<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: