties or around a minimum of 10,080,000 sqft of new taxable income for the city. That's also just one new station, imagine the impact of five, ten of fifteen stations.
Whoah, there. Can't let you get away with that one. I do not disagree that it would be desirable to get relatively dense development around rail stations, but there is little, if any, evidence that any significant amount of that development would be "new" development for the city (ie, development that would not have otherwise occurred somewhere else in the city).
While that development MAY have otherwise have gone to suburbs, that seems intuitively unlikely. The market served by relatively dense developments around a rail stop does not strike me as a market that would otherwise flock to the suburbs.
I would disagree. This development will occur in a places with existing infrastructure, which means even if it is stolen from the suburbs or the city fringe it will be development at a lower cost to the city than somewhere remote that requires new roads, sewage, schools etc.
I don't think many Tulsans know what it is to live in a dense neighbourhood. I could see people when they have the choice moving to a transit orientated neighbourhood. I could see these neighbourhoods significantly slowing down the growth in places such as Broken Arrow.
Think of it like this, a dense neighbourhood of around 15,000 people would have pretty much everything you need in walking distance, you wouldn't need to drive to the supermarket, just pop by on the way home, your kids could walk to park, school and would have lots of friends on your block and in the local area. Instead of having three cars, you could cope with one or maybe even none that's a huge boost to your income, that could be spent on the local businesses you'd pass in the neighbourhood. As you walked down the street, you'd bump into people you knew as it would be busy, which would mean it would feel safe rather than walking own an abandoned suburban street (if it even has sidewalks). Old people would like the fact doctors, shops, services and friends were nearby, that would mean getting rid of the car would become a complete disaster leaving them in isolation. There are many many benefits to a dense neighbourhood that I think many people just don't know about yet and find it hard to imagine. I think it's so hard to imagine, because the current urban form in much of Tulsa is so vastly different than what could be.
I think dense neighbourhoods are special in a way that a suburb isn't, they aren't anonymous they have character. In that way I think they will be able to attract people who might not have considered moving to Tulsa by offering something new. I could see that these neighbourhoods would act as a draw for people to move to Tulsa and they would also help retain people who may have left when they graduated.
I completely understand how you long for dense neighborhoods and I completely understand that you deeply hope that the existence of such neighborhoods would draw more people to Tulsa (or keep more Tulsans in Tulsa), but do you have any evidence of this actually happening ANYWHERE?
You'd like examples of mixed use dense neighbourhoods? Do you honestly think they don't exist and I made up the idea? Or did I misunderstand your question?
Uhhh, yeah. You completely misunderstood the question. What I am seeking is examples of transit-spurred mixed use dense neighborhoods that have CAUSED any significant number of people to move to a metro area.
Ok, so you'd ideally like me to find a statistically significant number of cities that have TOD and interview the people living there are ask them if they moved there due to the TOD from outside the metropolitan area or were they just internal transfers. I'd also presumable need to check that they weren't freeing up people to move to there old suburban housing. So I'd need to calculate the cities predicted growth rate without the TOD, then compare this with the current levels of growth and also examine the proportion of new comers to this growth. Are you offering to fund my phd or are you just asking for a level of proof that is unobtainable and then crow if the data isn't there?
Put it like this, a large proportion of the growth in the Tulsa metropolitan area is occurring outside the city of Tulsa in places such as Jenks and Broken Arrow. Therefore pretty much any growth captured by the city isn't stolen from within the city, but new growth for the city. It is also growth in areas that have the infrastructure such as roads, sewage, schools etc so it's cheap development for the city.
quote:
Originally posted by si_uk_lon_ok
quote:
Originally posted by Oil Capital
quote:
Originally posted by si_uk_lon_ok
quote:
Originally posted by Oil Capital
quote:
Originally posted by si_uk_lon_ok
quote:
Originally posted by Oil Capital
quote:
Originally posted by si_uk_lon_ok
... you'd be looking at 8,400 properties or around a minimum of 10,080,000 sqft of new taxable income for the city. That's also just one new station, imagine the impact of five, ten of fifteen stations.
Whoah, there. Can't let you get away with that one. I do not disagree that it would be desirable to get relatively dense development around rail stations, but there is little, if any, evidence that any significant amount of that development would be "new" development for the city (ie, development that would not have otherwise occurred somewhere else in the city).
While that development MAY have otherwise have gone to suburbs, that seems intuitively unlikely. The market served by relatively dense developments around a rail stop does not strike me as a market that would otherwise flock to the suburbs.
I would disagree. This development will occur in a places with existing infrastructure, which means even if it is stolen from the suburbs or the city fringe it will be development at a lower cost to the city than somewhere remote that requires new roads, sewage, schools etc.
I don't think many Tulsans know what it is to live in a dense neighbourhood. I could see people when they have the choice moving to a transit orientated neighbourhood. I could see these neighbourhoods significantly slowing down the growth in places such as Broken Arrow.
Think of it like this, a dense neighbourhood of around 15,000 people would have pretty much everything you need in walking distance, you wouldn't need to drive to the supermarket, just pop by on the way home, your kids could walk to park, school and would have lots of friends on your block and in the local area. Instead of having three cars, you could cope with one or maybe even none that's a huge boost to your income, that could be spent on the local businesses you'd pass in the neighbourhood. As you walked down the street, you'd bump into people you knew as it would be busy, which would mean it would feel safe rather than walking own an abandoned suburban street (if it even has sidewalks). Old people would like the fact doctors, shops, services and friends were nearby, that would mean getting rid of the car would become a complete disaster leaving them in isolation. There are many many benefits to a dense neighbourhood that I think many people just don't know about yet and find it hard to imagine. I think it's so hard to imagine, because the current urban form in much of Tulsa is so vastly different than what could be.
I think dense neighbourhoods are special in a way that a suburb isn't, they aren't anonymous they have character. In that way I think they will be able to attract people who might not have considered moving to Tulsa by offering something new. I could see that these neighbourhoods would act as a draw for people to move to Tulsa and they would also help retain people who may have left when they graduated.
I completely understand how you long for dense neighborhoods and I completely understand that you deeply hope that the existence of such neighborhoods would draw more people to Tulsa (or keep more Tulsans in Tulsa), but do you have any evidence of this actually happening ANYWHERE?
You'd like examples of mixed use dense neighbourhoods? Do you honestly think they don't exist and I made up the idea? Or did I misunderstand your question?
Uhhh, yeah. You completely misunderstood the question. What I am seeking is examples of transit-spurred mixed use dense neighborhoods that have CAUSED any significant number of people to move to a metro area.
Ok, so you'd ideally like me to find a statistically significant number of cities that have TOD and interview the people living there are ask them if they moved there due to the TOD from outside the metropolitan area or were they just internal transfers. I'd also presumable need to check that they weren't freeing up people to move to there old suburban housing. So I'd need to calculate the cities predicted growth rate without the TOD, then compare this with the current levels of growth and also examine the proportion of new comers to this growth. Are you offering to fund my phd or are you just asking for a level of proof that is unobtainable and then crow if the data isn't there?
Put it like this, a large proportion of the growth in the Tulsa metropolitan area is occurring outside the city of Tulsa in places such as Jenks and Broken Arrow. Therefore pretty much any growth captured by the city isn't stolen from within the city, but new growth for the city. It is also growth in areas that have the infrastructure such as roads, sewage, schools etc so it's cheap development for the city.
So I take it your answer is "no".
For the record, here is what you said: "I could see that these neighbourhoods would act as a draw for people to move to Tulsa and they would also help retain people who may have left when they graduated."
I thought
perhaps you had some knowledge or had seen a study that showed that such developments in other cities have had such effects.
But apparently not.
So having no evidence of that phenomenon having ever occurred in other cities, why should we believe it would occur here.
More importantly, it is foolhardy to make transportation decisions based on such hopes, dreams,and fantasies, rather than on actual facts, evidence and history.
quote:
Originally posted by Oil Capital
quote:
Originally posted by si_uk_lon_ok
quote:
Originally posted by Oil Capital
quote:
Originally posted by si_uk_lon_ok
quote:
Originally posted by Oil Capital
quote:
Originally posted by si_uk_lon_ok
quote:
Originally posted by Oil Capital
quote:
Originally posted by si_uk_lon_ok
... you'd be looking at 8,400 properties or around a minimum of 10,080,000 sqft of new taxable income for the city. That's also just one new station, imagine the impact of five, ten of fifteen stations.
Whoah, there. Can't let you get away with that one. I do not disagree that it would be desirable to get relatively dense development around rail stations, but there is little, if any, evidence that any significant amount of that development would be "new" development for the city (ie, development that would not have otherwise occurred somewhere else in the city).
While that development MAY have otherwise have gone to suburbs, that seems intuitively unlikely. The market served by relatively dense developments around a rail stop does not strike me as a market that would otherwise flock to the suburbs.
I would disagree. This development will occur in a places with existing infrastructure, which means even if it is stolen from the suburbs or the city fringe it will be development at a lower cost to the city than somewhere remote that requires new roads, sewage, schools etc.
I don't think many Tulsans know what it is to live in a dense neighbourhood. I could see people when they have the choice moving to a transit orientated neighbourhood. I could see these neighbourhoods significantly slowing down the growth in places such as Broken Arrow.
Think of it like this, a dense neighbourhood of around 15,000 people would have pretty much everything you need in walking distance, you wouldn't need to drive to the supermarket, just pop by on the way home, your kids could walk to park, school and would have lots of friends on your block and in the local area. Instead of having three cars, you could cope with one or maybe even none that's a huge boost to your income, that could be spent on the local businesses you'd pass in the neighbourhood. As you walked down the street, you'd bump into people you knew as it would be busy, which would mean it would feel safe rather than walking own an abandoned suburban street (if it even has sidewalks). Old people would like the fact doctors, shops, services and friends were nearby, that would mean getting rid of the car would become a complete disaster leaving them in isolation. There are many many benefits to a dense neighbourhood that I think many people just don't know about yet and find it hard to imagine. I think it's so hard to imagine, because the current urban form in much of Tulsa is so vastly different than what could be.
I think dense neighbourhoods are special in a way that a suburb isn't, they aren't anonymous they have character. In that way I think they will be able to attract people who might not have considered moving to Tulsa by offering something new. I could see that these neighbourhoods would act as a draw for people to move to Tulsa and they would also help retain people who may have left when they graduated.
I completely understand how you long for dense neighborhoods and I completely understand that you deeply hope that the existence of such neighborhoods would draw more people to Tulsa (or keep more Tulsans in Tulsa), but do you have any evidence of this actually happening ANYWHERE?
You'd like examples of mixed use dense neighbourhoods? Do you honestly think they don't exist and I made up the idea? Or did I misunderstand your question?
Uhhh, yeah. You completely misunderstood the question. What I am seeking is examples of transit-spurred mixed use dense neighborhoods that have CAUSED any significant number of people to move to a metro area.
Ok, so you'd ideally like me to find a statistically significant number of cities that have TOD and interview the people living there are ask them if they moved there due to the TOD from outside the metropolitan area or were they just internal transfers. I'd also presumable need to check that they weren't freeing up people to move to there old suburban housing. So I'd need to calculate the cities predicted growth rate without the TOD, then compare this with the current levels of growth and also examine the proportion of new comers to this growth. Are you offering to fund my phd or are you just asking for a level of proof that is unobtainable and then crow if the data isn't there?
Put it like this, a large proportion of the growth in the Tulsa metropolitan area is occurring outside the city of Tulsa in places such as Jenks and Broken Arrow. Therefore pretty much any growth captured by the city isn't stolen from within the city, but new growth for the city. It is also growth in areas that have the infrastructure such as roads, sewage, schools etc so it's cheap development for the city.
So I take it your answer is "no".
For the record, here is what you said: "I could see that these neighbourhoods would act as a draw for people to move to Tulsa and they would also help retain people who may have left when they graduated."
I thought perhaps you had some knowledge or had seen a study that showed that such developments in other cities have had such effects.
But apparently not.
So having no evidence of that phenomenon having ever occurred in other cities, why should we believe it would occur here.
More importantly, it is foolhardy to make transportation decisions based on such hopes, dreams,and fantasies, rather than on actual facts, evidence and history.
Firstly, I do have knowledge, this is my bread and butter. I get paid to tell people how best to set up light rail, bus rapid transit, heavy rail and metros, I'll estimate usage patterns, do the cost benefit analysis, and even if you ask me nicely I'll do the agglomeration benefits of your scheme.
If you look at this article which refers to three different studies: http://realtytimes.com/rtpages/20050105_transitdevel.htm
You'll see that the demand for property in transit orientated developments is set to double and 14.6m Americans are going to want to live in such an area by 2025. Seeing as there really isn't any areas like that in the metro area of Tulsa one could assume that these 14.6m Americans will either not move to Tulsa or if they live in Tulsa and are seeking TOD will leave. At the moment these 14.6m people only really have the choice of large expensive metro areas, I think Tulsa with its lower cost of living could provide a real alternative for people who want to live in a TOD, but don't want to spend a fortune to do so.
Also TOD is the icing on the cake when it comes to transit. Its not the only reason you plan a transit scheme. Transit would in all likelihood work in Tulsa without any TOD due to park and ride. We became a bit side tracked on TOD and its not the main point on this thread.
Actually, TOD is one of the main points of this thread because Chicken Little mentioned it as the first salvo in the initial post just after the Michael Bates
UTW quote.
quote:
Originally posted by Chicken Little
Mr. "Urban Husbandry" fails to grasp the potential of mass transit to spur denser, more efficient, more walkable, more sustainable growth. Exactly the same kind of growth that he purports to want.
Also, it appears as though TOD was somehow factored in the ridership forecasts in the April 2007 Tulsa Transit study. We're not certain exactly how much TOD influenced those estimates. Perhaps there's an explanation in the missing appendices.
quote:
Originally posted by si_uk_lon_ok
quote:
Originally posted by Oil Capital
quote:
Originally posted by si_uk_lon_ok
quote:
Originally posted by Oil Capital
quote:
Originally posted by si_uk_lon_ok
quote:
Originally posted by Oil Capital
quote:
Originally posted by si_uk_lon_ok
quote:
Originally posted by Oil Capital
quote:
Originally posted by si_uk_lon_ok
... you'd be looking at 8,400 properties or around a minimum of 10,080,000 sqft of new taxable income for the city. That's also just one new station, imagine the impact of five, ten of fifteen stations.
Whoah, there. Can't let you get away with that one. I do not disagree that it would be desirable to get relatively dense development around rail stations, but there is little, if any, evidence that any significant amount of that development would be "new" development for the city (ie, development that would not have otherwise occurred somewhere else in the city).
While that development MAY have otherwise have gone to suburbs, that seems intuitively unlikely. The market served by relatively dense developments around a rail stop does not strike me as a market that would otherwise flock to the suburbs.
I would disagree. This development will occur in a places with existing infrastructure, which means even if it is stolen from the suburbs or the city fringe it will be development at a lower cost to the city than somewhere remote that requires new roads, sewage, schools etc.
I don't think many Tulsans know what it is to live in a dense neighbourhood. I could see people when they have the choice moving to a transit orientated neighbourhood. I could see these neighbourhoods significantly slowing down the growth in places such as Broken Arrow.
Think of it like this, a dense neighbourhood of around 15,000 people would have pretty much everything you need in walking distance, you wouldn't need to drive to the supermarket, just pop by on the way home, your kids could walk to park, school and would have lots of friends on your block and in the local area. Instead of having three cars, you could cope with one or maybe even none that's a huge boost to your income, that could be spent on the local businesses you'd pass in the neighbourhood. As you walked down the street, you'd bump into people you knew as it would be busy, which would mean it would feel safe rather than walking own an abandoned suburban street (if it even has sidewalks). Old people would like the fact doctors, shops, services and friends were nearby, that would mean getting rid of the car would become a complete disaster leaving them in isolation. There are many many benefits to a dense neighbourhood that I think many people just don't know about yet and find it hard to imagine. I think it's so hard to imagine, because the current urban form in much of Tulsa is so vastly different than what could be.
I think dense neighbourhoods are special in a way that a suburb isn't, they aren't anonymous they have character. In that way I think they will be able to attract people who might not have considered moving to Tulsa by offering something new. I could see that these neighbourhoods would act as a draw for people to move to Tulsa and they would also help retain people who may have left when they graduated.
I completely understand how you long for dense neighborhoods and I completely understand that you deeply hope that the existence of such neighborhoods would draw more people to Tulsa (or keep more Tulsans in Tulsa), but do you have any evidence of this actually happening ANYWHERE?
You'd like examples of mixed use dense neighbourhoods? Do you honestly think they don't exist and I made up the idea? Or did I misunderstand your question?
Uhhh, yeah. You completely misunderstood the question. What I am seeking is examples of transit-spurred mixed use dense neighborhoods that have CAUSED any significant number of people to move to a metro area.
Ok, so you'd ideally like me to find a statistically significant number of cities that have TOD and interview the people living there are ask them if they moved there due to the TOD from outside the metropolitan area or were they just internal transfers. I'd also presumable need to check that they weren't freeing up people to move to there old suburban housing. So I'd need to calculate the cities predicted growth rate without the TOD, then compare this with the current levels of growth and also examine the proportion of new comers to this growth. Are you offering to fund my phd or are you just asking for a level of proof that is unobtainable and then crow if the data isn't there?
Put it like this, a large proportion of the growth in the Tulsa metropolitan area is occurring outside the city of Tulsa in places such as Jenks and Broken Arrow. Therefore pretty much any growth captured by the city isn't stolen from within the city, but new growth for the city. It is also growth in areas that have the infrastructure such as roads, sewage, schools etc so it's cheap development for the city.
So I take it your answer is "no".
For the record, here is what you said: "I could see that these neighbourhoods would act as a draw for people to move to Tulsa and they would also help retain people who may have left when they graduated."
I thought perhaps you had some knowledge or had seen a study that showed that such developments in other cities have had such effects.
But apparently not.
So having no evidence of that phenomenon having ever occurred in other cities, why should we believe it would occur here.
More importantly, it is foolhardy to make transportation decisions based on such hopes, dreams,and fantasies, rather than on actual facts, evidence and history.
Firstly, I do have knowledge, this is my bread and butter. I get paid to tell people how best to set up light rail, bus rapid transit, heavy rail and metros, I'll estimate usage patterns, do the cost benefit analysis, and even if you ask me nicely I'll do the agglomeration benefits of your scheme.
If you look at this article which refers to three different studies: http://realtytimes.com/rtpages/20050105_transitdevel.htm
You'll see that the demand for property in transit orientated developments is set to double and 14.6m Americans are going to want to live in such an area by 2025. Seeing as there really isn't any areas like that in the metro area of Tulsa one could assume that these 14.6m Americans will either not move to Tulsa or if they live in Tulsa and are seeking TOD will leave. At the moment these 14.6m people only really have the choice of large expensive metro areas, I think Tulsa with its lower cost of living could provide a real alternative for people who want to live in a TOD, but don't want to spend a fortune to do so.
Also TOD is the icing on the cake when it comes to transit. Its not the only reason you plan a transit scheme. Transit would in all likelihood work in Tulsa without any TOD due to park and ride. We became a bit side tracked on TOD and its not the main point on this thread.
Well, that's SOMEthing, I guess. But let's just say I hope you do better analysis, with better factual support, for your paying clients.
Seriously, you want us to expect 8,000 + new households moving to Tulsa (which was your starting premise, remember) because of TOD, based on this reported "likelihood" that 14.6 million Americans households (your link actually reported 14.6M
households, not people) will "want" to live in TOD by the year 2025? Keep in mind, too, that 8.3 million of those households are already living in existing TOD, so we're really only talking about 8.3 million new households.
quote:
Originally posted by Oil Capital
So I take it your answer is "no".
For the record, here is what you said: "I could see that these neighbourhoods would act as a draw for people to move to Tulsa and they would also help retain people who may have left when they graduated."
I thought perhaps you had some knowledge or had seen a study that showed that such developments in other cities have had such effects.
But apparently not.
So having no evidence of that phenomenon having ever occurred in other cities, why should we believe it would occur here.
More importantly, it is foolhardy to make transportation decisions based on such hopes, dreams,and fantasies, rather than on actual facts, evidence and history.
You are insisting on the production of studies that you know don't exist in order to derail (heh) the argument. This treads awfully close to what we in the lawyerly domain call "horse****."
Look, there is a correlation between certain cities currently experiencing a renaissance in the core--Dallas and Denver, specifically--and those cities committing to rail transit.
There are three possibilities: 1) the development and population renaissance causes this rail transit; 2) rail transit causes the renaissance; or 3) both are the result of a hidden third cause.
I think that third cause is a commitment by city leaders (political and business) to core growth. Tulsa doesn't have that, at least not in any kind of critical mass. We can jump start it by making investments: development incentives, smart zoning, and complementary public infrastructure (yes, including rail transit).
Why bother? Two reasons, both of which go to the heart of the existence of this forum. First, a recognition that endless sprawl leads to endless waste--we are conservatives are heart and hate to see where this all will lead. Second, and more importantly, is an emotional commitment to the heart of Tulsa. We either grew up here or made it our adopted home, and we're generally in favor of smart investments by the city to maintain or increase the vitality of the core.
So, to the point: you may not think a $40 million investment in rail transit along the BA corridor will be complementary of other growth efforts. I do. That's my last word.
Cheers.
quote:
Originally posted by Floyd
quote:
Originally posted by Oil Capital
So I take it your answer is "no".
For the record, here is what you said: "I could see that these neighbourhoods would act as a draw for people to move to Tulsa and they would also help retain people who may have left when they graduated."
I thought perhaps you had some knowledge or had seen a study that showed that such developments in other cities have had such effects.
But apparently not.
So having no evidence of that phenomenon having ever occurred in other cities, why should we believe it would occur here.
More importantly, it is foolhardy to make transportation decisions based on such hopes, dreams,and fantasies, rather than on actual facts, evidence and history.
You are insisting on the production of studies that you know don't exist in order to derail (heh) the argument. This treads awfully close to what we in the lawyerly domain call "horse****."
Look, there is a correlation between certain cities currently experiencing a renaissance in the core--Dallas and Denver, specifically--and those cities committing to rail transit.
There are three possibilities: 1) the development and population renaissance causes this rail transit; 2) rail transit causes the renaissance; or 3) both are the result of a hidden third cause.
I think that third cause is a commitment by city leaders (political and business) to core growth. Tulsa doesn't have that, at least not in any kind of critical mass. We can jump start it by making investments: development incentives, smart zoning, and complementary public infrastructure (yes, including rail transit).
Why bother? Two reasons, both of which go to the heart of the existence of this forum. First, a recognition that endless sprawl leads to endless waste--we are conservatives are heart and hate to see where this all will lead. Second, and more importantly, is an emotional commitment to the heart of Tulsa. We either grew up here or made it our adopted home, and we're generally in favor of smart investments by the city to maintain or increase the vitality of the core.
So, to the point: you may not think a $40 million investment in rail transit along the BA corridor will be complementary of other growth efforts. I do. That's my last word.
Cheers.
oh, c'mon... you can't tell he's a lawyer too... i mean shoit, he rips on si and his/her info when this is exactly what si does for a living? has to be a scumbag lawyer...
quote:
Originally posted by Oil Capital
So I take it your answer is "no".
For the record, here is what you said: "I could see that these neighbourhoods would act as a draw for people to move to Tulsa and they would also help retain people who may have left when they graduated."
I thought perhaps you had some knowledge or had seen a study that showed that such developments in other cities have had such effects.
But apparently not.
So having no evidence of that phenomenon having ever occurred in other cities, why should we believe it would occur here.
More importantly, it is foolhardy to make transportation decisions based on such hopes, dreams,and fantasies, rather than on actual facts, evidence and history.
Lawyer down, Cappy. There
is no other significant growth happening elsewhere in the city. Tulsa is fourth or fifth in the region for housing starts, behind unincorporated Rogers County. Even if your hypothesis were true, i.e., that transit-oriented development is just cannibalization of the new housing market, it'd still be "new" for Tulsa, and thus, a win.
quote:
Originally posted by Oil Capital
quote:
Originally posted by si_uk_lon_ok
quote:
Originally posted by Oil Capital
quote:
Originally posted by si_uk_lon_ok
quote:
Originally posted by Oil Capital
quote:
Originally posted by si_uk_lon_ok
quote:
Originally posted by Oil Capital
quote:
Originally posted by si_uk_lon_ok
quote:
Originally posted by Oil Capital
quote:
Originally posted by si_uk_lon_ok
... you'd be looking at 8,400 properties or around a minimum of 10,080,000 sqft of new taxable income for the city. That's also just one new station, imagine the impact of five, ten of fifteen stations.
Whoah, there. Can't let you get away with that one. I do not disagree that it would be desirable to get relatively dense development around rail stations, but there is little, if any, evidence that any significant amount of that development would be "new" development for the city (ie, development that would not have otherwise occurred somewhere else in the city).
While that development MAY have otherwise have gone to suburbs, that seems intuitively unlikely. The market served by relatively dense developments around a rail stop does not strike me as a market that would otherwise flock to the suburbs.
I would disagree. This development will occur in a places with existing infrastructure, which means even if it is stolen from the suburbs or the city fringe it will be development at a lower cost to the city than somewhere remote that requires new roads, sewage, schools etc.
I don't think many Tulsans know what it is to live in a dense neighbourhood. I could see people when they have the choice moving to a transit orientated neighbourhood. I could see these neighbourhoods significantly slowing down the growth in places such as Broken Arrow.
Think of it like this, a dense neighbourhood of around 15,000 people would have pretty much everything you need in walking distance, you wouldn't need to drive to the supermarket, just pop by on the way home, your kids could walk to park, school and would have lots of friends on your block and in the local area. Instead of having three cars, you could cope with one or maybe even none that's a huge boost to your income, that could be spent on the local businesses you'd pass in the neighbourhood. As you walked down the street, you'd bump into people you knew as it would be busy, which would mean it would feel safe rather than walking own an abandoned suburban street (if it even has sidewalks). Old people would like the fact doctors, shops, services and friends were nearby, that would mean getting rid of the car would become a complete disaster leaving them in isolation. There are many many benefits to a dense neighbourhood that I think many people just don't know about yet and find it hard to imagine. I think it's so hard to imagine, because the current urban form in much of Tulsa is so vastly different than what could be.
I think dense neighbourhoods are special in a way that a suburb isn't, they aren't anonymous they have character. In that way I think they will be able to attract people who might not have considered moving to Tulsa by offering something new. I could see that these neighbourhoods would act as a draw for people to move to Tulsa and they would also help retain people who may have left when they graduated.
I completely understand how you long for dense neighborhoods and I completely understand that you deeply hope that the existence of such neighborhoods would draw more people to Tulsa (or keep more Tulsans in Tulsa), but do you have any evidence of this actually happening ANYWHERE?
You'd like examples of mixed use dense neighbourhoods? Do you honestly think they don't exist and I made up the idea? Or did I misunderstand your question?
Uhhh, yeah. You completely misunderstood the question. What I am seeking is examples of transit-spurred mixed use dense neighborhoods that have CAUSED any significant number of people to move to a metro area.
Ok, so you'd ideally like me to find a statistically significant number of cities that have TOD and interview the people living there are ask them if they moved there due to the TOD from outside the metropolitan area or were they just internal transfers. I'd also presumable need to check that they weren't freeing up people to move to there old suburban housing. So I'd need to calculate the cities predicted growth rate without the TOD, then compare this with the current levels of growth and also examine the proportion of new comers to this growth. Are you offering to fund my phd or are you just asking for a level of proof that is unobtainable and then crow if the data isn't there?
Put it like this, a large proportion of the growth in the Tulsa metropolitan area is occurring outside the city of Tulsa in places such as Jenks and Broken Arrow. Therefore pretty much any growth captured by the city isn't stolen from within the city, but new growth for the city. It is also growth in areas that have the infrastructure such as roads, sewage, schools etc so it's cheap development for the city.
So I take it your answer is "no".
For the record, here is what you said: "I could see that these neighbourhoods would act as a draw for people to move to Tulsa and they would also help retain people who may have left when they graduated."
I thought perhaps you had some knowledge or had seen a study that showed that such developments in other cities have had such effects.
But apparently not.
So having no evidence of that phenomenon having ever occurred in other cities, why should we believe it would occur here.
More importantly, it is foolhardy to make transportation decisions based on such hopes, dreams,and fantasies, rather than on actual facts, evidence and history.
Firstly, I do have knowledge, this is my bread and butter. I get paid to tell people how best to set up light rail, bus rapid transit, heavy rail and metros, I'll estimate usage patterns, do the cost benefit analysis, and even if you ask me nicely I'll do the agglomeration benefits of your scheme.
If you look at this article which refers to three different studies: http://realtytimes.com/rtpages/20050105_transitdevel.htm
You'll see that the demand for property in transit orientated developments is set to double and 14.6m Americans are going to want to live in such an area by 2025. Seeing as there really isn't any areas like that in the metro area of Tulsa one could assume that these 14.6m Americans will either not move to Tulsa or if they live in Tulsa and are seeking TOD will leave. At the moment these 14.6m people only really have the choice of large expensive metro areas, I think Tulsa with its lower cost of living could provide a real alternative for people who want to live in a TOD, but don't want to spend a fortune to do so.
Also TOD is the icing on the cake when it comes to transit. Its not the only reason you plan a transit scheme. Transit would in all likelihood work in Tulsa without any TOD due to park and ride. We became a bit side tracked on TOD and its not the main point on this thread.
Well, that's SOMEthing, I guess. But let's just say I hope you do better analysis, with better factual support, for your paying clients.
Seriously, you want us to expect 8,000 + new households moving to Tulsa (which was your starting premise, remember) because of TOD, based on this reported "likelihood" that 14.6 million Americans households (your link actually reported 14.6M households, not people) will "want" to live in TOD by the year 2025? Keep in mind, too, that 8.3 million of those households are already living in existing TOD, so we're really only talking about 8.3 million new households.
Do I expect Tulsa to capture 8,000+ new households out of a possible 8.3 million? Sure lets try and get 0.14% of all people seeking TOD neighbourhoods. How about going wild and trying to capture more than that maybe there is space in America for 1% of those people to move to Tulsa.
I do better analysis when paid, I may have made a slip between household and people, but that's because I slip a little posting into my busy day and make sure I give value to those who pay my wages.
quote:
oh, c'mon... you can't tell he's a lawyer too... i mean shoit, he rips on si and his/her info when this is exactly what si does for a living? has to be a scumbag lawyer...
Thanks, and as I always say 'se a vida É'. I don't take this too seriously.
quote:
Originally posted by Floyd
quote:
Originally posted by Oil Capital
So I take it your answer is "no".
For the record, here is what you said: "I could see that these neighbourhoods would act as a draw for people to move to Tulsa and they would also help retain people who may have left when they graduated."
I thought perhaps you had some knowledge or had seen a study that showed that such developments in other cities have had such effects.
But apparently not.
So having no evidence of that phenomenon having ever occurred in other cities, why should we believe it would occur here.
More importantly, it is foolhardy to make transportation decisions based on such hopes, dreams,and fantasies, rather than on actual facts, evidence and history.
You are insisting on the production of studies that you know don't exist in order to derail (heh) the argument. This treads awfully close to what we in the lawyerly domain call "horse****."
Look, there is a correlation between certain cities currently experiencing a renaissance in the core--Dallas and Denver, specifically--and those cities committing to rail transit.
There are three possibilities: 1) the development and population renaissance causes this rail transit; 2) rail transit causes the renaissance; or 3) both are the result of a hidden third cause.
I think that third cause is a commitment by city leaders (political and business) to core growth. Tulsa doesn't have that, at least not in any kind of critical mass. We can jump start it by making investments: development incentives, smart zoning, and complementary public infrastructure (yes, including rail transit).
Why bother? Two reasons, both of which go to the heart of the existence of this forum. First, a recognition that endless sprawl leads to endless waste--we are conservatives are heart and hate to see where this all will lead. Second, and more importantly, is an emotional commitment to the heart of Tulsa. We either grew up here or made it our adopted home, and we're generally in favor of smart investments by the city to maintain or increase the vitality of the core.
So, to the point: you may not think a $40 million investment in rail transit along the BA corridor will be complementary of other growth efforts. I do. That's my last word.
Cheers.
You are missing the point entirely, which we in the lawyerly domain sometimes call obtuse (when we want to be nice about it).
I have never said rail transit would not complement other growth efforts; I think it might. I believe and have said that I believe rail transit, when reasonably feasible, will help a city's core. (I don't think we are at that point and very much doubt the ridership projections the subject study have set out, but that's a slightly different topic.)
I completely agree that the renaissance we see in the Dallas and Denver cores and their commitment to rail transit are "both the result of a hidden third cause". It's rather odd that you are attacking me and then proceed to agree with my basic premise. Rail does NOT cause the growth. But in point of fact, I have not even gone as far as you just did. I agree and have stated several times that a rail line (especially a light rail line, not necessarily a commuter line) can cause more dense growth and can redirect growth from one part of a city/metro to another.
What I have been arguing in the most recent set of posts is merely that there is very little if any evidence that a rail investment, OR an investment in TOD, will cause a metro area to grow MORE than it would without that rail line or TOD (especially a metro like Tulsa which is not constrained by massive congestion or geographical obstructions.)
Nothing in your post even disagrees with that premise, let alone disproves it.
And once again, let me reiterate, none of this in any way implies that rail is inherently a bad idea, or that the denser growth in the core is not desirable. It surely is. But believing that rail will CAUSE any additional growth for the Tulsa metro despite an apparent complete lack of evidence that rail has ever had such an effect anywhere, is, to use your words "horse****."
quote:
Originally posted by brunoflipper
quote:
Originally posted by Floyd
quote:
Originally posted by Oil Capital
So I take it your answer is "no".
For the record, here is what you said: "I could see that these neighbourhoods would act as a draw for people to move to Tulsa and they would also help retain people who may have left when they graduated."
I thought perhaps you had some knowledge or had seen a study that showed that such developments in other cities have had such effects.
But apparently not.
So having no evidence of that phenomenon having ever occurred in other cities, why should we believe it would occur here.
More importantly, it is foolhardy to make transportation decisions based on such hopes, dreams,and fantasies, rather than on actual facts, evidence and history.
You are insisting on the production of studies that you know don't exist in order to derail (heh) the argument. This treads awfully close to what we in the lawyerly domain call "horse****."
Look, there is a correlation between certain cities currently experiencing a renaissance in the core--Dallas and Denver, specifically--and those cities committing to rail transit.
There are three possibilities: 1) the development and population renaissance causes this rail transit; 2) rail transit causes the renaissance; or 3) both are the result of a hidden third cause.
I think that third cause is a commitment by city leaders (political and business) to core growth. Tulsa doesn't have that, at least not in any kind of critical mass. We can jump start it by making investments: development incentives, smart zoning, and complementary public infrastructure (yes, including rail transit).
Why bother? Two reasons, both of which go to the heart of the existence of this forum. First, a recognition that endless sprawl leads to endless waste--we are conservatives are heart and hate to see where this all will lead. Second, and more importantly, is an emotional commitment to the heart of Tulsa. We either grew up here or made it our adopted home, and we're generally in favor of smart investments by the city to maintain or increase the vitality of the core.
So, to the point: you may not think a $40 million investment in rail transit along the BA corridor will be complementary of other growth efforts. I do. That's my last word.
Cheers.
oh, c'mon... you can't tell he's a lawyer too... i mean shoit, he rips on si and his/her info when this is exactly what si does for a living? has to be a scumbag lawyer...
So he "does it for a living".... That means that anything he says in anyway connected to light rail is sacrosanct and unchallengeable? Don Himmelfarb apparently does "economic development" for a living. I guess we should never second-guess him either, eh? good logic there.
quote:
Originally posted by Chicken Little
quote:
Originally posted by Oil Capital
So I take it your answer is "no".
For the record, here is what you said: "I could see that these neighbourhoods would act as a draw for people to move to Tulsa and they would also help retain people who may have left when they graduated."
I thought perhaps you had some knowledge or had seen a study that showed that such developments in other cities have had such effects.
But apparently not.
So having no evidence of that phenomenon having ever occurred in other cities, why should we believe it would occur here.
More importantly, it is foolhardy to make transportation decisions based on such hopes, dreams,and fantasies, rather than on actual facts, evidence and history.
Lawyer down, Cappy. There is no other significant growth happening elsewhere in the city. Tulsa is fourth or fifth in the region for housing starts, behind unincorporated Rogers County. Even if your hypothesis were true, i.e., that transit-oriented development is just cannibalization of the new housing market, it'd still be "new" for Tulsa, and thus, a win.
I'm not entirely sure about that. Does it not make sense that most people who are interested in a denser environment would currently look to live in the denser areas of the metro (i.e. midtown Tulsa)? I'm not seeing most of the market for new suburban housing in Bixby or Owasso being very enticed by a dense housing development on a rail line. Now the people who currently look at the areas around Cherry Street, Brookside, along Riverside Drive... THERE's your market for TOD living.
Besides which, don't forget station no. 1 is in downtown Broken Arrow, not Tulsa.
quote:
Originally posted by Oil Capital
quote:
Originally posted by brunoflipper
quote:
Originally posted by Floyd
quote:
Originally posted by Oil Capital
So I take it your answer is "no".
For the record, here is what you said: "I could see that these neighbourhoods would act as a draw for people to move to Tulsa and they would also help retain people who may have left when they graduated."
I thought perhaps you had some knowledge or had seen a study that showed that such developments in other cities have had such effects.
But apparently not.
So having no evidence of that phenomenon having ever occurred in other cities, why should we believe it would occur here.
More importantly, it is foolhardy to make transportation decisions based on such hopes, dreams,and fantasies, rather than on actual facts, evidence and history.
You are insisting on the production of studies that you know don't exist in order to derail (heh) the argument. This treads awfully close to what we in the lawyerly domain call "horse****."
Look, there is a correlation between certain cities currently experiencing a renaissance in the core--Dallas and Denver, specifically--and those cities committing to rail transit.
There are three possibilities: 1) the development and population renaissance causes this rail transit; 2) rail transit causes the renaissance; or 3) both are the result of a hidden third cause.
I think that third cause is a commitment by city leaders (political and business) to core growth. Tulsa doesn't have that, at least not in any kind of critical mass. We can jump start it by making investments: development incentives, smart zoning, and complementary public infrastructure (yes, including rail transit).
Why bother? Two reasons, both of which go to the heart of the existence of this forum. First, a recognition that endless sprawl leads to endless waste--we are conservatives are heart and hate to see where this all will lead. Second, and more importantly, is an emotional commitment to the heart of Tulsa. We either grew up here or made it our adopted home, and we're generally in favor of smart investments by the city to maintain or increase the vitality of the core.
So, to the point: you may not think a $40 million investment in rail transit along the BA corridor will be complementary of other growth efforts. I do. That's my last word.
Cheers.
oh, c'mon... you can't tell he's a lawyer too... i mean shoit, he rips on si and his/her info when this is exactly what si does for a living? has to be a scumbag lawyer...
So he "does it for a living".... That means that anything he says in anyway connected to light rail is sacrosanct and unchallengeable? Don Himmelfarb apparently does "economic development" for a living. I guess we should never second-guess him either, eh? good logic there.
no... it just means you should be a little less snarky when insinuating that he someone has no ****ing clue...
i appreciate the discourse but historically, you've made no bones about not liking tulsa and that it does not suit your lifestyle... and you've fruitlessly pursued a relo to points south... so pardon me, if you come off as a concern troll...
quote:
Originally posted by si_uk_lon_ok
quote:
Originally posted by Oil Capital
quote:
Originally posted by si_uk_lon_ok
quote:
Originally posted by Oil Capital
quote:
Originally posted by si_uk_lon_ok
quote:
Originally posted by Oil Capital
quote:
Originally posted by si_uk_lon_ok
quote:
Originally posted by Oil Capital
quote:
Originally posted by si_uk_lon_ok
quote:
Originally posted by Oil Capital
quote:
Originally posted by si_uk_lon_ok
... you'd be looking at 8,400 properties or around a minimum of 10,080,000 sqft of new taxable income for the city. That's also just one new station, imagine the impact of five, ten of fifteen stations.
Whoah, there. Can't let you get away with that one. I do not disagree that it would be desirable to get relatively dense development around rail stations, but there is little, if any, evidence that any significant amount of that development would be "new" development for the city (ie, development that would not have otherwise occurred somewhere else in the city).
While that development MAY have otherwise have gone to suburbs, that seems intuitively unlikely. The market served by relatively dense developments around a rail stop does not strike me as a market that would otherwise flock to the suburbs.
I would disagree. This development will occur in a places with existing infrastructure, which means even if it is stolen from the suburbs or the city fringe it will be development at a lower cost to the city than somewhere remote that requires new roads, sewage, schools etc.
I don't think many Tulsans know what it is to live in a dense neighbourhood. I could see people when they have the choice moving to a transit orientated neighbourhood. I could see these neighbourhoods significantly slowing down the growth in places such as Broken Arrow.
Think of it like this, a dense neighbourhood of around 15,000 people would have pretty much everything you need in walking distance, you wouldn't need to drive to the supermarket, just pop by on the way home, your kids could walk to park, school and would have lots of friends on your block and in the local area. Instead of having three cars, you could cope with one or maybe even none that's a huge boost to your income, that could be spent on the local businesses you'd pass in the neighbourhood. As you walked down the street, you'd bump into people you knew as it would be busy, which would mean it would feel safe rather than walking own an abandoned suburban street (if it even has sidewalks). Old people would like the fact doctors, shops, services and friends were nearby, that would mean getting rid of the car would become a complete disaster leaving them in isolation. There are many many benefits to a dense neighbourhood that I think many people just don't know about yet and find it hard to imagine. I think it's so hard to imagine, because the current urban form in much of Tulsa is so vastly different than what could be.
I think dense neighbourhoods are special in a way that a suburb isn't, they aren't anonymous they have character. In that way I think they will be able to attract people who might not have considered moving to Tulsa by offering something new. I could see that these neighbourhoods would act as a draw for people to move to Tulsa and they would also help retain people who may have left when they graduated.
I completely understand how you long for dense neighborhoods and I completely understand that you deeply hope that the existence of such neighborhoods would draw more people to Tulsa (or keep more Tulsans in Tulsa), but do you have any evidence of this actually happening ANYWHERE?
You'd like examples of mixed use dense neighbourhoods? Do you honestly think they don't exist and I made up the idea? Or did I misunderstand your question?
Uhhh, yeah. You completely misunderstood the question. What I am seeking is examples of transit-spurred mixed use dense neighborhoods that have CAUSED any significant number of people to move to a metro area.
Ok, so you'd ideally like me to find a statistically significant number of cities that have TOD and interview the people living there are ask them if they moved there due to the TOD from outside the metropolitan area or were they just internal transfers. I'd also presumable need to check that they weren't freeing up people to move to there old suburban housing. So I'd need to calculate the cities predicted growth rate without the TOD, then compare this with the current levels of growth and also examine the proportion of new comers to this growth. Are you offering to fund my phd or are you just asking for a level of proof that is unobtainable and then crow if the data isn't there?
Put it like this, a large proportion of the growth in the Tulsa metropolitan area is occurring outside the city of Tulsa in places such as Jenks and Broken Arrow. Therefore pretty much any growth captured by the city isn't stolen from within the city, but new growth for the city. It is also growth in areas that have the infrastructure such as roads, sewage, schools etc so it's cheap development for the city.
So I take it your answer is "no".
For the record, here is what you said: "I could see that these neighbourhoods would act as a draw for people to move to Tulsa and they would also help retain people who may have left when they graduated."
I thought perhaps you had some knowledge or had seen a study that showed that such developments in other cities have had such effects.
But apparently not.
So having no evidence of that phenomenon having ever occurred in other cities, why should we believe it would occur here.
More importantly, it is foolhardy to make transportation decisions based on such hopes, dreams,and fantasies, rather than on actual facts, evidence and history.
Firstly, I do have knowledge, this is my bread and butter. I get paid to tell people how best to set up light rail, bus rapid transit, heavy rail and metros, I'll estimate usage patterns, do the cost benefit analysis, and even if you ask me nicely I'll do the agglomeration benefits of your scheme.
If you look at this article which refers to three different studies: http://realtytimes.com/rtpages/20050105_transitdevel.htm
You'll see that the demand for property in transit orientated developments is set to double and 14.6m Americans are going to want to live in such an area by 2025. Seeing as there really isn't any areas like that in the metro area of Tulsa one could assume that these 14.6m Americans will either not move to Tulsa or if they live in Tulsa and are seeking TOD will leave. At the moment these 14.6m people only really have the choice of large expensive metro areas, I think Tulsa with its lower cost of living could provide a real alternative for people who want to live in a TOD, but don't want to spend a fortune to do so.
Also TOD is the icing on the cake when it comes to transit. Its not the only reason you plan a transit scheme. Transit would in all likelihood work in Tulsa without any TOD due to park and ride. We became a bit side tracked on TOD and its not the main point on this thread.
Well, that's SOMEthing, I guess. But let's just say I hope you do better analysis, with better factual support, for your paying clients.
Seriously, you want us to expect 8,000 + new households moving to Tulsa (which was your starting premise, remember) because of TOD, based on this reported "likelihood" that 14.6 million Americans households (your link actually reported 14.6M households, not people) will "want" to live in TOD by the year 2025? Keep in mind, too, that 8.3 million of those households are already living in existing TOD, so we're really only talking about 8.3 million new households.
Do I expect Tulsa to capture 8,000+ new households out of a possible 8.3 million? Sure lets try and get 0.14% of all people seeking TOD neighbourhoods. How about going wild and trying to capture more than that maybe there is space in America for 1% of those people to move to Tulsa.
Here's what I think you may be missing. Is there any reason to think that a proportionate number of those 8.3 million households that supposedly "desire to live in TODs" don't
already live in the Tulsa metro? Those people might be very pleased indeed to move into a TOD and, as I have said repeatedly, TODs would likely cause some changes in the arrangement of Tulsa housing. But those Tulsa people who desire to live in TODs will not be "
growth" for the Tulsa metro.
Further, there is nothing in that statement of 8.3 million additional households desiring to live in TODs that suggests that any of those people would relocate to another metro because of TODs or choose one metro over another because one has TODs and the other does not.
I'll grant that there probably are a few such people. But significant? Very doubtful. 8,000 households of them who would choose Tulsa if only Tulsa had TODs? Remember, this is 8,000 households full of people (above and beyond Tulsa's natural proportion of the 8.3 million) who would choose to move to Tulsa because of TODs. Not happenin' ;-)
I apologize if I've gotten "snarky" with you. I only intend to have a good solid factual discussion.
quote:
Originally posted by brunoflipper
quote:
Originally posted by Oil Capital
quote:
Originally posted by brunoflipper
quote:
Originally posted by Floyd
quote:
Originally posted by Oil Capital
So I take it your answer is "no".
For the record, here is what you said: "I could see that these neighbourhoods would act as a draw for people to move to Tulsa and they would also help retain people who may have left when they graduated."
I thought perhaps you had some knowledge or had seen a study that showed that such developments in other cities have had such effects.
But apparently not.
So having no evidence of that phenomenon having ever occurred in other cities, why should we believe it would occur here.
More importantly, it is foolhardy to make transportation decisions based on such hopes, dreams,and fantasies, rather than on actual facts, evidence and history.
You are insisting on the production of studies that you know don't exist in order to derail (heh) the argument. This treads awfully close to what we in the lawyerly domain call "horse****."
Look, there is a correlation between certain cities currently experiencing a renaissance in the core--Dallas and Denver, specifically--and those cities committing to rail transit.
There are three possibilities: 1) the development and population renaissance causes this rail transit; 2) rail transit causes the renaissance; or 3) both are the result of a hidden third cause.
I think that third cause is a commitment by city leaders (political and business) to core growth. Tulsa doesn't have that, at least not in any kind of critical mass. We can jump start it by making investments: development incentives, smart zoning, and complementary public infrastructure (yes, including rail transit).
Why bother? Two reasons, both of which go to the heart of the existence of this forum. First, a recognition that endless sprawl leads to endless waste--we are conservatives are heart and hate to see where this all will lead. Second, and more importantly, is an emotional commitment to the heart of Tulsa. We either grew up here or made it our adopted home, and we're generally in favor of smart investments by the city to maintain or increase the vitality of the core.
So, to the point: you may not think a $40 million investment in rail transit along the BA corridor will be complementary of other growth efforts. I do. That's my last word.
Cheers.
oh, c'mon... you can't tell he's a lawyer too... i mean shoit, he rips on si and his/her info when this is exactly what si does for a living? has to be a scumbag lawyer...
So he "does it for a living".... That means that anything he says in anyway connected to light rail is sacrosanct and unchallengeable? Don Himmelfarb apparently does "economic development" for a living. I guess we should never second-guess him either, eh? good logic there.
no... it just means you should be a little less snarky when insinuating that he someone has no ****ing clue...
i appreciate the discourse but historically, you've made no bones about not liking tulsa and that it does not suit your lifestyle... and you've fruitlessly pursued a relo to points south... so pardon me, if you come off as a concern troll...
Coming from the king of snark, that's pretty rich. Historically, I have indeed NOT made any bones about not liking Tulsa. There is plenty I like about Tulsa. I have a great life here. But it would take an amazing amount of delusion to not see how badly Tulsa's (and Tulsa County's) governments have been performing over the past decade + You know so much less than you pretend. So we met many years ago. People do acclimate to their homes and actually change over time. Well,
some people do...
If I didn't care about Tulsa I would not give a rat's behind about how dishonest the leadership is or how foolish their proposals have been.
How about joining in the discussion for once instead of your persistent personal attacks?
quote:
Originally posted by Oil Capital
Coming from the king of snark, that's pretty rich. Historically, I have indeed NOT made any bones about not liking Tulsa. There is plenty I like about Tulsa. I have a great life here. But it would take an amazing amount of delusion to not see how badly Tulsa's (and Tulsa County's) governments have been performing over the past decade + You know so much less than you pretend. So we met many years ago. People do acclimate to their homes and actually change over time. Well, some people do...
If I didn't care about Tulsa I would not give a rat's behind about how dishonest the leadership is or how foolish their proposals have been.
How about joining in the discussion for once instead of your persistent personal attacks?
There is so much incredibly lawyeristic bs coming from you, I don't even know where to start...
Spamtastic. [:D]
quote:
Originally posted by USRufnex
quote:
Originally posted by Oil Capital
Coming from the king of snark, that's pretty rich. Historically, I have indeed NOT made any bones about not liking Tulsa. There is plenty I like about Tulsa. I have a great life here. But it would take an amazing amount of delusion to not see how badly Tulsa's (and Tulsa County's) governments have been performing over the past decade + You know so much less than you pretend. So we met many years ago. People do acclimate to their homes and actually change over time. Well, some people do...
If I didn't care about Tulsa I would not give a rat's behind about how dishonest the leadership is or how foolish their proposals have been.
How about joining in the discussion for once instead of your persistent personal attacks?
That is such incredible lawyeristic bs coming from you, I don't even know where to start...
Spamtastic.
ROFL Don't start. just keep me on your ignore list. It's really quite lovely having a discussion without your incoherent ranting.
Once again... lawyer spam.
Play the victim.... then attack.
Jerk.
quote:
Originally posted by USRufnex
Once again... lawyer spam.
Play the victim.... then attack.
Jerk.
Did you have something to contribute to the discussion about commuter rail or TOD in Tulsa?
quote:
Originally posted by Oil Capital
quote:
Originally posted by USRufnex
Once again... lawyer spam.
Play the victim.... then attack.
Jerk.
Did you have something to contribute to the discussion about commuter rail or TOD in Tulsa?
Or did you just want to jump straight into your threatening attacks we're familiar with (at least those of us who got to see it before the board administrators swept it under the rug.)
quote:
Originally posted by Oil Capital
quote:
Originally posted by USRufnex
Once again... lawyer spam.
Play the victim.... then attack.
Jerk.
Did you have something to contribute to the discussion about commuter rail or TOD in Tulsa?
Yes. As an honest Tulsan, unlike yourself...
I'd rather have you on ignore... but sometimes you have to respond and make sure the good people on this site understand your dishonest dog-and-pony show...
gotta go to dinner.... news at 11.
quote:
Originally posted by Oil Capital
Or did you just want to jump straight into your threatening attacks we're familiar with (at least those of us who got to see it before the board administrators swept it under the rug.)
It is STILL my opinion you should be banned from this site... but you're too subtle for people to catch on...
quote:
Originally posted by USRufnex
quote:
Originally posted by Oil Capital
quote:
Originally posted by USRufnex
Once again... lawyer spam.
Play the victim.... then attack.
Jerk.
Did you have something to contribute to the discussion about commuter rail or TOD in Tulsa?
Yes. As an honest Tulsan, unlike yourself...
I'd rather have you on ignore... but sometimes you have to respond and make sure the good people on this site understand your dishonest dog-and-pony show...
gotta go to dinner.... news at 11.
Where is my dishonesty? Do tell? And spare us the crap about my being an Oklahoma Citian in disguise. I assure you I live right here in midtown Tulsa. Have lived here for a long time and have no particular connection or loyalty to OKC (other than having briefly lived there a couple lifetimes ago.
What has been "dishonest" in my so-called "dog and pony show"?
We all look forward to your contributions to the discussion.
quote:
Originally posted by USRufnex
quote:
Originally posted by Oil Capital
Or did you just want to jump straight into your threatening attacks we're familiar with (at least those of us who got to see it before the board administrators swept it under the rug.)
It is STILL my opinion you should be banned from this site... but you're too subtle for people to catch on...
I should be banned? Banned for what, exactly? Introducing too many inconvenient facts?
hey, that's nice... more sarcastic lawyeristic spam...
per usual.... you did this with the river tax and every other issue... i'll go into more detail after dinner... if you're able to wait that long...
i'll sure appreciate it from ya'...
quote:
Originally posted by Oil Capital
I should be banned? Banned for what, exactly? Introducing too many inconvenient facts?
Facts? [}:)] Since when? At best you offer conjecture. When confronted with facts you argue...poorly.
quote:
Originally posted by Oil Capital
quote:
Originally posted by brunoflipper
quote:
Originally posted by Oil Capital
quote:
Originally posted by brunoflipper
quote:
Originally posted by Floyd
quote:
Originally posted by Oil Capital
So I take it your answer is "no".
For the record, here is what you said: "I could see that these neighbourhoods would act as a draw for people to move to Tulsa and they would also help retain people who may have left when they graduated."
I thought perhaps you had some knowledge or had seen a study that showed that such developments in other cities have had such effects.
But apparently not.
So having no evidence of that phenomenon having ever occurred in other cities, why should we believe it would occur here.
More importantly, it is foolhardy to make transportation decisions based on such hopes, dreams,and fantasies, rather than on actual facts, evidence and history.
You are insisting on the production of studies that you know don't exist in order to derail (heh) the argument. This treads awfully close to what we in the lawyerly domain call "horse****."
Look, there is a correlation between certain cities currently experiencing a renaissance in the core--Dallas and Denver, specifically--and those cities committing to rail transit.
There are three possibilities: 1) the development and population renaissance causes this rail transit; 2) rail transit causes the renaissance; or 3) both are the result of a hidden third cause.
I think that third cause is a commitment by city leaders (political and business) to core growth. Tulsa doesn't have that, at least not in any kind of critical mass. We can jump start it by making investments: development incentives, smart zoning, and complementary public infrastructure (yes, including rail transit).
Why bother? Two reasons, both of which go to the heart of the existence of this forum. First, a recognition that endless sprawl leads to endless waste--we are conservatives are heart and hate to see where this all will lead. Second, and more importantly, is an emotional commitment to the heart of Tulsa. We either grew up here or made it our adopted home, and we're generally in favor of smart investments by the city to maintain or increase the vitality of the core.
So, to the point: you may not think a $40 million investment in rail transit along the BA corridor will be complementary of other growth efforts. I do. That's my last word.
Cheers.
oh, c'mon... you can't tell he's a lawyer too... i mean shoit, he rips on si and his/her info when this is exactly what si does for a living? has to be a scumbag lawyer...
So he "does it for a living".... That means that anything he says in anyway connected to light rail is sacrosanct and unchallengeable? Don Himmelfarb apparently does "economic development" for a living. I guess we should never second-guess him either, eh? good logic there.
no... it just means you should be a little less snarky when insinuating that he someone has no ****ing clue...
i appreciate the discourse but historically, you've made no bones about not liking tulsa and that it does not suit your lifestyle... and you've fruitlessly pursued a relo to points south... so pardon me, if you come off as a concern troll...
Coming from the king of snark, that's pretty rich. Historically, I have indeed NOT made any bones about not liking Tulsa. There is plenty I like about Tulsa. I have a great life here. But it would take an amazing amount of delusion to not see how badly Tulsa's (and Tulsa County's) governments have been performing over the past decade + You know so much less than you pretend. So we met many years ago. People do acclimate to their homes and actually change over time. Well, some people do...
If I didn't care about Tulsa I would not give a rat's behind about how dishonest the leadership is or how foolish their proposals have been.
How about joining in the discussion for once instead of your persistent personal attacks?
you may not have ripped on tulsa so directly here but perhaps in other forums or maybe the real world?
so
now you love it here? great, good for you...
"...persistent personal attacks?" save the drama, the only time i resort to those tactics are to raise the dander of psuedo-intellects or to out concern trolls who play the part of the worried citizenry...
just put it out there, make your case, plain and simple- "none of this will ever work here/you'll never get that many people to move here because this is tulsa and tulsa sucks."
i join the discussion when i feel it is productive or simply entertaining... bickering with a wannabe-houstonian concern troll is neither...
and
"king of snark"?!? kick donkey, i'm putting that on my letterhead...
quote:
Originally posted by brunoflipper
quote:
Originally posted by Oil Capital
quote:
Originally posted by brunoflipper
quote:
Originally posted by Oil Capital
quote:
Originally posted by brunoflipper
quote:
Originally posted by Floyd
quote:
Originally posted by Oil Capital
So I take it your answer is "no".
For the record, here is what you said: "I could see that these neighbourhoods would act as a draw for people to move to Tulsa and they would also help retain people who may have left when they graduated."
I thought perhaps you had some knowledge or had seen a study that showed that such developments in other cities have had such effects.
But apparently not.
So having no evidence of that phenomenon having ever occurred in other cities, why should we believe it would occur here.
More importantly, it is foolhardy to make transportation decisions based on such hopes, dreams,and fantasies, rather than on actual facts, evidence and history.
You are insisting on the production of studies that you know don't exist in order to derail (heh) the argument. This treads awfully close to what we in the lawyerly domain call "horse****."
Look, there is a correlation between certain cities currently experiencing a renaissance in the core--Dallas and Denver, specifically--and those cities committing to rail transit.
There are three possibilities: 1) the development and population renaissance causes this rail transit; 2) rail transit causes the renaissance; or 3) both are the result of a hidden third cause.
I think that third cause is a commitment by city leaders (political and business) to core growth. Tulsa doesn't have that, at least not in any kind of critical mass. We can jump start it by making investments: development incentives, smart zoning, and complementary public infrastructure (yes, including rail transit).
Why bother? Two reasons, both of which go to the heart of the existence of this forum. First, a recognition that endless sprawl leads to endless waste--we are conservatives are heart and hate to see where this all will lead. Second, and more importantly, is an emotional commitment to the heart of Tulsa. We either grew up here or made it our adopted home, and we're generally in favor of smart investments by the city to maintain or increase the vitality of the core.
So, to the point: you may not think a $40 million investment in rail transit along the BA corridor will be complementary of other growth efforts. I do. That's my last word.
Cheers.
oh, c'mon... you can't tell he's a lawyer too... i mean shoit, he rips on si and his/her info when this is exactly what si does for a living? has to be a scumbag lawyer...
So he "does it for a living".... That means that anything he says in anyway connected to light rail is sacrosanct and unchallengeable? Don Himmelfarb apparently does "economic development" for a living. I guess we should never second-guess him either, eh? good logic there.
no... it just means you should be a little less snarky when insinuating that he someone has no ****ing clue...
i appreciate the discourse but historically, you've made no bones about not liking tulsa and that it does not suit your lifestyle... and you've fruitlessly pursued a relo to points south... so pardon me, if you come off as a concern troll...
Coming from the king of snark, that's pretty rich. Historically, I have indeed NOT made any bones about not liking Tulsa. There is plenty I like about Tulsa. I have a great life here. But it would take an amazing amount of delusion to not see how badly Tulsa's (and Tulsa County's) governments have been performing over the past decade + You know so much less than you pretend. So we met many years ago. People do acclimate to their homes and actually change over time. Well, some people do...
If I didn't care about Tulsa I would not give a rat's behind about how dishonest the leadership is or how foolish their proposals have been.
How about joining in the discussion for once instead of your persistent personal attacks?
you may not have ripped on tulsa so directly here but perhaps in other forums or maybe the real world?
so now you love it here? great, good for you...
"...persistent personal attacks?" save the drama, the only time i resort to those tactics are to raise the dander of psuedo-intellects or to out concern trolls who play the part of the worried citizenry...
just put it out there, make your case, plain and simple- "none of this will ever work here/you'll never get that many people to move here because this is tulsa and tulsa sucks."
i join the discussion when i feel it is productive or simply entertaining... bickering with a wannabe-houstonian concern troll is neither...
So why do you insist on doing it? If you have an issue with ANY facts I've presented or statements I've made, have at it. Tell me where I'm wrong. Show me evidence that I'm wrong. Isn't that what these discussion boards are for? I don't know what your problem is, man. Are your feelings that hurt that I don't remember you? ;-)
What is with you and Rufnex that rarely can either of you challenge anyone's factual presentations or opinions without going ballistically personal? (and don't be pretending it's just me... we all saw your ridiculous ad hominem attack on Bates earlier in this thread.)
Actually, that gives you and Rufnex a bit too much credit. I implied that you challenge facts and opinions. Too often, neither of you even bothers with that little detail. Just go straight for the ad hominems.
quote:
Originally posted by Chicken Little
quote:
Originally posted by Oil Capital
I should be banned? Banned for what, exactly? Introducing too many inconvenient facts?
Facts? [}:)] Since when? At best you offer conjecture. When confronted with facts you argue...poorly.
Instead of continuing with these ridiculous personal attacks... did you have any thoughts on my recent response to your post regarding there being little current development in Tulsa?
Here it is again, in case you overlooked it:
CL: Lawyer down, Cappy. There is no other significant growth happening elsewhere in the city. Tulsa is fourth or fifth in the region for housing starts, behind unincorporated Rogers County. Even if your hypothesis were true, i.e., that transit-oriented development is just cannibalization of the new housing market, it'd still be "new" for Tulsa, and thus, a win.
OC: I'm not entirely sure about that. Does it not make sense that most people who are interested in a denser environment would currently look to live in the denser areas of the metro (i.e. midtown Tulsa)? I'm not seeing most of the market for new suburban housing in Bixby or Owasso being very enticed by a dense housing development on a rail line. Now the people who currently look at the areas around Cherry Street, Brookside, along Riverside Drive... THERE's your market for TOD living.
Besides which, don't forget station no. 1 is in downtown Broken Arrow, not Tulsa.
quote:
Originally posted by Oil Capital
I'm not entirely sure about that. Does it not make sense that most people who are interested in a denser environment would currently look to live in the denser areas of the metro (i.e. midtown Tulsa)?
No, it doesn't make sense. Empty nesters and twenty-somethings (//%22http://www.buildernewsmag.com/viewnews.pl?id=203%22) are the driving force behind "new urbanism". One group has no need for the bixby house anymore, and the is fresh from the dorms.
quote:
I'm not seeing most of the market for new suburban housing in Bixby or Owasso being very enticed by a dense housing development on a rail line. Now the people who currently look at the areas around Cherry Street, Brookside, along Riverside Drive... THERE's your market for TOD living.
Besides which, don't forget station no. 1 is in downtown Broken Arrow, not Tulsa.
Open your eyes, man. You've just rattled off the neighborhoods some of the priciest (per sq ft) real estate in the region:
de·mand /de-mænd, -mand/
9. Economics.
a. the desire to purchase, coupled with the power to do so.
b. the quantity of goods that buyers will take at a particular price.
Why are the prices so high in midtown neighborhoods like Brookside, Swan Lake, Cherry Street, etc.? Is it because there is a finite group of people in this town who prefer to pay too much for their property? That's ludicrous, of course, but it seems to be the core of your argument.
No, it's because people want to live in denser areas, but Tulsa simply does not have enough to offer the market.
Your argument is weak.
quote:
Originally posted by Oil Capital
quote:
Originally posted by brunoflipper
quote:
Originally posted by Oil Capital
quote:
Originally posted by brunoflipper
quote:
Originally posted by Oil Capital
quote:
Originally posted by brunoflipper
quote:
Originally posted by Floyd
quote:
Originally posted by Oil Capital
So I take it your answer is "no".
For the record, here is what you said: "I could see that these neighbourhoods would act as a draw for people to move to Tulsa and they would also help retain people who may have left when they graduated."
I thought perhaps you had some knowledge or had seen a study that showed that such developments in other cities have had such effects.
But apparently not.
So having no evidence of that phenomenon having ever occurred in other cities, why should we believe it would occur here.
More importantly, it is foolhardy to make transportation decisions based on such hopes, dreams,and fantasies, rather than on actual facts, evidence and history.
You are insisting on the production of studies that you know don't exist in order to derail (heh) the argument. This treads awfully close to what we in the lawyerly domain call "horse****."
Look, there is a correlation between certain cities currently experiencing a renaissance in the core--Dallas and Denver, specifically--and those cities committing to rail transit.
There are three possibilities: 1) the development and population renaissance causes this rail transit; 2) rail transit causes the renaissance; or 3) both are the result of a hidden third cause.
I think that third cause is a commitment by city leaders (political and business) to core growth. Tulsa doesn't have that, at least not in any kind of critical mass. We can jump start it by making investments: development incentives, smart zoning, and complementary public infrastructure (yes, including rail transit).
Why bother? Two reasons, both of which go to the heart of the existence of this forum. First, a recognition that endless sprawl leads to endless waste--we are conservatives are heart and hate to see where this all will lead. Second, and more importantly, is an emotional commitment to the heart of Tulsa. We either grew up here or made it our adopted home, and we're generally in favor of smart investments by the city to maintain or increase the vitality of the core.
So, to the point: you may not think a $40 million investment in rail transit along the BA corridor will be complementary of other growth efforts. I do. That's my last word.
Cheers.
oh, c'mon... you can't tell he's a lawyer too... i mean shoit, he rips on si and his/her info when this is exactly what si does for a living? has to be a scumbag lawyer...
So he "does it for a living".... That means that anything he says in anyway connected to light rail is sacrosanct and unchallengeable? Don Himmelfarb apparently does "economic development" for a living. I guess we should never second-guess him either, eh? good logic there.
no... it just means you should be a little less snarky when insinuating that he someone has no ****ing clue...
i appreciate the discourse but historically, you've made no bones about not liking tulsa and that it does not suit your lifestyle... and you've fruitlessly pursued a relo to points south... so pardon me, if you come off as a concern troll...
Coming from the king of snark, that's pretty rich. Historically, I have indeed NOT made any bones about not liking Tulsa. There is plenty I like about Tulsa. I have a great life here. But it would take an amazing amount of delusion to not see how badly Tulsa's (and Tulsa County's) governments have been performing over the past decade + You know so much less than you pretend. So we met many years ago. People do acclimate to their homes and actually change over time. Well, some people do...
If I didn't care about Tulsa I would not give a rat's behind about how dishonest the leadership is or how foolish their proposals have been.
How about joining in the discussion for once instead of your persistent personal attacks?
you may not have ripped on tulsa so directly here but perhaps in other forums or maybe the real world?
so now you love it here? great, good for you...
"...persistent personal attacks?" save the drama, the only time i resort to those tactics are to raise the dander of psuedo-intellects or to out concern trolls who play the part of the worried citizenry...
just put it out there, make your case, plain and simple- "none of this will ever work here/you'll never get that many people to move here because this is tulsa and tulsa sucks."
i join the discussion when i feel it is productive or simply entertaining... bickering with a wannabe-houstonian concern troll is neither...
So why do you insist on doing it? If you have an issue with ANY facts I've presented or statements I've made, have at it. Tell me where I'm wrong. Show me evidence that I'm wrong. Isn't that what these discussion boards are for? I don't know what your problem is, man. Are your feelings that hurt that I don't remember you? ;-)
What is with you and Rufnex that rarely can either of you challenge anyone's factual presentations or opinions without going ballistically personal? (and don't be pretending it's just me... we all saw your ridiculous ad hominem attack on Bates earlier in this thread.)
Actually, that gives you and Rufnex a bit too much credit. I implied that you challenge facts and opinions. Too often, neither of you even bothers with that little detail. Just go straight for the ad hominems.
ok, you got me now i'm in this just because its entertaining...
how many times did i post in this thread? 9 and because reading for comprehension seems to be a deficit i'll summarize them-
post 1: bates is a dude, we fix transit, and we'll get development around it. bates he looks like a guy i saw on TV last night (it was a ****ing joke)
post 2: rail down "every arterial"? bates is nuts for making these comments because it is patently absurd.
we should make this our focus.
post 3: OT- blackjack discussion
post 4: chicken train picture
post 5: let's get a comp plan that addresses development and transit
post 6: bates- "every arterial", "how far you'd have to walk," "colossal waste of money, just as it has been for most American cities" all scare tactics or delusions
post 7: thumbs up
post 8: furious that you'd still dismiss someones fund of knowledge despite them demonstrating they may indeed have more knowledge about a topic than you... yes, scumbag lawyer- only considered to be an ad hominem by lawyers; repetitious? true enough
post 9: you used to say how much you hate it here... concern troll...
post 10: concern troll...
how many times did i make a personal attack against you in an attempt to discredit your (not bates') logic (which is an ad hominem otherwise they're just insults and not part of the argument)? 0
get it through your head- because of your prior comments (tulsa is hell) i'll never be convinced that you'll ever be well intentioned in any discussion regarding this town... so feel free to put me on ignore and i'll do the same...
get over yourself, sweetie... we've never met... you're just not careful...
now im done, i'll leave you with the last word.
One of the reasons Tulsa doesn't have more dense neighborhoods to offer the market is due to the TMAPC's quest to down-zone. The TMAPC has squelched those higher density opportunities in a large chunk of my own neighborhood near downtown.
quote:
Originally posted by booWorld
One of the reasons Tulsa doesn't have more dense neighborhoods to offer the market is due to the TMAPC's quest to down-zone. The TMAPC has squelched those higher density opportunities in a large chunk of my own neighborhood near downtown.
That seems pretty ridiculous, but then, I don't want to seem to be trashing Tulsa's fine government.
quote:
Originally posted by Chicken Little
quote:
Originally posted by Oil Capital
I'm not entirely sure about that. Does it not make sense that most people who are interested in a denser environment would currently look to live in the denser areas of the metro (i.e. midtown Tulsa)?
No, it doesn't make sense. Empty nesters and twenty-somethings (//%22http://www.buildernewsmag.com/viewnews.pl?id=203%22) are the driving force behind "new urbanism". One group has no need for the bixby house anymore, and the is fresh from the dorms.quote:
Fair enough, but seriously, if those empty nesters are in the market to downsize, and there is no TOD, where will they go? Likewise for the 20 somethings. In the absence of TOD, where will they go? I'm thinking it's likely to be midtown Tulsa as opposed to Bixby. No?
QuoteI'm not seeing most of the market for new suburban housing in Bixby or Owasso being very enticed by a dense housing development on a rail line. Now the people who currently look at the areas around Cherry Street, Brookside, along Riverside Drive... THERE's your market for TOD living.
Besides which, don't forget station no. 1 is in downtown Broken Arrow, not Tulsa.
Open your eyes, man. You've just rattled off the neighborhoods some of the priciest (per sq ft) real estate in the region:
de·mand /de-mænd, -mand/
9. Economics.
a. the desire to purchase, coupled with the power to do so.
b. the quantity of goods that buyers will take at a particular price.
Why are the prices so high in midtown neighborhoods like Brookside, Swan Lake, Cherry Street, etc.? Is it because there is a finite group of people in this town who prefer to pay too much for their property? That's ludicrous, of course, but it seems to be the core of your argument.
No, it's because people want to live in denser areas, but Tulsa simply does not have enough to offer the market.
Your argument is weak.
Amazing it is that I ever get accused of snarkiness around here. ;-) It's hardly a news flash that core area housing tends to be expensive. But there is plenty of affordable housing here in midtown Tulsa. And, it's not like any TOD housing is likely to be inexpensive. This stuff is expensive because of the high land prices. As someone not accused of snarkiness as often as I am would say:
"de·mand /de-mænd, -mand/
9. Economics.
a. the desire to purchase, coupled with the power to do so.
b. the quantity of goods that buyers will take at a particular price."
And remember that you and/or others earlier in this thread have told us that the land prices around rail stations will skyrocket.
;-)
I look forward to your thoughtful response. I'm confident you can do it.
My opinions and personal experience are on pg. 5 inbetween all the posts before all the tit-for-tat googled statistics...
let's cut to the chase...
http://www.tulsanow.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=5310&whichpage=7&SearchTerms=Davaz
read pgs 5-8...read all 8 pgs if you want... looked for OC's opinions, rhetoric, and spin... very illuminating... [;)]
back to ignore...
quote:
Originally posted by brunoflipper
quote:
Originally posted by Oil Capital
quote:
Originally posted by brunoflipper
quote:
Originally posted by Oil Capital
quote:
Originally posted by brunoflipper
quote:
Originally posted by Oil Capital
quote:
Originally posted by brunoflipper
quote:
Originally posted by Floyd
quote:
Originally posted by Oil Capital
So I take it your answer is "no".
For the record, here is what you said: "I could see that these neighbourhoods would act as a draw for people to move to Tulsa and they would also help retain people who may have left when they graduated."
I thought perhaps you had some knowledge or had seen a study that showed that such developments in other cities have had such effects.
But apparently not.
So having no evidence of that phenomenon having ever occurred in other cities, why should we believe it would occur here.
More importantly, it is foolhardy to make transportation decisions based on such hopes, dreams,and fantasies, rather than on actual facts, evidence and history.
You are insisting on the production of studies that you know don't exist in order to derail (heh) the argument. This treads awfully close to what we in the lawyerly domain call "horse****."
Look, there is a correlation between certain cities currently experiencing a renaissance in the core--Dallas and Denver, specifically--and those cities committing to rail transit.
There are three possibilities: 1) the development and population renaissance causes this rail transit; 2) rail transit causes the renaissance; or 3) both are the result of a hidden third cause.
I think that third cause is a commitment by city leaders (political and business) to core growth. Tulsa doesn't have that, at least not in any kind of critical mass. We can jump start it by making investments: development incentives, smart zoning, and complementary public infrastructure (yes, including rail transit).
Why bother? Two reasons, both of which go to the heart of the existence of this forum. First, a recognition that endless sprawl leads to endless waste--we are conservatives are heart and hate to see where this all will lead. Second, and more importantly, is an emotional commitment to the heart of Tulsa. We either grew up here or made it our adopted home, and we're generally in favor of smart investments by the city to maintain or increase the vitality of the core.
So, to the point: you may not think a $40 million investment in rail transit along the BA corridor will be complementary of other growth efforts. I do. That's my last word.
Cheers.
oh, c'mon... you can't tell he's a lawyer too... i mean shoit, he rips on si and his/her info when this is exactly what si does for a living? has to be a scumbag lawyer...
So he "does it for a living".... That means that anything he says in anyway connected to light rail is sacrosanct and unchallengeable? Don Himmelfarb apparently does "economic development" for a living. I guess we should never second-guess him either, eh? good logic there.
no... it just means you should be a little less snarky when insinuating that he someone has no ****ing clue...
i appreciate the discourse but historically, you've made no bones about not liking tulsa and that it does not suit your lifestyle... and you've fruitlessly pursued a relo to points south... so pardon me, if you come off as a concern troll...
Coming from the king of snark, that's pretty rich. Historically, I have indeed NOT made any bones about not liking Tulsa. There is plenty I like about Tulsa. I have a great life here. But it would take an amazing amount of delusion to not see how badly Tulsa's (and Tulsa County's) governments have been performing over the past decade + You know so much less than you pretend. So we met many years ago. People do acclimate to their homes and actually change over time. Well, some people do...
If I didn't care about Tulsa I would not give a rat's behind about how dishonest the leadership is or how foolish their proposals have been.
How about joining in the discussion for once instead of your persistent personal attacks?
you may not have ripped on tulsa so directly here but perhaps in other forums or maybe the real world?
so now you love it here? great, good for you...
"...persistent personal attacks?" save the drama, the only time i resort to those tactics are to raise the dander of psuedo-intellects or to out concern trolls who play the part of the worried citizenry...
just put it out there, make your case, plain and simple- "none of this will ever work here/you'll never get that many people to move here because this is tulsa and tulsa sucks."
i join the discussion when i feel it is productive or simply entertaining... bickering with a wannabe-houstonian concern troll is neither...
So why do you insist on doing it? If you have an issue with ANY facts I've presented or statements I've made, have at it. Tell me where I'm wrong. Show me evidence that I'm wrong. Isn't that what these discussion boards are for? I don't know what your problem is, man. Are your feelings that hurt that I don't remember you? ;-)
What is with you and Rufnex that rarely can either of you challenge anyone's factual presentations or opinions without going ballistically personal? (and don't be pretending it's just me... we all saw your ridiculous ad hominem attack on Bates earlier in this thread.)
Actually, that gives you and Rufnex a bit too much credit. I implied that you challenge facts and opinions. Too often, neither of you even bothers with that little detail. Just go straight for the ad hominems.
ok, you got me now i'm in this just because its entertaining...
how many times did i post in this thread? 9 and because reading for comprehension seems to be a deficit i'll summarize them-
post 1: bates is a dude, we fix transit, and we'll get development around it. bates he looks like a guy i saw on TV last night (it was a ****ing joke)
post 2: rail down "every arterial"? bates is nuts for making these comments because it is patently absurd.
we should make this our focus.
post 3: OT- blackjack discussion
post 4: chicken train picture
post 5: let's get a comp plan that addresses development and transit
post 6: bates- "every arterial", "how far you'd have to walk," "colossal waste of money, just as it has been for most American cities" all scare tactics or delusions
post 7: thumbs up
post 8: furious that you'd still dismiss someones fund of knowledge despite them demonstrating they may indeed have more knowledge about a topic than you... yes, scumbag lawyer- only considered to be an ad hominem by lawyers; repetitious? true enough
post 9: you used to say how much you hate it here... concern troll...
post 10: concern troll...
how many times did i make a personal attack against you in an attempt to discredit your (not bates') logic (which is an ad hominem otherwise they're just insults and not part of the argument)? 0
get it through your head- because of your prior comments (tulsa is hell) i'll never be convinced that you'll ever be well intentioned in any discussion regarding this town... so feel free to put me on ignore and i'll do the same...
get over yourself, sweetie... we've never met... you're just not careful...
now im done, i'll leave you with the last word.
When did I say "Tulsa is hell"? When exactly did I post those words?
Oh and pardon me for accusing you merely of ad hominems. I left out the personal insults. You are truly a model forum member.
I'm sorry I don't post enough happy-talk to make you believe I'm a real Tulsan. I'll try to be more boosterish.
quote:
Originally posted by USRufnex
My opinions and personal experience are on pg. 5 inbetween all the posts before all the tit-for-tat googled statistics...
let's cut to the chase...
http://www.tulsanow.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=5310&whichpage=5&SearchTerms=Davaz
read pgs 5-8...read all 8 pgs if you want... looked for OC's opinions, rhetoric, and spin... very illuminating... [;)]
back to ignore...
Praise the lord and please keep it there. ;-)
quote:
Originally posted by booWorld
One of the reasons Tulsa doesn't have more dense neighborhoods to offer the market is due to the TMAPC's quest to down-zone. The TMAPC has squelched those higher density opportunities in a large chunk of my own neighborhood near downtown.
It
is ridiculous, downzoning a neighborhood to prevent cheap apartments simply stops
all infill. Insofar as your property value is concerned, the medicine is worse than the disease. What they need to do is adopt design guidelines or form-based codes to allow development that doesn't stink. And what we need to do is
make them. It's changes like this that are long overdue.
Until fundamental changes are made in our land use policies, I'm reluctant to become too enthused about publicly funded rail-based transit. To me, it just isn't worth the investment when there is so much land in existing neighborhoods which is ripe for infill development but being held to very, very, very low densities.
I'm an urbanist who had my property down-zoned against my wishes, and this is merely my tainted opinion about the realities of Tulsa. Most Tulsans (and many on this forum) would be very quick to disagree with me, I'm sure.
It sounds like the consensus and lesson learned from this thread is that land use, infill, zoning et.al. issues, need to be addressed before, or at least along with, any serious discussion of commuter rail.
Land use needs to be discussed along with any type of meaningful mass transit system, not only commuter rail.
The phrases "light rail" and "passenger rail" were mentioned in the Complete Our Streets Advisory Council (COSAC) report. I did a quick search for "commuter rail" and didn't find anything in any of the committee reports. That doesn't mean much because I could have missed it or the COSAC could have meant "passenger rail" to include commuter rail. Also, I'm not certain which type of system Michael Bates thought that COSAC would be wanting to finance with public funding.
But whatever system is to be considered, we need to look at the big picture of land use before we get too specific about even a single commuter "starter" line between Tulsa and BA. A starter line implies more will be built. Someone might have a very clear vision of what that means, but most of us don't.
quote:
Originally posted by Oil Capital
But there is plenty of affordable housing here in midtown Tulsa.
No, there is not. Prove otherwise. Try MAKING a case for once. Bet you can't do it.
quote:
Originally posted by Chicken Little
quote:
Originally posted by Oil Capital
But there is plenty of affordable housing here in midtown Tulsa.
No, there is not. Prove otherwise. Try MAKING a case for once. Bet you can't do it.
Oh, please. Go to Realtor.com put in a zip code and a price range. Could not be easier.
Look, all I'm trying to say on this immediate subject, is that, logically, it seems to me that people who have chosen to live their lives in Bixby, Jenks, Broken Arrow or Owasso and have chosen the totally suburban lifestyle, do not strike me as the best or most likely target market for a dense, urbanish housing development next to a commuter rail station. It seems to me that the most likely target market is those people who have chosen to live in the relatively more urban areas of midtown Tulsa. Tell me where I am going wrong in my logic?
Likewise with 20-somethings. The target market for dense urbanish housing near a commuter rail stop is going to be the relatively affluent college graduate professional types. When those types of people currently move to the Tulsa metro (particularly those who are likely to desire life in a TOD) where do you suppose the would choose to live, in the absence of such a TOD? It seems logical to me that those types of people would not choose a garden apartment in Bixby, but are far more likely to choose something in Midtown.
Again, what am I missing? Where is my logic wrong?
No doubt some marginal number of any theoretical TOD housing units will be taking be displacing some suburban demand, but it seems logically unavoidable that the bulk of it will be displacing other midtown Tulsa demand.
Here I did a quick search for you. 81 properties less than $250,000 in zip code 74104 alone. That covers a pretty small piece of midtown.
http://www.realtor.com/options/interimsearch.aspx?zp=74104&mxp=22&typ=7 (//%2274104%22)
quote:
Originally posted by Oil Capital
quote:
Originally posted by brunoflipper
quote:
Originally posted by Oil Capital
quote:
Originally posted by brunoflipper
quote:
Originally posted by Oil Capital
quote:
Originally posted by brunoflipper
quote:
Originally posted by Oil Capital
quote:
Originally posted by brunoflipper
quote:
Originally posted by Floyd
quote:
Originally posted by Oil Capital
So I take it your answer is "no".
For the record, here is what you said: "I could see that these neighbourhoods would act as a draw for people to move to Tulsa and they would also help retain people who may have left when they graduated."
I thought perhaps you had some knowledge or had seen a study that showed that such developments in other cities have had such effects.
But apparently not.
So having no evidence of that phenomenon having ever occurred in other cities, why should we believe it would occur here.
More importantly, it is foolhardy to make transportation decisions based on such hopes, dreams,and fantasies, rather than on actual facts, evidence and history.
You are insisting on the production of studies that you know don't exist in order to derail (heh) the argument. This treads awfully close to what we in the lawyerly domain call "horse****."
Look, there is a correlation between certain cities currently experiencing a renaissance in the core--Dallas and Denver, specifically--and those cities committing to rail transit.
There are three possibilities: 1) the development and population renaissance causes this rail transit; 2) rail transit causes the renaissance; or 3) both are the result of a hidden third cause.
I think that third cause is a commitment by city leaders (political and business) to core growth. Tulsa doesn't have that, at least not in any kind of critical mass. We can jump start it by making investments: development incentives, smart zoning, and complementary public infrastructure (yes, including rail transit).
Why bother? Two reasons, both of which go to the heart of the existence of this forum. First, a recognition that endless sprawl leads to endless waste--we are conservatives are heart and hate to see where this all will lead. Second, and more importantly, is an emotional commitment to the heart of Tulsa. We either grew up here or made it our adopted home, and we're generally in favor of smart investments by the city to maintain or increase the vitality of the core.
So, to the point: you may not think a $40 million investment in rail transit along the BA corridor will be complementary of other growth efforts. I do. That's my last word.
Cheers.
oh, c'mon... you can't tell he's a lawyer too... i mean shoit, he rips on si and his/her info when this is exactly what si does for a living? has to be a scumbag lawyer...
So he "does it for a living".... That means that anything he says in anyway connected to light rail is sacrosanct and unchallengeable? Don Himmelfarb apparently does "economic development" for a living. I guess we should never second-guess him either, eh? good logic there.
no... it just means you should be a little less snarky when insinuating that he someone has no ****ing clue...
i appreciate the discourse but historically, you've made no bones about not liking tulsa and that it does not suit your lifestyle... and you've fruitlessly pursued a relo to points south... so pardon me, if you come off as a concern troll...
Coming from the king of snark, that's pretty rich. Historically, I have indeed NOT made any bones about not liking Tulsa. There is plenty I like about Tulsa. I have a great life here. But it would take an amazing amount of delusion to not see how badly Tulsa's (and Tulsa County's) governments have been performing over the past decade + You know so much less than you pretend. So we met many years ago. People do acclimate to their homes and actually change over time. Well, some people do...
If I didn't care about Tulsa I would not give a rat's behind about how dishonest the leadership is or how foolish their proposals have been.
How about joining in the discussion for once instead of your persistent personal attacks?
you may not have ripped on tulsa so directly here but perhaps in other forums or maybe the real world?
so now you love it here? great, good for you...
"...persistent personal attacks?" save the drama, the only time i resort to those tactics are to raise the dander of psuedo-intellects or to out concern trolls who play the part of the worried citizenry...
just put it out there, make your case, plain and simple- "none of this will ever work here/you'll never get that many people to move here because this is tulsa and tulsa sucks."
i join the discussion when i feel it is productive or simply entertaining... bickering with a wannabe-houstonian concern troll is neither...
So why do you insist on doing it? If you have an issue with ANY facts I've presented or statements I've made, have at it. Tell me where I'm wrong. Show me evidence that I'm wrong. Isn't that what these discussion boards are for? I don't know what your problem is, man. Are your feelings that hurt that I don't remember you? ;-)
What is with you and Rufnex that rarely can either of you challenge anyone's factual presentations or opinions without going ballistically personal? (and don't be pretending it's just me... we all saw your ridiculous ad hominem attack on Bates earlier in this thread.)
Actually, that gives you and Rufnex a bit too much credit. I implied that you challenge facts and opinions. Too often, neither of you even bothers with that little detail. Just go straight for the ad hominems.
ok, you got me now i'm in this just because its entertaining...
how many times did i post in this thread? 9 and because reading for comprehension seems to be a deficit i'll summarize them-
post 1: bates is a dude, we fix transit, and we'll get development around it. bates he looks like a guy i saw on TV last night (it was a ****ing joke)
post 2: rail down "every arterial"? bates is nuts for making these comments because it is patently absurd.
we should make this our focus.
post 3: OT- blackjack discussion
post 4: chicken train picture
post 5: let's get a comp plan that addresses development and transit
post 6: bates- "every arterial", "how far you'd have to walk," "colossal waste of money, just as it has been for most American cities" all scare tactics or delusions
post 7: thumbs up
post 8: furious that you'd still dismiss someones fund of knowledge despite them demonstrating they may indeed have more knowledge about a topic than you... yes, scumbag lawyer- only considered to be an ad hominem by lawyers; repetitious? true enough
post 9: you used to say how much you hate it here... concern troll...
post 10: concern troll...
how many times did i make a personal attack against you in an attempt to discredit your (not bates') logic (which is an ad hominem otherwise they're just insults and not part of the argument)? 0
get it through your head- because of your prior comments (tulsa is hell) i'll never be convinced that you'll ever be well intentioned in any discussion regarding this town... so feel free to put me on ignore and i'll do the same...
get over yourself, sweetie... we've never met... you're just not careful...
now im done, i'll leave you with the last word.
When did I say "Tulsa is hell"? When exactly did I post those words?
Oh and pardon me for accusing you merely of ad hominems. I left out the personal insults. You are truly a model forum member.
I'm sorry I don't post enough happy-talk to make you believe I'm a real Tulsan. I'll try to be more boosterish.
not when but where you said it.
ever begged for any jobs online?
ever *****ed about tulsa being backwards and unaccepting? cried much about not getting your perfered job? bemoned the fact that you were unable to get out of here?
so ****ing pardon me for thinking your a concern troll... pair that with your post over the past couple of years and the points form a line and equal trend...
so now your a happy tulsan... thanks for showing me the light... im sorry for thinking otherwise...
for the record, while i
feel a real mass transit plan is ket to our city, i do not
know it and thus, made no attempt to prove it... and left it to you, cl, si to wrangle with...
i pointed out how hysterical some of bates points were and highlighted the fact that in the midst of your debate with si how appropriate it was that you resorted to (im paraphrasing here) "you dont know what your talking about" argument and when he showed that he/she might know a thing or two about transit, you used the (again, paraphrasing) "well then, your no good at it"...
quote:
Originally posted by brunoflipper
quote:
Originally posted by Oil Capital
quote:
Originally posted by brunoflipper
quote:
Originally posted by Oil Capital
quote:
Originally posted by brunoflipper
quote:
Originally posted by Oil Capital
quote:
Originally posted by brunoflipper
quote:
Originally posted by Oil Capital
quote:
Originally posted by brunoflipper
quote:
Originally posted by Floyd
quote:
Originally posted by Oil Capital
So I take it your answer is "no".
For the record, here is what you said: "I could see that these neighbourhoods would act as a draw for people to move to Tulsa and they would also help retain people who may have left when they graduated."
I thought perhaps you had some knowledge or had seen a study that showed that such developments in other cities have had such effects.
But apparently not.
So having no evidence of that phenomenon having ever occurred in other cities, why should we believe it would occur here.
More importantly, it is foolhardy to make transportation decisions based on such hopes, dreams,and fantasies, rather than on actual facts, evidence and history.
You are insisting on the production of studies that you know don't exist in order to derail (heh) the argument. This treads awfully close to what we in the lawyerly domain call "horse****."
Look, there is a correlation between certain cities currently experiencing a renaissance in the core--Dallas and Denver, specifically--and those cities committing to rail transit.
There are three possibilities: 1) the development and population renaissance causes this rail transit; 2) rail transit causes the renaissance; or 3) both are the result of a hidden third cause.
I think that third cause is a commitment by city leaders (political and business) to core growth. Tulsa doesn't have that, at least not in any kind of critical mass. We can jump start it by making investments: development incentives, smart zoning, and complementary public infrastructure (yes, including rail transit).
Why bother? Two reasons, both of which go to the heart of the existence of this forum. First, a recognition that endless sprawl leads to endless waste--we are conservatives are heart and hate to see where this all will lead. Second, and more importantly, is an emotional commitment to the heart of Tulsa. We either grew up here or made it our adopted home, and we're generally in favor of smart investments by the city to maintain or increase the vitality of the core.
So, to the point: you may not think a $40 million investment in rail transit along the BA corridor will be complementary of other growth efforts. I do. That's my last word.
Cheers.
oh, c'mon... you can't tell he's a lawyer too... i mean shoit, he rips on si and his/her info when this is exactly what si does for a living? has to be a scumbag lawyer...
So he "does it for a living".... That means that anything he says in anyway connected to light rail is sacrosanct and unchallengeable? Don Himmelfarb apparently does "economic development" for a living. I guess we should never second-guess him either, eh? good logic there.
no... it just means you should be a little less snarky when insinuating that he someone has no ****ing clue...
i appreciate the discourse but historically, you've made no bones about not liking tulsa and that it does not suit your lifestyle... and you've fruitlessly pursued a relo to points south... so pardon me, if you come off as a concern troll...
Coming from the king of snark, that's pretty rich. Historically, I have indeed NOT made any bones about not liking Tulsa. There is plenty I like about Tulsa. I have a great life here. But it would take an amazing amount of delusion to not see how badly Tulsa's (and Tulsa County's) governments have been performing over the past decade + You know so much less than you pretend. So we met many years ago. People do acclimate to their homes and actually change over time. Well, some people do...
If I didn't care about Tulsa I would not give a rat's behind about how dishonest the leadership is or how foolish their proposals have been.
How about joining in the discussion for once instead of your persistent personal attacks?
you may not have ripped on tulsa so directly here but perhaps in other forums or maybe the real world?
so now you love it here? great, good for you...
"...persistent personal attacks?" save the drama, the only time i resort to those tactics are to raise the dander of psuedo-intellects or to out concern trolls who play the part of the worried citizenry...
just put it out there, make your case, plain and simple- "none of this will ever work here/you'll never get that many people to move here because this is tulsa and tulsa sucks."
i join the discussion when i feel it is productive or simply entertaining... bickering with a wannabe-houstonian concern troll is neither...
So why do you insist on doing it? If you have an issue with ANY facts I've presented or statements I've made, have at it. Tell me where I'm wrong. Show me evidence that I'm wrong. Isn't that what these discussion boards are for? I don't know what your problem is, man. Are your feelings that hurt that I don't remember you? ;-)
What is with you and Rufnex that rarely can either of you challenge anyone's factual presentations or opinions without going ballistically personal? (and don't be pretending it's just me... we all saw your ridiculous ad hominem attack on Bates earlier in this thread.)
Actually, that gives you and Rufnex a bit too much credit. I implied that you challenge facts and opinions. Too often, neither of you even bothers with that little detail. Just go straight for the ad hominems.
ok, you got me now i'm in this just because its entertaining...
how many times did i post in this thread? 9 and because reading for comprehension seems to be a deficit i'll summarize them-
post 1: bates is a dude, we fix transit, and we'll get development around it. bates he looks like a guy i saw on TV last night (it was a ****ing joke)
post 2: rail down "every arterial"? bates is nuts for making these comments because it is patently absurd.
we should make this our focus.
post 3: OT- blackjack discussion
post 4: chicken train picture
post 5: let's get a comp plan that addresses development and transit
post 6: bates- "every arterial", "how far you'd have to walk," "colossal waste of money, just as it has been for most American cities" all scare tactics or delusions
post 7: thumbs up
post 8: furious that you'd still dismiss someones fund of knowledge despite them demonstrating they may indeed have more knowledge about a topic than you... yes, scumbag lawyer- only considered to be an ad hominem by lawyers; repetitious? true enough
post 9: you used to say how much you hate it here... concern troll...
post 10: concern troll...
how many times did i make a personal attack against you in an attempt to discredit your (not bates') logic (which is an ad hominem otherwise they're just insults and not part of the argument)? 0
get it through your head- because of your prior comments (tulsa is hell) i'll never be convinced that you'll ever be well intentioned in any discussion regarding this town... so feel free to put me on ignore and i'll do the same...
get over yourself, sweetie... we've never met... you're just not careful...
now im done, i'll leave you with the last word.
When did I say "Tulsa is hell"? When exactly did I post those words?
Oh and pardon me for accusing you merely of ad hominems. I left out the personal insults. You are truly a model forum member.
I'm sorry I don't post enough happy-talk to make you believe I'm a real Tulsan. I'll try to be more boosterish.
not when but where you said it.
ever begged for any jobs online?
ever *****ed about tulsa being backwards and unaccepting? cried much about not getting your perfered job? bemoned the fact that you were unable to get out of here?
so ****ing pardon me for thinking your a concern troll... pair that with your post over the past couple of years and the points form a line and equal trend...
so now your a happy tulsan... thanks for showing me the light... im sorry for thinking otherwise...
for the record, while i feel a real mass transit plan is ket to our city, i do not know it and thus, made no attempt to prove it... and left it to you, cl, si to wrangle with...
i pointed out how hysterical some of bates points were and highlighted the fact that in the midst of your debate with si how appropriate it was that you resorted to (im paraphrasing here) "you dont know what your talking about" argument and when he showed that he/she might know a thing or two about transit, you used the (again, paraphrasing) "well then, your no good at it"...
I truly have no idea what or who you are talking about. Your imagination has run wild again.
I look forward to any thoughts you might have on a discussion topic some day. Or logical criticism of an opinion. Or demonstration of incorrectness. Anything at all other than ad hominems and personal insults.
of course you don't, i'll keep it in mind...
quote:
Originally posted by brunoflipper
of course you don't, i'll keep it in mind...
But more to the point. So What? Even if what you say about me were true? Even if I hated everything about Tulsa. Even if I was motivated by some deeply-ingrained hatred for everything about northeast Oklahoma. So What? How does any of that affect the truth or untruth of anything I post?
Why the constant personal bashing and questioning of motivations? What possible difference could any of that make? Attack my ideas. Attack my facts. Attack my logic. But leave my person out of it (and other persons as well; as we all know, I'm not the only target of your personal vitriol.)
This transit thread has gone off-track and seems to have left sensible discussion back at the station.
We are locking it.
Feel free to start another thread to discuss transit options for Tulsa.