What About Rail?

[pfox]

Excellent post, Artist.

I think I got a just a little bit teary reading it.

[sgrizzle]

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.

[sgrizzle]

Channel 8 video:
http://cfc.ktul.com/videoondemand.cfm?id=13378&ref=home

[Renaissance]

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

[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.

[pmcalk]

^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).

[TheArtist]

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]

[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.

[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

[si_uk_lon_ok]

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.

[TheArtist]

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.

[perspicuity85]

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.