Bates phones it in again: Transit

[Oil Capital]

quote:Originally posted by 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 should be deciding IF we are or are not going to put in a rail line there in the future.

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. That descision will help you make other descisions that will need to be made.

I thought that had already been "decided".  It's already in the 2030 plans, is it not?

Edit:  yes, I just checked.  It says it right there in the first paragraph of the study:  This commuter rail corridor is already included in INCOG's 2030 transportation plan.

Interestingly, it also says that the discussion of this rail line was in connection with the widening of the BA that was completed several years ago.  Perhaps that's what Artist remembers them discussing.  (Equally interesting is that the INCOG 2030 plan appears to include NO improvements to the BA.

[booWorld]

quote:Originally posted by TheArtist


I agree that there are a lot of things we should do before any rail goes in. One of those things should be deciding IF we are or are not going to put in a rail line there in the future.

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. That descision will help you make other descisions that will need to be made.

We ought to consider the potential of this rail line and others in our long range planning.  Since at least 1990, the BA-Tulsa route has received serious consideration as a future passenger rail corridor.  Of the various proposed routes included in INCOG's fixed guideway transit study conducted around 1990, the BA-Tulsa route was singled out as being the most feasible.

Transportation planning is one thing.  To make rail transit viable, the TMAPC will need to drop their low-density down-zoning mentality.

[TheArtist]

Well, if its already been decided. What the heck is this discussion about then? 2030 isn't that far off. We are going to have to start in about 10 years cause it will take about 10 more years after we start to get it up and running. That gives us the next 10 years to get the Pearl and some other things done before we start on the rail. Sounds like a plan, lets do it lol.

[booWorld]

quote:Originally posted by Oil Capital

Equally interesting is that the INCOG 2030 plan appears to include NO improvements to the BA.

First, the BA is hemmed in, so widening the roadway isn't very practical.

Second, there really isn't that much congestion on the BA, at least not in comparison to other cities I've visited where traffic slows to a crawl during rush hours.

[Oil Capital]

quote:Originally posted by booWorld

quote:Originally posted by Oil Capital

Equally interesting is that the INCOG 2030 plan appears to include NO improvements to the BA.

First, the BA is hemmed in, so widening the roadway isn't very practical.

Second, there really isn't that much congestion on the BA, at least not in comparison to other cities I've visited where traffic slows to a crawl during rush hours.

I completely agree.  That, among other things, leads to some skepticism on their ridership projections for this rail plan.

[booWorld]

quote:Originally posted by TheArtist

Sounds like a plan, lets do it lol.

Now, all we need is a mere $45 million for the "seed" money....   lmbfclpao

[Chicken Little]

quote:Originally posted by Oil Capital

NONE of that comes anywhere near showing that Transit caused the growth.

Wrong. "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."  I put that last part in bold for you.  The transit and the development go together; that's the successful model.  Where have you been?

quote:It is laughable to suggest that the transit system caused the growth of San Jose.

No, your tactics are laughable.  You offer nothing and expect people to take you seriously.  They don't.  You won't even take a stand on the simplest of questions...is growth an imperative for a city?

I think that it is.  And I think that many smart cities are using transit and transit oriented development, in combination, to grow smart, dense, and fast.  

quote: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.)

Keep laughing Mr. Big Ideas; we are struggling and these other places are not.  The fastest growing city in the country, with or without a fixed guideway system, is Las Vegas.  Oh, it seems that they are moving forward with an environmental study for a 33 mile rail.  Seems like many successful cities are looking into rail.

Albuquerque - regional rail under construction, LRT proposed
Atlanta - regional rail and streetcar projects in planning
Austin - light railway project under way, streetcar proposed
Bayonne - streetcar in development
Birmingham - in planning
Boise - LRT (interurban, streetcar) proposed
Boulder - streetcar proposed
Charlotte - historic trolley upgrade under construction, modern LRT planned
Charlottesville - streetcar proposed
Cincinnati - LRT (interurban, streetcar) in planning
Columbus - LRT (interurban, streetcar) in planning
Corpus Christi - streetcar in planning
Dayton - streetcar proposed
Des Moines - LRT proposed
Detroit - interurban LRT and regional passenger rail proposed
El Paso - LRT streetcar system proposed
Fayette - LRT or regional rail proposed
Ft. Lauderdale - streetcar and high-performance LRT proposed
Glendale (Ca) - streetcar proposed
Ft. Worth - streetcar proposed
Grand Rapids (Mi) - streetcar proposed
Harrisburg - regional rail in development
Honolulu - light rail proposed
Huntington, WV - heritage streetcar proposed
Huntington Beach, Ca - LRT proposed
Indianapolis - proposed
Kansas City - proposed
Lancaster - heritage streetcar proposed
Las Vegas - proposed
Louisville - LRT proposed
Madison - regional rail and streetcar proposed
Memphis - heritage streetcar in operation, modern LRT planned
Miami - streetcar projects in planning
Milwaukee - interurban and streetcar LRT, regional passenger rail proposed
Minneapolis - modern LRT in operation, streetcar proposed
Montgomery - heritage streetcar proposed
Nashville - regional "commuter" rail project under way
Norfolk - interurban LRT project under way
Ogden - modern streetcar proposed
Omaha - heritage streetcar proposed
Orange County (Ca) - LRT (interurban or streetcar) in planning
Orlando - in planning
Phoenix - interurban LRT project under construction; regional rail and streetcar system proposed
Raleigh - regional rail system in planning
Richmond - heritage streetcar proposed
Roanoke - heritage streetcar proposed
Rochester - proposed
Salem, Or - streetcar proposed
San Antonio - proposed
Savannah - heritage streetcar (self-propelled) project under way
Seattle - Regional rail and heritage streetcar in operation, interurban LRT and modern streetcar projects under way
Spokane - light railway proposed
Tampa - historic streetcar in operation, modern LRT streetcar proposed
Toledo - streetcar proposed
Tucson - heritage streetcar system being expanded, LRT proposed
Union County, NJ - LRT project under development
Washington - LRT in planning
Winston-Salem - streetcar project in planning

If they are so wasteful and such a bad idea, then how come all of these cities are thinking about rail projects?  Geez, there are so many smart people in those places.  What makes you and Bates smarter than them?

quote: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.

Which proposal?  The one that recommends we ask people smarter than me and you (especially you) to seriously start looking at mass transit and efficient land use?  I'm all for it.  You are not.  Bates is not.  And between you, this is the best idea you can come up with:



Jitneyed!

[Renaissance]

Development around rail stops is a red herring.  The purpose of commuter rail is not to spark real estate development.  The purpose is to support continued population growth in the metro area.  It makes sense.  It's what cities do.  Stop nitpicking and get on board.

[TheArtist]

quote:Originally posted by 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.

I mentioned it would take around 10 years if we started now. Though when we could get to that descision is anyones guess. Process? Timeline anyone?

The mass transit study shows a possible timeline after we get a thumbs up to go for it...

Phase 1.  Organization,  6months to 18 months
                  This is Tulsa it will easily take 18 months but lets say 1year.

Phase2.   Federal review and approval, Environmental etc.  about 2 years.

Phase3.   Once approval is granted designs can begin. (look at the river dam controversy if you want any indication of how that works. They arent going to spend any real money on final designs until they know they can actually build it and any changes, alterations to the plan that need to be made and incorporated) 6 months to 2 years. Though some construction could be started while the rest is being designed. We will be optimistic and say 6 months.

Phase 4.  Construction and Procurement. They estimate 2-3 years. We all know how this stuff goes, I say 3.5 years at best lol.

Phase 5.  Testing and start up. 6 months.

Add er up and I get.... 7.5 years from the word go. Add to that however long it takes to get to the word go. Any ideas on that timescale and the process it takes just to that point?

Knowing this town, I would guess its possible we could have rail as early as, oh,  2018 if we really pushed for it.

As for development around the stations. I dont think they were counting on anything to get their numbers. They wanted to play it safe it seemed to me. IF we got development it would certainly help, and they said there is a good chance we could expect some. I believe they did show BAs plan for downtown and what they hope for the area around a downtown station. And as I have mentioned, areas like the Pearl and 6th street where we are wanting growth anyway, I hope, was also mentioned as a place for a possible station. See the Pearl district plans for their vision.

Optimistically I would like to see Downtown BA and The Pearl district plans underway during the next 10 years with the intention of then likely starting the rail process. That could help direct growth in those areas and help those plans. 10 years to get the pearl and the BA plans underway. Another 7 or 8 to get the rail started after that and those areas growing during that timespan as well. The year 2025 seems like a good year to have this done.

[Transport_Oklahoma]

If you believe that energy is going to be vastly more expensive in the future, as many experts do, I don't see how you could oppose at least planning for rail development in Tulsa.

The jitney thing is fine, but it also is a good clue that Michael Bates is getting his anti-rail transit bias from CATO, The Heritage Foundation, and/or the American Enterprise Institute.  

These groups have long opposed taxpayer financed rail transit.  In addition to toll roads they almost always mention jitneys as the preferred alternative.

Agreed that voluntary/consensus smart growth/new urbanist zoning is essential.

[Oil Capital]

quote:Originally posted by Chicken Little

quote:Originally posted by Oil Capital

NONE of that comes anywhere near showing that Transit caused the growth.

Wrong. "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."  I put that last part in bold for you.  The transit and the development go together; that's the successful model.  Where have you been?

quote:

New construction at transit stops does not equal NEW economic development or NEW growth for a metro area.  It is just the same growth in a different place (and possibly in a more dense pattern).  Besides which, once again, you are mixing commuter rail and light or urban rail.  As I have said over and over, commuter rail does not tend to beget the kinds of development around stations that you can expect from light or urban rail.  You have yet to provide a SINGLE example of such development around commuter rail stations in a system such as is being proposed in Tulsa.

quote:It is laughable to suggest that the transit system caused the growth of San Jose.

No, your tactics are laughable.  You offer nothing and expect people to take you seriously.  They don't.  You won't even take a stand on the simplest of questions...is growth an imperative for a city?

I think that it is.  And I think that many smart cities are using transit and transit oriented development, in combination, to grow smart, dense, and fast.  

quote:

For what it's worth, yes, I think growth is imperative.  I didn't really think it was necessary to answer such a ridiculous and off-point question, but there you go.  Now,  back to the point you are avoiding.  Do you really think mass transit has in any way CAUSED the growth of San Jose or Denver or Las Vegas or Dallas Fort Worth or Houston or Phoenix or LA or San Diego?  If so, can you point us to ANY evidence supporting that theory.  Anything at all?    FWIW, I agree that many cities are using transit and transit oriented developments to grow "smart" and dense.  Nothing I have said could be taken to say otherwise.  But again, you are largely confusing the difference between light or urban rail with commuter rail.

quote: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.)

Keep laughing Mr. Big Ideas; we are struggling and these other places are not.  

 

Again, there is a dearth of evidence that any of those cities are successful BECAUSE they have rail or that Tulsa is struggling BECAUSE we don't have rail.  As I said in a previous post, rail is largely a response to growth, not a cause of growth.

 
The fastest growing city in the country, with or without a fixed guideway system, is Las Vegas.  Oh, it seems that they are moving forward with an environmental study for a 33 mile rail.  

 

Ummmm, yeah.  Thanks for proving my point.  Rail follows growth, it does not cause growth.

Seems like many successful cities are looking into rail.

Albuquerque - regional rail under construction, LRT proposed
Atlanta - regional rail and streetcar projects in planning
Austin - light railway project under way, streetcar proposed
Bayonne - streetcar in development
Birmingham - in planning
Boise - LRT (interurban, streetcar) proposed
Boulder - streetcar proposed
Charlotte - historic trolley upgrade under construction, modern LRT planned
Charlottesville - streetcar proposed
Cincinnati - LRT (interurban, streetcar) in planning
Columbus - LRT (interurban, streetcar) in planning
Corpus Christi - streetcar in planning
Dayton - streetcar proposed
Des Moines - LRT proposed
Detroit - interurban LRT and regional passenger rail proposed
El Paso - LRT streetcar system proposed
Fayette - LRT or regional rail proposed
Ft. Lauderdale - streetcar and high-performance LRT proposed
Glendale (Ca) - streetcar proposed
Ft. Worth - streetcar proposed
Grand Rapids (Mi) - streetcar proposed
Harrisburg - regional rail in development
Honolulu - light rail proposed
Huntington, WV - heritage streetcar proposed
Huntington Beach, Ca - LRT proposed
Indianapolis - proposed
Kansas City - proposed
Lancaster - heritage streetcar proposed
Las Vegas - proposed
Louisville - LRT proposed
Madison - regional rail and streetcar proposed
Memphis - heritage streetcar in operation, modern LRT planned
Miami - streetcar projects in planning
Milwaukee - interurban and streetcar LRT, regional passenger rail proposed
Minneapolis - modern LRT in operation, streetcar proposed
Montgomery - heritage streetcar proposed
Nashville - regional "commuter" rail project under way
Norfolk - interurban LRT project under way
Ogden - modern streetcar proposed
Omaha - heritage streetcar proposed
Orange County (Ca) - LRT (interurban or streetcar) in planning
Orlando - in planning
Phoenix - interurban LRT project under construction; regional rail and streetcar system proposed
Raleigh - regional rail system in planning
Richmond - heritage streetcar proposed
Roanoke - heritage streetcar proposed
Rochester - proposed
Salem, Or - streetcar proposed
San Antonio - proposed
Savannah - heritage streetcar (self-propelled) project under way
Seattle - Regional rail and heritage streetcar in operation, interurban LRT and modern streetcar projects under way
Spokane - light railway proposed
Tampa - historic streetcar in operation, modern LRT streetcar proposed
Toledo - streetcar proposed
Tucson - heritage streetcar system being expanded, LRT proposed
Union County, NJ - LRT project under development
Washington - LRT in planning
Winston-Salem - streetcar project in planning

If they are so wasteful and such a bad idea, then how come all of these cities are thinking about rail projects?  Geez, there are so many smart people in those places.  What makes you and Bates smarter than them?

quote: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.[/quote]Which proposal?  The one that recommends we ask people smarter than me and you (especially you) to seriously start looking at mass transit and efficient land use?  I'm all for it.  You are not.  Bates is not.  And between you, this is the best idea you can come up with:



Jitneyed!
[/quote]

You can have all the fun you can stand with your straw man arguments, your misdirection, and your personal attacks.  

But IF you ever decide you want to have a mature, intelligent, fact-based conversation, let me know

And try to pay better attention to what you are reading... I have never said or implied that we should not study rail, although it would be nice to see a more honest, reliable study than the one we have before us.  

I have never said or implied that rail is a bad thing or that we should not consider building some rail at some point.  

I have never said that light or urban rail systems cannot spur TOD around their stations.

I have only said that we need to be honest about what we can expect this proposed commuter rail to do.  

If you can provide the slightest bit of evidence that THIS TYPE of rail system is likely to spur any TOD, I'm all eyes.  

If you can provide the slightest bit of evidence that ANY rail system in Tulsa could reasonably be expected to CAUSE any significant economic growth for the metro area, I would truly love to see it.  

We need to also be honest about the costs; It will NOT pay for itself by any stretch of the imagination.  

Again, as I have said before, that does not necessarily mean it should not be done, but the surest way to bad choices for Tulsa is to base those decisions on delusions and bad assumptions.

[TeeDub]

I really with a rail system would work...  But we just don't have the densities needed to make it feasible.

[booWorld]

Interesting looking vehicle...

It appears to have tires, so I assume that it could operate on most streets near where people live and work and shop.

It also appears to be a relatively small investment compared to a rail transit system.  I think colorful buses such as this one would serve sprawling Tulsa better than fixed guideway transit.

[TheArtist]

There is no way in hell I would ride that lol.

[spoonbill]

Challenge:  Someone take a picture of a Tulsa Transit Bus full of people.  I've never seen one?

The novelty of a light rail system would wear off quickly in a city where transportation time is low and parking is free & plentiful.

We are not New York or Chicago.  We don't have a lower class that has to pay as much for a parking spot as they do for a mortgage.  We are not living in a country where only the wealthiest can afford a car.  We don't need something just because other people have it.  

DO WE NEED IT?

NO

WILL WE USE IT?
(Hmm. . . we don't ride the bus.)

NO

WILL IT SPUR ECONOMIC GROWTH?
(Do bus stops spur economic growth?)

NO

WILL IT BECOME AN ASSET OR A BURDEN TO OUR CITY?

BURDEN


ARE THERE MORE IMPORTANT THINGS THAN A $80,000,000 "BUS ON A TRACK"?

UH HUH!

Ok, then lets move on.