Bates phones it in again: Transit

[Chicken Little]

From Urban Tulsa:

quote: That said, a light rail system in Tulsa would be a colossal waste of money, just as it has been for most American cities that have built systems in recent years. The practical and economic advantages of rail-based transit vanished by about 1920. While rail still works in cities like Boston, New York and Chicago that were built around it, it doesn't make sense for a city that has had most of its growth during the reign of the automobile.

Emphasis mine.  Mr. "Urban Husbandry" fails to grasp the potential of mass transit to spur denser, more efficient, more walkable, more sustainable growth.  Exactly the same kind of growth that he purports to want.

First, I should say jitney routes are a fine idea,  as are taxi stands.  The antiquated laws that prevent these need to be repealed immediately.  Taxi services can enhance mass transit, but I'd like him to provide an example of a single American city where they have successfully replaced a public mass transit system.

Second, in his enlightening history of trolleys in Tulsa, he failed to mention that Tulsa was one of the 45 American cities included in the Great American Streetcar Scandal, wherein over 100 streetcar lines were bought and systematically dismantled.  The "free market" killed mass transit alright.  Unfortunately, it was through conspiracy and collusion by  General Motors, Firestone Tire, Standard Oil of California and Phillips Petroleum.

quote: By the time the scandal was brought to court and its perpetrators identified and penalized, its intended result had already been achieved. The judge presiding thought that the scandal was of little real consequence: GM was fined $5,000 and each executive was ordered to pay a fine of $1.

Third, no mass transit system will operate efficiently in our "one-size-fits all" car-oriented town.  But, with time and changes in land use and density, it certaily will.  Redevelopment of underutilized rail corridors could bring enormous economic growth to Tulsa...with much more potential than the a park along the River.  It's a chicken or egg thing.  It has to start someplace, and our competitor cities are already taking the leap. Consider Salt Lake City:

quote: Salt Like City isn't a poster child for urban density either. Its metro area has been totally dependent, and infatuated, with the automobile for generations. It embraced the western American ideal of wide open spaces. Understandably there was a significant faction dead set again light rail when its initial line was proposed.

"We had public officials claiming this was going to be a huge failure," says Chad Saley, a spokesman for the Utah Transit Authority. "They didn't support it at all. Now they're some of our biggest supporters. They can't wait until they get their own extensions."

Dennis Nordfelt, mayor of West Valley City, a Salt Lake City suburb, was one of those people. He made the arguments that his hometown wasn't dense enough to support light rail and people wouldn't leave their cars to take the train. Today Nordfelt is "very proud" of the light rail line and calls its expansion an "absolutely important" issue on par with water.

He also admits that "crow tastes pretty good if you put enough salt on it."

"I was just flat out wrong," Nordfelt says.

Fourth, sure, mass transit is subsidized.  Is he telling us that streets aren't?  I think there's a half a billion dollar street bond issue coming up that might prove otherwise.  If he doesn't want subsidized transit, then maybe we should put a meter in every car and truck on the road and bill them by the mile.

Fifth, a lot of Tulsans are asking for mass transit options.  Did he not read all that planitulsa.com or does he just not care what Tulsans think?  Gas prices are high and they aren't going down.  Some people need options, others just want them.  You ain't gonna get a workable mass transit system unless you start planning for it.  But, apparently, Michael Bates thinks that's a waste.

What else?  Energy independence? Drunk driving? Mobility and independence for seniors?  Population growth?  Increased sales tax and a stable city without regular tax hikes? A disincentive for sprawl?

If Michael were just another right wing libertarian type who hated everything beyond his fence, then maybe I could give him a pass.  But this guy thinks that urban spaces are a cool thing.

quote: First, let's do what we can to rebuild and reconnect the urban core of our city, to recreate an area where car-free living would be practical. The small zone that was developed before streetcars gave way to automobiles, roughly between Pine and 21st Street, Union and Harvard, has lost population to urban renewal, expansion of hospitals and universities, freeway construction, and the relentless expansion of downtown parking lots. An area that was home to more than 60,000 Tulsans in 1960 had less than half that population in 2000.

 How ya gonna "reconnect" that core, Michael?  With cars?  Cars neet to park, parking chews up space that can be used for your urban stuff.  Isn't that a little self-defeating?  But, you're right.  Those areas you describe were built around streetcars, so, why exactly, is it a sin to think that streetcars might be part of this urban solution?   Until you can provide a better argument than what you pecked out today, I don't think you have any business telling Tulsa what it should do "first" or second, or at all.  Man, am I dissappointed.  I'd expect provincial thinking like that from Glenpool's city fathers, but you are supposed to be smarter than that.

[Renaissance]

For me, the problem is that the whole article is spent knocking down a straw man of his own creation.  Bates takes "passenger rail implementation" and turns it into "light rail."  But he should know that when the streets panel and Tulsa Transit and INCOG talk about passenger rail, they're not talking about creating some sort of tram network out of thin air.  What they're referring to is a specific commuter rail line from downtown Broken Arrow to downtown Tulsa, as well as a potential second commuter line from Jenks to downtown Tulsa.  

Bates - you are usually so well informed, but you may have missed the train (heh heh) on this one.  Let me help you out.  

Start here for the BA link: http://www.tulsatransit.org/news-info/commuter-rail-study/

And then go here for some thoughts on the Jenks link: http://www.tulsanow.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=8040

Maybe next week we can get some reasoned thoughts on the viability of commuter rail, rather than a polemic against a made-up trolley system?

But seriously, keep up the good work.  I enjoy your articles.

[TheArtist]

You can read my response after the article. "William"

I like it anytime someone gives voice to increasing density and creating walkable districts. But this line in particular was kind of going a bit crazy.

"Let's imagine for a moment what car-free living would be like in the most optimistic scenario for Tulsa: Light rail tracks running down every arterial street, with streetcars coming by every 15 minutes."

I cant imagine anyone in the past, now, or in the future ever possibly suggesting such a thing. Thats not an optimistic scenario, thats absurdity. Its setting up a disingenuous comparison.

[Chicken Little]

Why stop there, Artist?  It only gets worse.

Bates said:

quote:Let's imagine for a moment what car-free living would be like in the most optimistic scenario for Tulsa: Light rail tracks running down every arterial street, with streetcars coming by every 15 minutes. Now think about your typical weekday--going to work, shopping, running errands at lunch, taking your children to school and to after-school activities.

Think about the time you'd spend waiting for each trip and for transfers between lines. Think about how far you'd have to walk from where the streetcar drops you off on the street to the front door of your destination. Think about walking those distances, likely across a vast parking lot, carrying packages and herding a small child. Think about walking those distances in the cold, the rain, or the sweltering August heat.

Awful.  Yes Michael, it rains, that's what umbrellas are for.  They've only been around for a few thousand years, is it too soon for parasols, too?

Look, you can read Dostoyevsky at the train stop, or talk to the neighbor-lady from down the street. Try doing that in your car.  And God forbid a person should have to walk anywhere, anytime, for any reason.  Sure, walking 10 minutes a day might keep you 20 pounds lighter and allow you to live a couple of extra decades...but if it means getting sweaty, then how could it possibly be worth it?  I love my car too, Michael, but not in ways that I'd need to confess to my priest.

Michael, your "optimistic" view of Tulsa retrofits an inefficient mass transit system on a sprawling town.  Yeah, that would suck.  Instead, let's imagine a city that has districts with the density to support a bodega, bookshop, and bistro within a a block of your house.  Imagine these places north, south, west, and east, along rail lines that are already there (Get out your street map).  Now imagine being a seven minute ride from an evening on the town with the kids, capped with an NCAA basketball game...and you don't have to worry about parking.  Now, that's optimistic.  How would this ever be an option for Tulsa without mass transit?

[T-TownMike]

Again, you have to think regionally. Light rail advantages far outweigh any negatives. Just like the talking heads to want to keep Tulsa back in the 1970s a little longer. The opportunities are there and have been there, but everybody just focuses on the negative. Is it any wonder downtown is still empty during the evenings? How about some forward thinking for a change? Bates' argument is laughable.

[si_uk_lon_ok]

I think what he is ignoring is that rail would change the urban form. It would allow the densing up of neighbourhoods surrounding stations, and it would have to go that way round. If the rail isn't in first people are less likely to use it than if they move into an area that has it already.

If rail goes ahead and people block development around the stations with preservation districts and historic areas and there isn't the density in the local area then the rail will likely fail, but if rail is allowed to spur urban nodes around each of the stations it would likely be successful. It would also allow development to become increasingly focussed in downtown and help turn Tulsa back into the city she once was. Jitneys while good at taking people from A-B are terrible at focussing development or encouraging density in one location. Rail which is based much more on nodes much more would allow an invigorated downtown. Also every person who takes the train into downtown is one less surface parking space, get rid of 1000 of them and you have a block of development in the very least, which means new offices, housing, retail and leisure. That's more demand for rail and more tax dollars for the city.

I think rail has a future in Tulsa and could have a massive positive impact on downtown and surrounding areas.

[brunoflipper]

the term is so common in the vernacular that it has really lost some of its resonance but, that being said, bates is a dude...

he could not be more wrong about transit...
this is exactly what we need to focus on...
build the transit and the development will occur around it...

now, as for mr. bates... sure looks like he was one of the MIT blackjack cheats...
MIT balckjack team...

search his blog for the term "blackjack"...

then watch the discovery channel special, you'll see his doppleganger (obscured by black bars across the eyes, he is still easy to spot)...

next time you see him ask him...

[RecycleMichael]

I would be so impressed if Michael was one of the card counters.

I don't think he is...it is just that all math nerds look alike.

[cannon_fodder]

1) the MIT team did not cheat, card counting in your head is perfectly legal.  Though, casino's reserve the right to boot your butt out for doing it.  Also, with continuous shoes it is now impossible (jerks) & with Indian anti it might be impossible to win even with that advantage (don't EVER play blackjack with anti.  Dumbest thing ever).

2) Light Rail would be cool and COULD work, but I don't think it would.  The city grew up around the (stupid) car.  Everyone living here is used to instant transportation gratification.  

The vast majority of people need a car for day to day existence, and would even with a light rail system.  Having said car, they are likely to use it instead of the rail if the rail present any inconvenience at all.  Other than a commuter line, I think it would fail.

I would, however, if a rail system went in I would like to see lines from Brookside, to Cherry Street, Utica Square, Downtown (Bus Station & new city hall [close to Brady + blue dome + PAC also], and maybe to Promenade mall.  Of course with several stops along the way.  Coupled with the commuter line(s) to Broken Arrow (and maybe Jenks Riverwalk area).

Maybe OSU Tulsa, TU, and Oral Roberts for possible future expansion?

I don't know, far fetched anyway.  You need people to use it to make it worthwhile, but you need good lines to get people to use it.  And with all the roads, parking, and habits to overcome - I really don't see a functional rail network happening anytime in the next 50 years.

Too bad everyone got rid of their trolleys/light rails in the 50's.  America could be a much less car-oil dependent place.

[si_uk_lon_ok]

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder

1) the MIT team did not cheat, card counting in your head is perfectly legal.  Though, casino's reserve the right to boot your butt out for doing it.  Also, with continuous shoes it is now impossible (jerks) & with Indian anti it might be impossible to win even with that advantage (don't EVER play blackjack with anti.  Dumbest thing ever).

Agreed.

Counting only works best towards the end of the deck when you have a better idea what is left and what the odds are. A good dealer should have shuffled the pack well well before you have any idea what is or isn't left.

You maybe able to do it in the classroom or at home, but I doubt you could pull it off in a casino.

[waterboy]

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder

1) the MIT team did not cheat, card counting in your head is perfectly legal.  Though, casino's reserve the right to boot your butt out for doing it.  Also, with continuous shoes it is now impossible (jerks) & with Indian anti it might be impossible to win even with that advantage (don't EVER play blackjack with anti.  Dumbest thing ever).

2) Light Rail would be cool and COULD work, but I don't think it would.  The city grew up around the (stupid) car.  Everyone living here is used to instant transportation gratification.  

The vast majority of people need a car for day to day existence, and would even with a light rail system.  Having said car, they are likely to use it instead of the rail if the rail present any inconvenience at all.  Other than a commuter line, I think it would fail.

I would, however, if a rail system went in I would like to see lines from Brookside, to Cherry Street, Utica Square, Downtown (Bus Station & new city hall [close to Brady + blue dome + PAC also], and maybe to Promenade mall.  Of course with several stops along the way.  Coupled with the commuter line(s) to Broken Arrow (and maybe Jenks Riverwalk area).

Maybe OSU Tulsa, TU, and Oral Roberts for possible future expansion?

I don't know, far fetched anyway.  You need people to use it to make it worthwhile, but you need good lines to get people to use it.  And with all the roads, parking, and habits to overcome - I really don't see a functional rail network happening anytime in the next 50 years.

Too bad everyone got rid of their trolleys/light rails in the 50's.  America could be a much less car-oil dependent place.

I think Tulsa did grow up with trolleys, rail and busses before it dismissed them for cars. Sixth street from downtown to TU had a trolley, as well as SS line. Jenks/Sapulpa had something if I remember right. Union Depot was bustling and busses carried maids to Maple Ridge.

However, I don't dismiss your argument that Tulsa is fatally addicted to its auto lifestyle. Even when gasl. hits $5 a gallon the good little capitalist Calvinists of Tulsa will ignore the pain. Like Bruno captions, "..behind the curve since 1898".

I keep wondering just how expensive auto travel has to be and how much subsidizing highways we have to do for accountants to stop saying mass transit doesn't make financial sense. I suspect that when GM can make more money off of mass transit than cars, the epiphany will happen.

[TheArtist]

When talking about light rail for Tulsa I think all of us can agree that it certainly wont be for ALL of Tulsa. At best, it would be for a commuter line from BA to Downtown and high density nodes along that path and perhaps a line from the River District, aka downtown Jenks, possibly including a trolley from the River District to the Riverwalk and a rail connector there, to Downtown Tulsa and nodes that could be grown along that. Those are the obvious and most likely places to start a rail and work on improving the density needed.

When we talk about rail for Tulsa thats what is really being considering at this point so it wont be for ALL of Tulsa it will only be for those most likely areas. And even those are to be considered in a long term planning mode, not something immediately set up, but considered so that choices can be made that will make it more easily possible in the future. So to muddle the topic with the idea of more lines in more areas and having anything at this point in time is of course going to set up a situation where rail would not look like a viable option because of course it wouldnt be in that kind of situation. Such talk creates a false and deceptive argument which is what it appears Bates tried to do, and I think that was mean spirited and wrong because he knew danged well what he was doing.

[Renaissance]

Be careful about lumping commuter rail and light rail into the same category.  Otherwise you'll make the same mistake Bates made and muddle the debate.  They are, by definition, different.  

Commuter rail services use the same "heavy rail" system that freight trains use, in order to take economic advantage of preexisting lines.  They typically run from the suburbs to the city center with few stops in between.  If you've been to Chicago, think Metra, not the El.  Light rail is exactly what it sounds like--tracks built for a lighter load, such as a tram or trolley.  Typically these have more stops and have the "urban" feel.  In my opinion, such a system for Tulsa is far, far away.

BUT, we are so close to having commuter rail between Broken Arrow and Tulsa it's almost a joke.  It is imperative for both the growth of the metro region and the continuing vitality of downtown that we include commuter rail money in the upcoming street bonds package.  Let's say, in theory (very theoretical - heh) that a tech company were looking at downtown Tulsa as a place to move a significant number of employees.  Don't think for a second that the presence of a commuter rail line from the city's largest suburb wouldn't influence that decision.  They have actuarial tables for these things, and there is a column for public transit.

[cannon_fodder]

quote:waterboy wrote
I suspect that when GM can make more money off of mass transit than cars, the epiphany will happen.

Well, they haven't made money selling cars for nearly a decade - so maybe the time is now!  Heck, if they could just break even on trolley's they'd be way, way ahead of the curve.  []

[Chicken Little]

Okay, if mass transit is a gamble, then I suggest that we have been counting cards for 20 years.

Firstly, I think we can all agree that Dallas is at least as nutty about their cars as we are.

Take a look at this interesting story from the Dallas Observer in 2004.  The interview with the developer who specializes in train stops shows that Dallas has learned something in the last 15 years:

quote:...He said a couple of things. First of all, when he was pitching Mockingbird Station to money people in the mid-1990s, it was tough enough to do what he did. His basic vision of Dallas, he said, is "an East Coast city with a West Coast lifestyle," but that was not the first thing he wanted to say to the checkbook guys.

"We had to finance that deal based just more on its common market fundamentals: great corner, great neighborhood, good atmosphere, things which help any kind of development, whether it's transit-oriented or otherwise. But we sort of sold the financial end of the deal as, 'Oh, and by the way, there's this rail station.'"

...But this is 10 years later. Believe it or not, in 10 years a lot has changed...

And four years later, even clumsy old DART has figured out a few things about promoting promoting their "transit villages":

quote:In fact, the number of home buyers and renters nationwide who want to reside within walking distance of public transportation is expected to more than double in the next 20 years, new research says. And the Dallas area will be one of the top cities in the country for such construction. According to the Center for Transit Oriented Development, demand for it will increase here more than any other city besides Los Angeles. With DART preparing to add about two dozen suburban transit stops in its next expansion, the Federal Transit Administration predicts that the Dallas area the demand for transit-oriented housing will increase to more than 260,000 units by 2025 – a 364% increase.

It took them 20 years to figure out what seems to work.  We can learn from that.  Isn't learning from their experience the of equivalent of being at the end of a deck?