Bates phones it in again: Transit

[RecycleMichael]

I can't believe that a transit stop for a commuter train wouldn't spur development.
I would like two or three stations downtown.

I think an OSU-Tulsa station would fit in well with the new development planned by the Greenwood Chamber...
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=20080111_1_A1_hAGre83223

Obviously, a station next to the largest office building in the state would spur lots of users and would fit nicely with riders going north into the entertainment area of Brady.

A station on the west side of the arena could compliment the assisted living center there and the large state office complex.

I ride the subway in Washington DC every few months and they stop about a half a mile apart in the area between the White House and the Capital.

[booWorld]

quote:Originally posted by RecycleMichael

I can't believe that a transit stop for a commuter train wouldn't spur development.

I can.  So much depends on the TMAPC's willingness to allow for increased residential densities.  When the TMAPC proposed down-zoning my property from a maximum development potential of 29.25 dwelling units per acre to a maximum of 2.66 dwelling units per acre (without a special exception for a duplex which would bring the density to 5.32 dwelling units per acre), I told them that I wasn't interested.  I told them that many of my neighbors did not have cars and that a public transit system required high residential densities to be viable.  2.66 dwelling units per acre does not make for a sustainable urban core.  

My property is within easy walking distance of the core of the CBD, the Civic Center, and the river.  Downzoning from 29.25 to 2.66 dwelling units per acre wasn't my idea.  The TMAPC made the proposal.  INCOG staff fought me tooth and nail on the issue -- I was satisfied with the zoning as it was because I wanted to increase the density with some residential infill development.  But the City Council agreed with the TMAPC that my property should be down-zoned to a maximum of 2.66 dwelling units per acre regardless of what I wanted, and so it was down-zoned.

I'm not saying that a rail transit system can't work for Tulsa, but it certainly can't work with our current mindset and land use policies.  A few of us here on the forum would like to see more intense residential development in Tulsa, but many Tulsans want the opposite.  Many or most Tulsans enjoy the empty space that separates them from their neighbors and from the street.  They enjoy driving their private cars from one end of the city to the other in a relatively short amount of time.  They (and the zoning code in most cases) insist on having dedicated off-street parking where they live, where they worship, where they work, and where they shop.

The April 2007 Tulsa Transit report had a large variation in the estimated potential ridership of trains along the Tulsa-BA corridor.  When I see those kinds of wild variations, I am doubtful.  There are too many unknowns and there's too much guessing for me to be convinced that a passenger rail system would be a wise public investment.

[Chicken Little]

quote:Originally posted by booWorld

quote:Originally posted by RecycleMichael

I can't believe that a transit stop for a commuter train wouldn't spur development.

I can.  So much depends on the TMAPC's willingness to allow for increased residential densities.  When the TMAPC proposed down-zoning my property from a maximum development potential of 29.25 dwelling units per acre to a maximum of 2.66 dwelling units per acre (without an exception for a duplex), I told them that I wasn't interested.  I told them that many of my neighbors did not have cars and that a public transit system req;uired high residential densities to be viable.  2.66 dwelling units per acre does not make for a sustainable urban core.  

My property is within easy walking distance of the core of the CBD, the Civic Center, and the river.  Downzoning from 29.25 to 2.66 dwelling units per acre wasn't my idea.  The TMAPC made the proposal.  INCOG staff fought me tooth and nail on the issue -- I was satisfied with the zoning as it was because I wanted to increase the density with some residential infill development.  But the City Council agreed with the TMAPC that my property should be down-zoned to a maximum of 2.66 dwelling units per acre regardless of what I wanted, and so it was down-zoned.

I'm not saying that a rail transit system can't work for Tulsa, but it certainly can't work with our current mindset and land use policies.  A few of us here on the forum would like to see more intense residential development in Tulsa, but many Tulsans want the opposite.  Many or most Tulsans enjoy the empty space that separates them from their neighbors and from the street.  They enjoy driving their private cars from one end of the city to the other in a relatively short amount of time.  They (and the zoning code in most cases) insist on having dedicated off-street parking where they live, where they worship, where they work, and where they shop.

The April 2007 Tulsa Transit report had a large variation in the estimated potential ridership of trains along the Tulsa-BA corridor.  When I see those kinds of wild variations, I am suspect.  There are too many unknowns and too much guessing for me to be convinced that a passenger rail system would be a wise public investment.

The large variation is precisely because one scenario assumes transit oriented development, and the other does not.  As for getting the TMAPC, or the citizens of Tulsa in general, to embrace more efficient growth patterns, well, that's precisely why ideas like this need Champions.  Not to force through bad ideas, but to simply make sure that people don't try to squash them before they are even thought through.  That's why this stuff about, "colossal waste", pouring rain, August heat, and "free market" jitneys is so disturbing.  Michael is trying to be preemptive, which he is prone to do.  But in this case he is offering advice based on instinct and tired old news, which makes him hardly any different than the TMAPC or all of the other dysfunctional organizations that are delivering mediocrity at best.

[booWorld]

The estimate for ridership in 2010 ranges from 600,000 to 2.5 million !

I think it's very unrealistic to count on that much TOD in the initial year of train service.  I'm being realistic.  Things like that don't happen fast here in Tulsa.  I doubt if INCOG staff can finish delving into the aspects of white chocolate hot chocolate by 2010.

[Oil Capital]

quote:Originally posted by 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.

NONE of that comes anywhere near showing that Transit caused the growth.  It is laughable to suggest that the transit system caused the growth of San Jose.  Likewise Denver.  How do you explain the growth of non-transit cities during the 1990s (and by the way, Denver had very little if any transit during the 1990s.)  And again, when convenient for you, you blithely mix light rail with commuter rail.  There is a difference, you know.  

Stop attacking me and focus on the facts and proposals before us.

[Oil Capital]

quote:Originally posted by RecycleMichael

I can't believe that a transit stop for a commuter train wouldn't spur development.
I would like two or three stations downtown.

I think an OSU-Tulsa station would fit in well with the new development planned by the Greenwood Chamber...
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=20080111_1_A1_hAGre83223

Obviously, a station next to the largest office building in the state would spur lots of users and would fit nicely with riders going north into the entertainment area of Brady.

A station on the west side of the arena could compliment the assisted living center there and the large state office complex.

I ride the subway in Washington DC every few months and they stop about a half a mile apart in the area between the White House and the Capital.

But of course, with the exception of a station near the state's largest office building, none of that is being proposed or discussed.  There is no light rail or subway line or urban rail system (such as they have in DC) being planned or discussed.  There is no plan for a rail line with stops every half mile.  There is a proposal for a commuter rail that will run twice a day in each direction and stop at four stations:  downtown Broken Arrow, downtown Tulsa and two stops in  between.  There is a dearth of evidence supporting the idea that any large, urban, development is likely to occur at commuter rail stops.  Largely for reasons I have discussed in several earlier posts.  

But here it is again.  VERY infrequent service, very limited stops (therefore it provides access to a limited number of people), and service is limited to morning and evening rush hours.  Unlike a light rail or urban rail system station, there will be no steady stream of passengers throughout the day, so the benefit for any business to locate there is very limited.

[Oil Capital]

quote:Originally posted by Chicken Little

quote:Originally posted by booWorld

quote:Originally posted by RecycleMichael

I can't believe that a transit stop for a commuter train wouldn't spur development.

I can.  So much depends on the TMAPC's willingness to allow for increased residential densities.  When the TMAPC proposed down-zoning my property from a maximum development potential of 29.25 dwelling units per acre to a maximum of 2.66 dwelling units per acre (without an exception for a duplex), I told them that I wasn't interested.  I told them that many of my neighbors did not have cars and that a public transit system req;uired high residential densities to be viable.  2.66 dwelling units per acre does not make for a sustainable urban core.  

My property is within easy walking distance of the core of the CBD, the Civic Center, and the river.  Downzoning from 29.25 to 2.66 dwelling units per acre wasn't my idea.  The TMAPC made the proposal.  INCOG staff fought me tooth and nail on the issue -- I was satisfied with the zoning as it was because I wanted to increase the density with some residential infill development.  But the City Council agreed with the TMAPC that my property should be down-zoned to a maximum of 2.66 dwelling units per acre regardless of what I wanted, and so it was down-zoned.

I'm not saying that a rail transit system can't work for Tulsa, but it certainly can't work with our current mindset and land use policies.  A few of us here on the forum would like to see more intense residential development in Tulsa, but many Tulsans want the opposite.  Many or most Tulsans enjoy the empty space that separates them from their neighbors and from the street.  They enjoy driving their private cars from one end of the city to the other in a relatively short amount of time.  They (and the zoning code in most cases) insist on having dedicated off-street parking where they live, where they worship, where they work, and where they shop.

The April 2007 Tulsa Transit report had a large variation in the estimated potential ridership of trains along the Tulsa-BA corridor.  When I see those kinds of wild variations, I am suspect.  There are too many unknowns and too much guessing for me to be convinced that a passenger rail system would be a wise public investment.

The large variation is precisely because one scenario assumes transit oriented development, and the other does not.  As for getting the TMAPC, or the citizens of Tulsa in general, to embrace more efficient growth patterns, well, that's precisely why ideas like this need Champions.  Not to force through bad ideas, but to simply make sure that people don't try to squash them before they are even thought through.  

Perhaps I overlooked it;  Where did you get the idea that the large variation in forecasts is because one scenario assumes TOD and the other does not?   How could that possibly be the case for the 2010 projections, at which point there would clearly be no TOD near the stations (No sane developer is going to build a TOD on the promise that a rail station will be built.)

[booWorld]

quote:Originally posted by Oil Capital

But here it is again.  VERY infrequent service, very limited stops (therefore it provides access to a limited number of people), and service is limited to morning and evening rush hours.

Don't forget SLOW service.  An average speed of 27 miles per hour makes for a rather long trip from BA to Tulsa.

[TheArtist]

Remember, when we are talking price we would most likely consider doing the rail instead of widening the highway. If the highway is projected to have easy convenient traffic flow, then there isnt much reason to spend money alleviating it.

There are possible station areas along the proposed route that would be great areas for high density growth that would not "upset too many neighbors". Many of these areas would be prime locations for redevelopment and higher densities regardless of whether we do light rail or not so trying to encourage that kind of development, as Bates even mentioned, wouldnt be any harm.   There was a mention of the possibility of a 6th street station. I think that would be a great area, especially if we do the 6th street Pearl District redevelopment plan FIRST while doing it and having in mind that "in this location we will eventually put in a rail station so go ahead and attain the property for that future station and let developers know that around this spot is a place they might want to look at building and we would zone it for high density". The same could be said for the downtown BA station. Go ahead and snag the property before someone builds something on it and you have to fight and pay more to get it later. Plus zone the property around where you plan to eventually build the station to be higher density and not say, let a Wal-Mart build there. Again, it wont hurt to have those areas be higher density anyway, and if or if we do not end up putting in passenger rail, you have done something worth while imo. If in 20 years the city decides it does not want or need to do the light rail, it can just sell the lots it owns and be done with it. If it does turn out to be a good idea to start in 20 years or so, then they will be in a much better situation to do so than if they hadnt planned ahead. Win, win, if you ask me.    

As for Bates straw man. I dont know what else you could call this...

"Let's imagine for a moment what car-free living would be like in the most optimistic scenario for Tulsa: Light rail tracks running down every arterial street, with streetcars coming by every 15 minutes."

Thats not an optimistic scenario for any city. Thats patently absurd and to suggest that is what anyone is considering is nonsense. Can anyone show me anything else anywhere where someone has suggested this for Tulsa?

[Oil Capital]

quote:Originally posted by TheArtist

Remember, when we are talking price we are considering that we are doing the rail instead of widening the highway.

Are we?  I haven't heard of any plans to widen the BA and I doubt there will be any serious need to do so for at least 25 years.  (They do need to re-build the inner portions of the BA, north of 31st or so, but that will need to be done with or without commuter rail.)

[booWorld]

quote:Originally posted by Chicken Little

As for getting the TMAPC, or the citizens of Tulsa in general, to embrace more efficient growth patterns, well, that's precisely why ideas like this need Champions.  Not to force through bad ideas, but to simply make sure that people don't try to squash them before they are even thought through.  That's why this stuff about, "colossal waste", pouring rain, August heat, and "free market" jitneys is so disturbing.

None of that disturbs me at all, and I doubt if it disturbs most Tulsans.  In the pouring rain and in the August heat it would be more convenient to travel by jitney than by a train on a fixed route.  Flexible route transit makes more sense in Tulsa than does fixed guideway transit.  That fact is unlikely to change in the near or even in the distant future.

quote:
Michael is trying to be preemptive, which he is prone to do.

There is nothing wrong with being pre-emptive.  Last time I checked, Michael wasn't calling the shots on what could be considered or discussed amongst Tulsans.  A colossal public expenditure on infrastructure does not guarantee a better city or significant private investment.  The Main Maul is a good example.  Main Maul has been re-done three times since the mid-1960s, but it's barren and dead most of the time.  I wish Michael or someone else could have pre-empted that fiasco.

quote:
But in this case he is offering advice based on instinct and tired old news, which makes him hardly any different than the TMAPC or all of the other dysfunctional organizations that are delivering mediocrity at best.

No one is being forced to take Michael's advice that we focus our efforts on increasing density between Pine and 21st, Union and Harvard and that we drop the ban on jitneys.  He is merely suggesting that we do a couple of things in lieu of squandering a colossal amount on a transit rail system.

[TheArtist]

quote:Originally posted by Oil Capital

quote:Originally posted by TheArtist

Remember, when we are talking price we are considering that we are doing the rail instead of widening the highway.

Are we?  I haven't heard of any plans to widen the BA and I doubt there will be any serious need to do so for at least 25 years.  (They do need to re-build the inner portions of the BA, north of 31st or so, but that will need to be done with or without commuter rail.)

Thats what I took away from the meetings I went to. Even if we were to say right at this moment we wanted to make this happen, it would easily be 10 years before it really could. They were projecting the growth of traffic flows. The growth of BA and Tulsa and I remember them specifically talking about how difficult it would be to widen. The costs involved, removing more homes, right of ways, etc. But they went with a perspective that... ok, if we were going with the rail option, would it be feasible at this point, 10 years, 20 years, would it work? What could we reasonably expect even with current "possible ridership"?  It sounded like it could work. I remember them talking about the sheridan or memorial stations and how you could link the bus routes that went down those corridors to be timed so that they could bring people to and from the stations from a larger area, etc. They also mentioned that it was likely that in some areas higher density growth could help the rail be even more feasible over time. Not something you could count on, but didnt need to because future projections showed that it would work regardless. Any more development at all would just be icing on the cake. They did show that it happened in other cities. Downtown BA was wanting development to happen. Their new PAC, farmers market is near where the new station would be and if they build a parking garage for the PAC it could serve dual use as parking for the rail station. And around that they were planning for mixed-use and midrise living.

[booWorld]

quote:Originally posted by Oil Capital

I haven't heard of any plans to widen the BA and I doubt there will be any serious need to do so for at least 25 years.

It would be very expensive and difficult to widen it because the right-of-way is relatively narrow.

The BA gets congested in the morning and evening rush hours.  Most of the time it is a quick and convenient expressway.  If a commuter train was put into service and if commuters actually rode it, then congestion on the BA would ease up.  When congestion eased, then more people would stop riding the train and get back in their cars on the BA where they might be about to drive 29 miles an hour and beat the train by a few seconds.  Ridership would ebb and flow over time depending on the price of gas and the frustration level of commuters.

The BA is so convenient now.  If I had to make the trip, I think I'd prefer driving my own car faster than 27 miles per hour to the option of sitting on a slow train.

[Oil Capital]

quote:Originally posted by TheArtist

quote:Originally posted by Oil Capital

quote:Originally posted by TheArtist

Remember, when we are talking price we are considering that we are doing the rail instead of widening the highway.

Are we?  I haven't heard of any plans to widen the BA and I doubt there will be any serious need to do so for at least 25 years.  (They do need to re-build the inner portions of the BA, north of 31st or so, but that will need to be done with or without commuter rail.)

Thats what I took away from the meetings I went to. Even if we were to say right at this moment we wanted to make this happen, it would easily be 10 years before it really could. They were projecting the growth of traffic flows. The growth of BA and Tulsa and I remember them specifically talking about how difficult it would be to widen. The costs involved, removing more homes, right of ways, etc. But they went with a perspective that... ok, if we were going with the rail option, would it be feasible at this point, 10 years, 20 years, would it work? What could we reasonably expect even with current "possible ridership"?  It sounded like it could work. I remember them talking about the sheridan or memorial stations and how you could link the bus routes that went down those corridors to be timed so that they could bring people to and from the stations from a larger area, etc. They also mentioned that it was likely that in some areas higher density growth could help the rail be even more feasible over time. Not something you could count on, but didnt need to because future projections showed that it would work regardless. Any more development at all would just be icing on the cake. They did show that it happened in other cities. Downtown BA was wanting development to happen. Their new PAC, farmers market is near where the new station would be and if they build a parking garage for the PAC it could serve dual use as parking for the rail station. And around that they were planning for mixed-use and midrise living.

Not sure where you got the idea this commuter rail would take 10 or 20 years to implement.  The fact that the study made projections starting with 2010 suggests they have in mind something quite a lot earlier than that.

What examples did they show of development by rail stations?  Did they use the same ones they show in the study document?  If so, that is less than honest and less than instructive.  The examples they show in the study are light rail stations... frequent service, many stations, all-day service etc etc.

[TheArtist]

quote:Originally posted by booWorld

quote:Originally posted by Chicken Little

As for getting the TMAPC, or the citizens of Tulsa in general, to embrace more efficient growth patterns, well, that's precisely why ideas like this need Champions.  Not to force through bad ideas, but to simply make sure that people don't try to squash them before they are even thought through.  That's why this stuff about, "colossal waste", pouring rain, August heat, and "free market" jitneys is so disturbing.

None of that disturbs me at all, and I doubt if it disturbs most Tulsans.  In the pouring rain and in the August heat it would be more convenient to travel by jitney than by a train on a fixed route.  Flexible route transit makes more sense in Tulsa than does fixed guideway transit.  That fact is unlikely to change in the near or even in the distant future.

quote:
Michael is trying to be preemptive, which he is prone to do.

There is nothing wrong with being pre-emptive.  Last time I checked, Michael wasn't calling the shots on what could be considered or discussed amongst Tulsans.  A colossal public expenditure on infrastructure does not guarantee a better city or significant private investment.  The Main Maul is a good example.  Main Maul has been re-done three times since the mid-1960s, but it's barren and dead most of the time.  I wish Michael or someone else could have pre-empted that fiasco.

quote:
But in this case he is offering advice based on instinct and tired old news, which makes him hardly any different than the TMAPC or all of the other dysfunctional organizations that are delivering mediocrity at best.

No one is being forced to take Michael's advice that we focus our efforts on increasing density between Pine and 21st, Union and Harvard and that we drop the ban on jitneys.  He is merely suggesting that we do a couple of things in lieu of squandering a colossal amount on a transit rail system.

I agree that there are a lot of things we should do before any rail goes in. One of those things may very well be planning for a future rail line.

Saying you are or are not going to want a rail in 20 years will determine a lot of choices between now and then. If your deciding now that you are not going to do rail in 20 years will cause you to make different choices on a lot of matters than planning for a situation where rail is part of the equation.

The question is...Do we include this rail line in our long range planning or not? I dont think anyone is saying we should do it today. I certainly am not. But it does look like it is something we should decide now on whether or not we will eventually put one in. There are a lot of long range descisions that are going to need to be made for the next "long range plan" the city is currently working on, that will hinge on which direction we take on this issue. If your gonna make long range plans for the city a fundamental, basic part would be to decide if your going to put rail in or not and where. Whats the point in making long range plans if you dont decide issues like that? Its connected to a lot of other stuff.