Bates phones it in again: Transit

[brunoflipper]

quote:Originally posted by 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.

oh please, he is the one who made the crazy-donkey arguments about "light rail tracks running down every arterial street" huh? is that really how it is done in other towns... short answer, no.... "how far you'd have to walk from where the streetcar drops you off on the street to the front door of your destination" the residents of every other town with rail lines seem to get by... or that they are a "colossal waste of money, just as it has been for most American cities that have built systems in recent years..." really? says who? seems to be the exception not the rule... maybe he meant "for a few American cities..."

talk about non-contributory comments... these are bull**** scare tactics... so from my perspective, his leaps of logic have as much relevance in this debate as my commenting that he resembles an infamous card-counter and/or a hygiene product... by the  way, that was not "bickering," those were ad hominems...

[brunoflipper]

quote:Originally posted by TheArtist



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.

and that is spot on.

[Rico]

"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. "
^Originally posted by the Artist.


When oil hits $150 dollars a barrel, the dollar gets ten or 15 percent weaker than it already is, folks will have little alternative other than to look for some form of relief....

In response to this thread in general, the volumes of collected knowledge being shared, has me in awe....[^]



Please be advised that this sort of discussion may lead to change in the direction of true progress...

[Chicken Little]

quote:Originally posted by 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.

Well said, Si, and you are exactly right.  "Focused development" is happening in Dallas around DART stations.  It's a fairly new phenomenon, and if one were to read the article I posted earlier, you could see that even DART, the manager of the system, has been slow to recognize the trend.  They wasted years trying to figure out something besides "park-n-ride".  Unfortunate for them, but we can learn from it.

quote:Economic Impact takes many forms
Transit-oriented development also drives property values higher, according to earlier research by Weinstein and Clower:

   * Between 1997 and 2001, office properties near suburban DART Rail stations increased in value 53% more than comparable properties not served by rail.

   * For the same period, values of residential properties near DART Rail stations rose 39% more than a control group of properties not served by rail.

The UNT research found that DART counts when it's time to decide where to develop. And the real estate community agrees. Holliday Fenoglio Fowler LP closed on the sales of four buildings near DART's Mockingbird and Lovers Lane stations in 2003. "Many investors have come to look at proximity to the DART light rail stop as offering a competitive advantage for their properties," the brokerage firm's senior managing director told The Dallas Morning News, adding, "If you look at the buildings that are directly on the rail line, they have had higher occupancy and effective rents."

[booWorld]

quote:Originally posted by TheArtist

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.

I agree that the comp plan update is long overdue.  A big problem with the current zoning process is that the comp plan is sometimes ignored or circumvented.  The comp plan ought to guide zoning.  It should not be a reaction to zoning.  We can have the best new comp plan in the world, but unless the TMAPC stops ignoring the comp plan as a guide for zoning decisions, a new comp plan won't be very useful.  Take a look at the zoning map of the areas around the proposed Lewis station on the Tulsa-BA rail line.  Notice how much of the land to the west and even more land to the east is zoned RS-3.  That district is for detached single-family dwelling units.  It will take a massive effort to change those neighborhoods into something dense enough to support mass transit.  It would drastically changed the look of those neighborhoods.

quote:We are just about spread out all we can.

Not really.  We can choose to decrease density in central Tulsa by razing more buildings and down-zoning more close-in residential neighborhoods.  

quote: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.

Those types of infill developments will be very difficult to sell to many areas of Tulsa because so many Tulsans prefer to live in low-rise buildings surrounded by lots of space, not by other buildings (especially if the other buildings happen to be tall).

[booWorld]

We need more clarity on what types of system or systems are being discussed.

From what I've garnered from reading this topic, (and I agree with Rico about the awesome collective knowledge being shared here), the rail line from BA to Tulsa is to be a commuter rail with a couple of runs inbound in the morning and a couple outbound in the evening.  Four stations are proposed:  Main Street BA, either Memorial or Sheridan (not both), Lewis, and downtown Tulsa.  Am I seeing this part of the discussion clearly?

Another issue is the possibility of other rail lines connecting Tulsa to surrounding communities.  The Complete Our Streets report was vague as to what "light rail" and "passenger rail" mean.  We need to know what is being considered in terms of alignments, type of vehicles, type of locomotion, frequency of runs, and the locations of stations at the bare minimum.  If we are going to compare something to DART, then we need to be sure it's comparable.

[Renaissance]

quote:Originally posted by booWorld


We can have the best new comp plan in the world, but unless the TMAPC stops ignoring the comp plan as a guide for zoning decisions, a new comp plan won't be very useful.  Take a look at the zoning map of the areas around the proposed Lewis station on the Tulsa-BA rail line.  Notice how much of the land to the west and even more land to the east is zoned RS-3.  That district is for detached single-family dwelling units.  It will take a massive effort to change those neighborhoods into something dense enough to support mass transit.  It would drastically changed the look of those neighborhoods.  

I disagree with the premise that the surrounding neighborhood must have density to support a commuter rail station.  The point of a station there would specifically be for Southeast Tulsa commuters whose destination is Midtown.  They would likely be health care workers who would catch a waiting transit shuttle to Hillcrest and St. John's hospitals.  I don't want to beat a dead horse here, but I still don't understand your insistence that density is necessary for rail transit.  Maybe you're getting your paradigm from dense urban areas like Chicago or San Fransciso, but the Tulsa model will look more like Dallas, Denver, or Houston, where rail transit successful employs a park-and-ride model.

[booWorld]

quote:Originally posted by Floyd



I disagree with the premise that the surrounding neighborhood must have density to support a commuter rail station.  The point of a station there would specifically be for Southeast Tulsa commuters whose destination is Midtown.  They would likely be health care workers who would catch a waiting transit shuttle to Hillcrest and St. John's hospitals.  I don't want to beat a dead horse here, but I still don't understand your insistence that density is necessary for rail transit.  Maybe you're getting your paradigm from dense urban areas like Chicago or San Fransciso, but the Tulsa model will look more like Dallas, Denver, or Houston, where rail transit successful employs a park-and-ride model.

I understand your point, and I don't disagree with it.  If 13th and Lewis is a destination for enough passengers who can catch a train at the other three stations, then it could work without increasing density.  But some other posts (not yours) seem to be predicated on the absolute assurance that TOD will happen around the stations.  With a commuter line, is this likely to happen and is it desirable?  Part of Tulsa Transit's April 2007 study addresses bus rapid transit in lieu of trains.  We have park-and-ride already.  If we are going to stick with a park-and-ride model, then I think the buses are a better option than the trains.  If demand for travel to locations near the stations increased enough, then trains might be an option in the future.  I would prefer to see a walk-and-ride (or short shuttle-and-ride or bike-and-ride) scheme instead of a park-and-ride scheme.  With a park-and-ride commuter system, we would be displacing parking spots.  While I'd rather have a parking space be located in the industrial area near Sheridan or Memorial instead of at the corner of 4th and Boulder, I'd really prefer to eliminate the parking space altogether.  That's why I think it's important to have increased densities around the stations.  Otherwise, we have basically the same system we have now except commuters would ride a train instead of bus.

Am I missing something?

[TheArtist]

I think in our case it would be smart to consider both, park and ride, and density. What I got from the meetings was that most of the stations would need parking, bus routes would also be scheduled to coordinate with the train runs. For example, a bus would run down Memorial and the 71st area, pick up or drop off passengers all up and down that corridor in time for people to either catch the train to downtown or go from downtown to along Memorial during the rush hours. However, more density growing around the station areas could only help with ridership. And those are pretty much areas where we want to see growth regardless.

 As for the list of stations mentioned, they did also have some secondary possibilities, the 6th street station as one.

I dont see the BA to Downtown line as being some huge immediately transformative event. Its basically the only feasible route at this point in time where it could work. They say the numbers are there to make it work. It is basically a "starter line" thats very inexpensive as these things go, is limited in scope, that we can cut our teeth on and could be nurtured to grow ridership and even perhaps be used as a catalyst around which we can take some different steps developmentally.

I think we are kind of lucky to have a rail line like this already in place, right along a busy corridor that will likely be asked to handle more traffic in the future between us and our largest suburb. I mean how many other cities had a rail line in such a place? It actually enables us to do this first step much easier and probably sooner than other cities could. It gives us a relatively convenient opportunity to shift from one development paradigm into another. All be it on a very small scale, and is not the answer for the whole city transportation wise, but its an opportunity we can use to work into the larger picture. A piece of the puzzle that could fit nicely in this spot.

We could certainly infill and grow without it. And we probably should for another 10 or 15years,,,, while keeping it in mind. But if the ridership is conceivably there to get it started and have it work. I think it would be nice to do and have as a locus around which we can nurture that "new growth paradigm".


In a nutshell...

Its an easy convenient start. It supposedly can work, even if we were to start soon. Its in a great place to grow ridership over time, and goes through some areas where we want encourage higher density infill, anyway.

[booWorld]

quote:Originally posted by TheArtist

I think in our case it would be smart to consider both, park and ride, and density. What I got from the meetings was that most of the stations would need parking, bus routes would also be scheduled to coordinate with the train runs...

It makes sense that the stations would need at least some parking, but all of these coordinated connecting bus routes sound like somewhat of a hassle to me.  If people lived and worked and/or otherwise had a need to go somewhere near the stations, then it would make so much more sense (at least to me).  And if it comes to a vote, I really don't want to tax myself in order to perpetuate a suburban lifestyle for others who choose to live far from where they work (or where they need to go on a regular basis).

quote:
...more density growing around the station areas could only help with ridership. And those are pretty much areas where we want to see growth regardless...

I mentioned the proposed Lewis station at 13th because I think the residents in the vicinity would oppose any infill which significantly altered the character of their existing neighborhood.  Without rebuilding the area near Sheridan and Memorial (which could be done, BTW), I wonder how many would choose to live in the midst of a largely industrial area.

quote:
...As for the list of stations mentioned, they did also have some secondary possibilities, the 6th street station as one...

It appears to me that 6th and Utica is mentioned as an alternate location for the Lewis station, but it isn't listed as an additional station.

quote:
...I dont see the BA to Downtown line as being some huge immediately transformative event...

Neither do I.  But it's something that we could consider for the future.

quote:
...Its basically the only feasible route at this point in time where it could work. They say the numbers are there to make it work...

I'm not convinced.  It would help if the pdf link wasn't truncated with the last chapters and appendices missing.  But from the portion which is online, it appears as though the effects of TOD were factored into the ridership estimate models.  I really have no doubt that the models are much more sophisticated now than they were when Parsons Brinckerhoff prepared the Oklahoma Fixed Guideway Transportation System Study for ODOT in 1989, and certainly more accurate now than they were in 1983 when ATE Management and Service prepared the Light Rail Feasibility Study for Tulsa Transit, but I still would like to see those appendices and final chapters of the April 2007 study for Tulsa Transit.

quote:...It gives us a relatively convenient opportunity to shift from one development paradigm into another...

I don't see it as a significant paradigm shift.  But I'm not as informed about this latest study as you are, and in fact I didn't know about the study until you mentioned it in a post a few days ago.  Thank you for reminding us about it.  After reading the 1983 and the 1989 light rail feasibility studies many years ago, I stopped exploring the subject because I didn't think it would be a viable option in Tulsa for several decades.

[booWorld]

quote:Originally posted by TheArtist

...Wasnt there an earlier thread on here about all of this that had pics of the maps showing the route and likely stations, costs, etc?

This thread, perhaps?

[si_uk_lon_ok]

quote:Originally posted by booWorld

We need more clarity on what types of system or systems are being discussed.

From what I've garnered from reading this topic, (and I agree with Rico about the awesome collective knowledge being shared here), the rail line from BA to Tulsa is to be a commuter rail with a couple of runs inbound in the morning and a couple outbound in the evening.  Four stations are proposed:  Main Street BA, either Memorial or Sheridan (not both), Lewis, and downtown Tulsa.  Am I seeing this part of the discussion clearly?

Another issue is the possibility of other rail lines connecting Tulsa to surrounding communities.  The Complete Our Streets report was vague as to what "light rail" and "passenger rail" mean.  We need to know what is being considered in terms of alignments, type of vehicles, type of locomotion, frequency of runs, and the locations of stations at the bare minimum.  If we are going to compare something to DART, then we need to be sure it's comparable.

I'm not sure we do. I think a lot of what has been said could be described as the general principles behind a good rail or light rail systems. Things such as frequency and train types really are variables that can be changed, therefore it's important to look at the general concept rather than a specific scenario which may or may not happen.

[si_uk_lon_ok]

quote:Originally posted by Chicken Little

quote:Originally posted by 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.

Well said, Si, and you are exactly right.  "Focused development" is happening in Dallas around DART stations.  It's a fairly new phenomenon, and if one were to read the article I posted earlier, you could see that even DART, the manager of the system, has been slow to recognize the trend.  They wasted years trying to figure out something besides "park-n-ride".  Unfortunate for them, but we can learn from it.

quote:Economic Impact takes many forms
Transit-oriented development also drives property values higher, according to earlier research by Weinstein and Clower:

   * Between 1997 and 2001, office properties near suburban DART Rail stations increased in value 53% more than comparable properties not served by rail.

   * For the same period, values of residential properties near DART Rail stations rose 39% more than a control group of properties not served by rail.

The UNT research found that DART counts when it's time to decide where to develop. And the real estate community agrees. Holliday Fenoglio Fowler LP closed on the sales of four buildings near DART's Mockingbird and Lovers Lane stations in 2003. "Many investors have come to look at proximity to the DART light rail stop as offering a competitive advantage for their properties," the brokerage firm's senior managing director told The Dallas Morning News, adding, "If you look at the buildings that are directly on the rail line, they have had higher occupancy and effective rents."

I think that's a really good point. If you think people will complain about rezoning if they live near a station, they'll soon thank you once there property price goes through the roof and the development opportunity on their property increases too.

[si_uk_lon_ok]

I think that while any scheme may not need density to be successful, it would be a real shame to miss the opportunity to add density that could easily be achieved around the stations. If you took an average walk distance of around 600m/ 1,968ft to a station (which is very very conservative and low), you'd be looking at around 280 acres worth of development, although if you looked at 75th percentile of walking distance this would be much higher. Now if we assumed that the neighbourhood around the station only became townhouses and a few apartments, nothing even breaking the 35ft barrier you'd be looking at 8,400 properties or around a minimum of 10,080,000 sqft of new taxable income for the city. That's also just one new station, imagine the impact of five, ten of fifteen stations.

In my opinion while Tulsa could build a working system without the density it seems crazy to me to not allow the kind of development that naturally occurs around light rail to occur.

[Oil Capital]

quote:Originally posted by si_uk_lon_ok

... you'd be looking at 8,400 properties or around a minimum of 10,080,000 sqft of new taxable income for the city. That's also just one new station, imagine the impact of five, ten of fifteen stations.

Whoah, there.  Can't let you get away with that one.  I do not disagree that it would be desirable to get relatively dense development around rail stations, but there is little, if any, evidence that any significant amount of that development would be "new" development for the city (ie, development that would not have otherwise occurred somewhere else in the city).  

While that development MAY have otherwise have gone to suburbs, that seems intuitively unlikely.  The market served by relatively dense developments around a rail stop does not strike me as a market that would otherwise flock to the suburbs.