Bates phones it in again: Transit

[Oil Capital]

quote:Originally posted by 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.

That all sounds pretty good to me.  Especially the idea of zoning around the areas of potential stations (within reason;  I'm not a huge fan of highly restrictive zoning).

It might be a bit difficult to sell the idea of investing money to buy right of way etc with the plan of letting it sit for 15-20 years.  Not usually considered a good use of public money...  But it could be worthwhile.

[spoonbill]

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.

Mike,  We discuss here, not bicker.  Our wonderful city is in far better shape than your vision reveals.

Tulsa is an affordable place to live.  Our quality of life is very high.   Though our sales taxes are steep, we don't have the burdens that other cities have, driving up property values and shackling development.  

Yes, burdens exist and we are fighting to eliminate them.  But, projects that serve only to be municipal phallic symbols are not in the best interest of Tulsans.  If we have legitimate need for a project we pursue it.  Tulsa was built on private money, and, as is the case for most cities, it is best kept that way.

When the Emotionocrats, get jealous of what other cities have and go into the "I want one!" mode, we must temper them with some reality.  

So far, no one has been able to propose any real reason for Tulsa to jump on a Rail program that makes any fiscal sense.  

We are not stuck in the 70's.  We are far better off than most cities.  Our population, productivity, and growth numbers are healthy and increasing at a comfortable rate.  Our biggest problem, that we need to continue to address, is how to stimulate private development within the city of Tulsa.

The proposed rail plan that has been on the books for years has produced none of the desired positive effect on development.  In fact, some of it has caused land to be left on the table because the developer viewed the prospect of future rail service as a negative influence on property value.

If we had increasing population density and a prosperous public transportation system, I would be right there with ya!  In fact I would probably be drawing up proposals and helping to make it happen.  

But I can't get on the bandwagon just for "Instant Municipal Male Enhancement."

[Renaissance]

Respectfully disagree--I think there is ample statistical and anecdotal evidence that commuter rail is generally utilized once in place, particularly with rising gas costs.  It generally catches on among people with a set routine.  Density is only needed in two places for commuter rail: the source and the destination.  Broken Arrow is dense with commuters; downtown (for now) is (relatively) dense with their jobs.  

There's also a cost element that the consumer becomes aware of.  Assume, with park and ride, that the train is replacing 30 miles of driving commute.  I'll just use gas cost, rather than the AAA per mile cost.  Assume a very generous 20 mpg, and $3/gallon gas.  That commute currently costs $4.50/day.  The train ride, at $2 each way, would be $4 per day.  

Assuming 200 workdays per year, that's a savings of $100, plus the psychological savings of not sitting in traffic.  Public transit can be very pleasant--I never would have read Crime and Punishment and Anna Karenina if not for a 35 minute express bus commute from Norman to OKC that I was using back in 2002-03.  I also got very good at crosswords.

My point is that including commuter rail in a comprehensive streets plan should not be out of the question.  It seems like a reasonable infrastructure addition.  As gas prices go up and up, it will start to make more and more economic sense.

[spoonbill]

quote:Originally posted by Floyd

I think there is ample statistical and anecdotal evidence that commuter rail is generally utilized once in place

Simply stating "I think there is ample statistical and anecdotal evidence that commuter rail is generally utilized once in place" does not make it into evidence.

If someone can show "statistically or otherwise" that a rail system will be used, we can then analyze that data.  But just making an "I think" statement cannot serve to compel.

Why wouldn't the same logical citizens take advantage of the bus system?  Unless the rail would cause some odd mental anomaly to take place in Broken Arrow commuters' brains, that would make them hop on a train?

There is still plenty of room on the BA Express bus. . . and we have 60+ more busses that only transport 36 people a day that we can surely divert if this mass mental anomaly becomes a syndrome.

[Oil Capital]

quote:Originally posted by Floyd

Respectfully disagree--I think there is ample statistical and anecdotal evidence that commuter rail is generally utilized once in place, particularly with rising gas costs.  It generally catches on among people with a set routine.  Density is only needed in two places for commuter rail: the source and the destination.  Broken Arrow is dense with commuters; downtown (for now) is (relatively) dense with their jobs.  


Could you point us to some of that statistical and anecdotal evidence that commuter rail  is utilized (and utilized enough to make it worthwhile) in cities that are similar to Tulsa?


There's also a cost element that the consumer becomes aware of.  Assume, with park and ride, that the train is replacing 30 miles of driving commute.  I'll just use gas cost, rather than the AAA per mile cost.  Assume a very generous 20 mpg, and $3/gallon gas.  That commute currently costs $4.50/day.  The train ride, at $2 each way, would be $4 per day.  

Assuming 200 workdays per year, that's a savings of $100, plus the psychological savings of not sitting in traffic.  Public transit can be very pleasant--I never would have read Crime and Punishment and Anna Karenina if not for a 35 minute express bus commute from Norman to OKC that I was using back in 2002-03.  I also got very good at crosswords.


Good point.  But those same cost and reading-time benefits can be enjoyed on the current Broken Arrow express buses.  And where is the massive congestion in Tulsa that has people sitting in traffic in any significant way?  If and when that becomes a serious issue, rail will be a reasonable response.


My point is that including commuter rail in a comprehensive streets plan should not be out of the question.  It seems like a reasonable infrastructure addition.  As gas prices go up and up, it will start to make more and more economic sense.


As has been noted several times already, there is really no argument about whether commuter rail should be included in a comprehensive long-term plan.  IT IS ALREADY IN THE 2030 PLAN.

[Oil Capital]

quote:Originally posted by spoonbill

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.

Mike,  We discuss here, not bicker.  Our wonderful city is in far better shape than your vision reveals.

Tulsa is an affordable place to live.  Our quality of life is very high.   Though our sales taxes are steep, we don't have the burdens that other cities have, driving up property values and shackling development.  

Yes, burdens exist and we are fighting to eliminate them.  But, projects that serve only to be municipal phallic symbols are not in the best interest of Tulsans.  If we have legitimate need for a project we pursue it.  Tulsa was built on private money, and, as is the case for most cities, it is best kept that way.

When the Emotionocrats, get jealous of what other cities have and go into the "I want one!" mode, we must temper them with some reality.  

So far, no one has been able to propose any real reason for Tulsa to jump on a Rail program that makes any fiscal sense.  

We are not stuck in the 70's.  We are far better off than most cities.  Our population, productivity, and growth numbers are healthy and increasing at a comfortable rate.  Our biggest problem, that we need to continue to address, is how to stimulate private development within the city of Tulsa.

The proposed rail plan that has been on the books for years has produced none of the desired positive effect on development.  In fact, some of it has caused land to be left on the table because the developer viewed the prospect of future rail service as a negative influence on property value.

If we had increasing population density and a prosperous public transportation system, I would be right there with ya!  In fact I would probably be drawing up proposals and helping to make it happen.  

But I can't get on the bandwagon just for "Instant Municipal Male Enhancement."

I nominate this as the Best Post of this entire topic.

[si_uk_lon_ok]

quote:Originally posted by Oil Capital

quote:Originally posted by spoonbill

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.

Mike,  We discuss here, not bicker.  Our wonderful city is in far better shape than your vision reveals.

Tulsa is an affordable place to live.  Our quality of life is very high.   Though our sales taxes are steep, we don't have the burdens that other cities have, driving up property values and shackling development.  

Yes, burdens exist and we are fighting to eliminate them.  But, projects that serve only to be municipal phallic symbols are not in the best interest of Tulsans.  If we have legitimate need for a project we pursue it.  Tulsa was built on private money, and, as is the case for most cities, it is best kept that way.

When the Emotionocrats, get jealous of what other cities have and go into the "I want one!" mode, we must temper them with some reality.  

So far, no one has been able to propose any real reason for Tulsa to jump on a Rail program that makes any fiscal sense.  

We are not stuck in the 70's.  We are far better off than most cities.  Our population, productivity, and growth numbers are healthy and increasing at a comfortable rate.  Our biggest problem, that we need to continue to address, is how to stimulate private development within the city of Tulsa.

The proposed rail plan that has been on the books for years has produced none of the desired positive effect on development.  In fact, some of it has caused land to be left on the table because the developer viewed the prospect of future rail service as a negative influence on property value.

If we had increasing population density and a prosperous public transportation system, I would be right there with ya!  In fact I would probably be drawing up proposals and helping to make it happen.  

But I can't get on the bandwagon just for "Instant Municipal Male Enhancement."

I nominate this as the Best Post of this entire
topic.

The reason that Tulsa should get on the mass transit/ light rail wagon is that it enables land to be better utilised. You can not build to high density and provide amble parking, this means the city loses the possibility of higher tax revenue and the possibility of forming a central agglomeration of growth. If you reduce the need for parking by allowing people to take public transport you free up land for development and in turn tax dollars. I've looked at zoning and the main problem is almost always, not the setbacks or the height limits, its trying to squeeze in the mandatory parking for such a development.

Public transport is also great as you know where people will be going, you have a clear route and with that you can focus people on a central area, as in making downtown the centre of a transport system. In contrast more roads and having a road based system leads to sprawl and the loss of jobs and tax dollars. One of the worse things to happen to Tulsa in my mind was the Broken Arrow Express, it encouraged massive development outside the city boundary. Public transport does the opposite it focuses, development. One of the problems of cost benefit analysis in transport schemes is that until extremely recently no one took into account the agglomeration benefits, I've dealt with schemes that on paper had a time saving of only $9.72bn, but the agglomeration benefits were $72 to $132bn. I think it would be foolish to write off any scheme unless the full economic benefits for the city of Tulsa were calculated.

[booWorld]

quote:Originally posted by T-TownMike

If you can't see the benefits of light rail maybe you shouldn't discuss it.

I agree that ignoring any possible benefits of rail transit is extremely foolish and short-sighted.  Equally foolish is the refusal to acknowledge and to weigh the costs of a rail transit system in Tulsa.  Such foolishness is further compounded by dismissing the realities of planning and zoning patterns here.  Tulsa is sprawling -- by design.

[spoonbill]

quote:Originally posted by si_uk_lon_ok

quote:Originally posted by Oil Capital

quote:Originally posted by spoonbill

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.

Mike,  We discuss here, not bicker.  Our wonderful city is in far better shape than your vision reveals.

Tulsa is an affordable place to live.  Our quality of life is very high.   Though our sales taxes are steep, we don't have the burdens that other cities have, driving up property values and shackling development.  

Yes, burdens exist and we are fighting to eliminate them.  But, projects that serve only to be municipal phallic symbols are not in the best interest of Tulsans.  If we have legitimate need for a project we pursue it.  Tulsa was built on private money, and, as is the case for most cities, it is best kept that way.

When the Emotionocrats, get jealous of what other cities have and go into the "I want one!" mode, we must temper them with some reality.  

So far, no one has been able to propose any real reason for Tulsa to jump on a Rail program that makes any fiscal sense.  

We are not stuck in the 70's.  We are far better off than most cities.  Our population, productivity, and growth numbers are healthy and increasing at a comfortable rate.  Our biggest problem, that we need to continue to address, is how to stimulate private development within the city of Tulsa.

The proposed rail plan that has been on the books for years has produced none of the desired positive effect on development.  In fact, some of it has caused land to be left on the table because the developer viewed the prospect of future rail service as a negative influence on property value.

If we had increasing population density and a prosperous public transportation system, I would be right there with ya!  In fact I would probably be drawing up proposals and helping to make it happen.  

But I can't get on the bandwagon just for "Instant Municipal Male Enhancement."

I nominate this as the Best Post of this entire
topic.

The reason that Tulsa should get on the mass transit/ light rail wagon is that it enables land to be better utilised. You can not build to high density and provide amble parking, this means the city loses the possibility of higher tax revenue and the possibility of forming a central agglomeration of growth. If you reduce the need for parking by allowing people to take public transport you free up land for development and in turn tax dollars. I've looked at zoning and the main problem is almost always, not the setbacks or the height limits, its trying to squeeze in the mandatory parking for such a development.

Public transport is also great as you know where people will be going, you have a clear route and with that you can focus people on a central area, as in making downtown the centre of a transport system. In contrast more roads and having a road based system leads to sprawl and the loss of jobs and tax dollars. One of the worse things to happen to Tulsa in my mind was the Broken Arrow Express, it encouraged massive development outside the city boundary. Public transport does the opposite it focuses, development. One of the problems of cost benefit analysis in transport schemes is that until extremely recently no one took into account the agglomeration benefits, I've dealt with schemes that on paper had a time saving of only $9.72bn, but the agglomeration benefits were $72 to $132bn. I think it would be foolish to write off any scheme unless the full economic benefits for the city of Tulsa were calculated.

You have some good points.  I agree that parking requirements affect development significantly. I have a few questions and comments about your statements.

So are you suggesting that the city reduce the parking requirement for new developments near public transportation?  

I would be all for that!  You would see a development spike that would make your head spin!!!  

We could start by doing that near existing and new bus routs.  I know developers that would probably be willing to buy the city a new bus for each development they could reduce their parking count on.

If you took the existing light rail plan and made a public announcement that you were cutting the parking requirement by 15% to 25% on land near the route, you would have a development explosion.  But you have to understand that this boom would only be due to the additional sq./ft. that the developer could make money on.

Your statement that "One of the worse things to happen to Tulsa in my mind was the Broken Arrow Express, it encouraged massive development outside the city boundary."  

Come. . .come. . . now  do you really think that the bussing of a couple hundred people every day encouraged "massive development"?  Do you really think that was the worst thing to happen to Tulsa.  I would suggest that the massive development in Broken Arrow is due to a city that is unbelievably reasonable and inexpensive to develop in, leading to nice large homes on acres of land for the same price as a 1,000 sq/ft cottage in mid-town.


When you look at cities with successful mass transit systems they all have the same things in common:

1. Very long commutes.
2. Limited parking.
3. Dense population centers.
4. Large low income populations.

If you really want a light rail to be successful in Tulsa, you must create some of these items.  So here are a few suggestions to help create the environment you so dearly desire:

1.  Increase the commute on the BA by reducing it to 1 lane all the way into Tulsa.

2. Do as you suggest and reduce the parking count for businesses.  Make it darn hard or impossible to park.

3. Limit new residential development thus inflating home costs.  Make apartment living more attractive to the poor than ownership. . . and again, allow the developers of these apartments to provide only 1 parking spot per 800sf.

4. By doing the above, you will naturally increase the number of low income Tulsans.  Now you need to increase access to social services and programs to insure that this population grows.  

I think that covers it.

[si_uk_lon_ok]

quote:Originally posted by spoonbill

quote:Originally posted by si_uk_lon_ok

quote:Originally posted by Oil Capital

quote:Originally posted by spoonbill

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.

Mike,  We discuss here, not bicker.  Our wonderful city is in far better shape than your vision reveals.

Tulsa is an affordable place to live.  Our quality of life is very high.   Though our sales taxes are steep, we don't have the burdens that other cities have, driving up property values and shackling development.  

Yes, burdens exist and we are fighting to eliminate them.  But, projects that serve only to be municipal phallic symbols are not in the best interest of Tulsans.  If we have legitimate need for a project we pursue it.  Tulsa was built on private money, and, as is the case for most cities, it is best kept that way.

When the Emotionocrats, get jealous of what other cities have and go into the "I want one!" mode, we must temper them with some reality.  

So far, no one has been able to propose any real reason for Tulsa to jump on a Rail program that makes any fiscal sense.  

We are not stuck in the 70's.  We are far better off than most cities.  Our population, productivity, and growth numbers are healthy and increasing at a comfortable rate.  Our biggest problem, that we need to continue to address, is how to stimulate private development within the city of Tulsa.

The proposed rail plan that has been on the books for years has produced none of the desired positive effect on development.  In fact, some of it has caused land to be left on the table because the developer viewed the prospect of future rail service as a negative influence on property value.

If we had increasing population density and a prosperous public transportation system, I would be right there with ya!  In fact I would probably be drawing up proposals and helping to make it happen.  

But I can't get on the bandwagon just for "Instant Municipal Male Enhancement."

I nominate this as the Best Post of this entire
topic.

The reason that Tulsa should get on the mass transit/ light rail wagon is that it enables land to be better utilised. You can not build to high density and provide amble parking, this means the city loses the possibility of higher tax revenue and the possibility of forming a central agglomeration of growth. If you reduce the need for parking by allowing people to take public transport you free up land for development and in turn tax dollars. I've looked at zoning and the main problem is almost always, not the setbacks or the height limits, its trying to squeeze in the mandatory parking for such a development.

Public transport is also great as you know where people will be going, you have a clear route and with that you can focus people on a central area, as in making downtown the centre of a transport system. In contrast more roads and having a road based system leads to sprawl and the loss of jobs and tax dollars. One of the worse things to happen to Tulsa in my mind was the Broken Arrow Express, it encouraged massive development outside the city boundary. Public transport does the opposite it focuses, development. One of the problems of cost benefit analysis in transport schemes is that until extremely recently no one took into account the agglomeration benefits, I've dealt with schemes that on paper had a time saving of only $9.72bn, but the agglomeration benefits were $72 to $132bn. I think it would be foolish to write off any scheme unless the full economic benefits for the city of Tulsa were calculated.

You have some good points.  I agree that parking requirements affect development significantly. I have a few questions and comments about your statements.

So are you suggesting that the city reduce the parking requirement for new developments near public transportation?  

I would be all for that!  You would see a development spike that would make your head spin!!!  

We could start by doing that near existing and new bus routs.  I know developers that would probably be willing to buy the city a new bus for each development they could reduce their parking count on.

If you took the existing light rail plan and made a public announcement that you were cutting the parking requirement by 15% to 25% on land near the route, you would have a development explosion.  But you have to understand that this boom would only be due to the additional sq./ft. that the developer could make money on.

Your statement that "One of the worse things to happen to Tulsa in my mind was the Broken Arrow Express, it encouraged massive development outside the city boundary."  

Come. . .come. . . now  do you really think that the bussing of a couple hundred people every day encouraged "massive development"?  Do you really think that was the worst thing to happen to Tulsa.  I would suggest that the massive development in Broken Arrow is due to a city that is unbelievably reasonable and inexpensive to develop in, leading to nice large homes on acres of land for the same price as a 1,000 sq/ft cottage in mid-town.


When you look at cities with successful mass transit systems they all have the same things in common:

1. Very long commutes.
2. Limited parking.
3. Dense population centers.
4. Large low income populations.

If you really want a light rail to be successful in Tulsa, you must create some of these items.  So here are a few suggestions to help create the environment you so dearly desire:

1.  Increase the commute on the BA by reducing it to 1 lane all the way into Tulsa.

2. Do as you suggest and reduce the parking count for businesses.  Make it darn hard or impossible to park.

3. Limit new residential development thus inflating home costs.  Make apartment living more attractive to the poor than ownership. . . and again, allow the developers of these apartments to provide only 1 parking spot per 800sf.

4. By doing the above, you will naturally increase the number of low income Tulsans.  Now you need to increase access to social services and programs to insure that this population grows.  

I think that covers it.

I would scrap parking requirements in the entire city of Tulsa and introduce maximum parking standards. I wouldn't penalise people developing in transit corridors by forcing them to be any different than others developing in the back of beyond. I understand, what the boom would do it would create demand near the stops and significantly effect ridership in a way that would significantly effect its business case. At first the boom maybe due to the standards, but with time the benefits of living near a transit stop would spread, people would discover that its quite nice to let the train take the strain, read the paper on the way into work, maybe do some work or chat with people.

I'm sorry I was talking about the Broken Arrow Expressway. BA's website proclaims it:

quote: It was transportation, in fact, which ignited the amazing growth of Broken Arrow beginning in the mid-1960s. The opening of the Broken Arrow Expressway made the trip from Tulsa to Broken Arrow much easier.  

I think its crazy that you expect Tulsa to meet all the requirements of a city with a successful mass transit system without a mass transit system. The two are completely linked, you can't have the limited parking without an alternative and you can't have the dense centres without a mass transit system.

There is no reason for your obnoxious and condescending 'suggestions'. Was I rude and condescending to you? Light rail will spur development around the stations that will create even more demand, it will focus development downtown, this will lead to more tax revenue and a richer city overall.

[spoonbill]

My apologies si_uk_lon_ok. I did not intend to be condescending.

We come from two very different schools of thought on the subject of development.

[si_uk_lon_ok]

quote:Originally posted by spoonbill

My apologies si_uk_lon_ok. I did not intend to be condescending.

We come from two very different schools of thought on the subject of development.

Fair enough, I draw on the Los Angeles School of Urbanism. I think one book that all mayors should read though is 'The Capitalist Imperative'. I think sometimes if people are coming from very different points of view it can be hard to see eye to eye, but its worth trying.

[booWorld]

I think the BA Expressway and the other expressways have decimated Tulsa, especially the older neighborhoods.  Sadly, we continue to build more of them and to widen those we have already.  We have what we planned for.

I love the idea of reducing or dropping the off-street parking requirements in Tulsa.  That's a "what if" scenario worth discussing.

Just a reminder to everyone:  Michael Bates confessed in his opinion piece that he is a fan of rail-based mass transit systems.  If this comes down to an election on whether or not to raise taxes, then we all need to compare the costs to the benefits of rail transit for Tulsa.

[TheArtist]

It does sound like if this were to come to a vote that we have some ideas that we should impress on the city to consider as part of the development strategy. The lessening of parking requirements for developments around the stations is one. I would also want there to be bike stations by the rail stations as well. Say you get dropped off downtown. Your work or the place you are going may be on the other side. Having a bike station, like the ones at river parks where you swipe your debit card, nearby so you can then conveniently hop on a bike, leave it at a bike station near where you are going, then someone else or yourself can take that bike and go back to the station, etc. It would make the whole transportation experience much quicker and easier and more likely to be used. You could even take your own bike to the station, leave it, or take it on the train.

[si_uk_lon_ok]

quote:Originally posted by TheArtist

It does sound like if this were to come to a vote that we have some ideas that we should impress on the city to consider as part of the development strategy. The lessening of parking requirements for developments around the stations is one. I would also want there to be bike stations by the rail stations as well. Say you get dropped off downtown. Your work or the place you are going may be on the other side. Having a bike station, like the ones at river parks where you swipe your debit card, nearby so you can then conveniently hop on a bike, leave it at a bike station near where you are going, then someone else or yourself can take that bike and go back to the station, etc. It would make the whole transportation experience much quicker and easier and more likely to be used. You could even take your own bike to the station, leave it, or take it on the train.

Just thought you might be interested in this scheme.
Secure Station Cycle Parks

I think a really good way of funding public transport could be a car space tax, which would reduce the demand for parking, raise the cost of parking and encourage development to well connected areas.