Bates phones it in again: Transit

[booWorld]

To not allow for increased densities around train stations seems crazy to me also.

But many planning decisions here in sprawling Tulsa seem crazy to me.  Down-zoning my property from 29.25 to 2.66 dwelling units per acre seemed crazy to me, considering how close it is to the CBD and considering that I did not request the down-zoning and in fact begged the TMAPC to not re-draw the residential district boundaries to create such low densities.  But it did not matter.  The TMAPC absolutely had to have it their way.  The previous zoning allowed for a variety of low-rise residential options in addition to detached single-family dwelling units such as apartments, townhouses, and duplexes.  The current zoning allows for duplexes by special exception, but otherwise it's limited to detached single-family dwellings.  As average household sizes decrease, down-zoning inner-city neighborhoods results in a general depopulation of the older portions of Tulsa.  

I agree that encouraging development around train stations in general is a better idea than constructing parking facilities next to them, but all this TOD seems a bit contrived when there are already other long-established areas ripe for infill (such as my neighborhood) and property owners willing to work with the TMAPC and the City to bolster population density without destroying the character of historic districts (as I am willing to do).  Not only was I denied my basic property rights, I was publicly dragged through the coals during the process.  I was suggesting that the TMAPC consider something as simple and innocuous as detached accessory dwelling units above garages.  Boy, was that ever a mistake !!  The "planners" chewed me up and spit me out, big time.

[si_uk_lon_ok]

quote:Originally posted by 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.

I would disagree. This development will occur in a places with existing infrastructure, which means even if it is stolen from the suburbs or the city fringe it will be development at a lower cost to the city than somewhere remote that requires new roads, sewage, schools etc.

I don't think many Tulsans know what it is to live in a dense neighbourhood. I could see people when they have the choice moving to a transit orientated neighbourhood. I could see these neighbourhoods significantly slowing down the growth in places such as Broken Arrow.

Think of it like this, a dense neighbourhood of around 15,000 people would have pretty much everything you need in walking distance, you wouldn't need to drive to the supermarket, just pop by on the way home, your kids could walk to park, school and would have lots of friends on your block and in the local area. Instead of having three cars, you could cope with one or maybe even none that's a huge boost to your income, that could be spent on the local businesses you'd pass in the neighbourhood. As you walked down the street, you'd bump into people you knew as it would be busy, which would mean it would feel safe rather than walking own an abandoned suburban street (if it even has sidewalks). Old people would like the fact doctors, shops, services and friends were nearby, that would mean getting rid of the car would become a complete disaster leaving them in isolation. There are many many benefits to a dense neighbourhood that I think many people just don't know about yet and find it hard to imagine. I think it's so hard to imagine, because the current urban form in much of Tulsa is so vastly different than what could be.

I think dense neighbourhoods are special in a way that a suburb isn't, they aren't anonymous they have character. In that way I think they will be able to attract people who might not have considered moving to Tulsa by offering something new. I could see that these neighbourhoods would act as a draw for people to move to Tulsa and they would also help retain people who may have left when they graduated.

[si_uk_lon_ok]

quote:Originally posted by booWorld

To not allow for increased densities around train stations seems crazy to me also.

But many planning decisions here in sprawling Tulsa seem crazy to me.  Down-zoning my property from 29.25 to 2.66 dwelling units per acre seemed crazy to me, considering how close it is to the CBD and considering that I did not request the down-zoning and in fact begged the TMAPC to not re-draw the residential district boundaries to create such low densities.  But it did not matter.  The TMAPC absolutely had to have it their way.  The previous zoning allowed for a variety of low-rise residential options in addition to detached single-family dwelling units such as apartments, townhouses, and duplexes.  The current zoning allows for duplexes by special exception, but otherwise it's limited to detached single-family dwellings.  As average household sizes decrease, down-zoning inner-city neighborhoods results in a general depopulation of the older portions of Tulsa.  

I agree that encouraging development around train stations in general is a better idea than constructing parking facilities next to them, but all this TOD seems a bit contrived when there are already other long-established areas ripe for infill (such as my neighborhood) and property owners willing to work with the TMAPC and the City to bolster population density without destroying the character of historic districts (as I am willing to do).  Not only was I denied my basic property rights, I was publicly dragged through the coals during the process.  I was suggesting that the TMAPC consider something as simple and innocuous as detached accessory dwelling units above garages.  Boy, was that ever a mistake !!  The "planners" chewed me up and spit me out, big time.

I understand that neighbourhoods close to downtown should be allowed to be denser than singly family dwellings and it seems as if you were treated poorly.

By focusing on TOD, I'm not saying, nor do I think anyone else is saying that this should be the only location for increased density. Or that focussing development in TOD should allow everywhere else to remain single family dwellings. I do however think that TOD offers a sustainable location for denser development that isn't likely to have a mode share dominated by the car. There is only so dense you can go, while providing the levels of parking needed if the area is without transit before the streets are clogged with parked cars and all new developments are perched high above structured parking garages.

[booWorld]

Most Tulsans (including myself), have never lived in dense neighborhoods, and my guess is that most have not seen dense neighborhoods either.  I hope you are able to visit Tulsa again soon, as I enjoyed hearing your urban viewpoint in person.

Prior to my being slammed by the TMAPC with a down-zoning case which I never wanted in the first place, I lived a fairly "urban" lifestyle as far as Tulsa goes -- more "urban" than 99% of Tulsans would be my guess.

As much as I would like to see Tulsa become more intensely developed, I'm wary of Tulsa Transit saying that they have an idea about how to spend my money.  If it's anything like DTU's plan for Main Maul and Boston Maul,  well --- no, thanks -- I'll pass on that opportunity.  If the process resembles the TMAPC's process of down-zoning my property against my wishes, again -- no, thanks.  I'd rather not have the development rights stripped from my land near the CBD and then have them transferred to 41st and Memorial as part of a $45 million publicly funded mass transit scheme.

[Oil Capital]

quote:Originally posted by si_uk_lon_ok

quote:Originally posted by 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.

I would disagree. This development will occur in a places with existing infrastructure, which means even if it is stolen from the suburbs or the city fringe it will be development at a lower cost to the city than somewhere remote that requires new roads, sewage, schools etc.

I don't think many Tulsans know what it is to live in a dense neighbourhood. I could see people when they have the choice moving to a transit orientated neighbourhood. I could see these neighbourhoods significantly slowing down the growth in places such as Broken Arrow.

Think of it like this, a dense neighbourhood of around 15,000 people would have pretty much everything you need in walking distance, you wouldn't need to drive to the supermarket, just pop by on the way home, your kids could walk to park, school and would have lots of friends on your block and in the local area. Instead of having three cars, you could cope with one or maybe even none that's a huge boost to your income, that could be spent on the local businesses you'd pass in the neighbourhood. As you walked down the street, you'd bump into people you knew as it would be busy, which would mean it would feel safe rather than walking own an abandoned suburban street (if it even has sidewalks). Old people would like the fact doctors, shops, services and friends were nearby, that would mean getting rid of the car would become a complete disaster leaving them in isolation. There are many many benefits to a dense neighbourhood that I think many people just don't know about yet and find it hard to imagine. I think it's so hard to imagine, because the current urban form in much of Tulsa is so vastly different than what could be.

I think dense neighbourhoods are special in a way that a suburb isn't, they aren't anonymous they have character. In that way I think they will be able to attract people who might not have considered moving to Tulsa by offering something new. I could see that these neighbourhoods would act as a draw for people to move to Tulsa and they would also help retain people who may have left when they graduated.

I completely understand how you long for dense neighborhoods and I completely understand that you deeply hope that the existence of such neighborhoods would draw more people to Tulsa (or keep more Tulsans in Tulsa), but do you have any evidence of this actually happening ANYWHERE?

[si_uk_lon_ok]

quote:Originally posted by Oil Capital

quote:Originally posted by si_uk_lon_ok

quote:Originally posted by 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.

I would disagree. This development will occur in a places with existing infrastructure, which means even if it is stolen from the suburbs or the city fringe it will be development at a lower cost to the city than somewhere remote that requires new roads, sewage, schools etc.

I don't think many Tulsans know what it is to live in a dense neighbourhood. I could see people when they have the choice moving to a transit orientated neighbourhood. I could see these neighbourhoods significantly slowing down the growth in places such as Broken Arrow.

Think of it like this, a dense neighbourhood of around 15,000 people would have pretty much everything you need in walking distance, you wouldn't need to drive to the supermarket, just pop by on the way home, your kids could walk to park, school and would have lots of friends on your block and in the local area. Instead of having three cars, you could cope with one or maybe even none that's a huge boost to your income, that could be spent on the local businesses you'd pass in the neighbourhood. As you walked down the street, you'd bump into people you knew as it would be busy, which would mean it would feel safe rather than walking own an abandoned suburban street (if it even has sidewalks). Old people would like the fact doctors, shops, services and friends were nearby, that would mean getting rid of the car would become a complete disaster leaving them in isolation. There are many many benefits to a dense neighbourhood that I think many people just don't know about yet and find it hard to imagine. I think it's so hard to imagine, because the current urban form in much of Tulsa is so vastly different than what could be.

I think dense neighbourhoods are special in a way that a suburb isn't, they aren't anonymous they have character. In that way I think they will be able to attract people who might not have considered moving to Tulsa by offering something new. I could see that these neighbourhoods would act as a draw for people to move to Tulsa and they would also help retain people who may have left when they graduated.

I completely understand how you long for dense neighborhoods and I completely understand that you deeply hope that the existence of such neighborhoods would draw more people to Tulsa (or keep more Tulsans in Tulsa), but do you have any evidence of this actually happening ANYWHERE?

You'd like examples of mixed use dense neighbourhoods? Do you honestly think they don't exist and I made up the idea? Or did I misunderstand your question?

[Oil Capital]

quote:Originally posted by si_uk_lon_ok

quote:Originally posted by Oil Capital

quote:Originally posted by si_uk_lon_ok

quote:Originally posted by 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.

I would disagree. This development will occur in a places with existing infrastructure, which means even if it is stolen from the suburbs or the city fringe it will be development at a lower cost to the city than somewhere remote that requires new roads, sewage, schools etc.

I don't think many Tulsans know what it is to live in a dense neighbourhood. I could see people when they have the choice moving to a transit orientated neighbourhood. I could see these neighbourhoods significantly slowing down the growth in places such as Broken Arrow.

Think of it like this, a dense neighbourhood of around 15,000 people would have pretty much everything you need in walking distance, you wouldn't need to drive to the supermarket, just pop by on the way home, your kids could walk to park, school and would have lots of friends on your block and in the local area. Instead of having three cars, you could cope with one or maybe even none that's a huge boost to your income, that could be spent on the local businesses you'd pass in the neighbourhood. As you walked down the street, you'd bump into people you knew as it would be busy, which would mean it would feel safe rather than walking own an abandoned suburban street (if it even has sidewalks). Old people would like the fact doctors, shops, services and friends were nearby, that would mean getting rid of the car would become a complete disaster leaving them in isolation. There are many many benefits to a dense neighbourhood that I think many people just don't know about yet and find it hard to imagine. I think it's so hard to imagine, because the current urban form in much of Tulsa is so vastly different than what could be.

I think dense neighbourhoods are special in a way that a suburb isn't, they aren't anonymous they have character. In that way I think they will be able to attract people who might not have considered moving to Tulsa by offering something new. I could see that these neighbourhoods would act as a draw for people to move to Tulsa and they would also help retain people who may have left when they graduated.

I completely understand how you long for dense neighborhoods and I completely understand that you deeply hope that the existence of such neighborhoods would draw more people to Tulsa (or keep more Tulsans in Tulsa), but do you have any evidence of this actually happening ANYWHERE?

You'd like examples of mixed use dense neighbourhoods? Do you honestly think they don't exist and I made up the idea? Or did I misunderstand your question?

Uhhh, yeah.  You completely misunderstood the question.  What I am seeking is examples of transit-spurred mixed use dense neighborhoods that have CAUSED any significant number of people to move to a metro area.

[TeeDub]

Light rail sucks.   If we are going to do something, we might as well make it a monorail.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=xaBe7bMOEL0

[si_uk_lon_ok]

quote:Originally posted by Oil Capital

quote:Originally posted by si_uk_lon_ok

quote:Originally posted by Oil Capital

quote:Originally posted by si_uk_lon_ok

quote:Originally posted by 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.

I would disagree. This development will occur in a places with existing infrastructure, which means even if it is stolen from the suburbs or the city fringe it will be development at a lower cost to the city than somewhere remote that requires new roads, sewage, schools etc.

I don't think many Tulsans know what it is to live in a dense neighbourhood. I could see people when they have the choice moving to a transit orientated neighbourhood. I could see these neighbourhoods significantly slowing down the growth in places such as Broken Arrow.

Think of it like this, a dense neighbourhood of around 15,000 people would have pretty much everything you need in walking distance, you wouldn't need to drive to the supermarket, just pop by on the way home, your kids could walk to park, school and would have lots of friends on your block and in the local area. Instead of having three cars, you could cope with one or maybe even none that's a huge boost to your income, that could be spent on the local businesses you'd pass in the neighbourhood. As you walked down the street, you'd bump into people you knew as it would be busy, which would mean it would feel safe rather than walking own an abandoned suburban street (if it even has sidewalks). Old people would like the fact doctors, shops, services and friends were nearby, that would mean getting rid of the car would become a complete disaster leaving them in isolation. There are many many benefits to a dense neighbourhood that I think many people just don't know about yet and find it hard to imagine. I think it's so hard to imagine, because the current urban form in much of Tulsa is so vastly different than what could be.

I think dense neighbourhoods are special in a way that a suburb isn't, they aren't anonymous they have character. In that way I think they will be able to attract people who might not have considered moving to Tulsa by offering something new. I could see that these neighbourhoods would act as a draw for people to move to Tulsa and they would also help retain people who may have left when they graduated.

I completely understand how you long for dense neighborhoods and I completely understand that you deeply hope that the existence of such neighborhoods would draw more people to Tulsa (or keep more Tulsans in Tulsa), but do you have any evidence of this actually happening ANYWHERE?

You'd like examples of mixed use dense neighbourhoods? Do you honestly think they don't exist and I made up the idea? Or did I misunderstand your question?

Uhhh, yeah.  You completely misunderstood the question.  What I am seeking is examples of transit-spurred mixed use dense neighborhoods that have CAUSED any significant number of people to move to a metro area.

Ok, so you'd ideally like me to find a statistically significant number of cities that have TOD and interview the people living there are ask them if they moved there due to the TOD from outside the metropolitan area or were they just internal transfers. I'd also presumable need to check that they weren't freeing up people to move to there old suburban housing. So I'd need to calculate the cities predicted growth rate without the TOD, then compare this with the current levels of growth and also examine the proportion of new comers to this growth. Are you offering to fund my phd or are you just asking for a level of proof that is unobtainable and then crow if the data isn't there?

Put it like this, a large proportion of the growth in the Tulsa metropolitan area is occurring outside the city of Tulsa in places such as Jenks and Broken Arrow. Therefore pretty much any growth captured by the city isn't stolen from within the city, but new growth for the city. It is also growth in areas that have the infrastructure such as roads, sewage, schools etc so it's cheap development for the city.

[Oil Capital]

quote:Originally posted by si_uk_lon_ok

quote:Originally posted by Oil Capital

quote:Originally posted by si_uk_lon_ok

quote:Originally posted by Oil Capital

quote:Originally posted by si_uk_lon_ok

quote:Originally posted by 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.

I would disagree. This development will occur in a places with existing infrastructure, which means even if it is stolen from the suburbs or the city fringe it will be development at a lower cost to the city than somewhere remote that requires new roads, sewage, schools etc.

I don't think many Tulsans know what it is to live in a dense neighbourhood. I could see people when they have the choice moving to a transit orientated neighbourhood. I could see these neighbourhoods significantly slowing down the growth in places such as Broken Arrow.

Think of it like this, a dense neighbourhood of around 15,000 people would have pretty much everything you need in walking distance, you wouldn't need to drive to the supermarket, just pop by on the way home, your kids could walk to park, school and would have lots of friends on your block and in the local area. Instead of having three cars, you could cope with one or maybe even none that's a huge boost to your income, that could be spent on the local businesses you'd pass in the neighbourhood. As you walked down the street, you'd bump into people you knew as it would be busy, which would mean it would feel safe rather than walking own an abandoned suburban street (if it even has sidewalks). Old people would like the fact doctors, shops, services and friends were nearby, that would mean getting rid of the car would become a complete disaster leaving them in isolation. There are many many benefits to a dense neighbourhood that I think many people just don't know about yet and find it hard to imagine. I think it's so hard to imagine, because the current urban form in much of Tulsa is so vastly different than what could be.

I think dense neighbourhoods are special in a way that a suburb isn't, they aren't anonymous they have character. In that way I think they will be able to attract people who might not have considered moving to Tulsa by offering something new. I could see that these neighbourhoods would act as a draw for people to move to Tulsa and they would also help retain people who may have left when they graduated.

I completely understand how you long for dense neighborhoods and I completely understand that you deeply hope that the existence of such neighborhoods would draw more people to Tulsa (or keep more Tulsans in Tulsa), but do you have any evidence of this actually happening ANYWHERE?

You'd like examples of mixed use dense neighbourhoods? Do you honestly think they don't exist and I made up the idea? Or did I misunderstand your question?

Uhhh, yeah.  You completely misunderstood the question.  What I am seeking is examples of transit-spurred mixed use dense neighborhoods that have CAUSED any significant number of people to move to a metro area.

Ok, so you'd ideally like me to find a statistically significant number of cities that have TOD and interview the people living there are ask them if they moved there due to the TOD from outside the metropolitan area or were they just internal transfers. I'd also presumable need to check that they weren't freeing up people to move to there old suburban housing. So I'd need to calculate the cities predicted growth rate without the TOD, then compare this with the current levels of growth and also examine the proportion of new comers to this growth. Are you offering to fund my phd or are you just asking for a level of proof that is unobtainable and then crow if the data isn't there?

Put it like this, a large proportion of the growth in the Tulsa metropolitan area is occurring outside the city of Tulsa in places such as Jenks and Broken Arrow. Therefore pretty much any growth captured by the city isn't stolen from within the city, but new growth for the city. It is also growth in areas that have the infrastructure such as roads, sewage, schools etc so it's cheap development for the city.

So I take it your answer is "no".  

For the record, here is what you said:  "I could see that these neighbourhoods would act as a draw for people to move to Tulsa and they would also help retain people who may have left when they graduated."  

I thought perhaps you had some knowledge or had seen a study that showed that such developments in other cities have had such effects.  

But apparently not.  

So having no evidence of that phenomenon having ever occurred in other cities, why should we believe it would occur here.  

More importantly, it is foolhardy to make transportation decisions based on such hopes, dreams,and fantasies, rather than on actual facts, evidence and history.

[si_uk_lon_ok]

quote:Originally posted by Oil Capital

quote:Originally posted by si_uk_lon_ok

quote:Originally posted by Oil Capital

quote:Originally posted by si_uk_lon_ok

quote:Originally posted by Oil Capital

quote:Originally posted by si_uk_lon_ok

quote:Originally posted by 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.

I would disagree. This development will occur in a places with existing infrastructure, which means even if it is stolen from the suburbs or the city fringe it will be development at a lower cost to the city than somewhere remote that requires new roads, sewage, schools etc.

I don't think many Tulsans know what it is to live in a dense neighbourhood. I could see people when they have the choice moving to a transit orientated neighbourhood. I could see these neighbourhoods significantly slowing down the growth in places such as Broken Arrow.

Think of it like this, a dense neighbourhood of around 15,000 people would have pretty much everything you need in walking distance, you wouldn't need to drive to the supermarket, just pop by on the way home, your kids could walk to park, school and would have lots of friends on your block and in the local area. Instead of having three cars, you could cope with one or maybe even none that's a huge boost to your income, that could be spent on the local businesses you'd pass in the neighbourhood. As you walked down the street, you'd bump into people you knew as it would be busy, which would mean it would feel safe rather than walking own an abandoned suburban street (if it even has sidewalks). Old people would like the fact doctors, shops, services and friends were nearby, that would mean getting rid of the car would become a complete disaster leaving them in isolation. There are many many benefits to a dense neighbourhood that I think many people just don't know about yet and find it hard to imagine. I think it's so hard to imagine, because the current urban form in much of Tulsa is so vastly different than what could be.

I think dense neighbourhoods are special in a way that a suburb isn't, they aren't anonymous they have character. In that way I think they will be able to attract people who might not have considered moving to Tulsa by offering something new. I could see that these neighbourhoods would act as a draw for people to move to Tulsa and they would also help retain people who may have left when they graduated.

I completely understand how you long for dense neighborhoods and I completely understand that you deeply hope that the existence of such neighborhoods would draw more people to Tulsa (or keep more Tulsans in Tulsa), but do you have any evidence of this actually happening ANYWHERE?

You'd like examples of mixed use dense neighbourhoods? Do you honestly think they don't exist and I made up the idea? Or did I misunderstand your question?

Uhhh, yeah.  You completely misunderstood the question.  What I am seeking is examples of transit-spurred mixed use dense neighborhoods that have CAUSED any significant number of people to move to a metro area.

Ok, so you'd ideally like me to find a statistically significant number of cities that have TOD and interview the people living there are ask them if they moved there due to the TOD from outside the metropolitan area or were they just internal transfers. I'd also presumable need to check that they weren't freeing up people to move to there old suburban housing. So I'd need to calculate the cities predicted growth rate without the TOD, then compare this with the current levels of growth and also examine the proportion of new comers to this growth. Are you offering to fund my phd or are you just asking for a level of proof that is unobtainable and then crow if the data isn't there?

Put it like this, a large proportion of the growth in the Tulsa metropolitan area is occurring outside the city of Tulsa in places such as Jenks and Broken Arrow. Therefore pretty much any growth captured by the city isn't stolen from within the city, but new growth for the city. It is also growth in areas that have the infrastructure such as roads, sewage, schools etc so it's cheap development for the city.

So I take it your answer is "no".  

For the record, here is what you said:  "I could see that these neighbourhoods would act as a draw for people to move to Tulsa and they would also help retain people who may have left when they graduated."  

I thought perhaps you had some knowledge or had seen a study that showed that such developments in other cities have had such effects.  

But apparently not.  

So having no evidence of that phenomenon having ever occurred in other cities, why should we believe it would occur here.  

More importantly, it is foolhardy to make transportation decisions based on such hopes, dreams,and fantasies, rather than on actual facts, evidence and history.

Firstly, I do have knowledge, this is my bread and butter. I get paid to tell people how best to set up light rail, bus rapid transit, heavy rail and metros, I'll estimate usage patterns, do the cost benefit analysis, and even if you ask me nicely I'll do the agglomeration benefits of your scheme.

If you look at this article which refers to three different studies: http://realtytimes.com/rtpages/20050105_transitdevel.htm
You'll see that the demand for property in transit orientated developments is set to double and 14.6m Americans are going to want to live in such an area by 2025. Seeing as there really isn't any areas like that in the metro area of Tulsa one could assume that these 14.6m Americans will either not move to Tulsa or if they live in Tulsa and are seeking TOD will leave. At the moment these 14.6m people only really have the choice of large expensive metro areas, I think Tulsa with its lower cost of living could provide a real alternative for people who want to live in a TOD, but don't want to spend a fortune to do so.

Also TOD is the icing on the cake when it comes to transit. Its not the only reason you plan a transit scheme. Transit would in all likelihood work in Tulsa without any TOD due to park and ride. We became a bit side tracked on TOD and its not the main point on this thread.

[booWorld]

Actually, TOD is one of the main points of this thread because Chicken Little mentioned it as the first salvo in the initial post just after the Michael Bates UTW quote.

quote:Originally posted by Chicken Little

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

Also, it appears as though TOD was somehow factored in the ridership forecasts in the April 2007 Tulsa Transit study.  We're not certain exactly how much TOD influenced those estimates.  Perhaps there's an explanation in the missing appendices.

[Oil Capital]

quote:Originally posted by si_uk_lon_ok

quote:Originally posted by Oil Capital

quote:Originally posted by si_uk_lon_ok

quote:Originally posted by Oil Capital

quote:Originally posted by si_uk_lon_ok

quote:Originally posted by Oil Capital

quote:Originally posted by si_uk_lon_ok

quote:Originally posted by 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.

I would disagree. This development will occur in a places with existing infrastructure, which means even if it is stolen from the suburbs or the city fringe it will be development at a lower cost to the city than somewhere remote that requires new roads, sewage, schools etc.

I don't think many Tulsans know what it is to live in a dense neighbourhood. I could see people when they have the choice moving to a transit orientated neighbourhood. I could see these neighbourhoods significantly slowing down the growth in places such as Broken Arrow.

Think of it like this, a dense neighbourhood of around 15,000 people would have pretty much everything you need in walking distance, you wouldn't need to drive to the supermarket, just pop by on the way home, your kids could walk to park, school and would have lots of friends on your block and in the local area. Instead of having three cars, you could cope with one or maybe even none that's a huge boost to your income, that could be spent on the local businesses you'd pass in the neighbourhood. As you walked down the street, you'd bump into people you knew as it would be busy, which would mean it would feel safe rather than walking own an abandoned suburban street (if it even has sidewalks). Old people would like the fact doctors, shops, services and friends were nearby, that would mean getting rid of the car would become a complete disaster leaving them in isolation. There are many many benefits to a dense neighbourhood that I think many people just don't know about yet and find it hard to imagine. I think it's so hard to imagine, because the current urban form in much of Tulsa is so vastly different than what could be.

I think dense neighbourhoods are special in a way that a suburb isn't, they aren't anonymous they have character. In that way I think they will be able to attract people who might not have considered moving to Tulsa by offering something new. I could see that these neighbourhoods would act as a draw for people to move to Tulsa and they would also help retain people who may have left when they graduated.

I completely understand how you long for dense neighborhoods and I completely understand that you deeply hope that the existence of such neighborhoods would draw more people to Tulsa (or keep more Tulsans in Tulsa), but do you have any evidence of this actually happening ANYWHERE?

You'd like examples of mixed use dense neighbourhoods? Do you honestly think they don't exist and I made up the idea? Or did I misunderstand your question?

Uhhh, yeah.  You completely misunderstood the question.  What I am seeking is examples of transit-spurred mixed use dense neighborhoods that have CAUSED any significant number of people to move to a metro area.

Ok, so you'd ideally like me to find a statistically significant number of cities that have TOD and interview the people living there are ask them if they moved there due to the TOD from outside the metropolitan area or were they just internal transfers. I'd also presumable need to check that they weren't freeing up people to move to there old suburban housing. So I'd need to calculate the cities predicted growth rate without the TOD, then compare this with the current levels of growth and also examine the proportion of new comers to this growth. Are you offering to fund my phd or are you just asking for a level of proof that is unobtainable and then crow if the data isn't there?

Put it like this, a large proportion of the growth in the Tulsa metropolitan area is occurring outside the city of Tulsa in places such as Jenks and Broken Arrow. Therefore pretty much any growth captured by the city isn't stolen from within the city, but new growth for the city. It is also growth in areas that have the infrastructure such as roads, sewage, schools etc so it's cheap development for the city.

So I take it your answer is "no".  

For the record, here is what you said:  "I could see that these neighbourhoods would act as a draw for people to move to Tulsa and they would also help retain people who may have left when they graduated."  

I thought perhaps you had some knowledge or had seen a study that showed that such developments in other cities have had such effects.  

But apparently not.  

So having no evidence of that phenomenon having ever occurred in other cities, why should we believe it would occur here.  

More importantly, it is foolhardy to make transportation decisions based on such hopes, dreams,and fantasies, rather than on actual facts, evidence and history.

Firstly, I do have knowledge, this is my bread and butter. I get paid to tell people how best to set up light rail, bus rapid transit, heavy rail and metros, I'll estimate usage patterns, do the cost benefit analysis, and even if you ask me nicely I'll do the agglomeration benefits of your scheme.

If you look at this article which refers to three different studies: http://realtytimes.com/rtpages/20050105_transitdevel.htm
You'll see that the demand for property in transit orientated developments is set to double and 14.6m Americans are going to want to live in such an area by 2025. Seeing as there really isn't any areas like that in the metro area of Tulsa one could assume that these 14.6m Americans will either not move to Tulsa or if they live in Tulsa and are seeking TOD will leave. At the moment these 14.6m people only really have the choice of large expensive metro areas, I think Tulsa with its lower cost of living could provide a real alternative for people who want to live in a TOD, but don't want to spend a fortune to do so.

Also TOD is the icing on the cake when it comes to transit. Its not the only reason you plan a transit scheme. Transit would in all likelihood work in Tulsa without any TOD due to park and ride. We became a bit side tracked on TOD and its not the main point on this thread.

Well, that's SOMEthing, I guess.  But let's just say I hope you do better analysis, with better factual support, for your paying clients.

Seriously, you want us to expect 8,000 + new households moving to Tulsa (which was your starting premise, remember) because of TOD, based on this reported "likelihood" that 14.6 million  Americans households (your link actually reported 14.6M households, not people) will "want" to live in TOD by the year 2025?   Keep in mind, too, that 8.3 million of those households are already living in existing TOD, so we're really only talking about 8.3 million new households.

[Renaissance]

quote:Originally posted by Oil Capital
So I take it your answer is "no".  

For the record, here is what you said:  "I could see that these neighbourhoods would act as a draw for people to move to Tulsa and they would also help retain people who may have left when they graduated."  

I thought perhaps you had some knowledge or had seen a study that showed that such developments in other cities have had such effects.  

But apparently not.  

So having no evidence of that phenomenon having ever occurred in other cities, why should we believe it would occur here.  

More importantly, it is foolhardy to make transportation decisions based on such hopes, dreams,and fantasies, rather than on actual facts, evidence and history.

You are insisting on the production of studies that you know don't exist in order to derail (heh) the argument.  This treads awfully close to what we in the lawyerly domain call "horse****."

Look, there is a correlation between certain cities currently experiencing a renaissance in the core--Dallas and Denver, specifically--and those cities committing to rail transit.

There are three possibilities: 1) the development and population renaissance causes this rail transit; 2) rail transit causes the renaissance; or 3) both are the result of a hidden third cause.

I think that third cause is a commitment by city leaders (political and business) to core growth.  Tulsa doesn't have that, at least not in any kind of critical mass.  We can jump start it by making investments: development incentives, smart zoning, and complementary public infrastructure (yes, including rail transit).  

Why bother?  Two reasons, both of which go to the heart of the existence of this forum.  First, a recognition that endless sprawl leads to endless waste--we are conservatives are heart and hate to see where this all will lead.  Second, and more importantly, is an emotional commitment to the heart of Tulsa.  We either grew up here or made it our adopted home, and we're generally in favor of smart investments by the city to maintain or increase the vitality of the core.

So, to the point: you may not think a $40 million investment in rail transit along the BA corridor will be complementary of other growth efforts.  I do.  That's my last word.

Cheers.

[brunoflipper]

quote:Originally posted by Floyd

quote:Originally posted by Oil Capital
So I take it your answer is "no".  

For the record, here is what you said:  "I could see that these neighbourhoods would act as a draw for people to move to Tulsa and they would also help retain people who may have left when they graduated."  

I thought perhaps you had some knowledge or had seen a study that showed that such developments in other cities have had such effects.  

But apparently not.  

So having no evidence of that phenomenon having ever occurred in other cities, why should we believe it would occur here.  

More importantly, it is foolhardy to make transportation decisions based on such hopes, dreams,and fantasies, rather than on actual facts, evidence and history.

You are insisting on the production of studies that you know don't exist in order to derail (heh) the argument.  This treads awfully close to what we in the lawyerly domain call "horse****."

Look, there is a correlation between certain cities currently experiencing a renaissance in the core--Dallas and Denver, specifically--and those cities committing to rail transit.

There are three possibilities: 1) the development and population renaissance causes this rail transit; 2) rail transit causes the renaissance; or 3) both are the result of a hidden third cause.

I think that third cause is a commitment by city leaders (political and business) to core growth.  Tulsa doesn't have that, at least not in any kind of critical mass.  We can jump start it by making investments: development incentives, smart zoning, and complementary public infrastructure (yes, including rail transit).  

Why bother?  Two reasons, both of which go to the heart of the existence of this forum.  First, a recognition that endless sprawl leads to endless waste--we are conservatives are heart and hate to see where this all will lead.  Second, and more importantly, is an emotional commitment to the heart of Tulsa.  We either grew up here or made it our adopted home, and we're generally in favor of smart investments by the city to maintain or increase the vitality of the core.

So, to the point: you may not think a $40 million investment in rail transit along the BA corridor will be complementary of other growth efforts.  I do.  That's my last word.

Cheers.

oh, c'mon... you can't tell he's a lawyer too... i mean shoit, he rips on si and his/her info when this is exactly what si does for a living? has to be a scumbag lawyer...