Houston Gets 5 Light Rail Lines by 2012

[booWorld]

quote:Originally posted by pfox

Go ahead Boo World. Pick apart my post sentence by sentence.  But lets cut to the chase.  You are against this, and will cite and scrap for any reason why it will fail and fail miserably.

Incorrect.  I'm not against planning for rail transit.  Notice that many sentences in my post are questions, not statements of fact.  I wasn't sure when Portland began planning their light rail system.  From what I read about Tri-Met and Portland's downtown plan, I was guessing about 1970 at the earliest.  If so, then it took Portland about 15 years to get their first MAX light rail line up and running.  If they starting planning for light rail around 1980, then it took them a decade less than I guessed.  I'm trying to get an idea of how long it might be before Tulsa could have a rail system in operation, and to compare a proposed time frame for Tulsa to what has happened in other cities.  Thanks for your PM.  It gave me a time range for the downtown starter line.

I have no idea whether or not a light rail system for Tulsa would fail and fail miserably.  It depends on too many factors.

I do think that many or most Tulsans are satisfied with the status quo, however.  Commute times are not that painfully long, gasoline prices are not that unbearably high (yet), and the large-lot, spread-out developments seem to be popular.  Most Tulsans feel blessed and relatively comfortable with what they have.

quote:
Here is the thing though.  It won't.

If a successful light rail system is Tulsa's certain and guaranteed destiny, then why have the discussion?

quote:
You aren't unique.

I'm one of a kind, but share some characteristics with others.

quote:The same arguments against this   are regurgitated in every town where this has been implemented or proposed.  99% of the time, those arguments are proven to be unfounded, if not downright wrong.

Personally, I don't have time to list the reasons why Portland IS a good cultural comparator, but, in my professional opinion, it is.

I haven't made too many arguments against light rail in Tulsa, because I haven't seen a specific proposal yet.  I don't think light rail will be very successful here given Tulsa's low-density zoning districts.  That could change, of course.  But the general trend for decades has been toward lower densities in central Tulsa and higher densities at the periphery of the metro area.

You know more about Portland than I do, but in my opinion, Portlanders, in general, have a more liberal mindset than do Tulsans.  Portland seems to be more concerned about green issues than Tulsa is, and Portland seems to have a much stronger philosophy and more clearly defined policies about land use and urbanization than Tulsa has.

quote:
Downtown Tulsa my not be rotting if you were only to look at the last few years, but if you look at it from a larger temporal cycle, it has been, to put it mildly, on a downswing for about 40 years.

I agree, to put it mildly.

quote:
The growth boundary is significant, but effectively, the City of Tulsa does have a growth boundary.  While the suburbs have fewer expansion limitations, Tulsa itself does.  This means that we need to start looking inward for expansion...so the essence of what happened in Portland can absolutely happen here.

The emphasis is mine, because "can" is the key word.  Of course many things "can happen" in Tulsa.  We have many options.  But how likely is something to happen?  How much will it cost to make that something happen?  Who will pay?  Who will benefit?  

Portland's goal was to set some physical limits on urbanization to force infill to happen.  Is this what Tulsans want to do?  What are the ramifications on housing affordibility?  Are people moving to Portland at a faster rate than they are moving to places with no urban growth boundaries or light rail systems?  

quote:To answer your question, Rose City Bus System went bankrupt in the early 1970's.  The planning and initiatives that put Tri-Met in place as the transit agency began around 1969, I believe, but they were a bus only agency until 1979, when they began pursuing federal funding for its first light rail line, which was approved in 1980.  Up until then they were notable for introducing Fareless Square.  Basically, they made buses free in Downtown Portland.

So, did planning for Portland's light rail system begin in 1979?

quote:
I encourage your participation.  Hopefully, you will begin to see the forest for the trees.  If not, at least you will have participated in the civic process.

My vision is not as myopic as all that, but sometimes it's difficult to see the trees for the cars.  I live a more urban existence than the vast majority of Tulsans do, and I have much broader and comprehensive view of Tulsa than most Tulsans do, also.

[pfox]

http://wamu.org/programs/dr/08/06/12.php#20828

These guys are far more eloquent than I...

I'd like to note, that in addition to transit advocates, Congressman Earl Blumenauer,
Robert F. Puentes, Fellow, Metropolitan Policy Program, The Brookings Institution, and Mayor Greg Nickels, Mayor of Seattle, this show also features Randall OToole, senior fellow, Cato Institute, who is a notable critic of public transportation.

Of course he is also author of:



He might have a bias. Maybe.

Tyler Duvall, Acting Under-Secretary, Department of Transportation also speaks on the subject.

The fact is, we have spent the past 60 to 70 years building up our roadway infrastructure...it's past time to diversify our investments.

[PonderInc]

This is a discussion about providing options.

Some people may prefer to drive their cars to and from work and sacrifice that time to the act of driving and the joys of radio/music/cell phones.  Others may prefer to sit on a train, and relax, work on email, surf the web, write, read, chat with neighbors, prepare for upcoming meetings, etc.  Some people prefer big houses, big yards, big cars, and low density.  Others may prefer higher density, mixed-use neighborhoods, walking to the store, less time working in the yard/more time for entertainment, etc.

Why are we arguing about either/or, when we could have both?  You may like driving everywhere.  I will choose the train if I can.

I think most people who would use rail in Tulsa would still own a car.  But perhaps, in the future, you wouldn't need a car for every member of your family.  Imagine the savings (both financial and environmental) if every family of four could eliminate a single car from their "fleet!"

Give people a smart, workable option, and you'll be amazed how many folks will exercise that option.

[booWorld]

It's just a hunch, but I bet I've taken more trips on trains, buses, and planes per annum than most people on this forum and almost certainly more than most Tulsans have.

Some people do prefer to drive their cars to and from an almost unlimited number of places, and they don't mind the sacrifice of their time and money to the act of departing when they choose and parking within a few feet of their destination, the joys of radio/music/cell phones at a volume which they control, the ability to stop their cars when they wish and where they want, the option of expelling naughty passengers, etc.

Others may prefer to sit on a train, and try to relax while a toddler whines loudly to an indifferent parent a few feet away, try to work on email or surf the web as a toothless hag spits out her life story for everyone aboard to hear, write or read while the train shakes and sways along its tracks, chat with neighbors (preferably who have bathed themselves and brushed their teeth within the past three weeks), prepare for upcoming meetings (preferably with other freshly bathed and groomed people), etc.

Some do prefer big houses, big yards, big cars, and low densities.  Others may prefer higher density, mixed-use neighborhoods, walking to the store -- and some of those may purchase real estate in a mixed-use neighborhood within walking distance of several stores and the Central Business District and train station, zoned for higher density (and targeted in the Comprehensive Plan for higher density infill development) -- only to have their property re-zoned against their wishes through a series of long "public" hearings at the hands of counter-productive bureaucrats who wouldn't take public transportation on an [8D]zone Alert! day even if it were offered to them free of charge, to a ridiculously low density which can not support viable public transportation of any sort, with only one choice of land use by right (detached single family dwelling).

Giving people options implies the means to give them (or to deprive them of) those options.  "Giving" usually costs somebody something.  The most likely way that I and most Tulsans can "give" anyone else the option of riding a train is to fork over some taxes.  If a train system is funded by user fees, then that's another matter.  In that case, people wouldn't be "given" the option of rail service, they'd be paying for it.

Most Tulsans have a finite amount of money to spend.  Deprive them of their options of how spend their own money, and you might be amazed by how many smart, working folks become exercised over the loss of those options.  

[Renaissance]

You done lecturing yet?  Let us know, so we can get on with our conversation.

[booWorld]

This is a discussion about providing options.

No one is depriving anyone else the option of conversation.  Converse away!

[Renaissance]

I view retrofitting freight lines and building commuter stations as the same infrastructure investment as building roads and bridges.  What's the difference in your mind?  I don't know where gas prices are going to settle out in the near future, but it's probably north of $5 over the next two years.  I think a forward-looking approach to infrastructure development would anticipate hightened demand for public transit, caused by these rising prices.  

Not advocating light rail, Houston-style.  Just suggesting that there might be some cost-effective options for Tulsa that can't be dismissed as yuppie fun-rides or development boondoggles.

[booWorld]

The difference in my mind between retrofitting freight lines/building commuter stations and building roads is that street and road networks give people so many more options of where and when they can go (in cars or buses or on bikes or on foot) to many, many places.  Passenger rail doesn't provide the same range of options.

I think there will be heightened demand for mass transit as gasoline prices increase, and I don't think planning for light rail or commuter rail or other forms of mass transit should be off the table.  We need to consider many options.  

What I want to see is authentic comprehensive planning.  I want productive communication between the land planning department and the transportation department at INCOG, and I want them to get on the same page.  I want to see more public participation in the planning process.

If we are going to have a public investment in any rail system, then I want to see those train routes and stations very carefully placed in locations which will allow for intense development around each station.  Some of the routes discussed such as the BA and Jenks lines run through very sparsely developed areas laden with NIMBYs and very restrictive single family zoning districts.  The Planning Commission would need to make a profound change in their mindset for this to happen.  

I think the downtown starter line could work, but I prefer it be funded by private investors and/or TIF districts if the allowed development near the stations is dense enough.

I don't want to dismiss any cost-effective transit options for Tulsa as yuppie fun-rides.  I really don't think that's what a rail system for Tulsa would be.  Actually, I think it would be the opposite -- not so pleasant rides for those less well-to-do.  But without carefully coordinated goals and clearly executed land use policies, I imagine that rail transit in Tulsa will be another planning boondoggle.