Bates phones it in again: Transit

[Oil Capital]

quote:Originally posted by Chicken Little

Here's an apples to apples comparisons for you.  From 1990 to 2000 the number of housing units in Tulsa grew by 2%.  In the same period in San Jose, housing units grew by 9%.

Neither city changed land area much over the decade they have 175 square miles, we have 183.

They are landlocked by terrain, and we are somewhat landlocked by suburban communities.

Not sure what your point is here.  Are you saying they added housing units at a faster pace because they have commuter rail?  That's a HUGE stretch, to say the least.

quote:Third.  That was built and approved.  They didn't say how many of those have actually been built.

Fourth.  The VAST majority of those developments are on LIGHT RAIL lines, NOT commuter rail.

We aren't talking about light rail, as Michael Bates asserts.  The BA feasibility study is for commuter rail using existing tracks, and it's about $3,000,000 a mile with stops.



[/quote]Uhh, yeah, I know and that is why all of the so-called Transit oriented development occurring around San Jose's LIGHT RAIL lines could hardly be less relevant.  

quote:Fifth.  The commuter rail there appears to operate an all-day schedule in both directions and at pretty frequent intervals.  NONE of those things are true about the commuter rail planned for Tulsa.[/quote] Let's say we'd want to run it all day and all night.  So operations would need to triple, say, to $10,000,000 per year?  How many new people along that line would we need, minimum, to pay for that line?

According to the census, retail sales per household in 1997 citywide were $13,448.  With inflation and assuming there will be some more expensive households in a transit development, I'm going to call it $25,000 per housing unit.  Unless I'm wrong, you'd need to add 400 new housing units along these lines in order to pay for the whole system.  That doesn't seem like an unreasonable number.  I think we could get that and then some.  So, any growth on top of that would benefit everyone, right?  More density, more shoppers per square foot, right?  And that sales tax number does not even account for the property tax that would be pumped into the schools.   [/quote]

Wow, you're going crazy with the numbers there, big fella.  First, your 86% jump in retail sales per housing unit is, well, quite a remarkable (and unsupported) jump.  But even if that number is correct, it's a remarkable leap to say that 400 hundred households (and there's another assumption without supporting evidence) spending $25000 each in retail in Tulsa would somehow "pay" for the $10 million cost of running largely empty rail cars back and forth between BA and Tulsa.  With that kind of economic "analysis" any kind of government spending project ever conceived could be easily justified.  (At 8% (for ease of calculation), that $10,000,000 of retail sales would produce $800,000 of tax revenue per year, leaving you with a deficit of 10,200,000 per year.  And that is leaving aside the fact that the majority of those 400 units will not be truly additive to the Tulsa economy, but merely substitutive; i.e., they are built at a rail station, but otherwise would have been built on 151st and Memorial or South Riverside Drive.

quote:
Keep digging if you please.  But try to be more careful;  your San Jose information didn't exactly support your argument.  I'll keep digging as well.  I'll let you know if I come across any significant TOD around a commuter rail system similar to that planned in Tulsa.

I encourage everyone to take a look at the http://www.sanjoseca.gov/planning/smartgrowth/tod_house.asp they provide of the TOD they are so proud of... a rather large majority of them are apartment complexes that would be perfectly at home in the sprawl of south Tulsa.
[/quote]Sorry about the venom, Cappy, but one of the subtexts in this thread is about shooting your mouth off and not caring to even make a case.  It's not aimed at you.
[/quote]



I appreciate that, but if it's not aimed at me, you might consider not including it in a response to me.  ;-)

[Chicken Little]

You're are going to have to point out the substantive difference between commuter rail and light rail.  I've traveled both, and subways, Amtrak, etc.  I don't see why a person would ride one but not the other.

And I arrived at those numbers arithmetically.  Though it took me two tries.  To get $10,000,000 annually in sales tax, you'd need to add about 8,000 households.  You give me a number for revenue per household and we can use that.

And, I should say that remark is no longer aimed at you.  In your first post, it looked like you were going to try and sweep this under the rug by calling it a "colossal waste" or something     []

[Oil Capital]

quote:Originally posted by Chicken Little

You're are going to have to point out the substantive difference between commuter rail and light rail.  I've traveled both, and subways, Amtrak, etc.  I don't see why a person would ride one but not the other.

As I mentioned in an earlier post, the substantive difference (at least when discussing the type of commuter rail being proposed in Tulsa) is that the commuter rail operates at very infrequent intervals, often in one direction (inbound in the morning, outbound in the evening) and very limited hours (the Tulsa proposal is for two inbounds in the morning, 72 minutes apart; two outbounds in the evening, 72 minutes apart.  That does not necessarily tell  us that a person would not ride commuter rail, but it has an effect on what sorts of development one can expect near the rail stations.  

Commuter rails stations of this sort will not have a flow of passengers throughout the day.  They will have large parking lots, and they will have two small bursts of people in the morning and two small bursts of people in the evening.  Most of those people will just want to get out of their car and into the train to get to work and the reverse in the evening.  Not a particularly beneficial location for businesses, etc.

[RecycleMichael]

I was looking at where the existing tracks intersect with current destinations downtown. I totally agree that each stop could become a magnet for new development.

I wonder where the stations will be?

The existing tracks run just three blocks north of Central Park, four blocks south from OSU Tulsa, one block north of the BOK Tower and the Performing Arts center, one block west of the new arena, and two blocks west of Tulsa Regional Hospital and the new museum at Riverside Drive and Southwest Boulevard. Each of these locations have an anchor destination to stop and available land to redevelop.

How many stops could there be and where?

[Chicken Little]

quote:Originally posted by Oil Capital

quote:Originally posted by Chicken Little

You're are going to have to point out the substantive difference between commuter rail and light rail.  I've traveled both, and subways, Amtrak, etc.  I don't see why a person would ride one but not the other.

As I mentioned in an earlier post, the substantive difference (at least when discussing the type of commuter rail being proposed in Tulsa) is that the commuter rail operates at very infrequent intervals, often in one direction (inbound in the morning, outbound in the evening) and very limited hours (the Tulsa proposal is for two inbounds in the morning, 72 minutes apart; two outbounds in the evening, 72 minutes apart.  That does not necessarily tell  us that a person would not ride commuter rail, but it has an effect on what sorts of development one can expect near the rail stations.  

Commuter rails stations of this sort will not have a flow of passengers throughout the day.  They will have large parking lots, and they will have two small bursts of people in the morning and two small bursts of people in the evening.  Most of those people will just want to get out of their car and into the train to get to work and the reverse in the evening.  Not a particularly beneficial location for businesses, etc.

Commuter rails can offer transit oriented development around them.  DART does. And they operate 5 AM to 1 AM.  It seems to me that you'd have people living in these ares...lots of them.  So, how would it not be a benefit to businesses?

[Oil Capital]

quote:Originally posted by Chicken Little

You're are going to have to point out the substantive difference between commuter rail and light rail.  I've traveled both, and subways, Amtrak, etc.  I don't see why a person would ride one but not the other.

And I arrived at those numbers arithmetically.  Though it took me two tries.  To get $10,000,000 annually in sales tax, you'd need to add about 8,000 households.  You give me a number for revenue per household and we can use that.

And, I should say that remark is no longer aimed at you.  In your first post, it looked like you were going to try and sweep this under the rug by calling it a "colossal waste" or something     []

Here are some further complications with your all-day plan:

First,  your $10 million operating cost estimate is way too low.  That is, IIRC 3 times the estimated cost for the proposed system.   So for $10 million of operating costs, we'd get roughly  6 inbounds and 6 outbounds, rather than 2.  Nowhere near the frequency you would need to start garnering real TOD benefits.

Second,  to run all-day service at reasonable frequencies would require a much larger capital investment in train sets, adding to the costs you'd need to recover.

Third, and perhaps most important.  We have to share the tracks with the freight railroads.  So all day service of any significant frequency is probably not possible.

[Oil Capital]

quote:Originally posted by Chicken Little

quote:Originally posted by Oil Capital

quote:Originally posted by Chicken Little

You're are going to have to point out the substantive difference between commuter rail and light rail.  I've traveled both, and subways, Amtrak, etc.  I don't see why a person would ride one but not the other.

As I mentioned in an earlier post, the substantive difference (at least when discussing the type of commuter rail being proposed in Tulsa) is that the commuter rail operates at very infrequent intervals, often in one direction (inbound in the morning, outbound in the evening) and very limited hours (the Tulsa proposal is for two inbounds in the morning, 72 minutes apart; two outbounds in the evening, 72 minutes apart.  That does not necessarily tell  us that a person would not ride commuter rail, but it has an effect on what sorts of development one can expect near the rail stations.  

Commuter rails stations of this sort will not have a flow of passengers throughout the day.  They will have large parking lots, and they will have two small bursts of people in the morning and two small bursts of people in the evening.  Most of those people will just want to get out of their car and into the train to get to work and the reverse in the evening.  Not a particularly beneficial location for businesses, etc.

Commuter rails can offer transit oriented development around them.  DART does. And they operate 5 AM to 1 AM.  It seems to me that you'd have people living in these ares...lots of them.  So, how would it not be a benefit to businesses?

DART is NOT commuter rail.  DART is light rail.  They operate all day, in both directions at reasonable frequencies.  See my earlier post as to why a commuter rail (especially of the type contemplated in Tulsa) would not be much of a benefit to businesses.

[Chicken Little]

Look,  all you have to do is to give me some numbers for household sales tax and property tax generated and we can arithmetically arrive at how many new housing units it would take for the development to pay for this system at no additional cost to you, right?

[booWorld]

quote:Originally posted by TheArtist


If I look around and think about priorities and spending 40 or 50 mill, I would say do the Pearl District plan first. Much higher priority at this point and is a prime place to create a higher density, pedestrian friendly environment.

Develop the Pearl District instead of spending $45 million on a passenger train between Tulsa and Broken Arrow ... interesting idea.  Seems as though I've read that suggestion recently.

Oh yes, I remember now:  Michael Bates suggested that in his opinion column in that trashy, pornographic Urban Tulsa Weekly.

[booWorld]

quote:Originally posted by Floyd

For me, the problem is that the whole article is spent knocking down a straw man of his own creation.  Bates takes "passenger rail implementation" and turns it into "light rail."  But he should know that when the streets panel and Tulsa Transit and INCOG talk about passenger rail, they're not talking about creating some sort of tram network out of thin air.  What they're referring to is a specific commuter rail line from downtown Broken Arrow to downtown Tulsa, as well as a potential second commuter line from Jenks to downtown Tulsa...

...Maybe next week we can get some reasoned thoughts on the viability of commuter rail, rather than a polemic against a made-up trolley system?

But seriously, keep up the good work.  I enjoy your articles.

Michael Bates did not create the "light rail" straw man, Floyd.  The Complete Our Streets Advisory Council (COSAC) specifically mentions light rail in its report.

The COSAC Finance Committee recommends the creation of yet another authority:  the Tulsa Transportation Authority or TTA.  The TTA would have the "ability to consider the implementation of a light rail system connecting Tulsa to the various cities and towns around Tulsa such as Broken Arrow, Claremore, Owasso, Sand Springs, Sapulpa, Bixby, and Jenks..."

Michael has written his opinion on the idea of a light rail system for Tulsa, but he did not fabricate the notion from nothing.  

[booWorld]

quote:Originally posted by RecycleMichael


I wonder where the stations will be?...

...How many stops could there be and where?

Look at page 8 of this pdf, and pages 22, 23, and 48-53 of this one.

[booWorld]

quote:Originally posted by Oil Capital

quote:Originally posted by booWorld

The study made some marketing assumptions.  But by their own admission, the authors of the study explain that the market surveys are probably skewed because they got their results from a select group of Tulsans open to the idea of mass transit to begin with.

Between 6am and 6pm, wait an average of 36 minutes to ride a train from Main Street BA to dowtown Tulsa at an average speed of 27 miles per hour.  Fare:  $2.  Give the finger to Santa as he pedals ahead past the train along the BA.  Perhaps visit INCOG and pick up a lot split application if the the staffers there are not too busy discussing white chocolate hot chocolate.

You're actually being a little too generous.  There is no "6 AM - 6 PM" service.  The plan is for rush hour service only.  Two trains inbound in the morning... two trains outbound in the evening rush hour.  

This is is typical of commuter rail services elsewhere in the country, and is one of the reasons that, contrary to the assumptions made in the study and despite the fondest wishes and dreams of many on this board, commuter rail does not typically spawn much in the way of transit oriented development.

How's this?

Between 6am and 6pm, wait an average of 3 hours to ride a train from Main Street Broken Arrow to dowtown Tulsa at an average speed of 27 miles per hour.  Fare:  $2.  Wave to Santa as he pedals ahead past the train along the BA Expressway and watch his figure diminish to a dingy, red-ish dot far in the distance.  After reaching downtown Tulsa and making it through the rough unit pavers and open pits, perhaps visit the "planners" at INCOG to pick up a lot split application for some property near one of the train stations if they are not too busy discussing the aspects of white chocolate hot chocolate.

[Renaissance]

Just checked back in.  I don't understand what the argument against commuter rail is.  We're talking about basic infrastructure.  It's a way to take the load off our roads.  It's not expensive relative to expanding the expressway.  It's scalable relative to demand.  

It makes perfect sense and is the sort of investment cities are *supposed* to make.  Unless you have uncontrollable contrarian urges (like so many in this lovely city), there's no reason to waste breath arguing against it.

[booWorld]

Chicken Little began this topic began with a link to a column by Michael Bates and/or his copy editor.

The column is critical of the idea of a trolley system for Tulsa.  Several posters have accused Michael Bates of confusing the issue by fabricating an argument about light rail when the real argument ought to be about commuter rail.  Michael's column is about the subject of light rail.  He didn't pull the subject out of thin air.  The Complete Our Streets Advisory Committee recommended that a new Tulsa Transportation Authority be created, and studying the potential light rail system was recommended as one of the new authority's abilities.

The topic shifted to the subject of commuter rail because some posters chose to spin it that way.  Michael Bates didn't.  It's interesting and mildly amusing how some forum users will take any opportunity to criticize other users instead of discussing the actual topic at hand.  It's also interesting but annoying to see so many posts made in ignorance of the topic of discussion.

[booWorld]

One of my favorite quotes from Tulsa Transit's April 2007 Broken Arrow/Tulsa Mass Transit Study, which is on page 18 of the report (and on page 29 of the pdf):

quote:
...it is our recommendation that the next step should be implemented as soon as practical, before there is any let down in the public's desire to see this [idea of mass transit improvements in the Broken Arrow to Tulsa corridor] move forward.  This project needs a champion, someone to keep the ball rolling.  All indications are that this has the support, including funding support.

If it's such a wonderful idea, then why would it be in any danger of losing public support?  Shouldn't it be able to stand on its own merits without a champion to keep the momentum going?