Bates phones it in again: Transit

[Chicken Little]

quote:Originally posted by booWorld


Interesting looking vehicle...

It appears to have tires, so I assume that it could operate on most streets near where people live and work and shop.

It also appears to be a relatively small investment compared to a rail transit system.  I think colorful buses such as this one would serve sprawling Tulsa better than fixed guideway transit.

The rationale for placing fixed guideways as a catalyst for growth is that a developer would have some assurance that this corridor will be prominent, if not dominant, over time.  The rail becomes an attractive factor in a locational decision for the developers who are looking for an edge.  This is exactly what's playing out in Dallas right now, where properties within walking distance of DART are rapidly rising in value.  It's very similar to developers seeking prime locations along freeways for retail, or wanting to be near natural amenities for housing, etc.

I used to have the exact same point of view as you.  Why invest in fixed rail when rubber tire systems can adapt to change so easily?  It didn't add up.  But then I started to read about what was happening in Dallas and other western cities where they have begun to recognize the interplay between transportation and land value.  Developers are now specializing in transit villages.  If we could transform underutilized industrial rail corridors into mixed-use corridors, it'd be a real coup for us.  I think, with a precise game plan, Tulsa could really translate this into some very good growth that will benefit all of us.  

I share your frustration with various hot chocolate lovers in this town, and I think it would be a real win for someone to say officially, that this is a "future rail corridor", even if it still might be a decade away.  Perhaps that is enough to attract the attention of developers.  But the bottom line is this, it won't happen by itself.  Somebody has to draw a line on a map.  And that's what honks me off about Bates' article.  He apparently wants those folks to holster their pens and get back to their hot chocolate.  That, to me, is unacceptable.

Our freeway building days are nearly done.  We've got some outer loop stuff contemplated in the far east, in the west, and up in Osage, but we really won't capture all of the benefit of that.  We need to look for different ways to grow, and this seems as viable as any I've heard, and much more tested and proven than river development.  Plus, the existing rail corridors go through parts of town that could really, really, use the development:  east, west, and north.

[Chicken Little]

quote:Originally posted by spoonbill

Challenge:  Someone take a picture of a Tulsa Transit Bus full of people.  I've never seen one?

I've been ON one...this year.  Funny how high gas prices can take a can opener to one's long held beliefs.

[inteller]

When gas hits $5 a gal this summer I think a lot of you will be singing a different tune to mass transit.

[Chicken Little]

quote:Originally posted by inteller

When gas hits $5 a gal this summer I think a lot of you will be singing a different tune to mass transit.

No kidding.  For those that think mass transit is a joke (Spoonbill), note this:

From the Tulsa Transit website:

Ridership       FY'05     FY'06
Fixed Route 1,790,800 2,293,500

Ridership jumped 28% in a single year; gas prices are serious business to a lot of people in this town.

[PonderInc]

quote: Second,  to run all-day service at reasonable frequencies would require a much larger capital investment in train sets, adding to the costs you'd need to recover.

Third, and perhaps most important.  We have to share the tracks with the freight railroads.  So all day service of any significant frequency is probably not possible.

I agree that sharing the tracks with the freight trains is a problem...as is the fact that only one track runs down the BA expressway.  (I would want trains to run both directions simultaneously!)

Re: costs.  I haven't seen anyone mention federal grants for transit.  I believe that federal funding is often matched with local funding at a rate of 80% federal to 20% local.  (Quite a bargain, in my opinion!)

One place to learn more is on the Federal Transit Administration website: http://www.fta.dot.gov/funding/grants_financing_263.html  I'm sure there are other programs available to help communities like Tulsa...and if we're talking about federal $$, it's money that will be spent SOMEWHERE...why not spend it here in Tulsa?

[brunoflipper]

quote:Originally posted by Chicken Little

quote:Originally posted by inteller

When gas hits $5 a gal this summer I think a lot of you will be singing a different tune to mass transit.

No kidding.  For those that think mass transit is a joke (Spoonbill), note this:

From the Tulsa Transit website:

Ridership       FY'05     FY'06
Fixed Route 1,790,800 2,293,500

Ridership jumped 28% in a single year; gas prices are serious business to a lot of people in this town.

is that you CL?

[spoonbill]

quote:Originally posted by Chicken Little

quote:Originally posted by inteller

When gas hits $5 a gal this summer I think a lot of you will be singing a different tune to mass transit.

No kidding.  For those that think mass transit is a joke (Spoonbill), note this:

From the Tulsa Transit website:

Ridership       FY'05     FY'06
Fixed Route 1,790,800 2,293,500

Ridership jumped 28% in a single year; gas prices are serious business to a lot of people in this town.

Hmm. . . Thanks for the link.  What I glean from their statistics is that they have the capacity to provide transportation for 1.05% of the Tulsa population (8,500 folks a day)  Oh! wait, this is broken into passenger trips, so it would be half of that .5% of the Tulsa population.

And they currently only transport less than a half of that (about 3,400 a day).  Or approximately 36 people, to and from work per bus, every day.

Wow!  Each one of those busses runs around, burnin fuel, all day, and only provides transportation for 36 people.

So, I would give them at least until they can fill the busses half-way until we start thinking about filling an 80 million dollar train half-way.[]

I mean, we can only loose so much money right now!  Ya know?

[USRufnex]

quote:Originally posted by Transport_Oklahoma

If you believe that energy is going to be vastly more expensive in the future, as many experts do, I don't see how you could oppose at least planning for rail development in Tulsa.

The jitney thing is fine, but it also is a good clue that Michael Bates is getting his anti-rail transit bias from CATO, The Heritage Foundation, and/or the American Enterprise Institute.  

These groups have long opposed taxpayer financed rail transit.  In addition to toll roads they almost always mention jitneys as the preferred alternative.

Agreed that voluntary/consensus smart growth/new urbanist zoning is essential.

Good find in pointing out the CATO Institute's fascination with "jitneys"... until now, I thought that was some kinda indian spice the english like to use in jelly...

But I don't see how Bates' opinion piece is unreasonable.

Per usual, the people who will push hard for expensive new taxpayer funded infrustructure for this are the same folks who'd make sure east Tulsa had 2 lane dirt roads, if they had their druthers... I remember hearing the exact same arguments for a monorail back in the 70s as a kid-- but hey, I was 10 years old, and it sounded like a great plan to fight the "energy crisis" at the time, then Tulsa could be really cool, ya know, just like Disneyworld!?!  [8D]

You know, I've bought monthly passes to ride Chicago's "L" and Boston's "T" and like the idea of public transit and the use of public dollars for transit over a "roads-only" strategy.  But I lived in areas of both cities (northside Chicago and East Boston) that weren't even in the city center... yet midrise buildings and 2-story ad 3-story brownstones were still dominant, unlike the ranch-style bungalows in Tulsa... and this ain't changing anytime soon...

I've tried taking the bus in Tulsa a few times over the past year and have never been in one that was even close to being full... and that route was at the tail end of rush hour... maybe that much ballyhooed 28% increase in ridership means there are 4 people on the bus instead of 3???  Also, if I go to a few of my local "watering holes," I can pretty much count cars and that's how many people will be inside... and that includes bars around downtown and midtown, too...

I know that most Tulsans are not as "transit-friendly" as I am... or even as Michael Bates is.  I suspect that if gas goes up to $10 per gal and Tulsa has a reasonable light rail, I'd ride it for awhile, then save up some money for a car that gets much higher gas mileage than my car does now... beyond that, I'd maybe even carpool...

When it takes me only 10+ minutes to drive from my east Tulsa apt to a free parking space less than 50-feet from the front door of McNellies', I'm not nearly as likely to take transit in Tulsa, even if it were full service and convenient to where I live.  You see, in cities where transit is a good option, it has more to do with using the train/bus to avoid parking and traffic nightmares.  At night, if traffic and poor side streets weren't enough, it can often take 30-45 mins to find a parking spot in popular areas of Chicago like Lincoln Park and Wrigleyville.  

Arguing that a light rail in Tulsa will somehow "create demand" has little basis in reality.  We can't even get one "East End"-style mixed use complex built or even a grocery store downtown.  

Commuter rail is a different story though.  I could see the upside of rush hour trains running to/from Catoosa-Claremore... or BA/Coweta/Wagoner... or Jenks/Glenpool/Sapulpa, etc... which, ironically, could contribute to so-called sprawl but would actually satisfy a potential future demand...  

[Renaissance]

quote:Originally posted by USRufnex

But I don't see how Bates' opinion piece is unreasonable.

* * * *

Commuter rail is a different story though.  I could see the upside of rush hour trains running to/from Catoosa-Claremore... or BA/Coweta/Wagoner... or Jenks/Glenpool/Sapulpa, etc... which, ironically, could contribute to so-called sprawl but would actually satisfy a potential future demand...  

Bates' piece is unreasonable because he sets up light rail as a red herring.  As I tried pointing out earlier, nothing in the Blue Ribbon Panel's recommendation that a street plan include funding for passenger rail suggests that they want to criss-cross Tulsa with a new light rail system.  Although the report is not specific, it is HIGHLY likely that the panel was referring to utilizing existing rail lines for commuter service.  Most everyone seems to concede that it's a reasonable plan, and it's the focus of Tulsa Transit's studies.  Bates should know this.

But instead of discussing this possibility, he sets up a light rail straw man and knocks it down.  Why would Mr. Bates, an educated, highly informed citizen, do this?  I don't know his motivation, but I'll guess at two possibilities: 1) under deadline, he simply made a hurried and mistaken assumption about the intention of the Streets Panel report; or 2) he is being intentionally misleading about the Streets Panel's intentions in order to strike a preemptive blow against what is sure to be a very large streets bond issue coming in the next 12-18 months.  

Either way, it's not being biased to point out where Bates' argument is flawed, particularly on a topic of such vital importance to Tulsa's infrastructure and growth.

[booWorld]

In the late 1980s and early 1990s, I was enthused about the possibility of rail transit in Tulsa.  But then I read INCOG's study on fixed guideway transit.  The basic reality of that study is that Tulsa doesn't have the intensity of development to support passenger rail service.

In the late 1990s the TMAPC began pushing the idea of down-zoning some land I'd purchased near downtown by a factor of 11.  That is, the TMAPC thought that the development potential should be limited to 2.66 dwelling units per acre instead of 29.25.  Although I begged the TMAPC and the City Council not to down-zone to such low densities, they decided that they knew what was best for my land instead of me.  It did not matter what the comprehensive plan said, and my futile pleas were ignored.  I tried to use the argument of developing a viable mass transit in Tulsa by bolstering the population density of our older neighborhoods.  No, the TMAPC thought that greater setbacks and lower densities were what Tulsa needed.  They got their way.

Now, after having been through the wringer at INCOG, I'm convinced that we won't get past this sprawling suburban mindset in Tulsa anytime soon.  It's too entrenched in our way of thinking and in our everyday behavior.  I think most Tulsans are satisfied with it this way.  If a large public funding proposal for passenger rail transit goes to the voters of Tulsa, I predict that it will be defeated.      

 

[booWorld]

quote:Originally posted by TheArtist

There is no way in hell I would ride that lol.

What if it made a stop at Philbrook?  Still no way?

[Oil Capital]

quote:Originally posted by Chicken Little

quote:Originally posted by inteller

When gas hits $5 a gal this summer I think a lot of you will be singing a different tune to mass transit.

No kidding.  For those that think mass transit is a joke (Spoonbill), note this:

From the Tulsa Transit website:

Ridership       FY'05     FY'06
Fixed Route 1,790,800 2,293,500

Ridership jumped 28% in a single year; gas prices are serious business to a lot of people in this town.

Spoonbill is right.  Those numbers show that mass transit in Tulsa IS pretty much a joke.  (Before you start setting up straw men again, note that I am NOT in any way saying we should abolish it.  It's a necessary public function IMO.)  

This discussion of Tulsa Transit ridership points to one of the problems I have with the "Study".  The methodology of their ridership estimates.

If one wants to estimate how many people are likely to ride mass transit from Broken Arrow to downtown Tulsa, doesn't it make intuitive sense to at least look at the number of people currently using mass transit from Broken Arrow to downtown Tulsa?  

Tulsa Transit runs express buses from Broken Arrow to downtown Tulsa.  They run more often than the proposed rail and they make the run almost as fast.  

Yet the study ignores that completely.  One suspects the ridership is pretty low and using that as a starting point would not have gotten them the answer they were looking for (a Kathy Taylor Special).  Yes, there is a rail bias but the current mass transit usage is a pretty obvious starting point.

Instead they base their ridership estimates on  rail usage in something like 21 other rail systems (the identity of those systems is hidden away in the mysterious appendices).  That is fundamentally flawed because that would require them to be using data from systems that are completely unlike what is being discussed here in Tulsa in cities that are completely unlike Tulsa (i.e., highly congested)

And FWIW, the line is already drawn on the map.  This line is in INCOG's 2030 Transportation Plan.  However, no sane developer will ever build a development based on government "plans".

I'm with Artist (I think it was he).  In our efforts to urbanize/densify Tulsa, our resources would be much better spent on the East End, or Brady District or Pearl District developments.

Someone else mentioned Federal funds.  I believe the split on mass transit projects is 50/50.

[T-TownMike]

Some just don't get it. They don't want the city to grow so they'll look for any an every excuse there is to shoot things down. I'm glad I don't live there anymore. Too much bickering and not enough progress. The vocal minority are penny pinchers who realy don't care about growth. If you can't see the benefits of light rail maybe you shouldn't discuss it. Stay in the 1970's, Tulsa.

[TheArtist]

Yes, I would like to see some of those infill areas well on their way before we get too involved with that rail line. BUT, though this is a minor point I think it would be helpful while doing those projects in Tulsa and BA, to purchase property and maintain right of ways for future possible stations, and even do some zoning for high density right around the possible stations. Even perhaps lay out a timeline saying "Current expectation is to have rail service on the BA to Tulsa line by about 2025-2030". Buying those properties and doing those other things, makes the rail line seem more certain to happen and could give a little more impetus for growth around those areas... many of which we want to grow with high density regardless.  And if those areas in and near both downtowns do grow as we hope, then it will make the line all the more likely and useful.

Remember, this is a very limited "starter" service as currently stated. Only a few commuter trips during rush hour periods. Possible ridership by that time for such a service should be more than adequate.

[Oil Capital]

quote:Originally posted by T-TownMike

Some just don't get it. They don't want the city to grow so they'll look for any an every excuse there is to shoot things down. I'm glad I don't live there anymore. Too much bickering and not enough progress. The vocal minority are penny pinchers who realy don't care about growth. If you can't see the benefits of light rail maybe you shouldn't discuss it. Stay in the 1970's, Tulsa.

LOL   Indeed, some really don't get it and prefer delusions over a factual analysis.   There are plenty of things Tulsa could do and should do to improve its future.  ANY rail at this time would be foolish and a serious misallocation of of obviously scarce resources.

I just love the argument that if one disagrees one shouldn't even be in the discussion.  With that kind of attitude, let me just say that I too am glad you don't live here anymore.  ;-)

(and since you apparently haven't been paying the slightest bit of attention to the actual discussion... we are discussing commuter rail, not light rail.)