Bates phones it in again: Transit

[Chicken Little]

quote:Originally posted by booWorld

One of the reasons Tulsa doesn't have more dense neighborhoods to offer the market is due to the TMAPC's quest to down-zone.  The TMAPC has squelched those higher density opportunities in a large chunk of my own neighborhood near downtown.

It is ridiculous, downzoning a neighborhood to prevent cheap apartments simply stops all infill.  Insofar as your property value is concerned, the medicine is worse than the disease.  What they need to do is adopt design guidelines or form-based codes to allow development that doesn't stink.  And what we need to do is make them.  It's changes like this that are long overdue.

[booWorld]

Until fundamental changes are made in our land use policies, I'm reluctant to become too enthused about publicly funded rail-based transit.  To me, it just isn't worth the investment when there is so much land in existing neighborhoods which is ripe for infill development but being held to very, very, very low densities.

I'm an urbanist who had my property down-zoned against my wishes, and this is merely my tainted opinion about the realities of Tulsa.  Most Tulsans (and many on this forum) would be very quick to disagree with me, I'm sure.

[TheArtist]

It sounds like the consensus and lesson learned from this thread is that land use, infill, zoning et.al. issues, need to be addressed before, or at least along with, any serious discussion of commuter rail.

[booWorld]

Land use needs to be discussed along with any type of meaningful mass transit system, not only commuter rail.

The phrases "light rail" and "passenger rail" were mentioned in the Complete Our Streets Advisory Council (COSAC) report.  I did a quick search for "commuter rail" and didn't find anything in any of the committee reports.  That doesn't mean much because I could have missed it or the COSAC could have meant "passenger rail" to include commuter rail.  Also, I'm not certain which type of system Michael Bates thought that COSAC would be wanting to finance with public funding.

But whatever system is to be considered, we need to look at the big picture of land use before we get too specific about even a single commuter "starter" line between Tulsa and BA.  A starter line implies more will be built.  Someone might have a very clear vision of what that means, but most of us don't.

[Chicken Little]

quote:Originally posted by Oil Capital

But there is plenty of affordable housing here in midtown Tulsa.

No, there is not.  Prove otherwise.  Try MAKING a case for once.  Bet you can't do it.

[Oil Capital]

quote:Originally posted by Chicken Little

quote:Originally posted by Oil Capital

But there is plenty of affordable housing here in midtown Tulsa.

No, there is not.  Prove otherwise.  Try MAKING a case for once.  Bet you can't do it.

Oh, please.  Go to  Realtor.com  put in a zip code and a price range.  Could not be easier.


Look, all I'm trying to say on this immediate subject, is that, logically, it seems to me that people who have chosen to live their lives in Bixby, Jenks, Broken Arrow or Owasso and have chosen the totally suburban lifestyle, do not strike me as the best or most likely target market for a dense, urbanish housing development next to a commuter rail station.  It seems to me that the most likely target market is those people who have chosen to live in the relatively more urban areas of midtown Tulsa.   Tell me where I am going wrong in my logic?

Likewise with 20-somethings.  The target market for dense urbanish housing near a commuter rail stop is going to be the relatively affluent college graduate professional types.  When those types of people currently move to the Tulsa metro (particularly those who are likely to desire life in a TOD) where do you suppose the would choose to live, in the absence of such a TOD?  It seems logical to me that those types of people would not choose a garden apartment in Bixby, but are far more likely to choose something in Midtown.

Again, what am I missing?  Where is my logic wrong?

No doubt some marginal number of any theoretical TOD housing units will be taking be displacing some suburban demand, but it seems logically unavoidable that the bulk of it will be displacing other midtown Tulsa demand.


Here I did a quick search for you.  81 properties less than $250,000 in zip code 74104 alone.  That covers a pretty small piece of midtown.  

http://www.realtor.com/options/interimsearch.aspx?zp=74104&mxp=22&typ=7

[brunoflipper]

quote:Originally posted by Oil Capital

quote:Originally posted by brunoflipper

quote:Originally posted by Oil Capital

quote:Originally posted by brunoflipper

quote:Originally posted by Oil Capital

quote:Originally posted by brunoflipper

quote:Originally posted by Oil Capital

quote:Originally posted by 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...

So he "does it for a living".... That means that anything he says in anyway connected to light rail is sacrosanct and unchallengeable?  Don Himmelfarb apparently does "economic development" for a living.  I guess we should never second-guess him either, eh?  good logic there.

no... it just means you should be a little less snarky when insinuating that he someone has no ****ing clue...

i appreciate the discourse but historically, you've made no bones about not liking tulsa and that it does not suit your lifestyle... and you've fruitlessly pursued a relo to points south... so pardon me, if you come off as a concern troll...

Coming from the king of snark, that's pretty rich.  Historically, I have indeed NOT made any bones about not liking Tulsa.  There is plenty I like about Tulsa.  I have a great life here.  But it would take an amazing amount of delusion to not see how badly Tulsa's (and Tulsa County's) governments have been performing over the past decade +    You know so much less than you pretend.  So we met many years ago.  People do acclimate to their homes and actually change over time.  Well, some people do...  

If I didn't care about Tulsa I would not give a rat's behind about how dishonest the leadership is or how foolish their proposals have been.

How about joining in the discussion for once instead of your persistent personal attacks?

you may not have ripped on tulsa so directly here but perhaps in other forums or maybe the real world?

so now you love it here? great, good for you...

"...persistent personal attacks?" save the drama, the only time i resort to those tactics are to raise the dander of psuedo-intellects or to out concern trolls who play the part of the worried citizenry...

just put it out there, make your case, plain and simple- "none of this will ever work here/you'll never get that many people to move here because this is tulsa and tulsa sucks."

i join the discussion when i feel it is productive or simply entertaining... bickering with a wannabe-houstonian concern troll is neither...

So why do you insist on doing it?  If you have an issue with ANY facts I've presented or statements I've made, have at it.  Tell me where I'm wrong.  Show me evidence that I'm wrong.  Isn't that what these discussion boards are for?  I don't know what your problem is, man.  Are your feelings that hurt that I don't remember you?  ;-)

What is with you and Rufnex that rarely can either of you challenge anyone's factual presentations or opinions without going ballistically personal? (and don't be pretending it's just me... we all saw your ridiculous ad hominem attack on Bates earlier in this thread.)

Actually, that gives you and Rufnex a bit too much credit.  I implied that you challenge facts and opinions.  Too often, neither of you even bothers with that little detail.  Just go straight for the ad hominems.  

ok, you got me now i'm in this just because its entertaining...

how many times did i post in this thread? 9 and because reading for comprehension seems to be a deficit i'll summarize them-
post 1: bates is a dude, we fix transit,   and we'll get development around it. bates he looks like a guy i saw on TV last night (it was a ****ing joke)
post 2: rail down "every arterial"? bates is nuts for making these comments because it is patently absurd.
we should make this our focus.
post 3: OT- blackjack discussion
post 4: chicken train picture
post 5: let's get a comp plan that addresses development and transit
post 6: bates- "every arterial", "how far you'd have to walk," "colossal waste of money, just as it has been for most American cities" all scare tactics or delusions
post 7: thumbs up
post 8: furious that you'd still dismiss someones fund of knowledge despite them demonstrating they may indeed have more knowledge about a topic than you... yes, scumbag lawyer- only considered to be an ad hominem by lawyers; repetitious? true enough
post 9: you used to say how much you hate it here... concern troll...
post 10: concern troll...

how many times did i make a personal attack against you in an attempt to discredit your (not bates') logic (which is an ad hominem otherwise they're just insults and not part of the argument)? 0

get it through your head- because of your prior comments (tulsa is hell) i'll never be convinced that you'll ever be well intentioned in any discussion regarding this town... so feel free to put me on ignore and i'll do the same...

get over yourself, sweetie... we've never met... you're just not careful...

now im done, i'll leave you with the last word.

When did I say "Tulsa is hell"?  When exactly did I post those words?  

Oh and pardon me for accusing you merely of ad hominems.  I left out the personal insults.  You are truly a model forum member.

I'm sorry I don't post enough happy-talk to make you believe I'm a real Tulsan. I'll try to be more boosterish.

not when but where you said it.

ever begged for any jobs online?
ever *****ed about tulsa being backwards and unaccepting? cried much about not getting your perfered job? bemoned the fact that you were unable to get out of here?

so ****ing pardon me for thinking your a concern troll... pair that with your post over the past couple of years and the points form a line and equal trend...

so now your a happy tulsan... thanks for showing me the light... im sorry for thinking otherwise...



for the record, while i feel a real mass transit plan is ket to our city, i do not know it and thus, made no attempt to prove it... and left it to you, cl, si to wrangle with...

i pointed out how hysterical some of bates points were and highlighted the fact that in the midst of your debate with si how appropriate it was that you resorted to (im paraphrasing here) "you dont know what your talking about" argument and when he showed that he/she might know a thing or two about transit, you used the (again, paraphrasing) "well then, your no good at it"...

[Oil Capital]

quote:Originally posted by brunoflipper

quote:Originally posted by Oil Capital

quote:Originally posted by brunoflipper

quote:Originally posted by Oil Capital

quote:Originally posted by brunoflipper

quote:Originally posted by Oil Capital

quote:Originally posted by brunoflipper

quote:Originally posted by Oil Capital

quote:Originally posted by 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...

So he "does it for a living".... That means that anything he says in anyway connected to light rail is sacrosanct and unchallengeable?  Don Himmelfarb apparently does "economic development" for a living.  I guess we should never second-guess him either, eh?  good logic there.

no... it just means you should be a little less snarky when insinuating that he someone has no ****ing clue...

i appreciate the discourse but historically, you've made no bones about not liking tulsa and that it does not suit your lifestyle... and you've fruitlessly pursued a relo to points south... so pardon me, if you come off as a concern troll...

Coming from the king of snark, that's pretty rich.  Historically, I have indeed NOT made any bones about not liking Tulsa.  There is plenty I like about Tulsa.  I have a great life here.  But it would take an amazing amount of delusion to not see how badly Tulsa's (and Tulsa County's) governments have been performing over the past decade +    You know so much less than you pretend.  So we met many years ago.  People do acclimate to their homes and actually change over time.  Well, some people do...  

If I didn't care about Tulsa I would not give a rat's behind about how dishonest the leadership is or how foolish their proposals have been.

How about joining in the discussion for once instead of your persistent personal attacks?

you may not have ripped on tulsa so directly here but perhaps in other forums or maybe the real world?

so now you love it here? great, good for you...

"...persistent personal attacks?" save the drama, the only time i resort to those tactics are to raise the dander of psuedo-intellects or to out concern trolls who play the part of the worried citizenry...

just put it out there, make your case, plain and simple- "none of this will ever work here/you'll never get that many people to move here because this is tulsa and tulsa sucks."

i join the discussion when i feel it is productive or simply entertaining... bickering with a wannabe-houstonian concern troll is neither...

So why do you insist on doing it?  If you have an issue with ANY facts I've presented or statements I've made, have at it.  Tell me where I'm wrong.  Show me evidence that I'm wrong.  Isn't that what these discussion boards are for?  I don't know what your problem is, man.  Are your feelings that hurt that I don't remember you?  ;-)

What is with you and Rufnex that rarely can either of you challenge anyone's factual presentations or opinions without going ballistically personal? (and don't be pretending it's just me... we all saw your ridiculous ad hominem attack on Bates earlier in this thread.)

Actually, that gives you and Rufnex a bit too much credit.  I implied that you challenge facts and opinions.  Too often, neither of you even bothers with that little detail.  Just go straight for the ad hominems.  

ok, you got me now i'm in this just because its entertaining...

how many times did i post in this thread? 9 and because reading for comprehension seems to be a deficit i'll summarize them-
post 1: bates is a dude, we fix transit,   and we'll get development around it. bates he looks like a guy i saw on TV last night (it was a ****ing joke)
post 2: rail down "every arterial"? bates is nuts for making these comments because it is patently absurd.
we should make this our focus.
post 3: OT- blackjack discussion
post 4: chicken train picture
post 5: let's get a comp plan that addresses development and transit
post 6: bates- "every arterial", "how far you'd have to walk," "colossal waste of money, just as it has been for most American cities" all scare tactics or delusions
post 7: thumbs up
post 8: furious that you'd still dismiss someones fund of knowledge despite them demonstrating they may indeed have more knowledge about a topic than you... yes, scumbag lawyer- only considered to be an ad hominem by lawyers; repetitious? true enough
post 9: you used to say how much you hate it here... concern troll...
post 10: concern troll...

how many times did i make a personal attack against you in an attempt to discredit your (not bates') logic (which is an ad hominem otherwise they're just insults and not part of the argument)? 0

get it through your head- because of your prior comments (tulsa is hell) i'll never be convinced that you'll ever be well intentioned in any discussion regarding this town... so feel free to put me on ignore and i'll do the same...

get over yourself, sweetie... we've never met... you're just not careful...

now im done, i'll leave you with the last word.

When did I say "Tulsa is hell"?  When exactly did I post those words?  

Oh and pardon me for accusing you merely of ad hominems.  I left out the personal insults.  You are truly a model forum member.

I'm sorry I don't post enough happy-talk to make you believe I'm a real Tulsan. I'll try to be more boosterish.

not when but where you said it.

ever begged for any jobs online?
ever *****ed about tulsa being backwards and unaccepting? cried much about not getting your perfered job? bemoned the fact that you were unable to get out of here?

so ****ing pardon me for thinking your a concern troll... pair that with your post over the past couple of years and the points form a line and equal trend...

so now your a happy tulsan... thanks for showing me the light... im sorry for thinking otherwise...



for the record, while i feel a real mass transit plan is ket to our city, i do not know it and thus, made no attempt to prove it... and left it to you, cl, si to wrangle with...

i pointed out how hysterical some of bates points were and highlighted the fact that in the midst of your debate with si how appropriate it was that you resorted to (im paraphrasing here) "you dont know what your talking about" argument and when he showed that he/she might know a thing or two about transit, you used the (again, paraphrasing) "well then, your no good at it"...

I truly have no idea what or who you are talking about.  Your imagination has run wild again.

I look forward to any thoughts you might have on a discussion topic some day.  Or logical criticism of an opinion.  Or demonstration of incorrectness.  Anything at all other than ad hominems and personal insults.

[brunoflipper]

of course you don't, i'll keep it in mind...

[Oil Capital]

quote:Originally posted by brunoflipper

of course you don't, i'll keep it in mind...

But more to the point.  So What?  Even if what you say about me were true?  Even if I hated everything about Tulsa.  Even if I was motivated by some deeply-ingrained hatred for everything about northeast Oklahoma.  So What?  How does any of that affect the truth or untruth of anything I post?  

Why the constant personal bashing and questioning of motivations?   What possible difference could any of that make?  Attack my ideas.  Attack my facts.  Attack my logic.  But leave my person out of it (and other persons as well; as we all know, I'm not the only target of your personal vitriol.)

[Moderator]

This transit thread has gone off-track and seems to have left sensible discussion back at the station.

We are locking it.

Feel free to start another thread to discuss transit options for Tulsa.