(http://bp3.blogger.com/_nrQIZWiohKk/R5oIeqx9fYI/AAAAAAAAABc/ghn5yOWM9CY/S760/railbanner.jpg)
Hello TulsaNow-ers...
I mentioned awhile back that there would be opportunities to begin a community dialogue about Transit and how it fits in Tulsa's future. Well, that time is upon us. INCOG, along with the Federal Transit Administration, TulsaNow, PlaniTulsa, and TYPros is "co-sponsoring" an open house on April 24th at Union Depot (Jazz Hall of Fame) for this purpose. We have invited luminaries and representatives from communities around the country to come to Tulsa to talk about their experiences with planning and implementing comprehensive transit systems, including rail: what they did right, what they would do differently, how it has affected their communities in terms of growth and investment, and how public, grassroots advocacy influenced policy decisions along the way.
The point of this symposium is not to reveal any grand plan for Tulsa, but to begin a healthy, public dialogue on the subject.
We have launched a blog to keep you updated on the details. As our invited speakers firm up their travel plans we will be announcing specifically who will participate in this panel discussion. As of now we have several representatives from Denver, Austin, the Federal Transit Administration. We anticipate adding to this list, and will keep you updated.
Stay updated at:
http://www.whataboutrail.blogspot.com/
Be sure to let your friends and family know about the event, and to bring their thinking caps with them.
P.S. Our panelists will be taking questions at the event which will be moderated by Rich Fisher of Studio Tulsa. We are trying to figure out a way that people can send in questions in advance of the event via the website. So if something comes to mind, write it down so you don't forget.
Hope you are as excited as we are about having this community-wide discussion.
Patrick Fox
Multi-Modal Transportation Planner
INCOG
What about just filling up the buses first? [:(!]
quote:
Originally posted by tulsasignnazi
What about just filling up the buses first? [:(!]
A worthy question, Paul. Worthy of discussion. How do you propose that happen?
In fact...you should bring it up at the event.
If government owned the auto industry like it owns transit, the car of choice would be the Yugo, available in ONE color, puke green. The engine starts only on Sundays, after church.
DE-Regulate Transit. Divest Tulsa Transit. Auction Curb Rights.
Curb Rights: A Foundation for Free Enterprise in Urban Transit. (//%22http://www.amazon.com/Curb-Rights-Foundation-Enterprise-Transit/dp/0815749392%22)
Contemporary American Rail: Transportainment built on the backs of old ladies on fixed incomes to address the basic transportation needs of NO one.
Everything You Ever Wanted to Know About EVERYTHING wrong with L.A. Rail, But Were Afraid to Ask. (//%22http://losangelesbus.blogspot.com/%22)
This will be a terrific opportunity to come learn about the many different transit technologies available today. It's obvious that not all transit is created equal. In considering the potential for mass transit in Tulsa, I hope that people will take the time to come and listen with an open mind BEFORE forming their opinions.
By the way, comparing Tulsa to L.A. is funny, uncommon, and not that useful.
Across the board comparisons of Tulsa to L.A. might be silly, but I've lived in both places and one thing that the two cities have in common is an overwhelming fascination with cars and with driving. The cities are both designed in such a way that cars are necessary and that rail is difficult.
Of all of the large cities in which I've lived or visited, I can't think of one that beats Tulsa and L.A. in car reliance.
I'm not an expert, but it seems to me that one of our biggest issues in implementing viable public transit is a psychological one. How to we get car-reliant people to hang up the keys, especially if the implementation of public transit also means more walking (which it does)?
I'm fascinated by this topic and will be at the meeting. I'd love to see public rail and will support its pursuit.
... won't be able to make it but...
whatever happened to the Megabus idea?
There are THREE obvious glaring challenges with commuter rail for Tulsa:
1) Oklahoma is a DONOR state. That means YOU pay more in federal taxes to the national transportation program than you get back in infrastructure funding.
2) Congress has been cutting into the federal subsidies for transit for years. Sure, we ALWAYS have enough money for widening I-44. But, for a small fraction of the price, we could have cut bus headways in HALF.
3) NO member of Congress from Oklahoma has EVER earmarked for urban commuter transit, ANYWHERE in the State.
Although I won't be attending, I really care about transit. The more people on buses, the less cars on the road. More space for bikes.
The problem is comtemporary commuter rail cannibalized ridership from buses, which are not even to capacity now.
Another random thought for Mr. Fox: If divesting Tulsa Transit, auctioning curb rights, and de-regulating transit is no easy proposition, what makes Tulsa commuter rail ANY easier?
By City Charter, the Office of the Mayor can sign an executive order liquidating Tulsa Transit assets. Would ANY Tulsa voter really care? I doubt it would even make page 16. The bus riding demographic, almost 100,000 Tulsans, 28% of the population (//%22http://www.cityoftulsa.org/cityservices/streets/CompleteOurStreets.asp%22) without access to personal motor vehicles, don't vote.
City Council can revise Tulsa Ordinances to de-regulate local transit and create the neccessary regulatory environment for Tulsa Trolley spawns to survive. As long as Tulsa Transit has NO profit motive to put more people on more buses, because of their government subsidy, transit is a FAILURE.
When businesses face money-losing, ineffective operations, they are 86'd. Something the Mayor and Bill Martinson understands well.
If Tulsa Transit can't even provide basic transportation for its own employees, bus drivers, and General Manager Bill Boatwright, why should the City subsidize Tulsa Transit when the voters are SCREAMING for street repairs?
Certainly, if Tulsa Transit is divested, there will be a vacuum. Amalgamated will be FURIOUS. But, guess what? If the regulatory environment is favorable, some genius like Blake will step in with Son of T-Town Trolley.
Compare to getting commuter rail in Tulsa, Making Tulsa bike-friendlier (//%22http://tulsanow.net/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=9584%22) is KID's play. Just get off yer FAT arse, and PEDAL. Works great for Santa.
I'd like to see Tulsa get a system of jogging and bike trails like Denver and Omaha has. In some cases people will be able to bike to work on the trails
quote:
Originally posted by sauerkraut
I'd like to see Tulsa get a system of jogging and bike trails like Denver and Omaha has. In some cases people will be able to bike to work on the trails
Between the existing trail system and the on-street route system, the Tulsa area is fairly easy to navigate. But eventually you have to leave the bike facility and ride on city streets. They're the best-kept secret of Tulsa cycling - the streets are relatively easy to ride on, particularly the 4 lane arterials. Just ride in the right-hand lane, leaving roughly 2/3 of the lane to your left and 1/3 to your right. Overtaking traffic will cross into the other lane to pass.
Here's a link to the INCOG trail page with a further link to their map:
http://www.incog.org/transportation/trails.htm (//%22http://www.incog.org/transportation/trails.htm%22)
Pat don't go away. That is not what they taught us in architecture at the University of Arkansas. (grin) Mort Karp will turn over in his resting place.
quote:
Originally posted by sauerkraut
I'd like to see Tulsa get a system of jogging and bike trails like Denver and Omaha has. In some cases people will be able to bike to work on the trails
Under BOTH Tulsa Ordinance and Oklahoma State Statute, EVERY street is a bike path. Every lane is a bike lane.
Tulsa has the world's ONLY biker bar. (//%22http://www.myspace.com/soundponylounge%22) Denver, Omaha, not even Portland can boast that.
Why whine, complain, and wait to be coddled by what Denver and Omaha has? YOU have the power NOW to make Tulsa bike-friendlier. (//%22http://www.tulsanow.net/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=9584%22)
Ask NOT for what Tulsa isn't and will NEVER be. Ask how YOU can be the change YOU want Tulsa to be.
This event will be an opportunity to address how all the pieces of the of the transit puzzle fit together. Rail is one component of the discussion, but it doesn't end there. Consideration for busses, bikes, pedestrians and, yes, even cars, must factor into any real mobility strategy.
The goal is to create a viable, comprehensive, user-friendly transit system that will benefit Tulsa both economically and environmentally, while increasing quality of life for all Tulsans.
TulsaNow has talked about sponsoring a forum such as this for several years. I hope everyone who has ever ridden public transit in other cities and said "Wouldn't it be great if we had this in Tulsa?" will show up and learn more!
quote:
Originally posted by PonderInc
This event will be an opportunity to address how all the pieces of the of the transit puzzle fit together. Rail is one component of the discussion, but it doesn't end there. Consideration for busses, bikes, pedestrians and, yes, even cars, must factor into any real mobility strategy.
The goal is to create a viable, comprehensive, user-friendly transit system that will benefit Tulsa both economically and environmentally, while increasing quality of life for all Tulsans.
TulsaNow has talked about sponsoring a forum such as this for several years. I hope everyone who has ever ridden public transit in other cities and said "Wouldn't it be great if we had this in Tulsa?" will show up and learn more!
Is monorail to be a part of the discussion? Vegas did an exhausting study on rapid transit systems prior to the installation of their monorail system. They concluded that in a fully developed and organized urban setting monorail was the easiest to install and operate. Would like to see it applied for Tulsa in the discussions.
quote:
Originally posted by PonderInc
This event will be an opportunity to address how all the pieces of the of the transit puzzle fit together. Rail is one component of the discussion, but it doesn't end there. Consideration for busses, bikes, pedestrians and, yes, even cars, must factor into any real mobility strategy.
The goal is to create a viable, comprehensive, user-friendly transit system that will benefit Tulsa both economically and environmentally, while increasing quality of life for all Tulsans.
TulsaNow has talked about sponsoring a forum such as this for several years. I hope everyone who has ever ridden public transit in other cities and said "Wouldn't it be great if we had this in Tulsa?" will show up and learn more!
And density, I hope. Bates still thinks (//%22http://www.batesline.com/archives/2008/04/riding-out-of-town-on-a-rail.html%22) rail is a boondoggle, but his argument against it is narrow, i.e., that Tulsa does not currently have the density to support rail.
I find this ironic. For one, he claims to be a champion of walkability, livable neighborhoods, and managing finite resources. It's painfully obvious, at least to me, that Tulsa is out-of-balance. We create low-density development that offers little of none of this, and it's unsustainable to boot. And then we are nervy enough to ask why we can't sustain it.
To that I say, "Duh!" In order to acheive the principled and lofty goals that Bates supports, we need to look at building at more efficient and sustainable densities. This then ipso facto demonstrates that we have, or should be working towards, densities that support trains.
And second, Bates does not seem to understand that density and fixed rail routes are mutually supportive objectives. With one comes the other. Conversely, it's hard to deliver one without committing to the other.
quote:
Originally posted by Chicken Little
quote:
Originally posted by PonderInc
This event will be an opportunity to address how all the pieces of the of the transit puzzle fit together. Rail is one component of the discussion, but it doesn't end there. Consideration for busses, bikes, pedestrians and, yes, even cars, must factor into any real mobility strategy.
The goal is to create a viable, comprehensive, user-friendly transit system that will benefit Tulsa both economically and environmentally, while increasing quality of life for all Tulsans.
TulsaNow has talked about sponsoring a forum such as this for several years. I hope everyone who has ever ridden public transit in other cities and said "Wouldn't it be great if we had this in Tulsa?" will show up and learn more!
And density, I hope. Bates still thinks (//%22http://www.batesline.com/archives/2008/04/riding-out-of-town-on-a-rail.html%22) rail is a boondoggle, but his argument against it is narrow, i.e., that Tulsa does not currently have the density to support rail.
I find this ironic. For one, he claims to be a champion of walkability, livable neighborhoods, and managing finite resources. It's painfully obvious, at least to me, that Tulsa is out-of-balance. We create low-density development that offers little of none of this, and it's unsustainable to boot. And then we are nervy enough to ask why we can't sustain it.
To that I say, "Duh!" In order to acheive the principled and lofty goals that Bates supports, we need to look at building at more efficient and sustainable densities. This then ipso facto demonstrates that we have, or should be working towards, densities that support trains.
And second, Bates does not seem to understand that density and fixed rail routes are mutually supportive objectives. With one comes the other. Conversely, it's hard to deliver one without committing to the other.
Some good points Chickenlittle, but wouldn't you agree that with suburban sprawl the densities you are talking about will remain non-existent. It rather seems that we will have to artificially create those densities by having mass boarding locations. That is, you get up in the morning in your suburban home and drive to a central remote location to board a train. But, then again, as you suggested, where in the heck will the trains go that would require such conveyances?
When you have employers scattered all over town it seems a mass transportation system such as a train would be out of place and inefficient. But, that was one of your points.
Since he has lived somewhere much denser than Tulsa is, I think Michael Bates has a good understanding of density and mass transportation. I also think many or most Tulsans enjoy low densities, hence the RE and RS zoning districts. It's fairly easy to drive around Tulsa, and that's why so many people do.
Rail transit doesn't make much sense in Tulsa's current milieu.
I think it's funny that so many Tulsans think in terms of "I" all the time. How can "I" benefit from this? They fail to see the forest through the trees because it's all about THEM and their immediate NEEDS.
Mass transit gets MASSES to POINTS of destinations and interest. Tulsans have a hard time with this concept because they aren't used to having DESTINATIONS. I think where many are missing the large point is, it's about getting big groups in and out with as much convience and less congestion as possible. I would gladly hang up the keys and spend an evening in Jenks followed by a concert in Downtown to be able to have an adult evening out on the town without stress and hassle.
MASS transit of any type doesn't make much sense in Tulsa's current milieu, especially rail transit. Most Tulsans, individually and collectively, prefer low density suburban type development. Viable mass transit requires higher urban densities which many or most Tulsans are not willing to accept.
I may actually take the invitation to attend to learn more.
The biggest problem against it is the backlog of existing maintenance badly needed for our most prevalent form of transportation in the area. I was listening to a snippet on KRMG or KTOK this afternoon, and Oklahoma is in peril of losing something like $127mm in road funding if we don't meet 3% growth objectives (okay that's where they lost me).
The struggle in making this fly is that Tulsa has sprawled square mile after square mile. Urban density in older cities makes it far more viable and practical.
I'm not pissing all over your parade again Patrick, at least I'm willing to listen with an open mind.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
I may actually take the invitation to attend to learn more.
The biggest problem against it is the backlog of existing maintenance badly needed for our most prevalent form of transportation in the area. I was listening to a snippet on KRMG or KTOK this afternoon, and Oklahoma is in peril of losing something like $127mm in road funding if we don't meet 3% growth objectives (okay that's where they lost me).
The struggle in making this fly is that Tulsa has sprawled square mile after square mile. Urban density in older cities makes it far more viable and practical.
I'm not pissing all over your parade again Patrick, at least I'm willing to listen with an open mind.
Agreed..
I'm thinking the way to make this work is to start small. The BA or Jenks line is a huge investment. They didn't start the new trolley service connecting Bass Pro to downtown, so why should a train have to build the longest possible line first?
Tulsa is reaching the limits to which it can reasonably expand it's roadways and highways. We have to think alternatives. If we start small, density will start building up around the line. Who wouldn't want to walk from their door to a train that takes them to work?
Citizen and Boo,
I think that you two, like Bates, may have a somewhat constricted view of Tulsa, in terms of geography, time, and the people who live here.
Tulsa, as with every city, changes over time. To take a snapshot of Tulsa today and imply that Tulsa is done, complete, or otherwise "built-out" is not realistic. Be assured that Tulsa will continue to evolve through opportunity and necessity. In the words of Heraclitus, "Change alone is unchanging". With this in mind, you should ask yourselves if we can shape a better future through thoughtful contemplation. Can we plan and coordinate this change to our mutual benefit?
And, while I tend to agree that parts of midtown and south Tulsa are fairly stable, that is only a fraction of our city. There are areas in North, West, and East Tulsa that are ready for change. Further, I'd argue the people that live there are willing to contemplate that change. As for trains, I'd ask you to study a google map and look at the existing tracks. It may surprise you to learn that the track run in North, West, and East Tulsa...not midtown and south Tulsa.
Finally, saying Tulsans prefer low-density development is an artificial construct. In some ways it's like claiming that Americans preferred Henry Ford's black model T's. If that is the only thing that is offered, you can certainly draw that conclusion...but it's not exactly accurate to do so. If Tulsans are presented with a real choice, i.e., that low densities have higher maintenance costs and, necessarily, higher taxes, what would they say then?
Change is possible and, in fact, inevetible. To throw your hands in the air and say things like trains are not worth contemplating is not only fatalistic, it's unrealistic.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
I may actually take the invitation to attend to learn more.
The biggest problem against it is the backlog of existing maintenance badly needed for our most prevalent form of transportation in the area. I was listening to a snippet on KRMG or KTOK this afternoon, and Oklahoma is in peril of losing something like $127mm in road funding if we don't meet 3% growth objectives (okay that's where they lost me).
The struggle in making this fly is that Tulsa has sprawled square mile after square mile. Urban density in older cities makes it far more viable and practical.
I'm not pissing all over your parade again Patrick, at least I'm willing to listen with an open mind.
Hey...that's all we ask! Come, listen, contribute, discuss.
My research indicates that, increasingly, existing density has little to do with the success of mass transit. Tulsa has absolutely grown with the automobile in mind, but that being said, we certainly haven't grown to the point of 'no return' so to speak. Comparing a mature transit system like the 'T' in Boston to what a new system in Tulsa would be like on opening day is unfair. I think about transit in regards to how our city should "grow" in the future. Future needs, not current need should be driving our transportation decisions. That is how Dallas and Atlanta an Houston got into the trouble they are in. They lost control of their traffic long before they ever started a serious mass transit system, because they only dealt with what was right in front of their faces. So they built more and more roads and expressways, and it only made their traffic problem worse. For once, we in Tulsa want to be proactive. I hope we don't wait until we "need" it. That would be the shame.
But that is why we are going to talk about this...together.
Here's a TENTATIVE list of the panelists we expect to have for the evening session (open to the public):
Jack Crowley, Special Advisor to Mayor Taylor on Urban Planning;
Cal Marsella, Executive Director of the Denver Regional Transportation District, which oversees the light rail, commuter rail, bus rapid transit, and park & ride systems for Denver;
John Cowman, Mayor of Leander, TX, a city that implemented smart codes along with a transit-oriented development district to connect to Austin on the Capital MetroRail line;
Kelly Nordini, co-founder of the Denver Transit Alliance, a non-profit coalition of 42 business associations, citizen groups, and local governments promoting expanded rail and bus transit in the Denver Metro region;
Fregonese Associates, the Portland, OR consulting firm chosen to help Tulsa formulate its new Comprehensive Plan.
Rail and other forms of mass transit are worth consideration.
Change is bound to happen.
There's a trend to down-zone for less density in central Tulsa, not increased density.
PreserveMidtown has been promoting a Neighborhood Conservation District ordinance. For the most part, the purpose of NCDs would be to perpetuate non-sustainable low densities, not to promote denser sustainable infill.
Our elected officials, our appointed officials, and our land use policies reflect what Tulsans in general want to see, and that's low density.
I would encourage anyone with specific questions about various types of transit options to attend. (Light rail, commuter rail, monorail, bus rapid transit, etc, etc. Even using these "buzzwords" I think there are a lot of differences and distinctions to be made among each one.) Come enjoy this opportunity to learn!
One thing to consider, when talking about density, is to consider how transit oriented developments can create density (and increase the tax base).
I don't claim to be an expert, but here's one scenario I can imagine...
Imagine taking an underutilized space within the city limits, and connecting it via rail to vital services and venues downtown. Downtown Tulsa is a destination that includes both TCC and OSU-Tulsa, several major corporations, various dining and entertainment venues, the BOK arena, the PAC, OSU Medical Center, City of Tulsa government...and hopefully the Drillers, etc. (With more things coming in the future.)
Next remember that development follows transporation...currently this means roads before development, but....
If you connect the two places via fast, efficient rail...all of a sudden, there's a reason to build density in the underutilized space. You have just brought everything downtown has to offer to a remote location, and made it reliabe, quick and convenient to move between the two.
This way, you spur development on both ends of the line, and you attract the people who want to live car-free (for environmental, economic, or convenience reasons). It gives people a new option, a new choice: do I want to be in my car all the time, or is there a better way to spend my time?
Some people love their cars. Others don't. No problem. No need to change people. But, if you can offer a new, desireable choice, I think you'd be surprised at how many people will take you up on that offer.
One example: the needs of aging babyboomers (I love saying that: "aging babyboomers"!). These are people who soon won't need the big house, the big yard, and who might appreciate urban density and how it brings people together. (Not all retirees enjoy the isolation of suburban living.) Driving might become less appealing as they age due to vision problems. Or they might appreciate the health benefits of walking more and driving less. This is just one group of people that I could totally envision "jumping on" to the concept of Transit Oriented Development.
Again, I don't pretend to be an expert. I will be attending the forum to ask questions and learn. But I can imagine making Tulsa a more sustainable and livable city. I can see underutilized spaces, and imagine something better being built there.
It's important to question and ask "why?" and I appreciate everyone on this forum who engages in rational, civil debate. Skeptics are needed as much as optimists...but open minds are important. I hope everyone will attend with an open mind b/c closed minds can't receive the necessary input to make informed decisions.
I can imagine making Tulsa a more sustainable city, also. Increasing the density would be a good start. I gave the TMAPC and INCOG several suggestions on how to make Tulsa more sustainable and mass transit more viable. They weren't interested. They had their down-zoning plan to carry out in an effort to make central Tulsa less dense, not more so.
The trend is toward more sprawl and less density. Currently, there's no market for rail transit in Tulsa. There aren't enough people clustered near origins and destinations to make a rail system viable. This could change in the future, but it's unlikely unless our land use policies change.
quote:
Originally posted by JoeMommaBlake
Of all of the large cities in which I've lived or visited, I can't think of one that beats Tulsa and L.A. in car reliance.
I'm not an expert, but it seems to me that one of our biggest issues in implementing viable public transit is a psychological one. How to we get car-reliant people to hang up the keys, especially if the implementation of public transit also means more walking (which it does)?
L.A. probably has more transvestite prostitutes blatantly outraging public decency on Hollywood Blvd. But, their transportation DNA is the same as our prostitutes. It's not like the johns are picking up the 'ho's on bicycles.
Santa might SING NAKED 4 $1. But, he would NEVER allow a passenger on his bike, unless YOU pay.
quote:
Originally posted by booWorld
There's a trend to down-zone for less density in central Tulsa, not increased density.
That's midtown. And as I said, other parts of Tulsa see things differently. The Pearl District is asking for form-based codes, which, if I'm not mistaken, would
increase density. I suspect that they'd love to talk about trains in their neighborhood, too.
As I have said before, I think your notion of what and who Tulsa is is fairly constricted. Tulsa is over 200 square miles in size. I don't think you can talk about the 10 square miles that is midtown, or even the 50 square miles that comprises south Tulsa, and fairly draw conclusions about the what people want in the future. In the end, these places comprise about a third of the city, in area and population. The other two-thirds may have some very different ideas about the growth of their neighborhoods.
The counterintuitive part of this argument is that, if, say, you actually are a person in midtown that wants to be left alone, then your best strategy is to perhaps promote the h*ll out of sustainable growth in other parts of the city. In the long run, the efficient parts of town will subsidize your low-density lifestyle, keep your taxes low, etc. To remain conservative (small cee), you might need to embrace bold strategies, albeit not in your backyard. But to simply fight change everywhere, under any circumstance, is a strategy that ends in a death spiral, with B-B-billion dollar street projects every few years. Yikes!
There has been a trend to down-zone in central Tulsa neighborhoods to promote lower densities, not higher densities.
Midtown is mostly zoned for low densities already.
The Pearl District is planning on much higher densities, and yes, their neighborhood plan indicates an interest in a future rail stop. But residents of the Pearl District need and want to go where?
Rail transit could work, but who's going to pay for it? Who will benefit from it? Unless our settlement patterns change dramatically, most Tulsans won't live or work near a train station. Most existing train tracks run through low density areas zoned for industry.
Pop into Dallas sometime and I'll show you full rail lines in a city more dramatically sprawled than Tulsa will ever be.
You are letting your preconceived opinions blind you to what is possible. I don't know that Tulsa needs rail, or that it would be cost-effective. But I'm sure people would use it.
quote:
Originally posted by booWorld
There has been a trend to down-zone in central Tulsa neighborhoods to promote lower densities, not higher densities.
Midtown is mostly zoned for low densities already.
The Pearl District is planning on much higher densities, and yes, their neighborhood plan indicates an interest in a future rail stop. But residents of the Pearl District need and want to go where?
Rail transit could work, but who's going to pay for it? Who will benefit from it? Unless our settlement patterns change dramatically, most Tulsans won't live or work near a train station. Most existing train tracks run through low density areas zoned for industry.
I suspect that you are being intentionally obtuse. I've refuted your argument thoroughly...twice. MOST of Tulsa, and most Tulsans, could have a sustainable train system with transit-oriented development even if fussy midtown and south Tulsa reject the two-fold strategy of trains and development.
I'm sure people would use rail. But how many? And at what cost to those people who wouldn't or couldn't use rail?
Let's keep our minds open to the possibility that many Tulsans don't want to pay for a rail system and don't want to be in dense urban settings.
Remember that virtually everything we have now was planned: the streets, the railroads, the low density zoning. Someone must have wanted low densities.
quote:
Originally posted by Chicken Little
quote:
Originally posted by booWorld
There has been a trend to down-zone in central Tulsa neighborhoods to promote lower densities, not higher densities.
Midtown is mostly zoned for low densities already.
The Pearl District is planning on much higher densities, and yes, their neighborhood plan indicates an interest in a future rail stop. But residents of the Pearl District need and want to go where?
Rail transit could work, but who's going to pay for it? Who will benefit from it? Unless our settlement patterns change dramatically, most Tulsans won't live or work near a train station. Most existing train tracks run through low density areas zoned for industry.
I suspect that you are being intentionally obtuse. I've refuted your argument thoroughly...twice. MOST of Tulsa, and most Tulsans, could have a sustainable train system with transit-oriented development even if fussy midtown and south Tulsa reject the two-fold strategy of trains and development.
I don't think Boo is being obtuse, your view isn't necessarily the only correct one when it comes to development.
One of the attractions to living in the central plains is that single family housing is a lot more afforadable than in denser urban areas in the midwest or on the coasts. At least, that's always been attractive to me. I like not living on top of my neighbor and shouldn't be made to feel like a selfish SOB for wanting to live in single-family housing.
I don't think the cost of dirt has gotten high enough yet that all that many people care to live on top of each other in Tulsa yet like they do in other cities where the price of land is un-Godly high. That day may eventually come, considering all developable land between Tulsa and our neighboring cities is getting closer and closer to being swallowed up.
Inner city neighborhoods which have not been as well maintained, like the Pearl could be ripe for denser infill.
I'd tend to agree that putting the transportation infrastructure ahead of business and residential development districts would be a novel change for Tulsa. That is one of the things we have always suffered from. Traffic capacity of our roads has always seemed to lag by 10 to 20 years behind the demand.
My view of development is not necessarily the only correct one, either. I'm an urbanist, or at least I try to be in Tulsa's rather anti-urban environment. I purchased property within walking distance of the river and downtown. The apartments and the RM zoning in my neighborhood did not bother me, but they must have bothered some people at INCOG, because they pushed and pushed to have the allowed density of my property down-zoned by a factor of 11. I was satisfied with the allowed density as it was. INCOG wasn't. They thought I'd be better off with the lower density zoning. I tried to explain how higher density was required to sustain a mass transit system. That didn't matter to them. Their response was to push for the down-zoning of my property against my wishes.
"What about rail?" Is that what INCOG's asking now?
That's interesting. I remember when their question was, "What about down-zoning?" I let my thoughts be known, but INCOG had other ideas -- pre-conceived ideas about the answer to their question. I didn't approach the subject with a closed mind. They did.
INCOG got there way. My property was down-zoned against my wishes on an [8D]zone Alert! day. I walked to my home in defeat. My guess is that they all drove, individually, to theirs.
This is about the future -what the Tulsa area will be, not what it is now.
Any plan that is developed now won't come to fruition for quite some time.
Consider the price of gasoline and diesel when you evaluate transit.
The plug-in hybrid Chevrolet Volt is now expected to cost at least $40,000.
Plans for the future are based on the realities of the present. We won't be starting from scratch.
Consider the suburban mindset of the TMAPC and many Tulsans when evaluating transportation plans.
What about reality?
quote:
Originally posted by Chicken Little
quote:
Originally posted by booWorld
There has been a trend to down-zone in central Tulsa neighborhoods to promote lower densities, not higher densities.
Midtown is mostly zoned for low densities already.
The Pearl District is planning on much higher densities, and yes, their neighborhood plan indicates an interest in a future rail stop. But residents of the Pearl District need and want to go where?
Rail transit could work, but who's going to pay for it? Who will benefit from it? Unless our settlement patterns change dramatically, most Tulsans won't live or work near a train station. Most existing train tracks run through low density areas zoned for industry.
I suspect that you are being intentionally obtuse. I've refuted your argument thoroughly...twice. MOST of Tulsa, and most Tulsans, could have a sustainable train system with transit-oriented development even if fussy midtown and south Tulsa reject the two-fold strategy of trains and development.
And, you sir are obviously in return being selectively obtuse. You completely ignore basic planning facts related to rapid transit and density nodes. Choosing to ignore or put aside these basic planning facts you garner up all kinds of positions to support your flawed premise(s). It gets down to you debating just to debate with no clear objective in mind.
A rail system would not work in Tulsa to service the city limits of Tulsa. It might work to some degree when servicing surrounding communities, but then again they tried that years ago. It all became defunct.
quote:
Originally posted by citizen72
quote:
Originally posted by Chicken Little
quote:
Originally posted by booWorld
There has been a trend to down-zone in central Tulsa neighborhoods to promote lower densities, not higher densities.
Midtown is mostly zoned for low densities already.
The Pearl District is planning on much higher densities, and yes, their neighborhood plan indicates an interest in a future rail stop. But residents of the Pearl District need and want to go where?
Rail transit could work, but who's going to pay for it? Who will benefit from it? Unless our settlement patterns change dramatically, most Tulsans won't live or work near a train station. Most existing train tracks run through low density areas zoned for industry.
I suspect that you are being intentionally obtuse. I've refuted your argument thoroughly...twice. MOST of Tulsa, and most Tulsans, could have a sustainable train system with transit-oriented development even if fussy midtown and south Tulsa reject the two-fold strategy of trains and development.
And, you sir are obviously in return being selectively obtuse. You completely ignore basic planning facts related to rapid transit and density nodes. Choosing to ignore or put aside these basic planning facts you garner up all kinds of positions to support your flawed premise(s). It gets down to you debating just to debate with no clear objective in mind.
A rail system would not work in Tulsa to service the city limits of Tulsa. It might work to some degree when servicing surrounding communities, but then again they tried that years ago. It all became defunct.
Maybe Tulsa would be better suited to Personal Rapid Transit.
quote:
Originally posted by si_uk_lon_ok
Maybe Tulsa would be better suited to Personal Rapid Transit.
Oh, fo' shure! It's on TWO wheels and works great for Santa.
quote:
Originally posted by tulsasignnazi
quote:
Originally posted by si_uk_lon_ok
Maybe Tulsa would be better suited to Personal Rapid Transit.
Oh, fo' shure! It's on TWO wheels and works great for Santa.
Lol
Well thats one form of PRT. I think INCOG should get a PRT study done though before rushing into rail.
Tulsans just don't have it in them to think big. They want nice things but when it comes time to pay up, they look for every excuse to not go through with progress. Mass transit helps in many facets, one of the biggest being less wear and tear on the roads. Another, is it brings masses in to spend money and increase tax revenue, but Tulsans don't actually want something that will benefit them and improve the city's coffers. Why move forward when you can poo poo everything to death and save pennies for that rainy day? Those extra pennies sure will help you.
quote:
Tulsans just don't have it in them to think big.
That depends. In terms of required setbacks and minimum lot sizes, many Tulsans love to think big. Bigger is better.
In terms of allowed density, many Tulsans want to think small. They want lower densities.
quote:
Originally posted by booWorld
quote:
Tulsans just don't have it in them to think big.
That depends. In terms of required setbacks and minimum lot sizes, many Tulsans love to think big. Bigger is better.
In terms of allowed density, many Tulsans want to think small. They want lower densities.
How irrelevant.
Density is relevant to a healthy, public discussion about rail transit.
Many Tulsans enjoy low density development.
It quite simply distills to one basis planning consideration. "The defined infrastructure model of a given locale governs the conveyance for that given area." To try to artificially impose a system that does not satisfy the given locale or regional needs is inviting disaster and failure. We can talk about it until the sky is purple, but it will not alter the basic facts. Basic Urban Planning 101. Further, to say density plays no part in this is folly.
I'm not an expert. What I am is a guy who recognizes a bad argument. Bates says Tulsa, as it exists in this brief moment in time, does not have the density to support trains. So? Can't we change? Why shouldn't we study our options?
Bates accurately observes that Tulsa is mostly a sprawling and inefficient city. Whether we have trains or not, if development patterns stay the same, then we are going to continue to pay a steep price. Sprawl costs money: high taxes to maintain inordinate amounts of infrastructure; extra fuel to get from places that should be accessible through walking and mass transit; productivity lost behind the wheel; and even added health care costs for a society that walks too little and drives too much. It all adds up.
Citizen schools us, "The defined infrastructure model of a given locale governs the conveyance for that given area." That sounds awfully fatalistic...and static. Tulsa is different than it was 30 years ago. I remember. And it will be different again in another 30 years. Tulsa is constantly changing. So why shouldn't we be figuring out how to shape that change into something that is more efficient, and more sustainable? It's healthy, both for our city and its people. Nobody wants to gut every neighborhood, but there are plenty of places that, if given a choice, would love to change.
I'm not a frickin' ideologue, Conan. You don't have to feel guilty about sprawl as long as you recognize the choices and are willing to pay the premium without *****ing. If planning is figuring what we want and how to make it work, then I'm all for planning. If your game plan is to pay more, then I say that's a fine plan. But it probably isn't for everyone.
Problem is, Bates doesn't want to pay the premium and doesn't want us to study our options. He seems to want to throw spitballs at every idea that comes down the pike. That's his prerogative, of course. But, is that planning?
I looked at BatesLine.com (//%22http://www.batesline.com/archives/2008/04/riding-out-of-town-on-a-rail.html#comments%22) today. Michael Bates has posted information about the "What About RAIL?" open house on the 24th. He also posted links to Paul Weyrich's column supporting electric trolleys.
How many Tulsans have blogs, and of those, how many posted any reference at all to the "What About RAIL?" open house?
If I didn't want Tulsans to study their transit options, then I would not devote time and effort blogging about an open house inviting the public to begin a dialogue on the subject. That would not be logical.
I will be interested to hear peoples reactions to what Jack Crowley has to say. I was at a meeting with him a couple weeks ago. He said some things that made a lot of sense. He isnt talking about a BA to Tulsa rail or a Jenks to Tulsa rail. Dont remember what parts of the meeting I can talk about and cant, so I am not going to say anymore lol. Cant say what could be, but can say what wont be. There wont be any need to worry about "Mid Town elitists not wanting density" because the rail wont be near them either.
However the person who did talk about a future rail between Tulsa and BA, year 2035, did point out what its currently costing to finish widening I44, 320 million for 3 miles. Thats 100 mill a mile. If the BA corridor ever needs widening because of increased traffic flow... "Does anyone believe that it wont have increased traffic and will not need to be widened?" then widening 14 miles of the BA would easily cost a looooot more than a rail line would. That line is a long range plan but it is wise to have that plan in place so that during the time before the rail actually goes in place you can zone and plan for dense development around the station nodes. Also developers will be more likely to invest in those areas because they know that rail is an investment, and unlike bus routes which can be changed, the rail line isnt budging. The developer knows that city investment is staying there and enables him to more securely invest there. Yes there are people in this town who want to live in urban environments and use rail. And there will likely be more in the future as Tulsa evolves into a more urban city.
Here is another completely different notion.... Lets say you have a destination point, or more, a lot of people will be visiting for events or whatever. Say there isnt "enough parking". Say your thinking about building a parking garage. Cost easily 12 mill? Say you have a line already in place practically right next door to some of these destinations and also areas with looots of available parking. That right there could be a nice little incentive to utilize that rail, even if the rail line you would be using is only a mile long, rather than build the parking garage. You could also see other development go in around that rail line to utilize either end of it and the stops. Lets say that the city owned a good chunk of property at an end point. An area thats currently underdeveloped. Whatever is developed on that property, a hotel as one example, would have a tiny portion of its profits go to help maintain the rail investment. Once that area developes sufficiently you could extend the route a little bit further to the next area for development that also happens to be on the line. Incrementally expanding the line little by little.... Just a very vague notion. Hope I dont get killed. [8D]
Tulsa has had railroads for more than a century. But we haven't had passenger rail service for decades. The low demand for passenger rail service doesn't justify the expense.
How much will a rail system for Tulsa cost, and who will pay for it?
Who will benefit from a rail system and how?
Where will the stations be?
When will the trains run, and who will operate the rail system?
Who will set the fares, and how much will they be?
How many Tulsans will live or work within a 10 minute walk of a train station?
Well think monorail or a derivative of it and you will have a mass people mover that will fit into the infrastructure of Tulsa. Relatively cheap to build and by its nature can executed repeated stops servicing scattered density centers.
Think of it, a configuration that ties all the major density nodes together. Nodes that would include commercial as well as sports centers. Of course a logical extension would be to include other density centers such as the surrounding towns.
quote:
Originally posted by booWorld
I looked at BatesLine.com (//%22http://www.batesline.com/archives/2008/04/riding-out-of-town-on-a-rail.html#comments%22) today. Michael Bates has posted information about the "What About RAIL?" open house on the 24th. He also posted links to Paul Weyrich's column supporting electric trolleys.
How many Tulsans have blogs, and of those, how many posted any reference at all to the "What About RAIL?" open house?
If I didn't want Tulsans to study their transit options, then I would not devote time and effort blogging about an open house inviting the public to begin a dialogue on the subject. That would not be logical.
Oh, please. He's not encouraging anyone to go to the "What about Rail?" event, he's simply using the notice as a springboard for yet another post that tells us we'd rather drive.
In his January column, Bates said that light rail in Tulsa would be a colossal waste of money (//%22http://www.urbantulsa.com/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid%3A19173%22). He doesn't want us to "tie ourselves to the train tracks"
(heh.) and has said as much.
quote:
Originally posted by Chicken Little
quote:
Originally posted by booWorld
I looked at BatesLine.com (//%22http://www.batesline.com/archives/2008/04/riding-out-of-town-on-a-rail.html#comments%22) today. Michael Bates has posted information about the "What About RAIL?" open house on the 24th. He also posted links to Paul Weyrich's column supporting electric trolleys.
How many Tulsans have blogs, and of those, how many posted any reference at all to the "What About RAIL?" open house?
If I didn't want Tulsans to study their transit options, then I would not devote time and effort blogging about an open house inviting the public to begin a dialogue on the subject. That would not be logical.
Oh, please. He's not encouraging anyone to go to the "What about Rail?" event, he's simply using the notice as a springboard for yet another post that tells us we'd rather drive.
In his January column, Bates said that light rail in Tulsa would be a colossal waste of money (//%22http://www.urbantulsa.com/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid%3A19173%22). He doesn't want us to "tie ourselves to the train tracks" (heh.) and has said as much.
Didn't we have some massive thread going about that? I seem to remember the general conclusion was rail could work (although there was pages of chicken and egg arguments over should density come first or follow) and that Bates was peddling a poor quality transit system (Jitneys).
quote:
Problem is, Bates doesn't want to pay the premium and doesn't want us to study our options. He seems to want to throw spitballs at every idea that comes down the pike. That's his prerogative, of course. But, is that planning?
Neighborhood Conservation Districts?
Prop 1 on the ballot last week?
Prop 2 on the ballot last week?
Councilor Martinson's ideas for funding streets?
Annexation of the fairgrounds?
quote:
Oh, please. He's not encouraging anyone to go to the "What about Rail?" event, he's simply using the notice as a springboard for yet another post that tells us we'd rather drive.
Possibly correct. Possibly wrong.
Regardless, dissenting opinions ought to be allowed as part of an open, public dialogue.
I wonder how many local websites are read as much as BatesLine.com? Of those, how many made any mention at all of the "What About RAIL?" open house? How many posted opinions contrary to those of the website's owner, as Michael Bates did?
Bates is all about making a name for himself, he doesn't actually put Tulsa's best interest in mind and he's far from being an expert on city matters. I would consider Bates irrelevant to the discussion and more of a ruse to hide behind.
You all are talking past each other.
No one is proposing that Tulsa suddenly become encrusted with light rail lines going up and down each arterial, or that Tulsans are suddenly going to give up their cars.
The suggestion on the table is that Tulsans could benefit from one or two light rail/commuter rail lines.
There should be no questions that Tulsans should ride these lines. They get ridden--if you think they'll stay empty, you either haven't traveled to Dallas, Houston, Denver or Atlanta, or your are purposefully obscuring facts about "average Tulsans."
The real question is practicality and money. How feasible are multiple lines? How expensive would they be? How long would it take? Where would the first lines be? Would they be commuter-based or mostly in-town? That's what I hope would be addressed at these forums.
The question is not "to be or not to be," but how. You people are trying to make this into some sort of ideological question and it's impossible not to get frustrated.
Chicken Little,
As I've said before, I like using rail. I didn't have a car in college, and I depended on the MBTA's network of streetcars, subways, and buses, our fraternity's informal jitney service between the house and campus two miles away, and my own two feet to get around.
I didn't have a car for the summer I spent in Manila, either. Although they had a single rail line connecting the airport to downtown, it didn't go near the house or the campus. Instead, I depended on a network of privately owned buses and jeepneys to get me around.
Back then, I was navigating the public transport network on my own. I could easily tolerate walking a mile in whatever kind of weather between the subway station or bus stop and where I needed to go. Walking the two or three miles between home and campus or work, at a 4 mph clip, was always an option if I had to wait too long for a streetcar or a bus.
Now, a quarter of a century later as a dad with three kids, I can't hit 4 mph walking speed very often, particularly if I have to lug a 30 lb. two-year-old whose legs are tired. If I were to try to manage getting a family around town without a car, it would be crucial that every place I needed to go were within at most a quarter-mile of public transport.
I don't see the advocates of rail in Tulsa, such as yourself, addressing the practical issues I encountered as a public transport user.
You and others seem to be saying that the presence of commuter rail will eventually result in nodes of high-density, pedestrian-friendly, transit-oriented development that will make it possible for people to live most of their lives without a car. In the scenario you seem to propose, everything will be within easy walking distance of the stations, and you won't have to cross massive parking lots on foot to get between the street and the front door of a store.
What I don't hear from you is any attempt to explain how people, particularly families with small children, get from home to work to school to shopping to the doctor's office via public transport between now and when your glorious future is realized.
I want to know how you propose to make it convenient enough for people, particularly families with small children, to use public transport of any form to get where they need to go, convenient enough to forgo using their own cars.
I'd especially like to know, Chicken Little, whether you have any personal experience living without a car for more than a year.
I do not want to see Tulsa spend tens or hundreds of millions on a rail line with three trains a day before we explore more modest and practical ways of providing public transport to far more people.
Seems to work in Dallas. Most of the areas there also arent places where you can live without a car. What do the people who ride those lines do with their kids?
Again. What Tulsa will be talking about is a small starter line. Not something that will service all of Tulsa and that you will use to get to every single place you would want to go to. It would help in the creation of walkable districts, alleviating trips, help with the revitalization of severely underutilized areas within the city and encourage those areas to be redeveloped in a more urban manner.
We just had someone point out something very important. We dont want to build any more parking garages downtown. We want to have people walking. I pointed out earlier that a BA or Jenks line is not likely to happen anytime soon and they arent the first line that Tulsa will likely see. There are ways to get things started that wouldnt cost as much as people think.
Does anyone who went to the meeting with Jack Crowley remember what we can talk about pertaining to rail? If Bates would show up at TN meetings once in a while he would know whats going on rather than rattling on about stuff thats has no relation to whats being worked on. [:P]
Interesting article discussing light rail and monorail. There seems to be a wide diversity of positions.
light rail vs monorail (//%22http://www.mrl.ucsb.edu/~yopopov/rail_modes/monorail.html%5Burl=%22http://www.mrl.ucsb.edu/~yopopov/rail_modes/monorail.html%22)"]
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
I pointed out earlier that a BA or Jenks line is not likely to happen anytime soon and they arent the first line that Tulsa will likely see. There are ways to get things started that wouldnt cost as much as people think.
The Jenks and BA lines are the only ones that have been publicly discussed. It would be useful if folks in the know could throw out some other possibilities--I understand that this symposium may be where this occurs. But it would certainly help inform the public dialogue. From where I stand, those commuter lines make the most sense, and light rail from scratch makes the least. Enlighten me.
quote:
Originally posted by MichaelBates
I want to know how you propose to make it convenient enough for people, particularly families with small children, to use public transport of any form to get where they need to go, convenient enough to forgo using their own cars.
I'd especially like to know, Chicken Little, whether you have any personal experience living without a car for more than a year.
How to Move Around Small Kids in the Post-Fossil Fueled Tulsa, Without Really Trying (//%22http://www.tulsanow.net/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=9642%22):
(http://www.workcycles.com/workcycles-bakfietsen-images/bakfiets.nl-images/bakfiets.nl-cargobike-long-420.jpg)
(http://bikeguyswarehouse.com/images/library/large/burley_encore_usa_07_m.jpg)
How to Move Kids Around Town in a DOWNPOUR. (//%22http://www.flickr.com/photos/16nine/2403013350/%22)
quote:
Originally posted by MichaelBates
Chicken Little,
As I've said before, I like using rail. I didn't have a car in college, and I depended on the MBTA's network of streetcars, subways, and buses, our fraternity's informal jitney service between the house and campus two miles away, and my own two feet to get around.
I didn't have a car for the summer I spent in Manila, either. Although they had a single rail line connecting the airport to downtown, it didn't go near the house or the campus. Instead, I depended on a network of privately owned buses and jeepneys to get me around.
Back then, I was navigating the public transport network on my own. I could easily tolerate walking a mile in whatever kind of weather between the subway station or bus stop and where I needed to go. Walking the two or three miles between home and campus or work, at a 4 mph clip, was always an option if I had to wait too long for a streetcar or a bus.
Now, a quarter of a century later as a dad with three kids, I can't hit 4 mph walking speed very often, particularly if I have to lug a 30 lb. two-year-old whose legs are tired. If I were to try to manage getting a family around town without a car, it would be crucial that every place I needed to go were within at most a quarter-mile of public transport.
I don't see the advocates of rail in Tulsa, such as yourself, addressing the practical issues I encountered as a public transport user.
You and others seem to be saying that the presence of commuter rail will eventually result in nodes of high-density, pedestrian-friendly, transit-oriented development that will make it possible for people to live most of their lives without a car. In the scenario you seem to propose, everything will be within easy walking distance of the stations, and you won't have to cross massive parking lots on foot to get between the street and the front door of a store.
What I don't hear from you is any attempt to explain how people, particularly families with small children, get from home to work to school to shopping to the doctor's office via public transport between now and when your glorious future is realized.
I want to know how you propose to make it convenient enough for people, particularly families with small children, to use public transport of any form to get where they need to go, convenient enough to forgo using their own cars.
I'd especially like to know, Chicken Little, whether you have any personal experience living without a car for more than a year.
I do not want to see Tulsa spend tens or hundreds of millions on a rail line with three trains a day before we explore more modest and practical ways of providing public transport to far more people.
Michael, while I realize you directed that question to Chicken Little it was me and him that had the massive post on your last article in January about the ideas of Jitneys.
I've been very lucky to live somewhere where I don't need a car and have done so now for around six years. For some background, I live in a neighborhood near to both rail and a subway station with good bus links. The density of the neighborhood is around 37 dwelling units an acre. There are no garages and parking is horizontal to the street and there is a lot of free spaces. This neighborhood includes, due to its density, supermarkets, post offices, dentists, cafes, shops, schools, doctors, dry cleaners absolutely everything I need in the average day in a three minute walk. In my neighborhood lives a wide range of people young and old and they all get on with their lives absolutely fine. I think Michael you could happily live in my neighborhood and never use your car. Millions of people cope without a car everyday all around the world, I see no reason why Tulsans can't. Besides pt is in addition to the car anyway, it means people can become a two car family rather than three and four.
I think you are asking, please correct me if I'm wrong, how pt would work in a non mixed use environment. And you are right it would involve many trips, however in the mixed use neighborhood, you can drop the kids off at school on the way to work and go grocery shopping on the way home from the subway. It would all be very convenient.
I really think the issue with pt and Tulsa is, almost no one has a real experience of it. You included, you know how to ride it, but university is a rather unique time of our lives. People don't really get the benefits of density and mixed use as very few people really know what its like. This I think is one of the real barriers in this discussion. I think we need to raise awareness on what pt can be like and the benefits it can bring.
In my experience, I've noticed that kids who live in urban areas and children in rural areas are the ones who tire the least when it comes to walking. Its the suburban child who is ferried everywhere that wears out after a block.
I agree that a trainride would be difficult if I was lugging around young children to a stop each day. But I would ride one to work each day and would love to have a park and ride option for downtown events.
I am a neophyte on this topic and I hope to learn from both perspectives on this thread. I plan to attend the forum on the 24th.
I too worry about spending millions on a rail system that I would probably not use often, but if it spurred quality urban redevelopment, I would support it.
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
I too worry about spending millions on a rail system that I would probably not use often, but if it spurred quality urban redevelopment, I would support it.
Rail does NOT spur urban redevelopment. (//%22http://www.buckeyeinstitute.org/article/253%22) It does a great job of cannibalizing bus ridership.
quote:
...I live in a neighborhood near to both rail and a subway station with good bus links. The density of the neighborhood is around 37 dwelling units an acre...
Interesting. When I purchased my property near downtown Tulsa, it was already developed with a mixture of single-family and multi-family dwellings at a density of approximately 12 dwelling units per acre. My property was zoned for a maximum of 29.25 dwelling units per acre (without a PUD). INCOG decided that it needed to be re-zoned to a maximum allowable density of 2.66 dwelling units per acre by right, and 5.32 dwelling units per acre by special exception.
These kinds of low densities can't sustain a city with a viable mass transit system, but INCOG staff insisted on pushing the re-zoning of my property, even though I didn't request it.
What type of rail system are we talking about for Tulsa? How much will it cost? Where will the corridors be? Who will pay for it and how?
quote:
Originally posted by booWorld
What type of rail system are we talking about for Tulsa? How much will it cost? Where will the corridors be? Who will pay for it and how?
INCOG Manhattan Construction et al: How MUCH can we scam from taxpayers?
Tulsa motorists who VOTE: UP yours.
quote:
Originally posted by tulsasignnazi
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
I too worry about spending millions on a rail system that I would probably not use often, but if it spurred quality urban redevelopment, I would support it.
Rail does NOT spur urban redevelopment. (//%22http://www.buckeyeinstitute.org/article/253%22) It does a great job of cannibalizing bus ridership.
I've never heard of that institute or that conclusion. It goes against most conventional wisdom in the transport sector.
For buses and rail to work together they should feed into one another. Buses can't compete against the speed of trains, but rail has much less coverage, when you integrate them you have a functioning transit system.
quote:
Originally posted by booWorld
quote:
...I live in a neighborhood near to both rail and a subway station with good bus links. The density of the neighborhood is around 37 dwelling units an acre...
Interesting. When I purchased my property near downtown Tulsa, it was already developed with a mixture of single-family and multi-family dwellings at a density of approximately 12 dwelling units per acre. My property was zoned for a maximum of 29.25 dwelling units per acre (without a PUD). INCOG decided that it needed to be re-zoned to a maximum allowable density of 2.66 dwelling units per acre by right, and 5.32 dwelling units per acre by special exception.
These kinds of low densities can't sustain a city with a viable mass transit system, but INCOG staff insisted on pushing the re-zoning of my property, even though I didn't request it.
What type of rail system are we talking about for Tulsa? How much will it cost? Where will the corridors be? Who will pay for it and how?
I can't suggest something really. It would need to be the result of a study and a cost benefit analysis. However that cost benefit analysis absolutely should take into account the benefits of agglomeration. I'm just saying rail can work, has worked and will work in the future. It spurs development that most people when they see it find attractive. I think it provides a good solution to Tulsa, one that can focus development within city boundaries, reduce the need for acres of parking and reduce the need to widen roads.
quote:
Does anyone who went to the meeting with Jack Crowley remember what we can talk about pertaining to rail? If Bates would show up at TN meetings once in a while he would know whats going on rather than rattling on about stuff thats has no relation to whats being worked on. [:P]
Is this what we call an open, public dialogue in Tulsa?
Are the discussions about some sort of rail transit system that will be subsidized with public funding? Or is it to be a privately financed and operated rail system?
It is difficult to discuss something that's so ill-defined. If the BA route isn't a priority, then why did Tulsa Transit bother spending $90,000 to study it?
If a line to Jenks isn't likely to happen anytime soon, then why did INCOG staff appear recently on the news to talk about it? Why was a thread begun on this forum about it?
quote:
Originally posted by si_uk_lon_ok
For buses and rail to work together they should feed into one another. Buses can't compete against the speed of trains, but rail has much less coverage, when you integrate them you have a functioning transit system.
Santa could beat INTER-city rail, from ANY given Point A to ANY given Point B, within City limits.
The problem is really not speed of the rolling stock. The problem is the number of stops, headway spacing, and transfers.
The effective speed limit WITHIN City limits is 25 mph, given the number of signalized intersections AND their timing.
In a race between Tulsa Transit and a bicycle, between 41st/Yale and Downtown, Santa would win by AT LEAST 15 minutes.
Assuming I lose the naysaying posture on rail, I'd go for INTRA-city rail, with DE-regulated, INTER-city bus, aka Sons of T-Town Trolley. But, when gas hits $6, bikes will beat that scenario.
quote:
Originally posted by tulsasignnazi
quote:
Originally posted by si_uk_lon_ok
For buses and rail to work together they should feed into one another. Buses can't compete against the speed of trains, but rail has much less coverage, when you integrate them you have a functioning transit system.
I bet Santa could beat INTER-city rail, from ANY given Point A to ANY given Point B.
The problem is really not speed of the rolling stock. The problem is the number of stops, headway spacing, and transfers.
The effective speed limit WITHIN City limits is 25 mph, given the number of signalized intersections AND their timing.
In a race between Tulsa Transit and a bicycle, between 41st/Yale and Downtown, Santa would win by AT LEAST 15 minutes.
I bet you could, but am I right in saying you were in the marines? I would have also have read the morning newspaper, arrived nice and cool and not have eaten some flies. I'd also have done no exercise and thus be nearer my heart attack, so its horses for courses.
You are right, more stops means slower trains, thats why having bike racks and bus stops at stations is important. That allows the catchment area of the station to be widened.
I think cycling should be part of any mass transit strategy. I'd like to see the minimum number of car parking spaces swapped with a minimum number of cycle racks and the car parking requirement completely scrapped. I think the city should be safe for all cyclists, but remembering that not everyone can or wants to cycle.
quote:
Originally posted by si_uk_lon_ok
I think cycling should be part of any mass transit strategy. I'd like to see the minimum number of car parking spaces swapped with a minimum number of cycle racks and the car parking requirement completely scrapped. I think the city should be safe for all cyclists, but remembering that not everyone can or wants to cycle.
Why wouldn't EVERYONE want to cycle? Works great for Santa.
City streets are ALREADY as safe for bicycling as they are EVER going to be. If that were NOT the case, don'tcha think Santa would have been smashed into a two-mile long BLOODY mess on the Broken Arrow Expressway a long time ago?
The problem with Tulsa streets? Santa gets kinda lonely (//%22http://www.tulsanow.net/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=9584%22)on the BA.
Seems to me that if your going to do rail. Even in a small area of the city. You cant do it in a vacuum. We have to have other policies that say...no more widening of roads and commuter highways, and other policies that encourage high density development, less parking, etc.
If you dont do those things rail will likely fail in the slow growing environment that Tulsa has. Dallas is fast growing and has a lot more density than Tulsa as a result. We dont have that fast growing luxury. Things just kind of plod along here. And it may not "plod along" in the direction we want it to unless we knuckle down and do what we have to to make Tulsa more dense and walkable and not feed the car culture. Otherwise we may very well end up like those other cities that have rail stations with nothing around them. I like to imagine we can have TOD but there is no certainty of it, the amount of it, or the timescale we would be looking at for a good amount of it to occur. However doing things to change the car culture, in at least part of the city, would go a long way to encourage the kind of development and density we need. It cant just be by itself and I will not support it until those other things happen first.
But then the next thought I have is, Why bother period? If what we are shooting for is high density urban villages where you walk to most of your destinations... well then everything you need is near enough to you so you dont need either a car or rail, you walk or bike. On the occasion you want to go to the PAC, Arena, Baseball game, etc. you drive, taxi, bus or "jitney". The only call I can see for rail, if we were to get that kind of walkable density we want, is for commuting. But here again, growing walkable areas will alleviate traffic by eliminating trips "if you live and work in the same area, like downtown, then no problem". However, If the traffic is bad, people can either move closer to work or we encourage density in other areas as well so that where the person lives they are also likely to work, shop etc. If your stuck in a long commute, tough luck, it was your choice. The city saves money on not widening roads or building a rail. You get more tax money for other things per square mile because of added density. I say focus on creating beautiful, high density, walkable districts and if you have the itch to do something and spend some money spend it on that, not rail, widening roads or parking. If you get more people living downtown and near downtown, then they can work there as well. No need for ME to pay extra for those who wish to commute, it wasn't my choice. The work is downtown, a good portion of the workforce is downtown. Was that way once ya know. And you can do the same for other areas as well. Including BA. If the person living in BA doesn't want to commute, live, work and shop in BA. We should be trying to grow our own population and nice areas within Tulsa.
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
You cant do it in a vacuum. We have to have other policies that say...no more widening of roads and commuter highways, and other policies that encourage high density development, less parking, etc.
THAT would NEVER work in a political system known as the Great American Democracy, the institutionalization of collective STUPIDITY.
GOD BLESS AMERICA!
[:D]
quote:
Originally posted by tulsasignnazi
quote:
Originally posted by si_uk_lon_ok
I think cycling should be part of any mass transit strategy. I'd like to see the minimum number of car parking spaces swapped with a minimum number of cycle racks and the car parking requirement completely scrapped. I think the city should be safe for all cyclists, but remembering that not everyone can or wants to cycle.
Why wouldn't EVERYONE want to cycle? Works great for Santa.
The City is ALREADY safe for bicycling. If that were NOT the case, don'tcha think Santa would have been smashed into a two-mile long BLOODY mess on the Broken Arrow Expressway a long time ago?
The problem with Tulsa streets? Santa gets kinda lonely (//%22http://www.tulsanow.net/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=9584%22)on the BA.
You know, every time I think about biking and I hear or see you it makes me not want to because then I would be associated with a freak like you. If you really want people to follow the lead, make sure the lead is someone they would want to follow. People want to be associated with something nice, cool, or at least normal,,, not a freakshow.
Why do you say you want to encourage bikeriding, but then go out of your way to discourage it by making it look stupid?
You had started a thread earlier about how to get people to bike, or something like that. I thought it sounded like fun. I posted a comment saying so. Then you couldnt leave well enough alone or go in a positive direction, you stared adding all kinds of freaky crap on there. I had to delet my post so I wouldnt be associated with it. Know your local audience and speak to them, encourage them, dont run them off. You could make a difference, but you get more of a thrill out of getting attention than really doing what it takes to encourage people to bike.
People will more likely ride rail than buses. It's happening here in the DFW area with DART lite rail and the T. Rail is an efficient way to get around and it is a PLEASANT experience. Just wait til gas hits 4$ a gallon and see how many people start saying, "why don't we have mass transit?"
quote:
Originally posted by PonderInc
This event will be an opportunity to address how all the pieces of the of the transit puzzle fit together. Rail is one component of the discussion, but it doesn't end there. Consideration for busses, bikes, pedestrians and, yes, even cars, must factor into any real mobility strategy.
The goal is to create a viable, comprehensive, user-friendly transit system that will benefit Tulsa both economically and environmentally, while increasing quality of life for all Tulsans.
TulsaNow has talked about sponsoring a forum such as this for several years. I hope everyone who has ever ridden public transit in other cities and said "Wouldn't it be great if we had this in Tulsa?" will show up and learn more!
quote:
Originally posted by Floyd
You all are talking past each other.
No one is proposing that Tulsa suddenly become encrusted with light rail lines going up and down each arterial, or that Tulsans are suddenly going to give up their cars.
The suggestion on the table is that Tulsans could benefit from one or two light rail/commuter rail lines.
There should be no questions that Tulsans should ride these lines. They get ridden--if you think they'll stay empty, you either haven't traveled to Dallas, Houston, Denver or Atlanta, or your are purposefully obscuring facts about "average Tulsans."
The real question is practicality and money. How feasible are multiple lines? How expensive would they be? How long would it take? Where would the first lines be? Would they be commuter-based or mostly in-town? That's what I hope would be addressed at these forums.
The question is not "to be or not to be," but how. You people are trying to make this into some sort of ideological question and it's impossible not to get frustrated.
I'm in total agreement with you Floyd.
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
You know, every time I think about biking and I hear or see you it makes me not want to because then I would be associated with a freak like you. If you really want people to follow the lead, make sure the lead is someone they would want to follow. People want to be associated with something nice, cool, or at least normal,,, not a freakshow.
Why do you say you want to encourage bikeriding, but then go out of your way to discourage it by making it look stupid?
You had started a thread earlier about how to get people to bike, or something like that. I thought it sounded like fun. I posted a comment saying so. Then you couldnt leave well enough alone or go in a positive direction, you stared adding all kinds of freaky crap on there. I had to delet my post so I wouldnt be associated with it. Know your local audience and speak to them, encourage them, dont run them off. You could make a difference, but you get more of a thrill out of getting attention than really doing what it takes to encourage people to bike.
Actually, in a more global scheme of relevant societal issues, biking is much more than STUPID. Bicyclists. (//%22http://www.cyclelicio.us/2008/04/bike-lawyers-on-media-and-police-bias.html%22)
Help me out with that cliche again. How does it go? If ya can't beat 'em, at least FREAK 'em out.
Perhaps Santa really KNOWS his audience. It probably DON'T include YOU. [:P]
If you don't really want to be associated with a freak on a bike like Santa, then keep DRIVING and growing that FAT arse.
With another random thought: Why would you allow a FREAK to dictate your decision to bike or not? Shouldn't you bike just because it's FUN? Naaaaaaah. Forget it.
In the "normal" mainstream world full of cars, bikes are FREAKY, just as ARTISTS are freaky in the "normal" working world of 9-5'ers. I bet NO one would want to associate with an ARTIST in the corporate boardroom.
I am TRULY astounded YOU, of all people, TheARTIST, would consider a truly AMAZING piece of street ART, such as the bicycling Santa, FREAKY. I think it's ART. [:P]
Italy has Michealangelo and Machiavelli. Tulsa has SANTA. Certainly Tulsa could probably do a whole lot worse, like Detroit. We are TRULY blessed.
LIGHTEN up and enjoy the adrenline, ferchristsakes.
[:D]
quote:
Originally posted by TulsaFan-inTexas
People will more likely ride rail than buses. It's happening here in the DFW area with DART lite rail and the T.
EXACTLY my point. In the auto-centric economy, rail cannibalizes bus ridership.
quote:
Originally posted by tulsasignnazi
quote:
Originally posted by TulsaFan-inTexas
People will more likely ride rail than buses. It's happening here in the DFW area with DART lite rail and the T.
EXACTLY my point. In the auto-centric economy, rail cannibalizes bus ridership.
Rail takes mode share away from cars too. If you change bus routes to feed into rail you can increase bus patronage.
quote:
Originally posted by si_uk_lon_ok
Rail takes mode share away from cars too. If you change bus routes to feed into rail you can increase bus patronage.
Oh, Fo' shure! We both share a common wet dream. You believe THAT. And, I believe SANTA will actually get more people on more bikes.[:P]
This Santa f^cker is annoying as sh!t. I really can't stand radicals, of any stripe. They don't want to engage with you, they want to shout at you.
Hey Tay, why don't you buzz the f^ck off? You keep repeating that rail cannibalizes buses, but a) it's not shown to be true--could cause more demand if folks need transit from nodes as Bates keeps harping on, and b) is it neceessarily a bad thing, Mr. Bike Fanatic? Also, you people talking about the "fact" that rail doesn't spur development obviously haven't spent a lot of time with real estate private equity types. I only learned about Transit Oriented Development (TOD) lately, but investors are falling over themselves trying to find new TODs to throw their fund money at.
Tay, you're ruining my normally enjoyable forum reading. IGNORED.
quote:
Originally posted by tulsasignnazi
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
You know, every time I think about biking and I hear or see you it makes me not want to because then I would be associated with a freak like you. If you really want people to follow the lead, make sure the lead is someone they would want to follow. People want to be associated with something nice, cool, or at least normal,,, not a freakshow.
Why do you say you want to encourage bikeriding, but then go out of your way to discourage it by making it look stupid?
You had started a thread earlier about how to get people to bike, or something like that. I thought it sounded like fun. I posted a comment saying so. Then you couldnt leave well enough alone or go in a positive direction, you stared adding all kinds of freaky crap on there. I had to delet my post so I wouldnt be associated with it. Know your local audience and speak to them, encourage them, dont run them off. You could make a difference, but you get more of a thrill out of getting attention than really doing what it takes to encourage people to bike.
Actually, in a more global scheme of relevant societal issues, biking is much more than STUPID. Bicyclists: NGIGERS of the roadway. (//%22http://www.cyclelicio.us/2008/04/bike-lawyers-on-media-and-police-bias.html%22)
Help me out with that cliche again. How does it go? If ya can't beat 'em, at least FREAK 'em out.
Perhaps Santa really KNOWS his audience. It probably DON'T include YOU. [:P]
If you don't really want to be associated with a freak on a bike like Santa, then keep DRIVING and growing that FAT arse.
With another random thought: Why would you allow a FREAK to dictate your decision to bike or not? Shouldn't you bike just because it's FUN? Naaaaaaah. Forget it.
In the "normal" mainstream world full of cars, bikes are FREAKY, just as ARTISTS are freaky in the "normal" working world of 9-5'ers. I bet NO one would want to associate with an ARTIST in the corporate boardroom.
I am TRULY astounded YOU, of all people, TheARTIST, would consider a truly AMAZING piece of street ART, such as the bicycling Santa, FREAKY. I think it's ART. [:P]
Italy has Michealangelo and Machiavelli. Tulsa has SANTA. Certainly Tulsa could probably do a whole lot worse, like Detroit. We are TRULY blessed.
LIGHTEN up and enjoy the adrenline, ferchristsakes.
[:D]
Apparently your audience doesnt include anyone on this forum, so its odd that you keep coming on here?
You obviously dont know me either. I am probably slimmer than your fat arse.
As for biking, I have wanted to start. I thought with that other thread you were someone else and were going to get people together to do some fun biking stuff. But then the thread got absurd and disghusting and turned me off from wanting to join you. Then as your comments got more and more outrageous I figured out it was you. The point is, you had me, and probably some others then ruined it. Why dont you do something that really gets people involved? You have so much energy and desire to. Why not do something positive that has real results? Other than pissing people off. Or is that your real agenda? Make up your mind. Is what your doing working?
And I would fit in quite nicely in any boardroom. Those are the kind of people who want me to work for them, who appreciate what I do, they show it because they are willing to spend the big bucks to get it. I get to see their boardrooms and, speaking of fun, their fancy parties as well... do you?
I know real artists, people of all kinds like hanging around real artists, and your no artist. Please take your meds.
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
I agree that a trainride would be difficult if I was lugging around young children to a stop each day. But I would ride one to work each day and would love to have a park and ride option for downtown events.
I am a neophyte on this topic and I hope to learn from both perspectives on this thread. I plan to attend the forum on the 24th.
I too worry about spending millions on a rail system that I would probably not use often, but if it spurred quality urban redevelopment, I would support it.
Pretty much where I'm at.
quote:
Originally posted by MichaelBates
Chicken Little,
As I've said before, I like using rail. I didn't have a car in college, and I depended on the MBTA's network of streetcars, subways, and buses, our fraternity's informal jitney service between the house and campus two miles away, and my own two feet to get around.
I didn't have a car for the summer I spent in Manila, either. Although they had a single rail line connecting the airport to downtown, it didn't go near the house or the campus. Instead, I depended on a network of privately owned buses and jeepneys to get me around.
Back then, I was navigating the public transport network on my own. I could easily tolerate walking a mile in whatever kind of weather between the subway station or bus stop and where I needed to go. Walking the two or three miles between home and campus or work, at a 4 mph clip, was always an option if I had to wait too long for a streetcar or a bus.
Now, a quarter of a century later as a dad with three kids, I can't hit 4 mph walking speed very often, particularly if I have to lug a 30 lb. two-year-old whose legs are tired. If I were to try to manage getting a family around town without a car, it would be crucial that every place I needed to go were within at most a quarter-mile of public transport.
I don't see the advocates of rail in Tulsa, such as yourself, addressing the practical issues I encountered as a public transport user.
You and others seem to be saying that the presence of commuter rail will eventually result in nodes of high-density, pedestrian-friendly, transit-oriented development that will make it possible for people to live most of their lives without a car. In the scenario you seem to propose, everything will be within easy walking distance of the stations, and you won't have to cross massive parking lots on foot to get between the street and the front door of a store.
What I don't hear from you is any attempt to explain how people, particularly families with small children, get from home to work to school to shopping to the doctor's office via public transport between now and when your glorious future is realized.
I want to know how you propose to make it convenient enough for people, particularly families with small children, to use public transport of any form to get where they need to go, convenient enough to forgo using their own cars.
I'd especially like to know, Chicken Little, whether you have any personal experience living without a car for more than a year.
I do not want to see Tulsa spend tens or hundreds of millions on a rail line with three trains a day before we explore more modest and practical ways of providing public transport to far more people.
Via his comments, CL just seems interested in calling you out as a charlatan, rather than engaging in substantive discussion.
quote:
Originally posted by TulsaFan-inTexas
People will more likely ride rail than buses. It's happening here in the DFW area with DART lite rail and the T. Rail is an efficient way to get around and it is a PLEASANT experience. Just wait til gas hits 4$ a gallon and see how many people start saying, "why don't we have mass transit?"
Here in Tulsa, bus ridership jumps up whenever gas rises above $3.10. I would love to see the statistics for what happens with each dime above that.
Sometimes the answer to the question is the simplest one.
In order for Mr. Bates or Mr. Little to operate in this city without a car. Well...that is not a likely scenario, is it?
We are not looking at rail to eliminate cars. We are looking at rail because what is most important in transportation planning is redundancy.
What that means is, good transportation systems work together, overlap, and provide options when one system breaks down.
Example: Daily peak hour congestion.
Solutions: Do Nothing, Provide an alternative (mass transit), or improve the existing system (add capacity or systems to reduce congestion*).
Well, we, being responsible planners have and are looking at all three options. Clearly, no train operates in a vacuum. Just like an expressway, in order for it to work, you have to have those other systems in place. Roadways, bikeways, feeder transit routes, park and ride, kiss and rides, all function together.
So...where are Tulsa's deficiencies? Most notably, Transit. What should be the basic services that transit provides? Frequency, convenience, and reliability. Will it take you where you need to go and get you there when you need to get there? Do I have to worry about a schedule or does the bus come every 15-20 minutes reliably? Am I safe?
So, yes, in order for a high capacity train to work, we will have to pony up and pay for better bus service, so that, if you get off at 31st and Yale, you can quickly get on another bus and get to St. Francis Hospital or OU-Tulsa or the Fairgrounds within 5 to 10 minutes.
The densities everyone is worried about should be addressed during the Comp Plan update. That is why we are coordinating with the City and providing them with every bit of data they need to evaluate our current and future transportation needs, and adjust the land uses appropriately. Should we have a TOD or MXU category? If we are going to have a successful transit system, we probably should consider it.
*The great thing about all of this is that even our roadway engineers down the road at ODOT have conceded that we cannot build our way out of this problem. The problem? Ever increasing congestion (and reduced air quality as a by product). Adding capacity only adds more cars. We can make it better for a while, until that latent traffic catches up, and then you are in the same problem, only with that much more road to maintain. How do you add capacity on a rail line? You add another railcar. You tell me what is more cost efficient.
The Artist is correct. It was us who cited costs associated with the I-44 project. 350 million for Yale to Riverside. Over 100 million per mile. We could, using the existing tracks here in Tulsa, implement darn near 45 miles of passenger rail for that cost.
Think about that. Currently, just to downtown, not including interim/midpoint destinations, that would serve 7500 commuters from South Tulsa County, Broken Arrow, Owasso, and Sand Springs, who work downtown. Those are just employment based commuters to downtown. That figure does not include trips to the Airport, Commuters whos destination is somewhere in-between those places and downtown, excursion trips, tourists, Airport to downtown trips, event based trips. It also does not account for any growth, TOD, et cetera, along the corridor.
My point is...the myopia must stop. We need to stop thinking about all the reasons why we cannot or are unwilling to change our harmful growth pattern and start believing that we can actually change this place for the better .....and smarter.
I believe that our transportation choices have more ability to shape our city in positive and negative ways (depending on your choice) than any other public investment. Transit can help us realize our dreams for this city. A revitalized downtown, quality infill, better & friendlier streets, beautiful neighborhoods, and economic vitality.
I remember when Dallas' DART was just a concept. They planned to have small communities spring up along the rail at various rail stops. They envisioned residential mixed with office space, restaurants, and entertainment. This vision indeed came to fruition and has proven quite successful.
I have always thought the small area of land East of OSU – Tulsa would be prime for this type of development. This area appears to be filled with abandoned buildings and is bound by 75 and 244 and an existing rail track. This rail track also appears to be abandoned. This particular existing line could service the airport, Mohawk Park (the zoo), TCC – NE, Langston – Tulsa, and OSU – Tulsa. Students and tourists alike would definitely use this as a mode of transportation. Even more people would, if it eventually branched out South.
This small area could serve as the city's central hub for a rail project. I envision a village with several midrise buildings looking over Tulsa's beautiful skyline. This village would consist of housing, shopping, a movie theatre, etc. I picture people coming to the village for an afternoon of shopping, eating, and exploring. Businesses could team up with the Zoo and offer tickets for an afternoon trip out there then back to village for an evening of dinning and nightlife.
Imagine the impact this would have on visitors arriving via air and this new rail line. While our airport isn't large, it is one of the cleanest and nicest in the country. Travelers would land in a clean, non-congested airport; board the train, for a quick, affordable trip into the city. Arriving in a bustling mixed development would make a great impression on these individuals. From there they could stay in a hotel located in the village or hop a cab to a downtown destination.
Hate to be the skunk at the party but what about cost. Light rail is very, very expensive even with government help. If Tulsa cannot even fix its streets, how will it ever do light rail?
quote:
Originally posted by Floyd
You keep repeating that rail cannibalizes buses, but a) it's not shown to be true--could cause more demand if folks need transit from nodes as Bates keeps harping on, and b) is it neceessarily a bad thing, Mr. Bike Fanatic? Also, you people talking about the "fact" that rail doesn't spur development obviously haven't spent a lot of time with real estate private equity types. I only learned about Transit Oriented Development (TOD) lately, but investors are falling over themselves trying to find new TODs to throw their fund money at.
You are just tee'd off because he's right. (//%22http://postcarboncities.net/node/260%22)
"Some cities clamoring to build extensive development around transit may be misinformed about the potential economic rewards."
Ms. Utter (//%22http://www.citiventure.com/who.htm%22) of Citiventure (//%22http://www.citiventure.com/%22) says that a lot of cities that are mainly funded by sales taxes are desperate for transit-oriented development because they are betting on a windfall resulting from the retail component. "But there is a great misunderstanding that transit attracts a lot more retail than it actually does," she says.
On Point 2, rail cannibalizing bus ridership is really not a bad thing. But, isn't the whole point to get more motorists off the road? Naaaaaaaah.
WHAT am I missing, people?
You've only learned about TOD's recently?! Yep. Peter Calthorpe (//%22http://www.calthorpe.com/bios/pcbio.htm%22) was born YESTERDAY.[}:)][}:)][}:)]
Floyd, ENJOY your wet dream. [:P][}:)]
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
Does anyone who went to the meeting with Jack Crowley remember what we can talk about pertaining to rail?
I read something online or saw something on the news with him mentioning a rail line from downtown to Riverparks West somewhere near 23rd and Jackson. Is that the starter line? Are we talking about a short starter line or something more extensive?
quote:
Originally posted by Bike_Billboards
quote:
Originally posted by Floyd
You keep repeating that rail cannibalizes buses, but a) it's not shown to be true--could cause more demand if folks need transit from nodes as Bates keeps harping on, and b) is it neceessarily a bad thing, Mr. Bike Fanatic? Also, you people talking about the "fact" that rail doesn't spur development obviously haven't spent a lot of time with real estate private equity types. I only learned about Transit Oriented Development (TOD) lately, but investors are falling over themselves trying to find new TODs to throw their fund money at.
You are just tee'd off because he's right. (//%22http://postcarboncities.net/node/260%22)
"Some cities clamoring to build extensive development around transit may be misinformed about the potential economic rewards."
Ms. Utter (//%22http://www.citiventure.com/who.htm%22) of Citiventure (//%22http://www.citiventure.com/%22) says that a lot of cities that are mainly funded by sales taxes are desperate for transit-oriented development because they are betting on a windfall resulting from the retail component. "But there is a great misunderstanding that transit attracts a lot more retail than it actually does," she says.
On Point 2, rail cannibalizing bus ridership is really not a bad thing. But, isn't the whole point to get more motorists off the road? Naaaaaaaah.
WHAT am I missing, people?
You've only learned about TOD's recently?! Yep. Peter Calthorpe (//%22http://www.calthorpe.com/bios/pcbio.htm%22) was born YESTERDAY.[}:)][}:)][}:)]
Floyd, ENJOY your wet dream. [:P][}:)]
So you're conceding that rail nodes might actually spur development, but arguing that the sales tax collections won't be worth the investment in public infrastrucure?
Turns out you're a policy wonk in Santa clothing? Maybe. Just plain annoying as hell? yes.
Oh and Tay--most males haven't had a wet dream since adolescence. If you're having developmental issues, you might want to look into those before mounting another banana seat.
IGNORED.
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
I know real artists, people of all kinds like hanging around real artists, and your no artist. Please take your meds.
New Rule: Pull stick out of BTUT, before bicycling.
quote:
Originally posted by DwnTwnTul
I remember when Dallas' DART was just a concept. They planned to have small communities spring up along the rail at various rail stops. They envisioned residential mixed with office space, restaurants, and entertainment. This vision indeed came to fruition and has proven quite successful.
Yep. Righto. But, at what PRICE? DFW has one of the nation's HIGHEST ad valorem taxes. They built DART on the backs of old ladies on fixed incomes.
And, Oklahoma is STILL a donor state. Hell will FREEZE, before Inhofe earmarks an urban commuter transit project.
quote:
Originally posted by Floyd
So you're conceding that rail nodes might actually spur development, but arguing that the sales tax collections won't be worth the investment in public infrastrucure?
Sure. Rail nodes MIGHT spur development. But, do you really want to bet MILLIONS and MILLIONS of your tax dollars per line to find out? For what L.A. spend to build the Red Line, they could have just add what how many more buses and STILL have money left over to give ALL transit patrons a FREE Prius.
What rate of a City sales tax would be worth urban commuter rail? 10%, 15%, 20%? You tell me.
But, that wasn't really the point, right?
quote:
Originally posted by pundit
Hate to be the skunk at the party but what about cost. Light rail is very, very expensive even with government help. If Tulsa cannot even fix its streets, how will it ever do light rail?
The cost of widening I-44 was cited by pfox in a previous post:
quote:
Originally posted by pfox
350 million for Yale to Riverside. Over 100 million per mile. We could, using the existing tracks here in Tulsa, implement darn near 45 miles of passenger rail for that cost.
That's about $7.8 million per mile for a rail system using existing tracks. A light rail system on new tracks most likely would cost more than that, depending on the proposed route.
EDIT: The proposed commuter rail from Tulsa to Broken Arrow on existing tracks was projected to cost about
$3.07 to $3.5 million per mile.
That was the capital cost for a 14 mile route with four stations.
quote:
Originally posted by booWorld
The proposed commuter rail from Tulsa to Broken Arrow on existing tracks was projected to cost about $3.5 million per mile.
Now we are getting WARMER. For $4 Million per mile, just give the projected ridership FREE Priuses. Problem SOLVED.
$100 million per mile for I-44 is actually a good thing. When gas hits $6, it's gonna make a great BIKE path. [:P]
quote:
Originally posted by pfox
In order for Mr. Bates or Mr. Little to operate in this city without a car. Well...that is not a likely scenario, is it?
According to the Bartlett/Davis Complete Our Streets (//%22http://www.cityoftulsa.org/CityServices/Streets/CompleteOurStreets.asp%22) Report, almost 100,000 Tulsans, 28% of the metro populations, do NOT have access to vehicles, presumably automobiles. How are they getting around?
I agree Bates might be too FAT to get around town without a car. But, C-Little might do very well without driving his big Lexus to spinning class.
quote:
We are not looking at rail to eliminate cars. We are looking at rail because what is most important in transortation planning is redundancy.
Sometimes the answer to the question is the simplest one.
What's most important in transportation planning is COMMON sense.
quote:
What that means is, good transportation systems work together, overlap, and provide options when one system breaks down.
Bikes ALWAYS get through, unless the tamale supply dries up with all the cheap kitchen help leaving the state.
quote:
So...where are Tulsa's deficiencies? Most notably, Transit. What should be the basic services that transit provides? Frequency, convenience, and reliability. Will it take you where you need to go and get you there when you need to get there? Do I have to worry about a schedule or does the bus come every 15-20 minutes reliably? Am I safe?
So, yes, in order for a high capacity train to work, we will have to pony up and pay for better bus service, so that, if you get off at 31st and Yale, you can quickly get on another bus and get to St. Francis Hospital or OU-Tulsa or the Fairgrounds within 5 to 10 minutes.
And, government-subsidized and controlled transit will do a great job of THAT. Welcome to Santa's WET dream. Publically-owned transit has NO profit motive, NO reason, to meet the myriad of needs, basic and emotional, of the commuting public.
quote:
The densities everyone is worried about should be addressed during the Comp Plan update. That is why we are coordinating with the City and providing them with every bit of data they need to evaluate our current and future transportation needs, and adjust the land uses appropriately. Should we have a TOD or MXU category? If we are going to have a successful transit system, we probably should consider it.
Hell will FREEZE or Santa elected to a City office, before Comp Plan updates.
quote:
*The great thing about all of this is that even our roadway engineers down the road at ODOT have conceded that we cannot build our way out of this problem.
Better late than never, GENIUSES.
quote:
The problem? Ever increasing congestion (and reduced air quality as a by product). Adding capacity only adds more cars. We can make it better for a while, until that latent traffic catches up, and then you are in the same problem, only with that much more road to maintain.
Yeah, right. Preach to the CHOIR.
quote:
How do you add capacity on a rail line? You add another railcar. You tell me what is more cost efficient.
Give EVERY member of the transit ridership FREE Priuses. Or maybe just roll a bike on the BA? Naaaaaaaaaaah.
quote:
The Artist is correct. It was us who cited costs associated with the I-44 project. 350 million for Yale to Riverside. Over 100 million per mile. We could, using the existing tracks here in Tulsa, implement darn near 45 miles of passenger rail for that cost.
Yep. Now that Artist is piss'd off at bikes, we might as well blow for rail. Certainly wouldn't want to associate with freaky (//%22http://www.tulsanow.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=9584%22) people on bikes.
quote:
Imagine the impact this would have on visitors arriving via air and this new rail line. While our airport isn't large, it is one of the cleanest and nicest in the country. Travelers would land in a clean, non-congested airport; board the train, for a quick, affordable trip into the city. Arriving in a bustling mixed development would make a great impression on these individuals. From there they could stay in a hotel located in the village or hop a cab to a downtown destination.
Transit can help us realize our dreams for this city. A revitalized downtown, quality infill, better & friendlier streets, beautiful neighborhoods, and economic vitality.
HILLARY CLINTON (//%22http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0803/01/cnr.05.html%22): I could stand up here and say: let's just get everybody together. Let's get unified. The sky will open, the light will come down, celestial choirs will be singing, and everyone will know we should do the right thing and the world will be perfect.
Suppose you guys just quit waiting to be coddled. Ask
NOT for what Tulsa isn't and will NEVER be. Ask how to be the change (//%22http://www.tulsanow.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=9642%22) you want Tulsa to be.
quote:
Originally posted by pundit
Hate to be the skunk at the party but what about cost. Light rail is very, very expensive even with government help. If Tulsa cannot even fix its streets, how will it ever do light rail?
Light Rail is very expensive, which is why we are not considering it. At least not light rail like DART or in Portland.
Using existing track, which eliminates the individual property acquisition costs (that are a major part of light rails expense); and eliminates the cost of constructing all new track; and implementing a (soon to be) FRA compliant vehicle like this one;
(http://netherlandsrailways.co.uk/Images/gtw26_arriva_rr1.jpg)
which runs on Diesel (or BioDiesel) instead of overhead power, eliminating the cost of an overhead power supply; it would cost us about a tenth of what a light rail line might for a similar distance.
The roads need to be fixed, but this is not an either/or situation. We have to fund transit as well for the compendium of reasons mentioned in this and other threads, not the least of which is that the more people riding transit, the fewer cars on the road which sub sequentially reduces the wear and tear on the roads, which saves the public money on maintenance.
Plus there are cost recovery methods, including fares, that are available to transit that aren't available to roads. So yes, it is subsidized, just like roads, only its a better business model in this day and age.
And by the way...the train will eliminate some bus routes, namely express routes from Broken Arrow to Downtown. If that is cannibalization, so be it. But it also adds routes. In fact, in St. Louis, 76% of all transit riders, train and bus, are new to transit since the implementation of their rail system in the 90's. 76%... that doesn't sound like cannibalization to me.
quote:
Originally posted by pfox
Using existing track, which eliminates the acquisition costs and the cost of all new track; and implementing a (soon to be) FRA compliant vehicle like this one;
(http://netherlandsrailways.co.uk/Images/gtw26_arriva_rr1.jpg)
which runs on Diesel (or BioDiesel) instead of overhead power, eliminating the cost of an overhead power supply, it would cost us about a tenth of what a light rail line might for a similar distance.
Yep. Looks great. Burn up the food supply with bio when diesel hits $6. Good grief, that monstrosity doesn't even make sense now, with diesel at $4.
Might as well pedal-power it by a bunch of MONKEYS. If deployed, it certainly will be managed by a bunch of MONKEYS.
quote:
The roads need to be fixed, but this is not an either or situation. We have to fund transit as well for the compendium of reasons mentioned in this and other threads, not the least of which is that the more people riding transit, the fewer cars on the road which sub sequentially reduces the wear and tear on the roads, which saves the public money on maintenance.
1) Oklahoma is STILL a donor state.
2) Congress is not exactly itching to stop with the DECREASE in transit subsidies.
3) NO member of Congress from Oklahoma has EVER earmarked (//%22http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/favorfactory/%22) for urban commuter transit.
GET REAL.
quote:
Plus there are cost recovery methods, including fares, that are available to transit that aren't available to roads. So yes, it is subsidized, just like roads, only its a better business model in this day and age.
If the City acted in the interest of better business models, it would have DIVESTED Tulsa Transit a long time ago. If USDOT acted to give the commuting pubic better ground transit, it would have DE-regulated transit like the airlines, a long time ago. If the commuting public wanted better transit, it would have DEMANDED privatized transit, a long time ago.
quote:
And by the way...the train will eliminate some bus routes, namely express routes from Broken Arrow to Downtown. If that is cannibalization, so be it. But it also adds routes. In fact, in St. Louis, 76% of all transit riders, train and bus, are new to transit since the implementation of their rail system in the 90's. 76%... that doesn't sound like cannibalization to me.
No, it sounds more like TRANSPORTAINMENT for the middle-class suburbanites built on the backs of old ladies on fixed incomes in Mid-Town. Leave it to BEAVER? Golly, gee, Dad, let's ride the train to the Arena!
I'll be fascinated to hear the details of any proposal, pfox. It's really odd to me that something as common as passenger rail has such vehement enemies (as well as bike-riding buffoons) speaking so strongly against it before there's actually any formal plan presented. I mean really, strikingly odd--I can't even begin to fathom where certain posters on this forum are coming from.
Total incomprehension of the oddballs aside, I appreciate your levelheadedness and reasonable explanations. Do let us know ASAP what Crowley et al. have in mind for a public transit supplement to the roads plan.
quote:
Originally posted by Floyd
I'll be fascinated to hear the details of any proposal, pfox.
Go ahead, Mr. Fox. INDULGE the man. The DEVIL is in the details. The fact of the matter is, Mr. Floyd, there are NO details. It is only the collective WET dreams of a bunch of MONKEYS, drunk on PURPLE Kool-aid (//%22http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Purple+Kool-Aid%22).
(http://www.spacejunk.org/docblog/wp-content/uploads/2006/11/jonestownreview3.jpg)
quote:
It's really odd to me that something as common as passenger rail has such vehement enemies (as well as bike-riding buffoons) speaking so strongly against it before there's actually any formal plan presented. I mean really, strikingly odd--I can't even begin to fathom where certain posters on this forum are coming from.
EVERYTHING You've EVER Wanted to Know About EVERYTHING Wrong with Publically-subsidized Transit, But Were Afraid to Ask. (//%22http://losangelesbus.blogspot.com/%22)
tulsa cant even support a bus system,let alone a rail system,nor is Tulsa even close to size a city needs to be to even think about one!
quote:
Originally posted by Bike_Billboards
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
I know real artists, people of all kinds like hanging around real artists, and your no artist. Please take your meds.
New Rule: Pull stick out of BTUT, before bicycling.
See there ya go again. Making bike riding less appealing.
quote:
Originally posted by Floyd
I'll be fascinated to hear the details of any proposal, pfox. It's really odd to me that something as common as passenger rail has such vehement enemies (as well as bike-riding buffoons) speaking so strongly against it before there's actually any formal plan presented. I mean really, strikingly odd--I can't even begin to fathom where certain posters on this forum are coming from.
Total incomprehension of the oddballs aside, I appreciate your levelheadedness and reasonable explanations. Do let us know ASAP what Crowley et al. have in mind for a public transit supplement to the roads plan.
I too am interested in seeing some more concrete plans laid out. Its hard to debate the merits of something until you know the different ideas and you get something, at least initially, on paper. Once you do that then people can find faults, solutions to the faults, etc. After that, then you can then do the math, balance the pros and cons columns adequately and see where the chips fall. We also need some feel for timetables. When would say a BA to Tulsa line seriously considered, 10 years, 20? Would we do that other "starter line" first? and thus should debate it on its own merits as well?
Man, the naysayers never really speak clearly and I believe it's part of their approach. When you don't have a case people usually deflect and squiggle.
Mass transit makes sense, but some just have NO VISION. PFOX made excellent points, that just seem to have fallen on deaf ears.
The bus ridership is a completely different animal than rail. The two working in concert would be the ultimate to INCREASE ridership, would it not? How some could argue against that is a flawed. Riding a bus for 10-20 minutes is practical and convient, riding it for 45 min.-hours on end is cumbersome. Think big for a change and think how this will help make Tulsa a draw again. You put the money up for vision 2025 atttractions, now get a more economical way to get there.
I've been reading some of these threads with great interest but remain very skeptical... mostly because of the insistence of using "we know best" tactics, urbanist pseudo-moral judgements, and what IMO is a very naive view of using mass transit to "spur economic development."
I like the use of existing track. I like the idea that the first step will be commuter rail, since I just don't see the demand for mass transit in Tulsa.
If supporters of mass transit will shuddup with the narrow minded moral judgements and elitist social commentary, this argument could move forward responsibly. If politicians and activists can present a reasonable set of ideas based purely on anticipating the future transportation needs of aging baby boomers and suburban morning commuters, then there might be a surprising amount of support in the city of Tulsa, and the metro area...
Tell middle-class working families who have homes and cars that their hard-earned lifestyle is "unsustainable," and you'll make absolutely sure that there will be ZERO citizen support for any creative mass transit ideas that may make perfect sense.
I've done commuter rail and the L in Chicago off and on for about 15 years, the T in Boston for a year and a half. Mostly without a car. So, a huge advantage to living in Tulsa is being able to drive and not getting stuck in massive traffic jams... getting to just about anyplace in Tulsa within 10 mins... finding parking so close to McNellies that the first time I drove there, I walked around for about 10 mins convinced I must've illegally parked...
My Tulsa commutes are highly sustainable, thank you very much... and if gas goes up to $10 per gallon, I'll just stop driving downtown and to Cherry Street for the nightlife and stay in my 'hood close to where I work...
You can't legislate walkable urban morality.
^ That's a great post, USRufnex. My attitude toward planning in Tulsa soured considerably when my property was down-zoned against my wishes by INCOG's insistent "we know best" tactics, and I'm saying that as an urbanist. To have the INCOG land planners insist that it would be a good idea to reduce the development potential of my property by a factor of 11 (to 2.66 dwelling units per acre) and then to have the INCOG transportation planners insist that we really need to start planning for rail transit to spur dense development elsewhere seems bizarre to me. After all, I purchased property within walking distance of the downtown and the river. It's within a neighborhood which for years has been targeted in the Comprehensive Plan for multi-family development (up to about 29 to 33 dwelling units per acre).
I was very enthused about increasing the density of central Tulsa to make mass transit more feasible and to increase the overall sustainability of the city. But INCOG pushed for a drastic change of the zoning rules for my property which now limits it to low-density, non-sustainable suburban development.
I think rail transit could work, but I'm not too keen on the idea of paying for an expensive rail system only to see the development rights which were stripped from my property in central Tulsa transferred to somewhere else in the hinterlands. INCOG's transportation department might have the very best of intentions, but they really ought to coordinate their efforts with other departments within INCOG. The system is not predictable.
quote:
Originally posted by booWorld
I knew I'd read something about a rail line through the downtown. Turns out, I read it right here (//%22http://www.tulsanow.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=8602%22) on the forum.
quote:
Originally posted by pfox on January 23, 2008, on the Jenks Passenger Rail topic (//%22http://www.tulsanow.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=8602%22)
Truthfully, the most critical segment for either [the Broken Arrow or the Jenks] line is the one that connects the two: the downtown corridor. Basically, from 23rd and Jackson on the west bank, across the river, through downtown to Union Station and to both Broken Arrow and to the north towards the Airport. That segment really should be begun first in order to make the rest of the lines work.
Is this downtown corridor segment the "starter" line?
[:D]
Lets just play pretend and discuss some of the possibilities and pitfalls of such a line.
Here are a couple of the possibilities I can think of right off hand.
1. It falls right smack dab in the middle of several areas that are redeveloping, have plans to redevelop and that we as a city want to redevelop. Brady Arts district, Arena District, Greenwood, OSU Tulsa, The River across from downtown, some blighted industrial property "possible parking?" just nw of downtown towards the airport,,,, (you will be hearing about several new living options in a couple of those areas here in a few months [;)])
We want and will see more living and attractions in the Brady Arts district. We want and will see more living and attractions in the Greenwood area. We want more living at OSU Tulsa and it is a "destination. We want and will hopefully see living and destination on the west bank of the river, the river is a destination already. We want and will see more living and attractions in the east end and there are already are destinations and events in downtown. All of these things and more are ripe for synergies with each other, people living in all those areas going to things in all the different areas. And more and more to come every year. Oh, and of course people living in those different areas and working and shopping in those different areas and downtown, going to school, guests staying at hotels and going to different areas etc.
2. The line is already there so is fortunately, comparatively cheap. Could have good parking synergies, instead of spending money on a new parking garage or two, you use any funds that would have gone to those to help build the line instead (park at OSU Tulsa or other property to go to the Arena, Octoberfest, or park near the arena to go to Octoberfest, etc, etc.). The city could make a bit of money to help maintain the line if it ownes property at either end when that property is developed on.
3. If in the distant future, you want to extend in any direction either towards BA, Jenks, the Airport, the central structure is already in place. Its a small start and you get a feel for how it will work for Tulsa.
4. The types of people that are moving to downtown and to these areas are also the very kinds of people who want to live in walkable, urban, districts and who will want to use a rail line like this to get from point A to B, they would even expect it.
I knew I'd read something about a rail line through the downtown. Turns out, I read it right here (//%22http://www.tulsanow.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=8602%22) on the forum.
quote:
Originally posted by pfox on January 23, 2008, on the Jenks Passenger Rail topic (//%22http://www.tulsanow.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=8602%22)
Truthfully, the most critical segment for either [the Broken Arrow or the Jenks] line is the one that connects the two: the downtown corridor. Basically, from 23rd and Jackson on the west bank, across the river, through downtown to Union Station and to both Broken Arrow and to the north towards the Airport. That segment really should be begun first in order to make the rest of the lines work.
Is this downtown corridor segment the "starter" line?
quote:
Originally posted by USRufnex
I've been reading some of these threads with great interest but remain very skeptical... mostly because of the insistence of using "we know best" tactics, urbanist pseudo-moral judgements, and what IMO is a very naive view of using mass transit to "spur economic development."
I like the use of existing track. I like the idea that the first step will be commuter rail, since I just don't see the demand for mass transit in Tulsa.
If supporters of mass transit will shuddup with the narrow minded moral judgements and elitist social commentary, this argument could move forward responsibly. If politicians and activists can present a reasonable set of ideas based purely on anticipating the future transportation needs of aging baby boomers and suburban morning commuters, then there might be a surprising amount of support in the city of Tulsa, and the metro area...
Tell middle-class working families who have homes and cars that their hard-earned lifestyle is "unsustainable," and you'll make absolutely sure that there will be ZERO citizen support for any creative mass transit ideas that may make perfect sense.
I've done commuter rail and the L in Chicago off and on for about 15 years, the T in Boston for a year and a half. Mostly without a car. So, a huge advantage to living in Tulsa is being able to drive and not getting stuck in massive traffic jams... getting to just about anyplace in Tulsa within 10 mins... finding parking so close to McNellies that the first time I drove there, I walked around for about 10 mins convinced I must've illegally parked...
My Tulsa commutes are highly sustainable, thank you very much... and if gas goes up to $10 per gallon, I'll just stop driving downtown and to Cherry Street for the nightlife and stay in my 'hood close to where I work...
You can't legislate walkable urban morality.
Can you explain how rail would not spur economic development. I deal with the benefits of development caused by these schemes on a daily basis. If you could tell me that it would not be the case, explain why and show me a study, I'd take a very keen look at it.
One of the reasons some people have a 'we know best' attitude is that they are qualified transport professionals, like pfox, to put it simply they do know best. I think sometimes this confidence in their own professional judgment may come across as 'pseudo moral judgments', but they are in fact professional opinions.
I think one advantage that has to be said about Tulsa is that unlike many cities you can easily drive everywhere. The problem with this though is you have to drive anywhere. Cars don't create density and walkability, introduce other options and you can start to see denser, mixed use and walkable neighborhoods. Even if you don't live in one of these areas or use the mass transit, you'll feel the benefit when 10% of people who use the turnpike start taking mass transit.
quote:
Originally posted by booWorld
I knew I'd read something about a rail line through the downtown. Turns out, I read it right here (//%22http://www.tulsanow.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=8602%22) on the forum.
quote:
Originally posted by pfox on January 23, 2008, on the Jenks Passenger Rail topic (//%22http://www.tulsanow.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=8602%22)
Truthfully, the most critical segment for either [the Broken Arrow or the Jenks] line is the one that connects the two: the downtown corridor. Basically, from 23rd and Jackson on the west bank, across the river, through downtown to Union Station and to both Broken Arrow and to the north towards the Airport. That segment really should be begun first in order to make the rest of the lines work.
Is this downtown corridor segment the "starter" line?
Yes.
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
quote:
Originally posted by booWorld
I knew I'd read something about a rail line through the downtown. Turns out, I read it right here (//%22http://www.tulsanow.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=8602%22) on the forum.
quote:
Originally posted by pfox on January 23, 2008, on the Jenks Passenger Rail topic (//%22http://www.tulsanow.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=8602%22)
Truthfully, the most critical segment for either [the Broken Arrow or the Jenks] line is the one that connects the two: the downtown corridor. Basically, from 23rd and Jackson on the west bank, across the river, through downtown to Union Station and to both Broken Arrow and to the north towards the Airport. That segment really should be begun first in order to make the rest of the lines work.
Is this downtown corridor segment the "starter" line?
Yes.
From where to where? What route?
How many stops or stations, and where will they be?
How much will the starter line cost?
How much will the operation and maintenance costs be?
Who will pay for the starter line, and how?
The goal is to get the starter line in operation by when?
The trains will be running on what sort of frequency?
quote:
Originally posted by USRufnex
I've been reading some of these threads with great interest but remain very skeptical... mostly because of the insistence of using "we know best" tactics, urbanist pseudo-moral judgements, and what IMO is a very naive view of using mass transit to "spur economic development."
I like the use of existing track. I like the idea that the first step will be commuter rail, since I just don't see the demand for mass transit in Tulsa.
If supporters of mass transit will shuddup with the narrow minded moral judgements and elitist social commentary, this argument could move forward responsibly. If politicians and activists can present a reasonable set of ideas based purely on anticipating the future transportation needs of aging baby boomers and suburban morning commuters, then there might be a surprising amount of support in the city of Tulsa, and the metro area...
Tell middle-class working families who have homes and cars that their hard-earned lifestyle is "unsustainable," and you'll make absolutely sure that there will be ZERO citizen support for any creative mass transit ideas that may make perfect sense.
I've done commuter rail and the L in Chicago off and on for about 15 years, the T in Boston for a year and a half. Mostly without a car. So, a huge advantage to living in Tulsa is being able to drive and not getting stuck in massive traffic jams... getting to just about anyplace in Tulsa within 10 mins... finding parking so close to McNellies that the first time I drove there, I walked around for about 10 mins convinced I must've illegally parked...
My Tulsa commutes are highly sustainable, thank you very much... and if gas goes up to $10 per gallon, I'll just stop driving downtown and to Cherry Street for the nightlife and stay in my 'hood close to where I work...
You can't legislate walkable urban morality.
Sorry I irk you, buddy. It's not intentional. Conan said earlier that he did not feel like being made to feel guilty about the way he lives. I told him, and I tell you to, I don't think anyone should feel guilty.
For one thing, the development offered in Tulsa is almost entirely a suburban, one-size-fits-all. There really aren't any choices for us in this regard. So, we're currently locked with few reasonably-priced options. Yes, I do believe it is a development pattern that is inefficient and expensive...and we've got multi-billion dollar street problems to prove it. Are you saying that it's not?
I personally don't think it's "elitist" to contemplate changing this development pattern to something we can
all afford. The thread category is called "Development", Rufnex. If it were something called "Let's be sweet to each other" then my tone would be different, probably. Geezus.
And for Bates, yes, I've spent several years relying on something other than cars as my main means of getting around: Busses, bikes, and walking. As a child, a college student, and a young grad, and, in three different cities. I sill use taxis and busses when I decide to go have a drink. And I even ride a bike, though, not as often as my *ss would like. Later, when I get old, I'll be doing more riding than driving. So will you.
And, Our last three family vacations have been to Chicago, Boston, and New York. My young kids have seen more subways than your young kids. Yes, it's definitely different. It's hard to tell if it's any more challenging than trying to strap into a minivan. Is it any more dangerous than herding 'em across a big parking lot? Statistically speaking, I'd bet not by a long shot. Yes, there are some tedious aspects to walking around with kids. It's a different set of pains, but, are we going to SanFran this summer? You bet.
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
New Rule: Pull stick out of BTUT, before bicycling.
quote:
See there ya go again. Making bike riding less appealing.
Are YOU something really STUPID to allow ME to ruin YOUR decision to bike? [:D] If so, THANK YOU very much for bestowing me SUCH great powers.
I actually wish you never ride a bike again in your life, just because of ME. Suckaaaaaaa. [:P]
Another random observation: Collectively, bicyclists are SLIME, like sperm. But, it only takes one to make the difference. [:P]
quote:
Originally posted by booWorld
From where to where? What route?
How many stops or stations, and where will they be?
How much will the starter line cost?
How much will the operation and maintenance costs be?
Who will pay for the starter line, and how?
The goal is to get the starter line in operation by when?
The trains will be running on what sort of frequency?
You seem excited. (and I PM'ed you)
Tulsa is a small enough town that anyone who wants to participate in the civic process has that option. However, since it takes time and energy to engage in the civic process, and you you don't get paid to be a citizen... many people don't get invovled. Much easier to sit on the sidelines and snipe and gripe.
First step towards actively participating in the civic process? Get educated on the issues you care about, show up, speak rationally...and voila! you become a part of the solution.
I think the "what about rail" event will be a great beginning to a dialogue within the community about transit. What better way to begin the conversation: ask questions, gather information, and form educated opinions.
quote:
Originally posted by T-TownMike
The bus ridership is a completely different animal than rail.
Yep. The typical bus rider don't vote. So, they get screwed FIRST. Tulsa Transit can't even meet the basic transportation needs of its own employees.
And, NOBODY wants a bus station in their neighborhood. Criminals might use the bus to make the getaway. GIVE ME A FRIGGIN' BREAK, already.
Why is there talk of a Jenks and BA rail line? They are better-off and VOTE. Hey, how come NOBODY's talking the Turley line?
The better question to ask is "WHAT about just getting more people on more buses, BEFORE we bet on rail?
GET A GRIP, people.
quote:
Originally posted by si_uk_lon_ok
Can you explain how rail would not spur economic development. I deal with the benefits of development caused by these schemes on a daily basis. If you could tell me that it would not be the case, explain why and show me a study, I'd take a very keen look at it.
One of the reasons some people have a 'we know best' attitude is that they are qualified transport professionals, like pfox, to put it simply they do know best. I think sometimes this confidence in their own professional judgment may come across as 'pseudo moral judgments', but they are in fact professional opinions.
I think one advantage that has to be said about Tulsa is that unlike many cities you can easily drive everywhere. The problem with this though is you have to drive anywhere. Cars don't create density and walkability, introduce other options and you can start to see denser, mixed use and walkable neighborhoods. Even if you don't live in one of these areas or use the mass transit, you'll feel the benefit when 10% of people who use the turnpike start taking mass transit.
Your arguments are largely academic... my argument is primarily political and also cultural. Both academic and political arguments will vary over the course of years/decades/generations...
We intersect at economics... my travels on the METRA commuter rail in Chicagoland from Elgin to the Chicago loop showed me in no uncertain terms that use of train stations as stimulus for economic development can be artificial and misguided at best. Stop after stop and I see train stations with nothing around them. A few stations have shops around the station only because the station happened to be in an older downtown area. And the METRA stops inside the city of Chicago are actually the stops
least likely to have any development around them.
I know "transit-oriented development" is a buzzword these days, but since 1990 my idea of TOD is limited to a Duncan Donuts or newspaper stand (that usually changes hands every six months, btw), outside the station...
When I lived in Elgin, I took advantage of the $5 unlimited weekend METRA pass to have fun in the city without the crazy traffic and parking... but Tulsa is simply not walkable enough for me to even consider doing the same thing here. Driving a few miles to Cherry Street is much more "sustainable" than the 35 mile hour-plus long journey by car that I would take on the 50% of my trips to Chicago that didn't involve taking commuter rail...
The METRA station in suburban Schaumburg even has a single-A baseball park right off the stop; parking can be effeciently used for commuters in the mornings/and rush hours, then used for baseball fans at night. There is no development around the stadium that wasn't there before the ballpark was built.
Si uk lon--
"One of the reasons some people have a 'we know best' attitude is that they are qualified transport professionals, like pfox, to put it simply they do know best."That's EXACTLY the kind of condescending argument that will turn off Tulsans in droves who have the potential to support reasonable plans for mass transit.
Frankly, if you can't convince pro-urban density people like me and BooWorld and Michael Bates that your ideas are feasabile and reasonable, you will never convince the rest of Tulsa...
Start a rail system with tax funded infrustructure because it is needed or will be sorely needed in the not-too-distant future. Not as some taxpayer funded luxury TOD boondogle that will be hoisted on working class Tulsans as "economic stimulus" (aka taxpayer funded gentrification) that will only benefit the perceived elites... I'm still waiting to see the results of TOD on the not-so-safe Howard Street red line station in Chicago (we used to nickname the red line,
"the subway of the damned")... and the condos and townhomes in Elgin where the METRA line is being sold as part of the development but really is more of an afterthought... and the possible expansion of METRA that could prove a boone for econmically troubled Rockford (Illinois's version of Flint, MI)... of course, Tulsa is NOT Chicago... but much of midtown reminds me of areas in northwest Chicago and Niles that are only served occasionally by busses...
Dallas has had traffic problems for decades. My memories of my commute that involved those 16-laned monster superhighways around north Dallas would make living around light rail much more enticing than the same type of development in Tulsa.
I could support the Jenks line, the BA line, and would love to see commuter rail to/from Oklahoma's fastest growing county... Rogers. I think many Oklahomans have a natural romanticism for "choo-choo trains" that could translate into grassroots support...
Just don't get carried away with taxpayer funded proactive social engineering... is that viewpoint so hard to understand? [8D]
I do wonder whether Crowley, et al., have a sense of the overheated political climate in Tulsa at the moment. He arrived after the river debate, so he may not have a full understanding of the enmity so many Tulsans feel for the Mythical Ruling Oligarchy (henceforth, MRO). In their eyes, a central inner city line from downtown to the west bank will be a typical ploy by the MRO to benefit the Midtown Elite with Transportainment while ignorning the plight of the Average Citizen. If such a line is part of a streets bond issue, many will use that as an excuse to vote against it.
If Crowley's got any political acument, this will be presented in the context of a regional commuter line steered toward economic growth, and associated as little as possible with anything remotely "fun." Citizens Against Virtually Everything HATE fun. They really hate it.
quote:
Si uk lon--"One of the reasons some people have a 'we know best' attitude is that they are qualified transport professionals, like pfox, to put it simply they do know best."
Woah.
For what it is worth, I do have academic training and professional experience associated with this subject. All that means is that I am suited for my job, and can make professional judgments about the issues at hand. It does not, however, mean my opinion trumps the collective community in terms of right or wrong. It is really not about that. My job is to gather the best information possible, analyze that information, and distribute that information so that we can collectively make informed decisions. I may disagree with some statements and pronouncements here and there, but that doesn't mean I am trying de-legitimatize the messenger.
Paul brings up Los Angeles. Fair enough. That project is, in my opinion, not a good comparison to our situation. Yes, LA is car-dependent, but that is where L.A. and Tulsa's similarities end. However, Paul has every right to point to LA's failures during this discussion.
Denver and Austin are much better comparisons to Tulsa, in my professional opinion. They have much more similar geographical, political, and cultural climates to ours, and are both are dealing with the direction of their built environments and physical growth are taking.
As a planner, I recognize that the information I distribute influences decisions, so I do the best to put out the best information possible. Additionally, I do not believe in "planning from the crystal tower". I truly believe the best plans are created out of a democratic process, with broad representation. It is a fine line we planners walk, and I think any good planner would tell you that the public is integral in making city planning relevant, but that planning, at some point needs to move from the planning phase to the implementation phase. Lines on a map have to be drawn...dirt has to be turned, and the bottom-line is, you can't make everyone 100% happy.
In conclusion, I don't want this process to be elitist, but I want it to be passionate. You, as the passionate citizenry, are the actual leaders of this community. It is
your responsibility to coalesce and make compromises and decisions and to do what is right for Tulsa. I don't have that power. I am just one guy who decided that my role in life would be "planner". Make sense?
quote:
Originally posted by pfox
So, as a planner, I recognize that the information I distribute influences decisions, so I do the best to put out the best information possible. Additionally, I do not believe in "planning from the crystal tower". I truly believe the best plans are created out of a democratic process, with broad representation.
As far as the starter line goes:
From where to where? What route?
How many stops or stations, and where will they be?
How much will the starter line cost?
How much will the operation and maintenance costs be?
Who will pay for the starter line, and how?
The goal is to get the starter line in operation by when?
The trains will be running on what sort of frequency?
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
quote:
Originally posted by booWorld
From where to where? What route?
How many stops or stations, and where will they be?
How much will the starter line cost?
How much will the operation and maintenance costs be?
Who will pay for the starter line, and how?
The goal is to get the starter line in operation by when?
The trains will be running on what sort of frequency?
You seem excited. (and I PM'ed you)
Received. Thank you, sgrizzle.
quote:
Originally posted by USRufnex
Frankly, if you can't convince pro-urban density people like me and BooWorld and Michael Bates that your ideas are feasabile and reasonable, you will never convince the rest of Tulsa...
To clarify: I'm convinced that the idea of rail transit
could work, but I question whether or not it can work given the political and cultural and economic realities of Tulsa.
As far as the down-zoning of my property went, I never asked for it and never wanted it. The result is a non-sustainable low density in the heart of Tulsa. The TMAPC and INCOG staff approached me with the re-zoning idea, and they pushed it with a
"we know best" arrogant attitude. I realize that rail transit is being handled by another department at INCOG, but I do find the lack of coordination and communication between departments to be counter-productive.
Quote by USRufnex................
We intersect at economics... my travels on the METRA commuter rail in Chicagoland from Elgin to the Chicago loop showed me in no uncertain terms that use of train stations as stimulus for economic development can be artificial and misguided at best. Stop after stop and I see train stations with nothing around them. A few stations have shops around the station only because the station happened to be in an older downtown area. And the METRA stops inside the city of Chicago are actually the stops least likely to have any development around them.
I know "transit-oriented development" is a buzzword these days, but since 1990 my idea of TOD is limited to a Duncan Donuts or newspaper stand (that usually changes hands every six months, btw), outside the station...
When I lived in Elgin, I took advantage of the $5 unlimited weekend METRA pass to have fun in the city without the crazy traffic and parking... but Tulsa is simply not walkable enough for me to even consider doing the same thing here. Driving a few miles to Cherry Street is much more "sustainable" than the 35 mile hour-plus long journey by car that I would take on the 50% of my trips to Chicago that didn't involve taking commuter rail...
The METRA station in suburban Schaumburg even has a single-A baseball park right off the stop; parking can be effeciently used for commuters in the mornings/and rush hours, then used for baseball fans at night. There is no development around the stadium that wasn't there before the ballpark was built. """""
I cant speak to the specifics of this Chicago loop but I wonder if it was in an area like the starter line would be in Tulsa? I dare say that loop and this small line, are probably worlds apart in many respects.
Specifically, much of the area this starter line would be going through is in areas the city wants and is working towards seeing more growth in anyway. And indeed is seeing new growth. The line wouldnt have to be the "cause" of any growth around it, the growth is already occuring and is wanted anyway. The line would primarily enhance that growth and take advantage of it.
You mention the baseball stadium in that one area and the benefits of having that on the line. We would have the Arena on the line, it would be near the possible baseball stadium as well, not to mention what goes in by the River "again a prime area for future development... actually the BEST spot for river development in Tulsa" Not to mention the PAC, Brady Arts, Blue Dome, Greenwood, OSU Tulsa, The central business core. new living, etc, etc.
Many of these areas already have attractions, will need parking, are areas that are prime spots for development that we want developed and in which we are already doing many other things to attract development, and many are areas that are currently seeing new growth right now.
If we get some TOD stuff... fine. If not, the areas are growing in ways that will make this starter line more and more worthwhile and desirable, all the time. We want those areas to grow regardless. We want those areas to be walkable and connected regardless. People want
to have good urban living options in Tulsa.
I too will be more interested in seeing what this line costs, what money could be saved by doing the line and using parking around it versus building new parking garages."people are constantly complaining that there isnt enough parking around the arena, possible baseball stadium, etc." See if city owned property on either end of the line could be used as a source of revenue to help defray costs. etc. Once you get the balance of all the different factors weighed in, then you can make a better analysis as to whether its worth it.
I used to always mention that any new parking garage the city built downtown should have retail around it on the first floor. Now I have changed my tune. No more parking garages period and have maximum number of parking spaces not minimum. This change had nothing to do with the thought of rail but the realizations that,,, You will never have enough parking, its a disease that grows off of itself. It hinders the formation of walkable districts. Many of our streets in and near downtown should not be widened but narrowed to slow traffic down and also help create a pedestrian friendly environment. The fact that these types of things would help any rail transit in the area is purely secondary. But also important if we do want to persue the rail there.
few quotes again
Anyplace worth its salt has a 'parking problem'. - James Castle
Parking is a narcotic and ought to be a controlled substance. It is addictive, and one can never have enough. - Victor Dover
...Rather than design a transportation system to get the most out of America's cities, America redesigned the cities to get the most out of the automobile. - Richard Moe
If car ownership is mandatory, [the place is] not urban. - Donald Baxter
If you design communities for automobiles, you get more automobiles. If you design them for people, you get walkable, livable communities. - Parris Glendening and Christine Todd Whitman
Automobiles need quantity and pedestrians need quality. - Dan Burden
Cars are happiest when there are no other cars around. People are happiest when there are other people around. - Dan Burden
Planning of the automobile city focuses on saving time. Planning for the accessible city, on the other hand, focuses on time well spent. - Robert Cervero
The role of the street is social as well as utilitarian. - Andres Duany
Vancouver killed the freeway because they didn't want the freeways to kill their neighborhoods. The city flourished because making it easier to drive does not reduce traffic; it increases it. That means if you don't waste billions of dollars building freeways, you actually end up with less traffic. - Rick Cole
The problem is not the automobile. There are plenty of cars and traffic jams in European cities, but urban planning and design there does not simply revolve around making space for the car. In American downtowns, however, that has too often been the case. For years, downtowns have been decimated as buildings have been cleared and streets widened in an effort to get more cars into the city. Since most cars are driven only a few hours per week, storage is a big problem. Parking lots often take up more space than any other land use. - Larry Ford
We need to design our cities so that one feels embarrassed, inconvenienced, and like one who is missing out on all the fun when driving a car. - Dom Nozzi
Anything you do to make a city more friendly to cars makes it less friendly to people. - Enrique Penalosa
This one is my favorite, pretty much sums it all up.
If you plan cities for cars and traffic, you get cars and traffic. If you plan for people and places, you get people and places. - Fred Kent
Killer quotations.
Our city planners should have them painted on their office walls...or on the walls of their parking garages.
Welcome village idiot.
I am glad to see fellow idiot company. A village our size needs more than one so we can work shifts.
Our own RecycleMichael is making news, again! [;)]
quote:
Rail Service -- In Tulsa's Future Or Not?
From KTUL: http://www.ktul.com/news/stories/0408/512077.html
How would you feel about boarding a train to get around Tulsa? Is it an option for the future? The idea has been studied for more than a year. And now, for the first time, you'll get to weigh in on the concept.
Officials have looked at the plans and the costs. Now, they are bringing in the experts and are looking for your feedback on the possibility of upgrading some of Tulsa's rail lines to carry people around the city.
The people behind the plan say it can't be done unless you support it.
Tulsa's Enviro-Expo is promoting the greenest groups in the city, hoping to add rail service to the mix. Michael Patton is with the MET, or Metropolitan Environmental Trust.
"If we can reduce the demand, reduce the number of vehicle miles traveled by having the rail we ride together, we'll have a better planet, better air quality for Tulsa in the summers, a better community," he says.
But, the question is more than one of social conscience. It's about the future of how people get around.
"As congestion rises and as fuel costs rise, we're going to be facing the choices of dealing with that congestion in some way," says Transportation Planner Patrick Fox.
They're taking cues from cities like Austin, Portland and Denver. The Indian Nations Council of Governments started studying the idea more than a year ago. It starts with upgrades to rail lines already in place so they can carry people from Broken Arrow to Tulsa and later adding service to Jenks, Sand Springs, Sapulpa and Owasso.
Bryant Harris commutes to Tulsa and says he's on board with the concept, but not paying more taxes to get it.
"If they're not taking care of the streets like they're supposed to, who's to say they're not going to misuse the funds for a so-called railroad," he says.
The cost of starting rail service could vary from seven to 21 million dollars a mile, depending on what kind of technology is chosen and if it's supported at all.
"So, where does Tulsa want to be," asks Fox. "That's up for the public to decide."
And, this is where you come in. Next week, INCOG is using grant money from the Federal Transit Administration to fly in experts from Denver, Austin, and Portland to answer questions about rail service in Tulsa. It's expected to be the first of many discussions on this topic.
The first discussion is next Thursday night, April 24th. It will begin at 6 p.m. at the Jazz Hall of Fame at Union Station. For more information, visit http://www.whataboutrail.blogspot.com/.
© 2008 KTUL-TV, LLC
All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Advantage Lifestyles Audiology & Hearing Aids
My comments were not about any particular rail line or about the costs of any new rail system.
I am just commenting on rail lines are a good environmental way to move people.
I got a call this morning from someone who was listening to FM94.1 this morning. They said the DJ said The M.e.t. was pushing a rail line that would cost 20 million dollars. The DJ said that money should be spent on roads instead.
RM,
Interesting how quickly things can get twisted in the media. 94.1? I didn't know they had a news-worthy morning drive show.
Unfortunately, I've got a conflict this evening otherwise, I would like to be there.
My problem with local rail to now has been the image of a large infrastructure cost for a handfull of riders. I like the approach that densities are being studied and considered. I do hope that the powers that be will really listen to individuals as well instead of sticking to pre-concieved paradigms they might have.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
Unfortunately, I've got a conflict this evening otherwise, I would like to be there.
The 24th is next week, FYI.
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
My comments were not about any particular rail line or about the costs of any new rail system.
I am just commenting on rail lines are a good environmental way to move people.
I got a call this morning from someone who was listening to FM94.1 this morning. They said the DJ said The M.e.t. was pushing a rail line that would cost 20 million dollars. The DJ said that money should be spent on roads instead.
This is why we are having this event...to talk ahout this.
Money will be spent on roads...but it shouldn't be an either/or situation.
JMO.
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
My comments were not about any particular rail line or about the costs of any new rail system.
I am just commenting on rail lines are a good environmental way to move people.
I got a call this morning from someone who was listening to FM94.1 this morning. They said the DJ said The M.e.t. was pushing a rail line that would cost 20 million dollars. The DJ said that money should be spent on roads instead.
That's why I get all my news from 94.1...the strict journalistic standards.
quote:
...making it easier to drive does not reduce traffic; it increases it. That means if you don't waste billions of dollars building freeways, you actually end up with less traffic.
Exactly!
How often do we expand a freeway and go "there, done. It's good forever now." That doesn't happen. Because now that it is a larger freeway it is more attractive to drive on and so more people do, then it gets crowded again. Most of the best urban cities had no choice but to abandon this model or never got on board in the first place.
I'm still not sure about the viability of rail, but certainly changes in long term planning (including mandatory parking spots) should be reconsidered.
quote:
Originally posted by pfox
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
My comments were not about any particular rail line or about the costs of any new rail system.
I am just commenting on rail lines are a good environmental way to move people.
I got a call this morning from someone who was listening to FM94.1 this morning. They said the DJ said The M.e.t. was pushing a rail line that would cost 20 million dollars. The DJ said that money should be spent on roads instead.
This is why we are having this event...to talk ahout this.
Money will be spent on roads...but it shouldn't be an either/or situation.
JMO.
Where is the money going to come from?
I dont think many people in Tulsa are wanting more roads or more lanes, they just want what we have fixed. And a lot of them do not want any taxes raised to do it. They certainly arent going to want some tax raised to do rail if they dont want taxes raised to fix the roads,,, and they still want the roads fixed. If we dont have enough money to fix the roads without raising taxes, how on earth are you going to add rail and fix the roads without raising taxes?
I think we have a looot of infill and redevelopment of underused properties to do. I would rather see the roads improved, infill of areas that have very low traffic as it is and are underperforming tax earnings wise. You have large areas of the city that hardly have any businesses, residential, etc, but have roads already in place, that need to be fixed, where redevelopment and infill development can occur. Also, focusing on encouraging those areas to be walkable, bikeable, higher density will increase tax base, make them more efficient transportation wise because walkable areas "theoretically" take trips off the roads or at least make the trips much much shorter.
Rail sounds all cool and neat, but...
Basically I see that we have many more opportnities to do cool and neat things that will improve our city. If its the creation of wonderful, dense, urban, pedestrian friendly districts... we can do a looot of that right now, without doing rail. I would rather have some "extra money" if there is any or wherever it comes from, at this point going to help creating those districts. Rail could be a part of that some day, but we can and should do a lot of infill and redevelopment stuff before then. Thats really what I want to see in Tulsa anyway. And we can get that without rail at this point. And by doing rail I am afraid we will be diverting funds away from what we really want to create. For every example you could find where rail stimulated TOD, I can find dozens of examples of areas that are successful, are more dense and walkable than anything we have in this city. Heck we have large areas that have practically nothing and could, for comparable costs be turned into great places. Where is the money for the Pearl District going to come from? And the roads? And now rail too? You really think we are going to be able to get all of that and more for other areas? I dont.
We often comment on how we dont need to follow what other cities are doing, that we should be unique. Rail seems to be one of those things that people would like to be able to say we have, to "drop" that we have one and sound like a big city or something. But we can improve our city a long way, even transportation wise, without that extra expense. Perhaps easier without it.
On the money question: From what I gather in the news and on this forum, Tulsa voters are going to be presented with a massive bond proposal to fund a plan to renovate our transportation infrastructure.
I have to assume that these discussions will lead to a final decision on whether and how passenger rail will fit into that plan.
There will be some trying to make the case that certain passenger rail options might be more cost effective in the long-run than the same dollars spent on expanding roads and highways. This seems a highly sensible proposition to me; but, then again, it may not be true for Tulsa.
Anyway, given that this relationship between passenger rail and passenger traffic exists, PFox's assertion that "it doesn't have to be an either/or situation" strikes me as the proper way to approach the question. I will be very interested to see what rail proponents have in mind, and whether it makes sense.
Tangent:
I'm officially tired of the phrase: "fix the streets." I'm starting to think it's the general public's version of: "Not tonight, Dear, I have a headache." It avoids having to think about any new opportunities or options. It avoids having to face and solve other problems. It avoids having to think about the long run. It avoids having to do anything at all, except roll over and fall asleep...and then wake up the next day and complain about the roads again.
Viable, efficient transit is part of the solution to "fixing the roads." These things are not mutually exclusive. Transit planning and transit-oriented development is a long-term solution. "Fixing the roads" is a short term solution that temporarily fills potholes...before they need to be filled again in 10 or 15 years.
Long-term transit solutions may take years to reach fruition. Fixing potholes is "maintenance." It "solves" the problem for a few months or years before the "solution" begins to degrade...and you're right back where you started.
Transit systems may cost millions to implement. Pot holes and road repair/expansion cost hundreds of millions of dollars every few years. (Tulsa's 3rd penny sales tax includes $125 Million for repair and expansion of streets and highways for a 5-year period).
quote:
Originally posted by Floyd
On the money question: From what I gather in the news and on this forum, Tulsa voters are going to be presented with a massive bond proposal to fund a plan to renovate our transportation infrastructure.
I have to assume that these discussions will lead to a final decision on whether and how passenger rail will fit into that plan.
There will be some trying to make the case that certain passenger rail options might be more cost effective in the long-run than the same dollars spent on expanding roads and highways. This seems a highly sensible proposition to me; but, then again, it may not be true for Tulsa.
Anyway, given that this relationship between passenger rail and passenger traffic exists, PFox's assertion that "it doesn't have to be an either/or situation" strikes me as the proper way to approach the question. I will be very interested to see what rail proponents have in mind, and whether it makes sense.
To me that sets up a false dichotomy. For instance, Its not about do we expand the BA or do rail and which is most cost effective. Whats most cost effective is to do neither.
If someone chooses to live in BA then sits in traffic, thats not my problem. Tulsa taxpayers should not have to pay for that bad descision. If that commuter doesnt like sitting in traffic and a long commute, then MOVE to Tulsa. Move to the Pearl District for instance. I would hope that traffic would finally get that idea into peoples heads. OR, if its so unbearable for the citizens of BA to sit in traffic along the BA, let the city of BA buy that rail line and pay for commuter rail. Again, why should I have to pay for it?
And if the person decides to stay in BA and work there... Bavo! Smart move. I want to see us develop another couple dozen Brooksides and Cherry Streets, heck better and even more dense, in run down areas of Tulsa. We got pleeenty of areas all over the city that can be made to be wonderful, urban places. Thats where our money, thoughts, time and efforts should go.
I want to see people living, working and shopping IN the city. I do not want to be spending money on enabling people to use the city as a "transit corridor". Screw the suburbanites, they should not be our concern. They are quite capable of taking care of themselves. Tulsans should focus on building great communities in Tulsa. Again, rail could be a part of that, but I dont see a need for it now, would rather see those funds going to other things at this time. And rail costs millions to keep running as well, its not just spend a little then it goes on automatic. Someone mentioned how much the rail sytem in, I think it was Denver cost to run per year, it was absurd.
Let me put it this way...
Do you think we can improve our city, even improve it greatly, without spending money on rail? Yes or No
I say yes.
Everything you say that rail can do for you, that matters, you can do in a better, more productive, way.
Nice post Artist.... we complain about the "sprawl" we face and then work to make engress and regress from our city even easier...
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
Screw the suburbanites, they should not be our concern.
Really?
That is a hard one for me to swallow, honestly. Not to pull a Hillary on you, but statements like that smack of elitism and is, frankly, the kind of divisive lanuguage that prevents successful collaboration, which we need as we think about managing our growth patterns.
For what it is worth, I'll use INCOG's bicycle advisory group as an example. I have two to three representatives who live in Broken Arrow and Owasso respectively. Why do they choose to live there? Who knows? School choice? Affordability? A spouses' proximity to work? Regardless, they live there, and make a choice to ride to work. One works at TCC North Campus, one at American Airlines, one for TPS (I think). Conversely, one of our reps lives in Midtown Tulsa but works in far East Tulsa. I think they chose to live in Midtown, for all of the reasons we all love Midtown; but their employer is not in Midtown. They are all doing meaningful and important jobs, and we need them in our community. They want access to the city and all of the amenities that living in a large metropolitan area provides, just like you or I. Should they be denied this because they weighed their needs and it made sense for them to choose to live in BA, or some other place? Are
these the people we are 'screwing'?
Basically, you are saying, "you live in a car oriented environment, therefore you must drive a car." That doesn't seem right. It seems like we should be making it easier for those people to not
have to drive a car. It seems that 'punishing' those for living in a suburb, by not providing options to them, doesn't just punish them, Artist, it punishes us. Worse traffic. Worse air quality. More auto driven development. What we could be doing instead is providing a way for those who live there to live more compactly, using transit to provide more non-auto dependent mobility, to create those "brooksides" in Broken Arrow or Owasso, and to drive shorter distances (perhaps walk or bike to the transit station), to avoid idling on an expressway at 5:15 pm Thursday evening.
I understand the Kunstler argument. I really do. But it isn't reality. Broken Arrow, Owasso, Bixby are not going away. BUT what happens beyond Broken Arrow and Bixby and between Owasso and Tulsa can still managed...think about that! Is Coweta the next big thing? It's even further than Broken Arrow from Tulsa. How can that be influenced? These are the questions we should be asking. Not the only questions, but some of them.
So how does this help Tulsa? Your suggestion is that instead of rail, we spend money on neighborhood revitalization? What do you mean? Should the city build buildings and condos and such? Or is that the role of the private market?
I contend that the city's role is to provide for the health, saftey and welfare of the community by providing services and infrastructure that, in turn allows for investment from the market that fill those community needs. Investment in transit and fixed guideway transit is by no means the silver bullet for all of Tulsa's issues, but it certainly attempts to address many of them. Our economy, our built environment, our socially and economically disadvantaged population, and our environmental needs are all impacted through such an investment. You would be hard pressed to find an investment that crosses as many boundaries public transportation. And from a cost-benefit standpoint, there may be no better investment. So if you consider yourself to be a fiscal conservative, you need to take a long, hard look at how far your contribution to your communities transportation system is going currently, and then look at how far your dollar would go, in terms of return on investment, with transit. I disagree wholeheartedly that the most cost effective solution is to do neither. Doing nothing is exactly what got us into this 1.6 Billion dollar streets mess in the first place.
quote:
Originally posted by pfox
Screw the suburbanites?
Really?
That is a hard one for me to swallow, honestly. Not to pull a Hillary on you, but statements like that smack of elitism and is, frankly, the kind of divisive lanuguage that prevents successful collaboration, which we need as we think about managing our growth patterns.
For what it is worth, I'll use INCOG's bicycle advisory group as an example. I have two to three representatives who live in Broken Arrow and Owasso respectively. Why do they choose to live there? Who knows? School choice? Affordability? A spouses' proximity to work? Regardless, they live there, and make a choice to ride to work. One works at TCC North Campus, one at American Airlines, one for TPS (I think). Conversely, one of our reps lives in Midtown Tulsa but works in far East Tulsa. I think they chose to live in Midtown, for all of the reasons we all love Midtown; but their employer is not in Midtown. They are all doing meaningful and important jobs, and we need them in our community. They want access to the city and all of the amenities that living in a large metropolitan area provides, just like you or I. Should they be denied this because they weighed their needs and it made sense for them to choose to live in BA, or some other place? Are these the people we are 'screwing'?
It seems that 'punishing' those for living in a suburb, by not providing options to them, doesn't just punish them, Artist, it punishes us. Worse traffic. Worse air quality. More auto driven development. What we could be doing instead is providing a way for those who live there to live more compactly, using transit to provide more non-auto dependent mobility, to create those "brooksides" in Broken Arrow or Owasso, and to drive shorter distances (perhaps walk or bike to the transit station), to avoid idling on an expressway at 5:15 pm Thursday evening.
I understand the Kunstler argument. I really do. But it isn't reality. Broken Arrow, Owasso, Bixby are not going away. BUT what happens beyond Broken Arrow and Bixby and between Owasso and Tulsa can still managed...think about that! Is Coweta the next big thing? It's even further than Broken Arrow from Tulsa. How can that be influenced? These are the questions we should be asking. Not the only questions, but some of them.
So how does this help Tulsa? Your suggestion is that instead of rail, we spend money on neighborhood revitalization? What do you mean? Should the city build buildings and condos and such? Or is that the role of the private market?
Investment in transit and fixed guideway transit is by no means the silver bullet for all of Tulsa's issues, but it certainly attempts to address many of them. Our economy, our built environment, our socially and economically disadvantaged population, and our environmental needs are all impacted through such an investment. You would be hard pressed to find an investment that crosses as many boundaries public transportation. And from a cost-benefit standpoint, there may be no better investment. So if you consider yourself to be a fiscal conservative, you need to take a long, hard look at how far your contribution to your communities transportation system is going currently, and then look at how far your dollar would go, in terms of return on investment, with transit. I disagree wholeheartedly that the most cost effective solution is to do neither. Doing nothing is exactly what got us into this 1.6 Billion dollar streets mess in the first place.
I dont know how thats "elitist" lol. Its usually the suburbs who snub and look down on the city if thats what you are talking about. And frankly I dont care about the usual elitism comments I hear. Its ok to make fun of liberal, Murano driving Latte drinking city dwellers but if you dare mention a conservative, beer drinking, truck driving, bubba, your an elitist? Both are labeling. If thats who you are and thats what you like,,, great! It shouldnt be seen as a badge of disgrace. Embrace it dont be insecure about it. Someone crying "elitist!" is showing that they are insecure by indirectly saying that what the other person likes or does is seen as better or "elite". Its only seen to be that way if you choose to see it that way. Why not value who you are and what you like and do equally?
Not "screw the suburbanites" as in actively do something to hurt them, but as in, we dont need to go out or our way, or our of our pockets to pay more for their transportation and living descisions. As for pointing out the people you know that live in the suburbs, I dont know what your point was. I know lots of nice people, even some of my family that live in the suburbs. Again I dont want to HURT them but I am not going to pay extra for them. I would rather they live in town actually. And if they drive into the city every day to work and didnt like the commute, I sure as heck wouldnt feel sorry for them, thats what they decided to do. That was their choice not mine. If they want access to the city and all its amenities, they can live here, enjoy those amenities, and work to make the city a better place. They can have meaningful and important jobs here or in the suburbs.
........."Basically, you are saying, "you live in a car oriented environment, therefore you must drive a car." That doesn't seem right. It seems like we should be making it easier for those people to not
have to drive a car."....
I am saying you CHOOSE to live in a car oriented environment"they arent forced to". By living in a pedestrian friendly environment they do not have to drive a car. Or will not have to drive as far and worry about traffic. Nobody is forcing anyone to drive a car, they chose to live the way they do. They are the ones making it more difficult to create pedestrian friendly environments by choosing to live in sprawling suburban areas. They are choosing to drive long distances in polluting cars hurting the environment.
One other thing, if we worked to create more dense, mixed use, urban environments through zoning and other measures... trips you do take by car wouldnt be so far.
We frankly dont have a lot of traffic anyway but the areas in which we do,, the BA during rush hour or the 71st corridor is because of a lemming effect in which so many people live in segregated areas. Live here, work over there, shop in this area. Now imagine comparing that to say a moderately dense and more mixed use area like 21st and Utica. If you lived at Utica Place or that other apartment tower, just about everything you want is right outside your door. Grocery store, bank, barber, eating establisments, shopping, beautiful parks, possibly even your work, etc. This takes away trips on the road, lessening traffic, AND what trips you do take are short and nearby. You arent traveling with a herd of other people from one spot to another spot farther away and all funneling onto the roads in those areas. The new apartments possibly going in behind the Wild Oats and Albertsons on Brookside. Possibly a couple hundred more people living in an area where they will not have to drive to a grocery store at least, other things close by, other things within a very short distance. Such that even if there is a bit more traffic, you wont have to wait long because your not going far. Plus it opens up different transportation options, walk, bike, small motorbikes "which are great for short distances in urban environments, inexpensive, environmentally friendly, easy to park, etc". Buses that we already pay for can become more used and efficient, taxis, etc.
Another thing about the traffic and density. We have many areas in the city, near highways even, like the 6th street corridor near downtown, that are practically empty and dead. I stood down there to get a pic of the area to do a rendering for the Pearl District the other day during a "peak traffic" time. Hardly a car went by. Those areas would be great to turn into another Cherry Street or Utica Square, mixed use, type area. The density of even our most dense areas is barely "medium density" let alone high density. There are many areas that dont have any density to speak of. Lets encourage those areas to be mixed use and do just as you say...."I contend that the city's role is to provide for the health, saftey and welfare of the community by providing services and infrastructure that, in turn allows for investment from the market that fill those community needs. "
Back to the suburbs again. I think they too should work to have more dense, mixed use, pedestrian friendly environments "Brooksides in Broken Arrow". People can work there doing similar jobs in those communities, shopping in those communities, etc. We wont lose population or lose good people because we will gain people who WILL live in Tulsa, work in Tulsa, shop in Tulsa. Its not a finite pie. Each is its own pie of people, jobs, etc.
Rail wont eliminate all the traffic off the BA, so it cant eliminate all pollution. Building many dense, mixed use, pedestrian friendly environments can alleviate just as much future pollution, or more, than that rail line. If they want to sit in traffic and pollute instead of creating dense, mixed use, environments. Its not something we are forcing on them. Its their choice. We and they can deter that by creating good, dense, urban environments. And if the suburban, commuter traffic does get bad, and they pollute more... Shame on them for cshoosing to do so, perhaps we should punish or tax them for that choice.
Our choice should be to create wonderful, dense, mixed use, pedestrian friendly environments all over the city. Helping to eliminate road trips, make the ones you do take shorter, encouraging walkability, biking, motorbikes, etc. You do that by zoning, Form Based Codes, excellent schools, reducing crime, creating beautiful spaces, parks, streets and sidewalks that work and encourage community,,,, and all kinds of other things that make the city a desirable place.
The suburbs can do that as well. If people want to live in suburban sprawl, we cant stop that. We can encourage the suburbs to also create more efficient cities, or green zones perhaps, but even rail cant stop someone from building the next neighborhood off on some field if they want that lifestyle. For if they want that lifestyle instead of a more dense, urban one. They arent going to live in an urban environment whether its in the suburbs by some rail line, or the city. I dont see how you figure rail can have an influence on the "next big thing" suburban wise. Rail does not stop sprawl in the suburbs. The suburbs can "densify" if they want to and if people want to live that way. If people want to live in a suburban environment, we can encourage them to not do so, but so many seem to want to regardless. If people want to live in good urban environments, lets make Tulsa the place of choice in the area. Not some "TOD node" on a line in the suburbs.
Answers to most of the questions I've seen posted here are answered at the site for Light Rail Now. They are dedicated to providing accurate information on public transit. Go to www.lightrailnow.org .
Real trolleys ride on steel rails and use electric power. A vehicle with rubber tires and an internal combustion engine is a bus. It's not a bad vehicle, it's just not a trolley.
In my opinion, a train to BA is a bad idea. I've noticed no-one really mentions it anymore so I'm guessing others know this as well. While urban development can happen in absence of rail, a short line rail connecting dense urban and destination environments could be a big benefit. There are constant mentions of connecting riverside to downtown, rail would be a great way to do it, especially if plans to develop the west bank come to fruition. You could have an OSU/Greenwood station and ride from there to the Arena. That would give an easy connection from the East End and possibly driller's stadium to the BoK Center.
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
In my opinion, a train to BA is a bad idea. I've noticed no-one really mentions it anymore so I'm guessing others know this as well. While urban development can happen in absence of rail, a short line rail connecting dense urban and destination environments could be a big benefit. There are constant mentions of connecting riverside to downtown, rail would be a great way to do it, especially if plans to develop the west bank come to fruition. You could have an OSU/Greenwood station and ride from there to the Arena. That would give an easy connection from the East End and possibly driller's stadium to the BoK Center.
I agree. The West Bank to just past OSU Tulsa seems to currently offer the best synergies and potential. But even here I would like to see cost estimates to set it up and estimates for what it would cost to maintain it.
I wish Tulsa were growing as fast as a lot of other cities that are mentioned like Dallas, Austin and Denver. Those cities caught the growth bug before rail really caught on and development happened in parts of the city that didnt have rail access, first. Those cities had dynamic areas that did not have rail. Rail does not create growth, it can draw growth to a certain area. But there has to be "growth" to draw from. Just like there is a draw now for developers to build near Brookside and Cherry Street and to some small amount areas in and around downtown. I still do not see that we are at the point where we have the growth, and the growth in type of people who want to live in say midrise condo buildings in urban environments. There are plenty of areas where those types of places could go, but yet we arent seeing a push for that type of development. Heck even Brookside and Cherry Street still arent exactly booming with even small stuff. Not like similar areas in those before mentioned cities. Those cities became a draw for other reasons, it wasnt because of rail. We need to work on those other reasons first. Then when be start rockin and rollin development wise THEN you can add the rail and reasonably expect to get good TOD. Just like they said we woud get all this neat stuff by the Arena, and it does happen in other cities, it hasnt because we still arent growing and attracting people like those other cities. The demand isnt there.
Look at that Bomasada development in Brookside. He was having a hard time making the numbers work. They crunched the numbers, looked at demand, demographics etc and figured they can only get so much for their residences. That development is nothing like in those other cities. Yet even in one of our most desirable areas for urban dwellers to want to move... developers are pushing it to build something cheap eonough to sell, yet nice enough to be a draw with the demand that we have. Our demand for that type of living still isnt that strong. We still do not have enough of the types of people with good paying jobs to create that demand. If there were the demand like there was in Denver, Dallas, and Austin we would see some towers going up. Or at least certainly more smaller 4 and 5 story developments. Plus those cities can draw from a larger population, city and metro, to attract the kind of people who want more dense urban living. OKC does not have rail yet they are out doing us on development. They created the environment that attracts those types of people in another way. Though even they are stagnant compared to Austin, Dallas and Denver.
Once an area gets started with enough critical mass, if there is demand, it will grow to meet that demand. 6th street near Peoria could be another place to help get that critical mass, once you get even a few small businesses and shops in an area and it looks attractive, then developers will start moving in. Unlike Brookside for instance you can build much taller near 6th street and if the market is there to pay for that type of development it will occur. It would already BE occuring in other parts in and around downtown if there was a market for it.
Sticking a rail in some where will not make the market. The market has to be there first. And if there is the market for it we have places that should already attract it and thus should be seeing more of that type of growth, I am not seeing it. We should be seeing it already in at least some minor form some place in the city. The growth we have seen so far is pitiful. I am thankful for every tiny bit we get. But the demand just doesnt seem to be there even in the areas where we would be seeing it first . We got a ways to go. Heck I would be thrilled to catch up to OKC.
Even our suburbs arent growing that much. They seem like it because of "percentage" growth. They are so small to begin with it doesnt take much to have a large percentage. But actual population growth, our area is still stagnant. Rail wont help spur that population growth either.
I know you aren't an 'elitist' Artist. I have met you... I hope you didn't take that as a personal attack. I meant the language you were using sounded elitist.
I feel like we are talking past each other a little here. I think we are on the same page, roughly, about what kinds of environments we are trying to create as we attempt to revitalize our city.
Where we differ is in our opinion regarding approach, the method itself on how to accomplish this. Fair enough. I look forward to this dialogue, and I am glad you are participating.
Let me throw another issue into the mix, and that is housing costs. This issue is just beyond the horizon for Tulsa, and as we create value in our core neighborhoods, what was once 'affordable' housing will likely no longer be without a concerted effort to preserve some of that housing for lower to middle income households. I bring this up, because this is one of the reasons people "choose" where they live. I use that term loosely, because not everybody has a "choice". So, thinking about that, how should we ensure that these great neighborhoods and commercial districts remain accessible to the broad economic stratum of our population?
In the meantime here is some light reading for your enjoyment:
By the Center for Housing Policy with partner the Center for Neighborhood Technology:
http://nhc.org/pdf/pub_heavy_load_10_06.pdf
and from Chapter 2 of "Realizing the Potential: Expanding Housing Opportunities Near Transit"
Reconnecting America's Center for Transit-Oriented Development for FTA and HUD:
http://www.reconnectingamerica.org/public/download/rtp4
This new national study funded by the Federal Transit Administration and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development shows that location matters a great deal when it comes to reducing household costs. While families who live in auto-dependent neighborhoods spend an average of 25 percent of their household budget on transportation, families who live in transit-rich neighborhoods spend just 9 percent, the study says. The report examines five case study regions – Boston, Charlotte, Denver, Minneapolis, and Portland -- to better understand the proactive strategies being undertaken to create and preserve affordable housing near transit.
Heard an interesting story on NPR this morning. It seems that in cities around the country, housing prices are falling (and construction has crashed) in areas that require long commutes.
Where is housing strong? In places close to work centers AND in locations close to TRANSIT. These areas continue to see growth, and the builders predict it will remain strong in coming years.
Statistics show a growing "childless" population (aging baby boomers, YPs, double-income-no-kids--etc). These are folks who don't want the big house/big yard model. What they DO value is more time, greater convenience and the ability to get to work and entertainment centers quickly. Also, people have learned that they may save money on a mortgage by being far from the city core, but they spend more than they save on transportation.
Many Tulsans will say that our commute times are "not that bad" compared to other cities. The thing about planning for the future is that the future is not the past. It's not the present. It will be different. In Tulsa we can expect to see a 36% increase in vehicle miles traveled by 2030. During that time, we will expand our arterial roads and highways by 13%. You do the math.
While the NPR story was not specific to transit, it makes several points that support the need for TOD planning. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=89803663
On that note...one of the speakers at the event will be Sonya Lopez, Station Area Planning project manager in Austin Texas. She will introduce Austin's Transit Oriented Development Program, which officially began in May 2005. She will outline the framework TOD ordinance that was approved on this date and the process for developing station area plans. She will highlight elements of the on-going station area planning process for three urban core TOD Districts, emphasizing the diversity of public opinion expressed and the challenges of providing affordable housing in station areas.
This is incredibly relevant for us, as, potentially, these lines travel through a variety of neighborhoods. Suburban, employment based areas, light industrial, established Midtown neighborhoods, targeted redevelopment areas (Sixth Street, West Bank...).
This really could be an excited possibilty for Tulsa and I'm glad to see some discussion about the pros and cons of it.
*****UPDATED PRESENTERS/PANELIST LIST*****
We are excited about the caliber of presenters who have agree to participate in the public open house.
Presenters/Panelists:
Sonya Lopez - Principal Planner, Austin
Cal Marsella - General Manager of the Regional Transportation District, Denver
Dr. Jack Crowley- Special Advisor to the Mayor
Panelists:
Andrew Howard - Kimley-Horn, consulting firm studying the integration of land-use and transit for the City of Tulsa Comprehensive Plan
Dwayne Weeks-Federal Transit Administration, New Starts and Small Starts project review team).
You can submit questions for these presenters starting today. Questions can be added as comments to the blog or email to transportation@incog.org . Please include your name, city of residents or organization with the question. There will also be time before and during the open house to submit your questions.
I want rail travel in Tulsa and TO Tulsa!!! I would love to be able to roll my suit case a couple of blocks to a rail station that took me to the airport or to another rail station which connected with Oklahoma City or Kansas City. I could go all the way from my house to Chicago, New York, Alaska, Portland OR without getting into a car.
Per the suburb comment from a few days ago...
Screw the suburbs IF catering to them destroys Tulsa. My neighborhood has a 6 lane freeway through it. The North Side is cut off. Greenwood was all but destroyed. Now the I-44 corridor is forcing more businesses South.
More freeways through Tulsa means less tax base FOR Tulsa while simultaneously making it more convenient for people to use Tulsa as nothing but a place to work. The result is money flowing from Tulsa to the suburbs, at the expense of Tulsa.
I'm not trying to sound bitter or like I hate the suburbs. But why would someone living in Tulsa want to enable other communities to take away from Tulsa? The entire point of the BA is to allow people to get the hell out of Tulsa at 5pm as fast as possible. Do not stick around for supper, do not catch a movie, do not allow a local business to collect $200.
We replaced houses and Tulsa businesses with a way for people to live in BA and shop at BA businesses. I understand freeways are needed, but they do not foster the density, the walk ability, efficiency, or many other positives beyond convenience (I differentiate commuter freeways from highways used for commerce).
I'm not against freeways wholesale, but... Bah. Does this ramble make any sense?
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
Per the suburb comment from a few days ago...
Screw the suburbs IF catering to them destroys Tulsa. My neighborhood has a 6 lane freeway through it. The North Side is cut off. Greenwood was all but destroyed. Now the I-44 corridor is forcing more businesses South.
More freeways through Tulsa means less tax base FOR Tulsa while simultaneously making it more convenient for people to use Tulsa as nothing but a place to work. The result is money flowing from Tulsa to the suburbs, at the expense of Tulsa.
I'm not trying to sound bitter or like I hate the suburbs. But why would someone living in Tulsa want to enable other communities to take away from Tulsa? The entire point of the BA is to allow people to get the hell out of Tulsa at 5pm as fast as possible. Do not stick around for supper, do not catch a movie, do not allow a local business to collect $200.
We replaced houses and Tulsa businesses with a way for people to live in BA and shop at BA businesses. I understand freeways are needed, but they do not foster the density, the walk ability, efficiency, or many other positives beyond convenience (I differentiate commuter freeways from highways used for commerce).
I'm not against freeways wholesale, but... Bah. Does this ramble make any sense?
Yes, yes it does. I feel 'ya.
I went to the rail forum tonight. I showed up late and left early (I have the attention span of a gnat).
There was a good crowd. I counted 124 people in attendance. I heard the Austin woman speak and the Tulsa guy Jack Crowley speak.
I didn't know what to expect. I like the concept of rail, but I love my car too (I think it is called auto-eroticism). I also don't trust out-of-town consultants and know that rail spelled backwards is liar.
Jack Crowley started off saying all the reasons that rail wouldn't work here. He used many of the same arguments on this thread, most importantly, we just don't have the density. Then he told us how it could work...how properly planned new development could enhance assets like the new arena, Williams Tower, Osu-Tulsa and property on the west bank owned by the city. He made some good points. Rail transit will build density, cars fight density.
I am glad I went. I hope that we build something soon.
quote:
er the suburb comment from a few days ago... Screw the suburbs IF catering to them destroys Tulsa. My neighborhood has a 6 lane freeway through it. The North Side is cut off. Greenwood was all but destroyed. Now the I-44 corridor is forcing more businesses South.
More freeways through Tulsa means less tax base FOR Tulsa while simultaneously making it more convenient for people to use Tulsa as nothing but a place to work. The result is money flowing from Tulsa to the suburbs, at the expense of Tulsa.
I'm not trying to sound bitter or like I hate the suburbs. But why would someone living in Tulsa want to enable other communities to take away from Tulsa? The entire point of the BA is to allow people to get the hell out of Tulsa at 5pm as fast as possible. Do not stick around for supper, do not catch a movie, do not allow a local business to collect $200.
We replaced houses and Tulsa businesses with a way for people to live in BA and shop at BA businesses. I understand freeways are needed, but they do not foster the density, the walk ability, efficiency, or many other positives beyond convenience (I differentiate commuter freeways from highways used for commerce).
I'm not against freeways wholesale, but... Bah. Does this ramble make any sense?
It makes perfect sense...ever thought of running for office? [:D]
I personally enjoy "examples" so here are my thoughts....take a strong look at Portland Oregon. Semi-same situation (river, strong hwy grid) but they have some of the highest ratings of quality of life and overall happiness of their citizens. Perhaps we need to send our officials up there and have them spend a month or two getting the tour.
Here is the google map link of their community.
Portland (//%22http://maps.google.com/maps?ie=UTF8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&q=Portland,+OR,+USA&ll=45.527517,-122.625275&spn=0.505089,1.274414&z=10%22)
And here is the wiki on their transportation system Portland Trans (//%22http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transportation_in_Portland,_Oregon%22)
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
Per the suburb comment from a few days ago...
Screw the suburbs IF catering to them destroys Tulsa. My neighborhood has a 6 lane freeway through it. The North Side is cut off. Greenwood was all but destroyed. Now the I-44 corridor is forcing more businesses South.
More freeways through Tulsa means less tax base FOR Tulsa while simultaneously making it more convenient for people to use Tulsa as nothing but a place to work. The result is money flowing from Tulsa to the suburbs, at the expense of Tulsa.
I'm not trying to sound bitter or like I hate the suburbs. But why would someone living in Tulsa want to enable other communities to take away from Tulsa? The entire point of the BA is to allow people to get the hell out of Tulsa at 5pm as fast as possible. Do not stick around for supper, do not catch a movie, do not allow a local business to collect $200.
We replaced houses and Tulsa businesses with a way for people to live in BA and shop at BA businesses. I understand freeways are needed, but they do not foster the density, the walk ability, efficiency, or many other positives beyond convenience (I differentiate commuter freeways from highways used for commerce).
I'm not against freeways wholesale, but... Bah. Does this ramble make any sense?
I hate suburbs. After we are done with Iraq, I hear that's next....
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
I like the concept of rail, but I love my car too (I think it is called auto-eroticism).
Just got back from the bar, and that is g0dd@mn hilarious.
Thanks for the report.
I spent aaaaall day at the different meetings today. Have talked about this in other meetings with people. After doing some reading, debating on other forums, hearing what the locals and the "out of towner" have to say, and also being on here arguing both sides of the issue. I think I have gathered enough perspective and insight to make some decent comments on the matter.
Will do that tomorrow though. I am sleepy right now lol.
Suburbs help the city just like the city helps the suburbs. Broken Arrow is 3rd in manufacturing in the state of Oklahoma, not to mention Tulsa is going to benefit from the LPGA in Broken Arrow in just a couple of weeks. Hotel rooms will be booked and restaurants on 71st will be busy. Not everything in the suburbs is bad.
Does the rail discussion include anything about trolley cars? Personally I like the idea of trolley cars because they differentiate public transportation into being more than just a way of getting from point A to point B. They differentiate into tourist appeal. The route itself is important, not just the destinations. My dream trolley line would run along the entire length of Riverside Dr., between the park and the street. Trolley Tracks can be laid onto the street itself, making use of existing traffic arteries. I would love to see trolleys connect Downtown with TU, Cherry St., Brookside, and the river. I envision a regular commuter rail line running from Broken Arrow to a Downtown public transportation hub that would feed into the entire trolley system. This hub would likely be located in the East End, and feature a parking structure. Furthermore, I would like to explore the possibilities of federal transit grants for public transportation infrastructure. Perhaps a federal grant to fund trolley lines could help pay for some of Tulsa's street infrastructure, lessening the burden on the city.
quote:
Originally posted by Composer
Suburbs help the city just like the city helps the suburbs. Broken Arrow is 3rd in manufacturing in the state of Oklahoma, not to mention Tulsa is going to benefit from the LPGA in Broken Arrow in just a couple of weeks. Hotel rooms will be booked and restaurants on 71st will be busy. Not everything in the suburbs is bad.
Several of the presenters kept emphasizing that a great city is part of great region. The suburbs are important and a great way to tie them closer to the city, allowing each to better take advantage of the other, not compete, is by having rail.
One presenter pointed out that he lived in the suburbs, drove 1.5miles to a park-n-ride then took mass transit to the city. Only had to fill his gas tank about once every 6 weeks.
Plus by having park-n-rides you alleviate some of the need for parking downtown, and of course automobile congestion and pollution. Another plus is like you mentioned. Before they couldnt get some conventions and such because downtown didnt have enough hotel rooms. Once you have rail, essentially all the hotels along the line, even in the suburbs become downtown hotels. Or perhaps in your example, BA can host an event and add downtown Tulsas hotels into the number hotel options available. Many people would actually prefer staying in a downtown location versus a suburban one.
Also he pointed out that many times in the suburbs you have strong commercial growth, and in the inner city you have people, often poor, who need work and dont have cars. Rail offers a way for them to get to the suburbs quickly and on time. So rail isnt just from the suburbs to the city, its also from the city to the suburbs.
Hope those of you who attended the event found it informative and useful. Thanks for coming...for those of you who didn't attend, we video recorded all of our presenters, which we will make available to you, as well as all of the power point presentations.
We received many, many excellent questions for our presenters, and were not able to get to all of them, so we are going to post the questions, and attempt to answer them.
We have a lot of work ahead of us, but we are committed to approaching this the right way, with as much of your input and participation as we can, to come up with the best options for our region.
quote:
Originally posted by perspicuity85
Does the rail discussion include anything about trolley cars? Personally I like the idea of trolley cars because they differentiate public transportation into being more than just a way of getting from point A to point B. They differentiate into tourist appeal. The route itself is important, not just the destinations. My dream trolley line would run along the entire length of Riverside Dr., between the park and the street. Trolley Tracks can be laid onto the street itself, making use of existing traffic arteries. I would love to see trolleys connect Downtown with TU, Cherry St., Brookside, and the river. I envision a regular commuter rail line running from Broken Arrow to a Downtown public transportation hub that would feed into the entire trolley system. This hub would likely be located in the East End, and feature a parking structure. Furthermore, I would like to explore the possibilities of federal transit grants for public transportation infrastructure. Perhaps a federal grant to fund trolley lines could help pay for some of Tulsa's street infrastructure, lessening the burden on the city.
Absolutely on both accounts, trolleys and federal grants.
One thing I want to mention first because of the way some of these comments are worded. The stage we are now is not a deciding stage but an exploration and learning stage. An examining the possibilities and "Visioning" stage. What is "discussed" is up to everyone, not just some presenters. Your voice on trolley cars, or anothers on Jitneys[:P], is equally valid and should be heard. If you bring it up,,, its being discussed.
Walking, biking, cars, jitneys, trolleys, buses, rail. Each mode of transportation has its pluses and minuses. Things its good at doing and things its not good at doing. Your not going to want to walk to downtown Tulsa from BA for work every day. You dont want to build a rail line from Brookside to Cherry Street(mid towners would launch suicide attacks "using the domestic help of course" at anyone who even suggested it and global chaos would ensue in the wake of their violent uprising).
What we need to be doing as we start into our comprehensive plan, is "Visioning" what kind of city and region we want in the future. Are we oing to be stagnant, or vibrant and growing. If we choose to be vibrant and growing, that means there are going to be important transportation concerns to address. What kind of growth and where? Where would be the best places to have different kinds of growth and density? How do we best connect low and high density areas together most efficiently. Some modes of transportation will be better suited for one area or another. Some modes of transportation can enhance and promote different types of future density and growth in certain areas. What areas do we want to be dense and why? Perhaps an area that is already along a potential rail line or major highway?
BRT and Rail have advantages over cars when congestion is high. When the BA is at its worst traffic wise, especially if our cities grow in the future, is when rail is at its best. During commute times is when the traffic is at its worst and when rail can shine, its fast,alleviates traffic and is good at transporting lots of people.
Regular busses and call-n-ride/jitneys are good for short distances within the city, they can even be used to feed into and out from Rail and BRT enhancing both modes.
Some modes of transportation are better for quickly transporting lots of passengers over longer distances. Some are better at trasporting over short distances along slower arterial streets. And even then different circumstances can make exceptions. You just have to look at each situation, each possibility and option, and also envision what kind of future we want and expect for the city... then set about making the best choices.
............The more, different options, a city has the more opportunity for efficiencies. The better each mode can be used at optimum efficiencies. Each mode can do what it does best. If one mode is lacking then another mode will be forced to try and compensate and pick up where the more efficient form would have performed best. A mode, a bus for instance, trying to do what it isnt designed for will only make it less efficient.
I do want to say that the presentations confirmed many of my original assumptions, while also offering some new ideas I hadnt though of.
One thing is that this isnt about putting in rail right now, (except for possibly working towards a small starter line downtown) its about our long range expectations for growth and how we should handle it.
One presenter from Austin mentioned one of the regrets they ran into with their situation. They looked back and wished they had started thinking about rail as early as we are. One of the problems they ran into was that they did not own much property around where the rail stations were going to be placed. One of my early arguments was that even if we do not put in rail or BRT, say along the BA line for another 20 years or so, we need to be planning for it now. Buying up land around the prospective stations and land banking them. There are several reasons why we need to do this at this time.
1. Land is much cheaper now than it will be. You will need to have park-n-ride facilities at the main stops. Pay less now for that parking, or likely much more in the future.
2. If we envision, plan and zone with the expectation that a future rail line will go in along a particular route, we can get a small jump start on getting the kind of development we want around those stations and by using "TOD Framework Ordinances" general "TOD Zoning Overlays" (TOD development is several entire topics unto itself) we can at the very least prevent the kind of development we absolutely do not want in those areas. (btw, even if we choose not to put rail or BRT in in the future, I still think its a good idea to promote higher density, walkable districts in areas, particularly next to major transportation corridors like the BA.
3. A large property can initially be used for park-n-ride, so even if you dont see immediate development on it, it is still important to have. However once you do se development occur you can then sell or lease chunks of that property and build parking garages. Eventually ramping up your density in that way.
4. By owning the property, when developers build on that property you can lease the property and it will help either pay for the rail or structured parking and or be used as leverage for affordable housing. You want to have affordable housing in the city and by these rail lines, for people of all income levels to utilize this investment. By owning the property you have extra leverage with which to get the developers to have a percentage of their housing be affordable housing.
The people in Austin regret that they did not envision this a long time ago and have the property in hand to do these things when it came time to install the rail.
So you see, this is one example of how, even if we do not intend to put in rail soon, we must consider what our future needs will be and act now to make that future, if we decide rail it has rail in it or not, to run smoothly and more efficiently.
One of the things I think I had wrong in conceptualizing possible rail was this... Many of the presenters noted how rail changed the dynamic and thoughs of the region as a whole. Distances and commutes became much shorter. My first reaction is, Wouldnt that create even more sprawl? The sprawl is going to happen anyway, is happening anyway. What this does is alleviate pollution, traffic, drive for more parking in our downtown, and this is very important... puts more money into the local economy. Instead of gas money going to the middle east to those who do not like us or to build fancy skyscrapers elsewhere. It allows people to take the money they would otherwise spend on gas and spend it in the local economy. Even spending it on local rail would be better because its employing people here and offering more opportunity here. Cant we decrease gas usage and trips by building more urban, dense walkable, districts? You dont have to have rail to do that?...Of course and we should do that, but in addition to that rail and BRT, can act as an additional boost, incentive, a means to an end. By considering rail you absolutely have to consider land use and by default force the city to move in the direction of creating areas that have the proper zoning, land use,dense, urban, pedestrian freiendly environments we want. We hope that it happens anyway, but with rail, it must.
So back to the "change in regional dynamics". Even if you are a suburb at the end of the line. You can promote your suburb by noting how close you now are to the city and its amenities. This is important if for no other reason than it helps the Region, the County, compete with other regions and counties by having this added benefit. No matter where you live you have easy, quick access to both the suburbs and the city. People who like an urban lifestyle can live in the city and work in the burbs. People who like a suburban lifestyle can live in the suburbs and work and enjoy the amenities of the city. All the while actually lessening the need for long car trips. The distance from some place in the city to the center of the city is, with rail, now about the same distance from some place in the suburb to the center of the city. 61st and Yale to downtown Tulsa is, with rail, now about the same as driving several miles from some place in BA to the Park-n-Ride. The concepts of distances, time and efficiencies shift. More options are available both ways as I have mentioned in other posts.
Our thoughts are to make the region better not just the city. In essence the region becomes the city. Downtown becomes the regions downtown. Even more the logical gathering place for events, destinations and attractions.
I do want to mention that there seem to be 2 very different things happening with respect to rail.
1. The short distance "starter line" in and near downtown. There seems to be a push to get it done sooner than later.
2. The long range "envisioning" and planning that will take place within the comprehensive planning process in which we will consider all modes of transportation and the possibilities of future rail lines to BA, Jenks, etc.
They both intersect but also appear to be on different "implementation trajectories". So in our discussions about rail it might be good to remember those differences.
Excellent post, Artist.
I think I got a just a little bit teary reading it. :)
quote:
Originally posted by perspicuity85
Does the rail discussion include anything about trolley cars? Personally I like the idea of trolley cars because they differentiate public transportation into being more than just a way of getting from point A to point B. They differentiate into tourist appeal. The route itself is important, not just the destinations. My dream trolley line would run along the entire length of Riverside Dr., between the park and the street. Trolley Tracks can be laid onto the street itself, making use of existing traffic arteries. I would love to see trolleys connect Downtown with TU, Cherry St., Brookside, and the river. I envision a regular commuter rail line running from Broken Arrow to a Downtown public transportation hub that would feed into the entire trolley system. This hub would likely be located in the East End, and feature a parking structure. Furthermore, I would like to explore the possibilities of federal transit grants for public transportation infrastructure. Perhaps a federal grant to fund trolley lines could help pay for some of Tulsa's street infrastructure, lessening the burden on the city.
The feds provide MATCHING funds for infratructure. And, if you want to possibly build a train in 2020, you have to apply this year as the process takes 6-12 years.
Channel 8 video:
http://cfc.ktul.com/videoondemand.cfm?id=13378&ref=home
Some analysts are talking about $200/barrel oil, and thus $7/gallon gasoline, as early as 2012.
Now is the time to have these discussions. Commuter rail may make a lot of sense.
EDIT: Meant to include this link, http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/28/business/worldbusiness/28oil-WEB.html
I already pay over $8 a gallon. Ironically its ended up with paying alot less on fuel each month than most people living in the US. I think price reaches a tipping point where you don't merely reduce the amount of gas you need you start to cut the need for it out of your life completely.
Another quick comment. When I heard what Crowley said about rail not working due to lack of density, I banged my head against the table, I'm regretting doing that now. He's wrong about density. Density isn't actually too important with demand for public transport as crazy as that might sound. The real make or break aspect for public transport is infact, mixed use. It comes down to trip linking, which basically means can I link up the trip home from the subway stop with picking up the dry cleaning and going to buy groceries? Therefore can I reduce the amount I have to travel and therefore the need to have a car. This comes down to the fact that a car may in some circumstances be slower, but it has lower interchange times. (This means you don't have to wait for a car to come like a bus or train). If you live in a mixed use development and you work in one you should be able to trip link highly effectively, the density doesn't really come into play. It doesn't matter if I live in a very dense or moderately dense neighbourhood, if there is no shops or schools nearby I'll either spend all day going to and fro on public transport or I'll drive.
^But, then, for mixed use to be successful, it has to be dense. Take your dry cleaners--for the dry cleaner to be successful, either it must have enough neighborhood residents to substantiate its business or it must draw from surrounding neighborhoods. Unless a sufficient number of people live within walking distance to the dry cleaner, you will have to pull in cars, which means big parking lots, and less use of the rail. Without proper design and density, mixed use can become nothing more than a hodge podge of suburban-style box stores mixed with houses (think 71st & Memorial area).
quote:
Originally posted by si_uk_lon_ok
I already pay over $8 a gallon. Ironically its ended up with paying alot less on fuel each month than most people living in the US. I think price reaches a tipping point where you don't merely reduce the amount of gas you need you start to cut the need for it out of your life completely.
Another quick comment. When I heard what Crowley said about rail not working due to lack of density, I banged my head against the table, I'm regretting doing that now. He's wrong about density. Density isn't actually too important with demand for public transport as crazy as that might sound. The real make or break aspect for public transport is infact, mixed use. It comes down to trip linking, which basically means can I link up the trip home from the subway stop with picking up the dry cleaning and going to buy groceries? Therefore can I reduce the amount I have to travel and therefore the need to have a car. This comes down to the fact that a car may in some circumstances be slower, but it has lower interchange times. (This means you don't have to wait for a car to come like a bus or train). If you live in a mixed use development and you work in one you should be able to trip link highly effectively, the density doesn't really come into play. It doesn't matter if I live in a very dense or moderately dense neighbourhood, if there is no shops or schools nearby I'll either spend all day going to and fro on public transport or I'll drive.
That is a good distinction to make... not all density is equal. Mixed use, pedestrian friendly density is superior density. Not just for walking or biking but even if you do make a car trip your not driving miles to the closest big box your driving just a few blocks to the corner store and indeed, while your there you may as well pick up the dry cleaning or do whatever along the way because there is more within that smaller distance.
My main contention is that this city more than anything needs to take a good look at its land use and zoning practices and do its best to increase mixed use, pedestrian friendly density. Hopefully this talk about rail can be used as an added push in that direction. We should do it anyway, but people seem to like rail and if you can parlay that desire into building a better city, then go for it. Kind of like me and going to the gym, I know I should go because its healthy for me, but what gives me the extra push is vanity lol. They say vanity isnt good for ya, but hey I figure if I can use it to get my arse into shape, why not? lol We need to create more dense, mixed use, pedestrian friendly areas...and we could be doing the zoining and stuff right now to do that, but arent. So if the desire for " the vanity" of rail is what finally pushes us to do it, go for it. [8D]
I think the important thing about mixed use is that it is not limited to our residential areas. If we can encourage more retail in downtown too, it would also have an important impact on the desire for public transport as you would have the ability to do some shopping in your lunch hour. If this is the case the mixed use opportunities around your house could be limited to lower order services such as a minimart and schools.
But everyone is right on one thing, only a tiny percentage of this is the theory. The zoning, laws and urban form has to be right for this to work. I think one of the key things is to replace the minimum parking standards with a maximum parking standards and thus scrap the acres of parking retail needs. However it is only part of many many other things too.
When people talk about slumburbia and the inability to retrofit the suburbs for new urban living arrangements it might be worth reading the works of Dolores Hayden, who I think works in Harvard. She came up with plans to rework the suburbs years and years ago.
The following should take effect downtown post-haste as parking problems are having a real effect on business like Tulsa Shoe Rebuilders..
1. All minimum parking requirements waived, replaced with requirement to pay into fund to build new parking garages.
2. High-density parking pays zero in property taxes while low-density parking pays $$$
3. All parking meters near retail should be 1 hour maximum with tickets for serial parkers.
4. Spots directly in front of a given store can be designated as "for business X only"
5. Handicap parking downtown
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
The following should take effect downtown post-haste as parking problems are having a real effect on business like Tulsa Shoe Rebuilders..
1. All minimum parking requirements waived, replaced with requirement to pay into fund to build new parking garages.
2. High-density parking pays zero in property taxes while low-density parking pays $$$
3. All parking meters near retail should be 1 hour maximum with tickets for serial parkers.
4. Spots directly in front of a given store can be designated as "for business X only"
5. Handicap parking downtown
I may be wrong, but I don't think there are any parking requirements under CBD zoning. Please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.
quote:
Originally posted by si_uk_lon_ok
I think the important thing about mixed use is that it is not limited to our residential areas. If we can encourage more retail in downtown too, it would also have an important impact on the desire for public transport as you would have the ability to do some shopping in your lunch hour. If this is the case the mixed use opportunities around your house could be limited to lower order services such as a minimart and schools.
But everyone is right on one thing, only a tiny percentage of this is the theory. The zoning, laws and urban form has to be right for this to work. I think one of the key things is to replace the minimum parking standards with a maximum parking standards and thus scrap the acres of parking retail needs. However it is only part of many many other things too.
When people talk about slumburbia and the inability to retrofit the suburbs for new urban living arrangements it might be worth reading the works of Dolores Hayden, who I think works in Harvard. She came up with plans to rework the suburbs years and years ago.
The thing about mixed use is that ALL areas should be mixed use not just residential. In order to get retail downtown you need people living there. The reason the suburbs are getting retail is because they have gotten the rooftops for it. "Attractions" downtown can get more restaurants and clubs, but in order to get solid retail growth you need solid residential growth.
One thing I caught that the lady from Austin mentioned is how they require residential buildings in TOD areas to have their first floors so that they can accomodate retail. Even if they arent used for that right away, the first floor is structured so that it can be used for retail at some later time. An idea definitely worth looking into when we consider how our TOD or mixed use areas are to be.
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
One of the things I think I had wrong in conceptualizing possible rail was this... Many of the presenters noted how rail changed the dynamic and thoughs of the region as a whole. Distances and commutes became much shorter. My first reaction is, Wouldnt that create even more sprawl? The sprawl is going to happen anyway, is happening anyway. What this does is alleviate pollution, traffic, drive for more parking in our downtown, and this is very important... puts more money into the local economy. Instead of gas money going to the middle east to those who do not like us or to build fancy skyscrapers elsewhere. It allows people to take the money they would otherwise spend on gas and spend it in the local economy. Even spending it on local rail would be better because its employing people here and offering more opportunity here. Cant we decrease gas usage and trips by building more urban, dense walkable, districts? You dont have to have rail to do that?...Of course and we should do that, but in addition to that rail and BRT, can act as an additional boost, incentive, a means to an end. By considering rail you absolutely have to consider land use and by default force the city to move in the direction of creating areas that have the proper zoning, land use,dense, urban, pedestrian freiendly environments we want. We hope that it happens anyway, but with rail, it must.
So back to the "change in regional dynamics". Even if you are a suburb at the end of the line. You can promote your suburb by noting how close you now are to the city and its amenities. This is important if for no other reason than it helps the Region, the County, compete with other regions and counties by having this added benefit. No matter where you live you have easy, quick access to both the suburbs and the city. People who like an urban lifestyle can live in the city and work in the burbs. People who like a suburban lifestyle can live in the suburbs and work and enjoy the amenities of the city. All the while actually lessening the need for long car trips. The distance from some place in the city to the center of the city is, with rail, now about the same distance from some place in the suburb to the center of the city. 61st and Yale to downtown Tulsa is, with rail, now about the same as driving several miles from some place in BA to the Park-n-Ride. The concepts of distances, time and efficiencies shift. More options are available both ways as I have mentioned in other posts.
Our thoughts are to make the region better not just the city. In essence the region becomes the city. Downtown becomes the regions downtown. Even more the logical gathering place for events, destinations and attractions.
You brought up some very interesting points in this part of your post, Artist. I agree with you, the region should be considered, not just the city. Cities often compete against each other for jobs and other amenities based on the size of the MSA, not the city. For example, Tulsa's city population is larger than St. Louis or Cincinnati's, but the MSA pop. of those two cities is over 2 million compared to Tulsa's 900,000. Tulsa serves as the brand positioning anchor for the MSA, which includes seven counties and over 6,000 square miles.
In terms of marketing to potential employers, job seekers, and tourists, it is important for Tulsa to speak for the whole region. The city and outlying area both benefit by associating with the positive attributes of each. It's important for people to have a since of community within their hometown, but often it can be easier to market collectively instead of individually. For instance, it's often easier for a company to attract corporate employees to Claremore if it is well-known that Claremore is part of the Tulsa metro area.
Does the association of the aggregate Tulsa area with the city affect sprawl? That's an interesting question that certainly could affect the politics of the rail transit study (if it hasn't already). I actually don't think that rail transit and regional marketing will contribute to sprawl very much. People move to the edge of suburbia for a couple of reasons:
1) cheap land = bigger house for less
2) negative perceptions (true or not) about urban areas, specifically school districts
3) consumer preferences for larger lots or country living (closely related to reason #1)
4) simply following the crowd of a given demographic or social group.
While it makes sense that people that already want to live out of town may choose to live further away, based upon the prospect of a shorter commute; I don't think Tulsa's urban core would suffer in terms of loss of population. People that want to live a suburban lifestyle already do. Expanded transportation systems will likely only change the minds of a few people. Perhaps some people would choose to live in Collinsville over Owasso, for example, but then the four aforementioned reasons really just come into play again. Even with rapidly rising gas prices, thousands in the Tulsa area are content to live in the suburbs already.
In my opinion, the main thing Tulsa needs to do to combat sprawl is market the urban core of the city. If the urban core is marketed effectively, rail transit would provide a connection from the outlying area to a well-marketed urban core, thus bringing people into the city. In this case, the rail passengers would not have a personal auto with them, thus possibly decreasing the amount of space "needed" for parking lots.
Lastly, I think it may be possible that a rail line could provide for infill development. Specifically, a rail line could provide infill opportunities between west Tulsa and Jenks, and Owasso and northeast Tulsa.
Artist, you brought up a subject that warrants a professional comprehensive study: does the expansion of rail transit to suburban areas contribute to sprawl? That sounds like a thesis topic. I have done some research about sprawl in college, but it has been on a much broader scale. I'm going to look into this a bit-- I will post any interesting info.