Tulsa's exciting rail possibilities

[Red Arrow]

There are probably several reasons why people are ready to spend public money on roads but not rail.

They "remember" that the rail roads were built with private money. They forget about all the right of way deals and free land that were provided to build those rail roads. Passenger rail is pretty much publicly funded but the freight lines are still private.

A lot of the roads between cities near the east coast were originally privately funded toll roads.  Many of them were purchased by the states what is now a long time ago, prior to most of our acutal memories.  What most of us (except here in Tulsa) remember are free publicly funded roads. There are actually a significant number of toll roads around the US.

[Oil Capital]

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Oil Capital</i>

You have more or less proved my argument...<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">No, your argument is leaky.  According to your own logic, the study recommends a passenger train "of a certain type" that will not attract transit-oriented development.  That "type" is a commuter rail that runs four times a day.    

Presume for a moment that I'd buy that.  I don't, because development is happening around passenger rail stops across the country.   TOD is no longer an accidental pattern, it's conscious growth strategy for cities, even in cities in the West that have grown up around the car.  There's a substantial body of evidence that TOD is, as the Dallas article I posted says, the "iPod" of the development community.  Not a fad, but a paradigm shift in the way we develop.  You have provided no real reason why it couldn't happen here.  But presume I swallowed your argument.  

I'm afraid I had overlooked CL's last "response".  Please allow some clean-up.  You keep posting this "argument" about TOD happening at rail stations all over the country.  Of course, there is no particular reason that TOD "couldn't" happen here, if and when we develop rail systems similar to those around which TOD is being developed around the country.  I have indeed provided reasons it wont' happen here, with the system that has been proposed for the BA corridor.  NONE of that TOD has been near stations of rail systems remotely similar to what has been proposed here.  You keep showing us articles about the TOD springing up around Dallas's DART station and lists of TOD springing up by rail systems that are completely and utterly irrelevent. 

Again, EVERY SINGLE ONE of the TOD's you have shown us have been around systems that have frequent, all-day, bi-directional service.  If you can show me even ONE TOD (that is not HEAVILY subsidized) near a commuter rail station with one-way, infrequent, VERY limited service, I will re-consider.  Until then, not so much.  You have provided the evidence but apparently so badly want to believe otherwise that can't see that the TOD's you are looking at are springing up around systems that have almost no similarity to what is proposed here.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">

Then your entire argument hinges on that the belief that the proposed train can only run four times a day.  That's a transitory distinction at best.  <b>The train can run more than that.</b>  Service levels can be increased based on demand, or choice, or both.  By your own definition it would no longer be a "commuter train".  And by your own admission, TOD could then happen.  Your argument, on your terms, unravels completely.  

No, my entire argument is based on what the study recommended.  Sure, it's a transitory distinction.  But it is the topic of the discussion.  Sure, eventually, in some imaginary never-never land, the commuter rail could expand service to a bi-directional, frequent, all-day service.  Then we're talking about a totally different kind of system for the BA corridor and there would likely be real possibilities for TOD.  But nobody is proposing that kind of system, recommending that kind of system, or even suggesting this will become that kind of system.  The study recommends what it recommends and says that a very limited one-way commuter service from  BA to downtown Tulsa is feasible.  That's all.  And that is all I have ever said will NOT cause the development of TOD.  (BTW, I know these facts really displease you, but they are nonetheless facts.  Part of the reason the study recommends such limited service as being all that is feasible is because of the single track that is owned and used by the freight railroads.  Much more service would require huge capital expenditures.  Read the study if you can stand it.)

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
I think you've lost.  You have never allowed for change over time, which perhaps also explains your problems with regression analysis.  Doubting change is perhaps an instinctual trait, if not the very definition, of a small "c" conservative.  Or maybe it's because you are a lawyer.  You help people sort out the <i>past</i>, not the future.  That's a job for people like Si.  

Isaac Asimov said, "The only constant is change."  I tend to believe that.  And I believe that we can infer from our past, and from the past and present of others.  We can come up with reasonable predictions worthy of public investment.  Forecasting may not be your bailiwick, but that doesn't mean it doesn't happen.  Are you as skeptical about the insurance industry?  stock market?  There's always risk.  But, without some understanding of tomorrow, we'd never have planted crops.  We'd still be hunting and gathering.  You can keep saying, "I don't believe in the future", but that doesn't mean we have to listen.

You want to focus on allowing for change but seem incapable of focusing on the here and now and what has actually been proposed.  All I have ever said is that THIS system, as proposed, will not cause the development of TODs.   Your own "evidence" rather proves my point.  If and when an urban rail system with bi-directional, all-day, frequent service is built, of course it will encourage TODs.  But again, that is NOT what has been proposed and recommended for the BA corridor.  And again, here is the entire list of TODs that you and I have been able to find around commuter rail stations in systems similar to what has been proposed for the BA corridor:

[Transport_Oklahoma]

Oklahoma City MAPS 3 plan out today.  Includes $130 million for 5-6 mile streetcar line plus other possibilities.

Vote will be December 8th, 2009.

[Transport_Oklahoma]

And the voters approved MAPS 3 tonight with the streetcar.

http://www.yesformaps.com/streetcars.html

[TheArtist]

  We cant have anything like that.  We have potholes and wasteful government. 

[SXSW]

Once OKC has a concrete plan to build streetcars you will see a plan developed for Tulsa.  I imagine some kind of streetcar/rail will be a part of Vision 2025 Part 2 when that happens in a couple years.  But will Tulsa pass a sales tax initiative for it like OKC just did?  I would hope so.

[Conan71]

Once OKC has a concrete plan to build streetcars you will see a plan developed for Tulsa.  I imagine some kind of streetcar/rail will be a part of Vision 2025 Part 2 when that happens in a couple years.  But will Tulsa pass a sales tax initiative for it like OKC just did?  I would hope so.

It's fascinating that even though only about 90 miles of Turnpike separate Tulsa and OKC they could not be more different in our attitudes and goals.  I seriously doubt a street car line in Tulsa will be a huge priority when it will come time for a V-2025 two.  Perhaps commuter lines from the suburbs to Tulsa.  There's so much competition between Tulsa and our neighboring municipalities, I think it's going to get harder to get major projects done for Tulsa on a county-wide basis as the voter rolls keep growing in Jenks, BA, Bixby, and Owasso.  I hope I'm wrong, but I really do fear the individual sales tax needs of those growing cities will usurp a county-wide spirit of growth.

To my knowledge MAPS is strictly an OKC municipal initiative, not county-wide.

[Red Arrow]

There's so much competition between Tulsa and our neighboring municipalities, I think it's going to get harder to get major projects done for Tulsa on a county-wide basis as the voter rolls keep growing in Jenks, BA, Bixby, and Owasso.  I hope I'm wrong, but I really do fear the individual sales tax needs of those growing cities will usurp a county-wide spirit of growth.

There's plenty of attitude, both ways, to go around.  I believe anything that gets presented for a county wide vote will need to have expenditures outside the Tulsa city limits. 

Being a bit of a rail fan, I would like to see the streetcar (trolley where I grew up) return to Tulsa.  In order to get it, a commuter rail project to the suburbs will need to accompany it if it is on a county wide vote.

[Conan71]

There's plenty of attitude, both ways, to go around.  I believe anything that gets presented for a county wide vote will need to have expenditures outside the Tulsa city limits. 

Being a bit of a rail fan, I would like to see the streetcar (trolley where I grew up) return to Tulsa.  In order to get it, a commuter rail project to the suburbs will need to accompany it if it is on a county wide vote.

Hopefully, there was an important lesson learned on the River Tax.  The county was feeling good and smug after getting Vision 2025 passed that they were the proper venue for any large community enhancement tax packages from that point on since Tulsa had failed as a city a couple of times to get it's own enhancement package passed.  The exact reason V-2025 passed was that every community in Tulsa county got something, and virtually every demographic group as well.  Entertainment, education, YMCA's, community centers, the BOK Center, civic center improvements, etc.

I agree with what you are saying here, there have to be street-front projects in Sperry, Owasso, Jenks, Sand Springs, BA, Bixby, etc. in order for V-2025 to be extended.  I was not a supporter of the original vote, but I've come to appreciate what all that has bought in the way of improvements and enhancements throughout Tulsa County.  My company has benefitted as a vendor on some projects.

I shudder to think what Tulsa would look like right now if not for that package.

[SXSW]

There's plenty of attitude, both ways, to go around.  I believe anything that gets presented for a county wide vote will need to have expenditures outside the Tulsa city limits.  

Being a bit of a rail fan, I would like to see the streetcar (trolley where I grew up) return to Tulsa.  In order to get it, a commuter rail project to the suburbs will need to accompany it if it is on a county wide vote.

If it's a county vote then yes probably the commuter line to BA would be a part of the proposal package along with an urban streetcar in the downtown/midtown area.  That and some of the items from the failed river proposal, plus capital projects for higher education at OSU-Tulsa, OU-Tulsa, TCC and for park improvements/additional jogging and bike trails throughout the county.

[Conan71]

If it's a county vote then yes probably the commuter line to BA would be a part of the proposal package along with an urban streetcar in the downtown/midtown area.  That and some of the items from the failed river proposal, plus capital projects for higher education at OSU-Tulsa, OU-Tulsa, TCC and for park improvements/additional jogging and bike trails throughout the county.

I'll take more bike trails for $1000 Alex!!!  It would be awesome if they completed a loop around the area or from NSU that could wind up back in downtown or on out to Skiatook.  As it is now, 31st & Riverside to NSU and back is a 50 miler.  The drag with that is all the darn road crossings.

[SXSW]

I'll take more bike trails for $1000 Alex!!!  It would be awesome if they completed a loop around the area or from NSU that could wind up back in downtown or on out to Skiatook.  As it is now, 31st & Riverside to NSU and back is a 50 miler.  The drag with that is all the darn road crossings.

Or complete the river trails master plan that would extend the trails along the river banks north/west of the 11th/244 bridge all the way to the Hwy 97 bridge in Sand Springs at the north end and extend the east/west bank trails that end at the Creek Turnpike south/east to the Memorial/Hwy 64 bridge in Bixby.  Now that would be an awesome trail network, entirely along the river with very few road crossings along its entire length.

That and funding for the north extension of the Midland Valley Trail from Skiatook through the Osage Hills to Pawhuska, and if the Gilcrease Expwy. is ever built a trail along its length connecting the river trail to the MV, could all be a part of a Vision 2025-like county package.  OKC's MAPS 3 includes a ton of money for bike trail and sidewalk projects.

[Conan71]

Or complete the river trails master plan that would extend the trails along the river banks north/west of the 11th/244 bridge all the way to the Hwy 97 bridge in Sand Springs at the north end and extend the east/west bank trails that end at the Creek Turnpike south/east to the Memorial/Hwy 64 bridge in Bixby.  Now that would be an awesome trail network, entirely along the river with very few road crossings along its entire length.

That and funding for the north extension of the Midland Valley Trail from Skiatook through the Osage Hills to Pawhuska, and if the Gilcrease Expwy. is ever built a trail along its length connecting the river trail to the MV, could all be a part of a Vision 2025-like county package.  OKC's MAPS 3 includes a ton of money for bike trail and sidewalk projects.

The Katy is sufficient for getting out to Sand Springs though there are lots of road crossings, and Avery Drive or the Old North Road WNR routes are both ways to get to SS now, though it puts you on the road with cars which I'm comfortable with these days, though it's somewhat more comforting to be on a trail away from traffic.  I'm with you 100% on extending the trail on down riverside to the South though.

I can't really see the Midland getting expanded north of Skiatook on a V-2025 package since that winds up in Osage County.  I'm not sure what kind of state funds would have to be tapped for that.

[rdj]

As much as I love the BOk Center and a few other Vision 2025 projects I think it was miles wide and inches deep.  The promoters of the river tax were very aware of that fact and hoped to be able to gain county wide support.  Obviously they didn't.

[SXSW]

I can't really see the Midland getting expanded north of Skiatook on a V-2025 package since that winds up in Osage County.  I'm not sure what kind of state funds would have to be tapped for that.

Very true.  Maybe the Midland's south extension then?  http://www.tulsanow.org/forum/index.php?topic=14292.0

And while the KATY and Avery are decent ways to go west, a continuation of the river bank trails would be better (and more widely used).  The southern extension should happen first though, it has tons of potential to get the suburban types in that area of the county on their feet and bikes along the river.