Bates phones it in again: Transit

[pfox]

Hey everybody... This is a good discussion.  I want you to know, there are going to be more public opportunities to continue this discourse in the near future.  I hope you all plan on participating.  

I have noticed that there has been a lot of debate on both technology and land use.  For what it is worth, there has been no determination on technology other than to say that the concerns you all have had regarding both light rail and (traditional) commuter rail are also concerns of ours.  There are other choices available that I am personally very excited about, but that need to be tested in the real market for effectiveness.  Suffice it to say, cost, cost recovery, Transit Oriented Development potential, appropriate land use designations, among many considerations, will most definitely be a part of any choice we, collectively, will make.  

I also want to say that Michael Bates is right about a couple of things.  Clearly, there are gaps in our current transit network that can be filled through the private sector.  Better taxi service, jitney, coordinated private/NFP sector transportation options should supplement our transit system, and I think there will be opportunity for that.  I think Michael would be the first to tell you, also, that in order for any mass transit system to be effective, that it must be comprehensive. Connections from transit stops to a riders final destination must be timely, obvious and simple. Connections must also consider cars, bikes and pedestrians.  They are not exclusive to transit. They should compliment each other.  This is just one reason why we must give our rubber tire system a fighting chance to succeed.  Of course our ridership numbers don't compare to other cities.  We run about half of the routes we have planned, and the ones we do have, we don't run frequently enough.  In order for it to be successful, the bus system, any transit system,at the very least  must run on time, go where you need it to go, and with head ways of no longer than 15 to 20 minutes on most routes. Period. They are not perfect, but Tulsa Transit makes the most out of their meager budget.  But that is just this person's opinion.

One thing I would suggest is not to get too hung up on the density issue.  Density, particularly around transit, can change.  But also, we often have in our minds that transit only works in legacy cities like Chicago, Boston and New York, where traditionally, highly dense neighborhoods support transit.  Sure, transit has become a part of the fabric of those places, but there are many, many examples of high capacity transit being successfully implemented in communities, not unlike Tulsa, that "grew up" with the automobile.  Denver...Dallas...Salt Lake City...Portland...and now Charlotte and Minneapolis.  These places, from both a ridership and a economic development perspective have all displayed measurable success.  Perhaps the most telling element is the psychological shift these places have had in their thinking about who would or wouldn't use public transportation.  Frankly, places like Dallas and Denver were (and in many ways still are) the poster child for automobile driven sprawl. "You'll never get a Texan out of his truck", right?  In  2007 DART carried 7000 passengers an hour at peak hours.  That is the equivalent of 3 lanes of expressway.  So when you compare the taxpayer funded cost of expanding a highway, and in the case of the I-44 expansion from Yale to Riverside it is over 100 million per mile, to the cost of converting existing track and right of way for passenger use, including stations crossing upgrades, using an extremely conservative number, say 20 million per mile, the cost benefit is really no longer in roadway's favor.

Now, before I get myself into trouble, no one is suggesting that we don't fix our roads.  Certainly not me.  It should be our top priority from an infrastructure standpoint.  But we owe it to ourselves, if for no other reason than for the purpose of fiscal sustainability, to really examine our public transit system and what it's future in our region holds.  No pre-determination, just a good, hard, critical, collective look at our options.

Thanks for caring about this issue.

Patrick Fox
Multimodal Transportation Planner
INCOG

[booWorld]

quote:Originally posted by pfox

Hey everybody... This is a good discussion.

I agree...

quote:
One thing I would suggest is not to get too hung up on the density issue.  Density, particularly around transit, can change.

I agree again.  Density can change.  Density can be increased, and it can be drastically decreased as it was with my property against my wishes.  The land use "planners" there are INCOG are hung up on low density, and forcing low density on Tulsans who don't want it is a colossal problem in terms of having viable transit systems.  I begged the land use "planners" to drop their down-zoning pursuit, but to no avail.  I was satisfied with the zoning of my property as it was.  Down-zoning to suburban densities was their idea, not mine.  The hang-up about density was theirs, not mine.

quote:
No pre-determination, just a good, hard, critical, collective look at our options.

Once again, I agree.  

But unless Tulsa's land use policies are changed to allow for a more-intense pattern instead of pre-determining a less-intense pattern, viable mass transit systems (and especially fixed guideway systems) won't stand a chance.

BTW, Portland isn't much like Tulsa in terms of density and mass transit.  It was 35 or 40 years perhaps, but not now.

[booWorld]

quote:Originally posted by pfox

I also want to say that Michael Bates is right about a couple of things.

And I also want to say thank you for not trashing him.  That's how this topic began, but there's no need for the attacks to contine.  They are counter-productive to the discussion.

[si_uk_lon_ok]

I'm sorry, but I think Bates uses poor logic, a fixed view point and with that comes to the wrong conclusion. In doing he backs a transport system, that to the best of my knowledge has only rarely been used in a modern western country and that was only temporarily and when the country in question was attempting to be as third world as possible. That was during the Birmingham Bus Boycott.

I think Bates makes correct observations, but then falls into the trap of assuming that a transport system would have no impact on his observations and should work around them. He's right, for instance, that most people have scattered destinations and places to be during the day, but ignored the potential of mass transit to not only increase density, but also lead to mixed use developments. We've talked a fair bit about density, but mixed use is just as important in creating a viable transport system, if you have destinations all over the place, you'll constantly be changing route. However if you live in a dense mixed use transport hub and work near one it's likely that your supermarket, dry cleaners and children's school will be close to your house, while the gym and café will be close to work. In this case light rail works very well, but you can't expect an area without transit to fit these requirements. A car based area will never have the density to become dense, walkable and have a population large enough to have a wide variety of services within a short distance.

I also find it laughable that Bates wants public transport to operate a free market, while roads have the benefit of central government. There is no way that public transport should be forced to operate in the market in the way he  suggests, I'm sure there would be a **** storm if roads did. A free market road system would mean tolls on every road, varying with traffic and time of day, it would mean price discrimination to extract the maximum charge out of you. It would be the bare minimum, no roads to the country, no repairs on little used roads. You cannot expect public transport to operate under conditions that you would never dream of forcing roads to operate under, it's completely hypocritical.

A Jitney will never work in encouraging development, because there has been no investment. A rail line, light rail line and so on shows that there has been a firm investment in that area and it won't go anywhere. This means that developers will invest in the local area too. If you were a developer would you pay a premium on land just because a few mini buses passed through the area (and no guarantee that tomorrow they would), or would you pay a premium if a station had been built?

[Transport_Oklahoma]

Not all conservatives believe that new rail transit has been "a colossal waste of money."

Paul Weyrich was a co-founder of the Moral Majority and today is a principle of the Free Congress Foundation, a conservative think tank.  He is also a pundit at NewsMax.

In 1999 he co-produced the study "Does Transit Work?  A Conservative Reappraisal"

http://www.apta.com/research/info/online/weyrich2new.cfm

Weyrich discusses transit on National Public Radio's Talk of the Nation

[booWorld]

I've been around Tulsa for a long time. Michael Bates has been here longer than I.

Michael Bates confessed that he is a fan of rail based transit.  I'm a fan of that type of transit also.  I'm not opposed to buses, either.

But this is Tulsa.  There is a huge problem with the planning and land use process here.  It's not predictable, and it is not comprehensive in terms of making zoning work hand in hand with public mass transit.

For decades, my neighborhood was targeted for residential development of increased density such as apartments.  Then after 40 years or so, the "planners" at INCOG did a 180 and decided it was time for single-family low density development.  This area is very near downtown Tulsa and the river -- an area where it would actually make sense to bolster density in order to support mass transit.

The river itself has been targeted for low intensity development or no development at all.  Then suddenly, after six Tulsans propose that islands be constructed in the river, the "planners" at INCOG do another 180 and start having public meetings to consider it.

A colossal investment in public infrastructure doesn't mean that there will be an equal or greater benefit of private investment.  Basically everything we have now was planned.  The problem is that the plans are not coordinated, and they certainly aren't predictable.  

[brunoflipper]

so this is a chicken and egg phenomenon?

fine.

i'm tired of sitting on this egg, let's get a chicken (a comprehensive plan with with real mass transit and form based codes) and get on with it...

[booWorld]

quote:...let's get a chicken (a comprehensive plan with with real mass transit and form based codes) and get on with it...

Now that sounds like the kind of idea that Michael Bates has been writing about and advocating for years.  And from my perspective, name-calling and throwing out a red herring such as blackjack card counting doesn't help us "get on with" anything other than more bickering.

[MichaelBates]

quote:Originally posted by si_uk_lon_ok

A Jitney will never work in encouraging development, because there has been no investment. A rail line, light rail line and so on shows that there has been a firm investment in that area and it won't go anywhere.

I haven't had time to participate in this very interesting discussion, and I still don't have time to do more than respond to this one point.

I lived in Brookline, Mass., for five years in the early eighties, about four blocks away from the intersection of Commonwealth and Brighton Avenues, the point at which the MBTA Green Line's "A" branch to Watertown and "B" branch to Boston College split. (The Green Line is a light-rail / streetcar line that uses overhead power and runs partly above and partly below ground. Other MBTA lines draw power from the third rail.)

Although the "A" branch had ceased operation in 1969 -- replaced by bus service -- the tracks, poles, and wires were there until the mid-'80s. If you saw the tracks and wires and decided to wait for the next streetcar, you'd have been waiting a long time. (On rare occasions, "B" branch cars would use the old tracks as a turnaround, but they didn't stop.) The presence of the infrastructure was no guarantee that the MBTA would keep running trains.

Here in Tulsa, Charles Page built a railroad for interurban passenger service and freight service. The tracks are still there and in use, and the Sand Springs Railroad could run passenger service, but they choose not to do so. Likewise for the TSU tracks between Tulsa and Sapulpa. The UP (formerly MK&T) tracks being discussed as a commuter line between Tulsa and BA are already in existence.

So I'm having trouble understanding how the existence of tracks is going to be any more reassuring to a developer than the presence of a bus shelter or a bus stop sign.

[TheArtist]

quote:Originally posted by booWorld

I've been around Tulsa for a long time. Michael Bats has been here longer than I.

Michael Bates confessed that he is fan of rail based transit.  I'm a fan of that type of transit also.  I'm not opposed to buses, either.

But this is Tulsa.  There is a huge problem with the planning and land use process here.  It's not predictable, and it is not comprehensive in terms of making zoning work hand in hand with public mass transit.

For decades, my neighborhood was targeted for residential development of in increased density such as apartments.  Then after 40 years or so, the "planners" at INCOG did a 180 and decided it was time for single-family low density development.  This area is very near downtown Tulsa and the river -- an area where it would actually make sense to bolster density in order to support mass transit.

The river itself has been targeted for low intensity development or no development at all.  Then suddenly, after six Tulsans propose that islands be constructed in the river, the "planners" at INCOG do another 180 and start having public meetings to consider it.

A colossal investment in public infrastructure doesn't mean that there will be an equal or greater benefit of private investment.  Basically everything we have now was planned.  The problem is that the plans are not coordinated, and they certainly aren't predictable.  

I would just assume that zoning would change in at least the areas around possible station points. Plus other changes would be made to integrate the rail into other planning considerations. Surely that goes without saying...right? This town isnt THAT stupid.

[si_uk_lon_ok]

quote:Originally posted by MichaelBates

quote:Originally posted by si_uk_lon_ok

A Jitney will never work in encouraging development, because there has been no investment. A rail line, light rail line and so on shows that there has been a firm investment in that area and it won't go anywhere.

I haven't had time to participate in this very interesting discussion, and I still don't have time to do more than respond to this one point.

I lived in Brookline, Mass., for five years in the early eighties, about four blocks away from the intersection of Commonwealth and Brighton Avenues, the point at which the MBTA Green Line's "A" branch to Watertown and "B" branch to Boston College split. (The Green Line is a light-rail / streetcar line that uses overhead power and runs partly above and partly below ground. Other MBTA lines draw power from the third rail.)

Although the "A" branch had ceased operation in 1969 -- replaced by bus service -- the tracks, poles, and wires were there until the mid-'80s. If you saw the tracks and wires and decided to wait for the next streetcar, you'd have been waiting a long time. (On rare occasions, "B" branch cars would use the old tracks as a turnaround, but they didn't stop.) The presence of the infrastructure was no guarantee that the MBTA would keep running trains.

Here in Tulsa, Charles Page built a railroad for interurban passenger service and freight service. The tracks are still there and in use, and the Sand Springs Railroad could run passenger service, but they choose not to do so. Likewise for the TSU tracks between Tulsa and Sapulpa. The UP (formerly MK&T) tracks being discussed as a commuter line between Tulsa and BA are already in existence.

So I'm having trouble understanding how the existence of tracks is going to be any more reassuring to a developer than the presence of a bus shelter or a bus stop sign.

Sorry if I was unclear.

I was indicating that if the city invested money on a new light rail system and new stations it would lead to much more focused development, than jitneys. There are many studies indicating that proximity to rail interchanges has a very significant positive impact on land values. And higher land values lead to a more efficient use of land, which in turn leads to more tax revenues. The impact of jitneys I don't think has ever been measured as it is an extremely uncommon transport system in the first world, however the impact of buses which shares characteristics with jitneys have a much smaller effect than light rail, if it can even be measured.

I was also trying to say that the fact the infrastructure of rail is pretty permanent and it gives people faith to develop the area. An indication of this could be that when rail schemes are typically valued using cost benefit analysis the impact of the scheme up to 70 years in advance is measured, but for buses this is much lower as it is on the whole a lot less permanent. I know that I would pay more to live a lot next to a light rail stop, while I would be totally unconcerned by a properties proximity to a bus stop.

I was also trying to say that a jitney picks up people and drops people off pretty much where they please along the length of the route, while rail sets people off at set destinations. This means that you have people being focussed on a single node rather than having people spread down a whole linear route, this means more footfall and more business.

[TheArtist]

quote:Originally posted by MichaelBates

quote:Originally posted by si_uk_lon_ok

A Jitney will never work in encouraging development, because there has been no investment. A rail line, light rail line and so on shows that there has been a firm investment in that area and it won't go anywhere.

I haven't had time to participate in this very interesting discussion, and I still don't have time to do more than respond to this one point.

I lived in Brookline, Mass., for five years in the early eighties, about four blocks away from the intersection of Commonwealth and Brighton Avenues, the point at which the MBTA Green Line's "A" branch to Watertown and "B" branch to Boston College split. (The Green Line is a light-rail / streetcar line that uses overhead power and runs partly above and partly below ground. Other MBTA lines draw power from the third rail.)

Although the "A" branch had ceased operation in 1969 -- replaced by bus service -- the tracks, poles, and wires were there until the mid-'80s. If you saw the tracks and wires and decided to wait for the next streetcar, you'd have been waiting a long time. (On rare occasions, "B" branch cars would use the old tracks as a turnaround, but they didn't stop.) The presence of the infrastructure was no guarantee that the MBTA would keep running trains.

Here in Tulsa, Charles Page built a railroad for interurban passenger service and freight service. The tracks are still there and in use, and the Sand Springs Railroad could run passenger service, but they choose not to do so. Likewise for the TSU tracks between Tulsa and Sapulpa. The UP (formerly MK&T) tracks being discussed as a commuter line between Tulsa and BA are already in existence.

So I'm having trouble understanding how the existence of tracks is going to be any more reassuring to a developer than the presence of a bus shelter or a bus stop sign.

I am sure what they meant by a "line" being there was that there was going to be service. There are tracks all over the city and its obvious that tracks alone dont equal development.  Tracks alone dont equal service. Plus the areas that we are wanting to encourage higher density development in are also near possible stations.  

If we want to do the Pearl District. What is it
we are wanting to do that will get the kind of development that is shown in the plan? What will BA be doing in its downtown to encourage higher density development it wants there? Will a little water in a few ponds create development? There are ponds and water in lots of areas already where developers havent built so why would it be any different in the Pearl? "to use the same logic"

[booWorld]

quote:Originally posted by TheArtist

I would just assume that zoning would change in at least the areas around possible station points. Plus other changes would be made to integrate the rail into other planning considerations. Surely that goes without saying...right? This town isnt THAT stupid.

No, I wouldn't make those assumptions about Tulsa.  Remember that virtually everything we have now was planned.

And the recent planning trend in my central Tulsa neighborhood has been to decrease residential densities.  Planning-wise, we reap what we sow.  It's all a matter of how we choose to utilize the land we have available.  We've chosen inefficient methods of land utilization, but most Tulsans probably are satisfied with the sprawl.  

Building transit stations might give developers more assurance than bus stop signs, but train stations can be abandoned too.  To me, the subject of density absolutely crucial.  It all goes to land use and zoning.

[PonderInc]

quote:Originally posted by pfox

I want you to know, there are going to be more public opportunities to continue this discourse in the near future.  I hope you all plan on participating.  

Please be sure to let us know about any and all future opportunities for the public to weigh in on this issue!  

[TheArtist]

quote:Originally posted by booWorld

quote:Originally posted by TheArtist

I would just assume that zoning would change in at least the areas around possible station points. Plus other changes would be made to integrate the rail into other planning considerations. Surely that goes without saying...right? This town isnt THAT stupid.

No, I wouldn't make those assumptions about Tulsa.  Remember that virtually everything we have now was planned.

And the recent planning trend in my central Tulsa has been to decrease residential densities.  Planning-wise, we reap what we sow.  It's all a matter of how we choose to utilize the land we have available.  We've chosen inefficient methods of land utilization, but most Tulsans probably are satisfied with the sprawl.  

Building transit stations might give developers more assurance than bus stop signs, but train stations can be abandoned too.  To me, the subject of density absolutely crucial.  It all goes to land use and zoning.

Everyone knows that the old land use planning are outdated and need to be changed. Just as it was changed before to get to this point, people realize we are in a different phase and need to change again. Thats one of the main reasons we are doing the "new comprehensive plan". We wouldnt be doing a new one if we thought the old one was fine. The new comprehensive plan is also why we are talking about the rail because we know we are going to have to make that descision in order to plan for other things that connect to it as well. We are just about spread out all we can. If we want growth in this next phase it will have to be infill. Thats a different animal with different planning needs. The first Form Based Codes area should come online this year which is directly connected to what you are talking about. It will create an area for mixed-use and higher density development. Once it is in place in this one area it can then be overlayed on other parts of the city as desired.

  C-O-M-P-R-E-H-E-N-S-I-V-E plan means just that, ALL factors must be considered and coordinated for the next phase of growth and development. We arent going to all this effort to do it half assed and keep things the same.

Everything we are talking about, Zoning changes for areas, buildings and streets, whether to widen or narrow roads, bike lanes or not, trails, parks, rail, redirecting infill for the 71st corridor and mid-town, preservation, etc. etc. etc. all connect together and will be addressed in the new Comprehensive Plan that is being worked on.

Nobody can be, or should be, talking about rail in a vacuum. That would be insane. With thenew comprehensive plan we are embarking on the new form and direction for growth our city will be taking for the next generation. It will have just as much an impact and real world consequences as the old way of doing things you mentioned did.