Bates phones it in again: Transit

[Chicken Little]

quote:Originally posted by 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.

The conversation didn't "spin", the actual rail study recommends commuter rail.  It's cheaper and it looks feasible.  Michael "and/or" his copy editor (shades of Ron Paul?) should have been paying attention to current events, instead of relying on old and/or incomplete information.

And, by the way, you are flat wrong.  The Complete Our Streets the recommendation of the smart urban design committee, the one that Michael references, does not mention "light rail":

quote: Establish a dedicated source of funds, e.g. sales tax,
for public transportation purposes to include planning,
operations and maintenance to improve the system as
well as initiating the necessary analyses for passenger
rail implementation

Michael then says:

quote: In other words, they want us to start planning to build a taxpayer-funded light rail system.

In other words, Michael leaps to this conclusion by picking the least feasible "passenger rail" option and proceeded to knock it down.  Either it was on purpose or by accident.  Either way, it's not a fair knock.

[TheArtist]

quote:Originally posted by 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.

I must admit that before this conversation I myself have never distinguished between light rail and commuter rail, so it may be that they are talking about commuter rail and are just using the common light rail moniker. The main beef I had against Bates column was his characterization of the issue by putting out an example where there were rail lines down every arterial street. Its setting up a false argument that distracts from what we should truthfuly be talking about or considering. As far as I know all anyone is or would be  considering, for any type of rail, is the BA to Downtown Tulsa line.

One of his over all points, that it would be smarter to do the Pearl and go for more density to lessen car trips etc. as I have considered the issue I have come to the conclusion that this in fact may be a very good point. But framing it the way he did with a false comparison will only serve to confuse the issue doing more harm to the truth of the matter.

It was like the river thing where they showed renderings of all that stuff in BA thinking it would make the  plan look more attractive, but it backfired and actually cause more resentment and reason to not believe what the officials were saying and not trust them even more. Even if your right its not going to help to pull deceptive or exaggerated stunts. It may backfire. It turned out, after weeding through and dismissing a lot of his crap, I actually agreed with some of what he said, but because he framed it the way he did, your first reactions were to disagree and argue.  

As for jinteys, I would have to know specifically what you were talking about in a Tulsa context. What regulations would be in place etc. But they are not an either or issue, just like encouraging the riding of bikes, they would work in conjunction with a mass transit rail line, bus routes, cars, taxis. Each form of transportation has its pluses and minuses. Each better for different distances. There are times and places when one is better than the other.

There is no way I would have taken a Jitney to a lot of places in Paris. The rail was fast and not going to get stuck in traffic. Walking was often faster than the traffic in many areas lol. I love using the subway and rail, it was quick and even relaxing for longer distances. I loved walking and bikeriding short to medium distances, everywhere was beautiful. Bus routes were occasionally convenient. I personally abhore car taxis, they just seem depressing, always smell funky, are clausterphobic I dont like sitting in the back of a car, and remind me of bad times. Shuttle buses remind me of vacations, they are open bouncy and offer a good view, so those are fine lol[]. But depending on if a jitney was a car or a bus, and clean lol, would determine whether I would ride it.

[Chicken Little]

quote:Originally posted by booWorld

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?

That finance committee is a different group than the smart design committee. The finance committee recommends that this authority "determine the financial feasibility and operation of mass transit systems, including an interconnected light rail system.", and the smart urban design committee recommends an authority to conduct "planning, operations and maintenance to improve the system as well as initiating the necessary analyses for passenger rail implementation"

Neither group recommends wasting colossal amounts of money, but Bates apparently thinks that the idea shouldn't even be studied.  We already have a Champion for keeping us in the dark.  So, yes it looks like it will need Champions just to get it studied, let alone built.

[booWorld]

quote:Originally posted by Chicken Little


The conversation didn't "spin", the actual rail study recommends commuter rail.  It's cheaper and it looks feasible.

Which rail study?  The Complete Our Streets report recommends that consideration be given to the implementation of light rail and passenger rail.

quote:
Michael "and/or" his copy editor (shades of Ron Paul?) should have been paying attention to current events, instead of relying on old and/or incomplete information.

I don't understand the Ron Paul reference.  In one of his previous columns and on his blog, Michael explained that his copy editor sometimes changes what he has written.  The entire column is not necessarily written by Michael, and revisions are not necessarily made with Michael's knowledge or approval prior to publication.  So I don't actually know which words were written by Michael and which if any were written by his copy editor.

What old or incomplete information are you talking about?  Michael cited the Complete Our Streets recommendations which were made last month.  In my book, that's current.

quote:
And, by the way, you are flat wrong.  The Complete Our Streets the recommendation of the smart urban design committee, the one that Michael references, does not mention "light rail":

quote: Establish a dedicated source of funds, e.g. sales tax,
for public transportation purposes to include planning,
operations and maintenance to improve the system as
well as initiating the necessary analyses for passenger
rail implementation

Michael then says:

quote: In other words, they want us to start planning to build a taxpayer-funded light rail system.

In other words, Michael leaps to this conclusion by picking the least feasible "passenger rail" option and proceeded to knock it down.

There is a possibility that I am flat wrong.  I don't know what Michael was thinking.  Perhaps he will clarify in a future column, on his blog, and/or on this forum.  But I don't think it is much of a leap to conclude that a tax-supported rail system is under serious consideration, especially since the phrase "passenger rail" was used once in the Smart Urban Design Committee report and the phrase "light rail" was mentioned five times in the Finance Committee Report.

quote:
Either it was on purpose or by accident.  Either way, it's not a fair knock.

Since there is the possibility that Michael's conclusion that the Smart Urban Design Committee was thinking "light rail" when it mentioned passenger rail, then is Michael getting a fair knock when he is accused of purposely muddying the issue or for being sloppy with his research?  Within the first few replies to your intitial post, Michael was accused of setting up a straw man out of thin air.  I don't see it that way.  In my opinion, that's spin.

I also don't see how sidetracking the thread with the implication that Michael was involved in a card counting scheme was productive to this discussion.  In my opinion, that's more spin.  There are many merits to commuter rail and to light rail systems.  Those merits can be considered and weighed.  As I understand his column, Michael thinks there are better ways to spend our scarce tax dollars than investing in a light rail system.  His column is not an argument for maintaining the status quo.  In fact, he suggests a couple of things we could do to make it easier for Tulsans to get around without cars.  

[booWorld]

quote:Originally posted by Chicken Little

quote:Originally posted by booWorld

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?

That finance committee is a different group than the smart design committee. The finance committee recommends that this authority "determine the financial feasibility and operation of mass transit systems, including an interconnected light rail system.", and the smart urban design committee recommends an authority to conduct "planning, operations and maintenance to improve the system as well as initiating the necessary analyses for passenger rail implementation"

Neither group recommends wasting colossal amounts of money, but Bates apparently thinks that the idea shouldn't even be studied.  We already have a Champion for keeping us in the dark.  So, yes it looks like it will need Champions just to get it studied, let alone built.

First, the report I quoted was the April 2007 Tulsa Transit report, not the December 2007 Complete Our Streets report.

Second, I know one of the members of the Smart Urban Design Committee quite well, and I see him frequently.  We've spoken about the Complete Our Streets study, but not about the wording in the final report.  Next chance I get (which likely will be later today), I will ask him what the Smart Urban Design Committee meant by "passenger rail".  Perhaps he'll remember if they meant to include "light rail" and/or "commuter rail" in the "passenger rail" phrase.

Third, Michael has made it clear that in his opinion, a light rail system for Tulsa would be an colossal waste of money.  He explains why he thinks so.  I fail to see how his opinion is forcing Tulsa to remain in the dark.

[Oil Capital]

quote:Originally posted by 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?

You already have the number up to 8,000.  I had thought even you would have realized a commuter rail train making two runs a day is not likely to spawn the construction of 8,000 living units around its four stations.  I mean, get serious.  That would require 2,000 units surrounding each of the four stations.  Even the wildly ambitious East Village proposal only provided 600 units.

And more importantly, the 8,000 number does not consider the fact that the vast majority of any such housing construction will not be additive to the Tulsa market, but only substitutive, and therefore will have zero beneficial impact on sales tax collections.

[Oil Capital]

quote:Originally posted by Chicken Little

And, by the way, you are flat wrong.  The Complete Our Streets the recommendation of the smart urban design committee, the one that Michael references, does not mention "light rail":

[/quote]

Perhaps Michael read the whole report, including all of the subcommittee reports. The finance subcommittee report discusses rail as well, and they specifically and exclusively discuss LIGHT rail.

[Oil Capital]

Does anyone know how or where we could see the Appendices?  They have hidden a lot of crucial information in there.

The more I look at this "study", the more it starts to look like a Kathy Taylor special... you know... Here, please do this study for us.  We'll pay you $X.  And if you reach the results we want, we'll pay you $2X.  (For those who don't recall, that's how we got the highly-flawed (one might say fraudulent) "study" recommending the city hall move.)

In any event, I'd really like to see the information in the appendices in order to fairly judge the study.

[Chicken Little]

quote:Originally posted by Oil Capital

quote:Originally posted by 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?

You already have the number up to 8,000.  I had thought even you would have realized a commuter rail train making two runs a day is not likely to spawn the construction of 8,000 living units around its four stations.  I mean, get serious.  That would require 2,000 units surrounding each of the four stations.  Even the wildly ambitious East Village proposal only provided 600 units.

And more importantly, the 8,000 number does not consider the fact that the vast majority of any such housing construction will not be additive to the Tulsa market, but only substitutive, and therefore will have zero beneficial impact on sales tax collections.

Now you are whining.  Nitpicking is easy...read Bates article for pointers.

That 8,000 number was without fares.  I wanted to show that development itself could support the system.  An influx of citizens, or a growth strategy in general, can pay for things without costing people like you any money.  But it's clear that you don't believe Tulsa can grow anyway.  I don't even know what you mean by "substitutive" and "zero"...the "vast majority" of people don't abandon their suburban homes.  Provide some proof of this.  The kind of housing this might offer would be different than anything we have today, it'll fill up with people who want it, but there's no evidence that it would be a "zero" growth thing.  

In my opinion, if we aren't growing, we're shrinking.  In which case, have fun paying your taxes. You, like Bates, can try to smother ideas if you want.  It only provides us with a clear look at your true nature.

[Oil Capital]

quote:Originally posted by Chicken Little

quote:Originally posted by Oil Capital

quote:Originally posted by 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?

You already have the number up to 8,000.  I had thought even you would have realized a commuter rail train making two runs a day is not likely to spawn the construction of 8,000 living units around its four stations.  I mean, get serious.  That would require 2,000 units surrounding each of the four stations.  Even the wildly ambitious East Village proposal only provided 600 units.

And more importantly, the 8,000 number does not consider the fact that the vast majority of any such housing construction will not be additive to the Tulsa market, but only substitutive, and therefore will have zero beneficial impact on sales tax collections.

Because you are whining.  You are not participating, merely taking unsubstantiated pokes at those who do.  Nitpicking is easy...read Bates article.

That 8,000 number was without fares.  I wanted to show that development itself could support the system.  An influx of citizens, or a growth strategy in general, can pay for things without costing people like you any money.  But it's clear that you don't believe Tulsa can grow anyway.  I don't even know what you mean by "substitutive" and "zero"...the "vast majority" of people don't abandon their suburban homes.  Provide some proof of this.  This kind of housing this might offer would be different than anything we have today, it'll fill up with people who want it, but there's no evidence that it would be a "zero" growth thing.  

In my opinion, if we aren't growing, we're shrinking.  In which case, have fun paying your taxes. You, like Bates, can try to smother ideas if you want.  It only proves your true nature.

Wow, talk about proving one's true nature...  ;-)

I know what you are trying to do.  What I've shown is that what you are trying to do is well nigh impossible.  A commuter rail will not spawn "new" growth sufficient to pay for itself.  I defy you to find any honest studies that say it will.

By substitutive, I mean very simply, that even if 8,000 units were to be built near the commuter rail stations, that does not mean that they would be occupied by 8,000 families/individuals who would otherwise not be living and shopping in the Tulsa metro.  The vast majority of them would be occupied by people who otherwise would live in housing units built elsewhere in Tulsa.  It just shifts the housing demand from one spot to another.  It does not create new housing demand.

To be clear, that is not to say that it might not be a good idea to shift that demand in such a way.   But we need to be honest that the rail will not "pay for itself".   And causing that shift in demand in a slightly more urban, dense direction is not without cost (the cost of building the rail).

[booWorld]

quote:Originally posted by Oil Capital

Does anyone know how or where we could see the Appendices?

I wondered that myself.  The pdf link on the Tulsa World website appears to be truncated at the end, with lots of information missing.  Tulsa Transit's website has links to the study report, but not the same version of the report as the Tulsa World.

[Chicken Little]

Honestly, it certainly can pay for itself through a combination of fares, increased numbers of shoppers, and increased property values.  Pronouncing that it will not "pay for itself" and then poking your head in the sand doesn't work anymore.  20 years ago, when the technology was untried and the equipment was imported from Europe, you could afford to be so confident.  But mass transit is a spark for growth in so many American cities now that you cannot sit there and nitpick ideas to death and expect to sound credible.

[Oil Capital]

quote:Originally posted by Chicken Little

Honestly, it certainly can pay for itself through a combination of fares, increased numbers of shoppers, and increased property values.  Pronouncing that it will not "pay for itself" and then poking your head in the sand doesn't work anymore.  20 years ago, when the technology was untried and the equipment was imported from Europe, you could afford to be so confident.  But mass transit is a spark for growth in so many American cities now that you cannot sit there and nitpick ideas to death and expect to sound credible.

Evidence?  Support?  Sources?  Mass transit is more of a response to growth than a spark for growth.   Where are all of these American cities where growth has been caused by mass transit?

[booWorld]

quote:Originally posted by 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?

I found this Channel 6 video of the proposed route today.  I wish they had included voice commentary and overlay graphics at the proposed stations.  Proposed Broken Arrow Main Street Station approximately at 00:10 in video; Memorial Station at 00:41; Sheridan Station at 00:43; Lewis Station at 00:58.  The alternative locations for a downtown Tulsa station begin at 01:01.

[Chicken Little]

quote:Originally posted by Oil Capital

Evidence?  Support?  Sources?  Mass transit is more of a response to growth than a spark for growth.   Where are all of these American cities where growth has been caused by mass transit?

So very glad you asked.  It's taken decades, but what you see today are cities that use combinations of mass transit and transit-oriented development as a growth strategy.  And it seems to be working well for them.  San Jose was already mentioned, as was Salt Lake City.

Denver has already thought through a mass transit framework, and how they want it to fit on their town.  From their transportation district's 2007 status report on transit oriented development:

quote: 10,999 residential units, 3,729 hotel rooms, 2.8 million square feet of retail, 4 million square feet of office space, 1.6 million square feet of government space, 137,000 square feet of cultural facilities, and 2.3 million square feet of convention/sports space have either been built or are currently under construction at station areas and bus transfer facilities.  The transit-oriented development (TOD) product delivered to the real estate market in 2007 represents 7.5% growth in residential units, 17.6% in hotel rooms, 4.3% in retail space, 7.2% in office space, and 7.6% in institutional space.

An additional 7,381 residential units, 1,736 hotel rooms, 1.8 million square feet of retail, 3.3 million square feet of office, and 850,000 square feet of convention/sports space are either in the local government development review process or have been proposed.

Now, I now what you are thinking, you are thinking, "But the Denver Metro is three times our size."  Okay fine, divide all of those figures by three.  We're still stagnant.

Overall, the number of housing units in Denver grew by 5% from 1990 to 2000 and Tulsa grew 2%, as stated previously.  And that's despite being more landlocked than us by terrain and suburbs.

Do you at least agree that growth is an imperative?  I mean, if we are shrinking, then fewer of us will have to pay for the same infrastructure.  To me, that means higher costs per person and higher taxes.  Would you agree?

Here's the bottom line, Cappy.  You don't have a strategy for the future growth of this city efficient, inefficient, or other.  That's okay, neither have the past and present governments.  We've actually LOST people since 2000, although, as of today, we are probably slightly up.  You can sit there and fret about how transit is not the way to grow, but cities are making it work.