What About Rail?

[USRufnex]

quote:Originally posted by si_uk_lon_ok


Can you explain how rail would not spur economic development. I deal with the benefits of development caused by these schemes on a daily basis. If you could tell me that it would not be the case, explain why and show me a study, I'd take a very keen look at it.

One of the reasons some people have a 'we know best' attitude is that they are qualified transport professionals, like pfox, to put it simply they do know best. I think sometimes this confidence in their own professional judgment may come across as 'pseudo moral judgments', but they are in fact professional opinions.

I think one advantage that has to be said about Tulsa is that unlike many cities you can easily drive everywhere. The problem with this though is you have to drive anywhere. Cars don't create density and walkability, introduce other options and you can start to see denser, mixed use and walkable neighborhoods. Even if you don't live in one of these areas or use the mass transit, you'll feel the benefit when 10% of people who use the turnpike start taking mass transit.

Your arguments are largely academic... my argument is primarily political and also  cultural.  Both academic and political arguments will vary over the course of years/decades/generations...

We intersect at economics... my travels on the METRA commuter rail in Chicagoland from Elgin to the Chicago loop showed me in no uncertain terms that use of train stations as stimulus for economic development can be artificial and misguided at best.  Stop after stop and I see train stations with nothing around them.  A few stations have shops around the station only because the station happened to be in an older  downtown area.  And the METRA stops inside the city of Chicago are actually the stops least likely to have any development around them.

I know "transit-oriented development" is a buzzword these days, but since 1990 my idea of TOD is limited to a Duncan Donuts or newspaper stand (that usually changes hands every six months, btw), outside the station...

When I lived in Elgin, I took advantage of the $5 unlimited weekend METRA pass to have fun in the city without the crazy traffic and parking... but Tulsa is simply not walkable enough for me to even consider doing the same thing here.  Driving a few miles to Cherry Street is much more "sustainable" than the 35 mile hour-plus long journey by car that I would take on the 50% of my trips to Chicago that didn't involve taking commuter rail...  

The METRA station in suburban Schaumburg even has a single-A baseball park right off the stop; parking can be effeciently used for commuters in the mornings/and rush hours, then used for baseball fans at night.  There is no development around the stadium that wasn't there before the ballpark was built.    

Si uk lon--"One of the reasons some people have a 'we know best' attitude is that they are qualified transport professionals, like pfox, to put it simply they do know best."

That's EXACTLY the kind of condescending argument that will turn off Tulsans in droves who have the potential to support reasonable plans for mass transit.  

Frankly, if you can't convince pro-urban density people like me and BooWorld and Michael Bates that your ideas are feasabile and reasonable, you will never convince the rest of Tulsa...

Start a rail system with tax funded infrustructure because it is needed or will be sorely needed in the not-too-distant future.  Not as some taxpayer funded luxury TOD boondogle that will be hoisted on working class Tulsans as "economic stimulus" (aka taxpayer funded gentrification) that will only benefit the perceived elites... I'm still waiting to see the results of TOD on the not-so-safe Howard Street red line station in Chicago (we used to nickname the red line, "the subway of the damned")... and the condos and townhomes in Elgin where the METRA line is being sold as part of the development but really is more of an afterthought... and the possible expansion of METRA that could prove a boone for econmically troubled Rockford (Illinois's version of Flint, MI)... of course, Tulsa is NOT Chicago... but much of midtown reminds me of areas in northwest Chicago and Niles that are only served occasionally by busses...

Dallas has had traffic problems for decades.    My memories of my commute that involved those 16-laned monster superhighways around north Dallas would make living around light rail much more enticing than the same type of development in Tulsa.

I could support the Jenks line, the BA line, and would love to see commuter rail to/from  Oklahoma's fastest growing county... Rogers.  I think many Oklahomans have a natural romanticism for "choo-choo trains" that could translate into grassroots support...

Just don't get carried away with taxpayer funded proactive social engineering... is that viewpoint so hard to understand?  [8D]

 

[Renaissance]

I do wonder whether Crowley, et al., have a sense of the overheated political climate in Tulsa at the moment.  He arrived after the river debate, so he may not have a full understanding of the enmity so many Tulsans feel for the Mythical Ruling Oligarchy (henceforth, MRO).  In their eyes, a central inner city line from downtown to the west bank will be a typical ploy by the MRO to benefit the Midtown Elite with Transportainment while ignorning the plight of the Average Citizen.  If such a line is part of a streets bond issue, many will use that as an excuse to vote against it.  

If Crowley's got any political acument, this will be presented in the context of a regional commuter line steered toward economic growth, and associated as little as possible with anything remotely "fun."  Citizens Against Virtually Everything HATE fun.  They really hate it.

[pfox]

quote: Si uk lon--"One of the reasons some people have a 'we know best' attitude is that they are qualified transport professionals, like pfox, to put it simply they do know best."

Woah.

For what it is worth, I do have academic training and professional experience associated with this subject. All that means is that I am suited for my job, and can make professional judgments about the issues at hand.  It does not, however, mean my opinion trumps the collective community in terms of right or wrong. It is really not about that.  My job is to gather the best information possible, analyze that information, and distribute that information so that we can collectively make informed decisions.  I may disagree with some statements and pronouncements here and there, but that doesn't mean I am trying de-legitimatize the messenger.

Paul brings up Los Angeles.  Fair enough.  That project is, in my opinion, not a good comparison to our situation. Yes, LA is car-dependent, but that is where L.A. and Tulsa's similarities end. However, Paul has every right to point to LA's failures during this discussion.

Denver and Austin are much better comparisons to Tulsa, in my professional opinion.  They have much more similar geographical, political, and cultural climates to ours, and are both are dealing with the direction of their built environments and physical growth are taking.

As a planner, I recognize that the information I distribute influences decisions, so I do the best to put out the best information possible. Additionally, I do not believe in "planning from the crystal tower".  I truly believe the best plans are created out of a democratic process, with broad representation.  It is a fine line we planners walk, and I think any good planner would tell you that the public is integral in making city planning relevant, but that planning, at some point needs to move from the planning phase to the implementation phase.  Lines on a map have to be drawn...dirt has to be turned, and the bottom-line is, you can't make everyone 100% happy.  

In conclusion, I don't want this process to be elitist, but I want it to be passionate.  You, as the passionate citizenry, are the actual leaders of this community.  It is your responsibility to coalesce and make compromises and decisions and to do what is right for Tulsa.  I don't have that power.  I am just one guy who decided that my role in life would be "planner".  Make sense?

[booWorld]

quote:Originally posted by pfox

So, as a planner, I recognize that the information I distribute influences decisions, so I do the best to put out the best information possible. Additionally, I do not believe in "planning from the crystal tower".  I truly believe the best plans are created out of a democratic process, with broad representation.

As far as the starter line goes:

From where to where? What route?
How many stops or stations, and where will they be?
How much will the starter line cost?
How much will the operation and maintenance costs be?
Who will pay for the starter line, and how?
The goal is to get the starter line in operation by when?
The trains will be running on what sort of frequency?

[booWorld]

quote:Originally posted by sgrizzle

quote:Originally posted by booWorld


From where to where?  What route?
How many stops or stations, and where will they be?
How much will the starter line cost?
How much will the operation and maintenance costs be?
Who will pay for the starter line, and how?
The goal is to get the starter line in operation by when?
The trains will be running on what sort of frequency?

You seem excited. (and I PM'ed you)

Received.  Thank you, sgrizzle.

[booWorld]

quote:Originally posted by USRufnex

Frankly, if you can't convince pro-urban density people like me and BooWorld and Michael Bates that your ideas are feasabile and reasonable, you will never convince the rest of Tulsa...

To clarify:  I'm convinced that the idea of rail transit could work, but I question whether or not it can work given the political and cultural and economic realities of Tulsa.

As far as the down-zoning of my property went, I never asked for it and never wanted it.  The result is a non-sustainable low density in the heart of Tulsa.  The TMAPC and INCOG staff approached me with the re-zoning idea, and they pushed it with a "we know best" arrogant attitude.  I realize that rail transit is being handled by another department at INCOG, but I do find the lack of coordination and communication between departments to be counter-productive.

[TheArtist]

Quote by USRufnex................
We intersect at economics... my travels on the METRA commuter rail in Chicagoland from Elgin to the Chicago loop showed me in no uncertain terms that use of train stations as stimulus for economic development can be artificial and misguided at best. Stop after stop and I see train stations with nothing around them. A few stations have shops around the station only because the station happened to be in an older downtown area. And the METRA stops inside the city of Chicago are actually the stops least likely to have any development around them.

I know "transit-oriented development" is a buzzword these days, but since 1990 my idea of TOD is limited to a Duncan Donuts or newspaper stand (that usually changes hands every six months, btw), outside the station...

When I lived in Elgin, I took advantage of the $5 unlimited weekend METRA pass to have fun in the city without the crazy traffic and parking... but Tulsa is simply not walkable enough for me to even consider doing the same thing here. Driving a few miles to Cherry Street is much more "sustainable" than the 35 mile hour-plus long journey by car that I would take on the 50% of my trips to Chicago that didn't involve taking commuter rail...

The METRA station in suburban Schaumburg even has a single-A baseball park right off the stop; parking can be effeciently used for commuters in the mornings/and rush hours, then used for baseball fans at night. There is no development around the stadium that wasn't there before the ballpark was built. """""






I cant speak to the specifics of this Chicago loop but I wonder if it was in an area like the starter line would be in Tulsa? I dare say that loop and this small line, are probably worlds apart in many respects.

Specifically, much of the area this starter line would be going through is in areas the city wants and is working towards seeing more growth in anyway. And indeed is seeing new growth. The line wouldnt have to be the "cause" of any growth around it, the growth is already occuring and is wanted anyway. The line would primarily enhance that growth and take advantage of it.

You mention the baseball stadium in that one area and the benefits of having that on the line. We would have the Arena on the line, it would be near the possible baseball stadium as well, not to mention what goes in by the River "again a prime area for future development... actually the BEST spot for river development in Tulsa" Not to mention the PAC, Brady Arts, Blue Dome, Greenwood, OSU Tulsa, The central business core. new living, etc, etc.

Many of these areas already have attractions, will need parking, are areas that are prime spots for development that we want developed and in which we are already doing many other things to attract development, and many are areas that are currently seeing new growth right now.

If we get some TOD stuff... fine. If not, the areas are growing in ways that will make this starter line more and more worthwhile and desirable, all the time. We want those areas to grow regardless. We want those areas to be walkable and connected regardless. People want
to have good urban living options in Tulsa.

I too will be more interested in seeing what this line costs, what money could be saved by doing the line and using parking around it versus building new parking garages."people are constantly complaining that there isnt enough parking around the arena, possible baseball stadium, etc." See if city owned property on either end of the line could be used as a source of revenue to help defray costs. etc. Once you get the balance of all the different factors weighed in, then you can make a better analysis as to whether its worth it.

[TheArtist]

I used to always mention that any new parking garage the city built downtown should have retail around it on the first floor. Now I have changed my tune. No more parking garages period and have maximum number of parking spaces not minimum. This change had nothing to do with the thought of rail but the realizations that,,, You will never have enough parking, its a disease that grows off of itself. It hinders the formation of walkable districts. Many of our streets in and near downtown should not be widened but narrowed to slow traffic down and also help create a pedestrian friendly environment. The fact that these types of things would help any rail transit in the area is purely secondary. But also important if we do want to persue the rail there.  

few quotes again

Anyplace worth its salt has a 'parking problem'. - James Castle

Parking is a narcotic and ought to be a controlled substance. It is addictive, and one can never have enough. - Victor Dover

...Rather than design a transportation system to get the most out of America's cities, America redesigned the cities to get the most out of the automobile. - Richard Moe


If car ownership is mandatory, [the place is] not urban. - Donald Baxter

If you design communities for automobiles, you get more automobiles. If you design them for people, you get walkable, livable communities. - Parris Glendening and Christine Todd Whitman

Automobiles need quantity and pedestrians need quality. - Dan Burden

Cars are happiest when there are no other cars around. People are happiest when there are other people around. - Dan Burden

Planning of the automobile city focuses on saving time. Planning for the accessible city, on the other hand, focuses on time well spent. - Robert Cervero

The role of the street is social as well as utilitarian. - Andres Duany

Vancouver killed the freeway because they didn't want the freeways to kill their neighborhoods. The city flourished because making it easier to drive does not reduce traffic; it increases it. That means if you don't waste billions of dollars building freeways, you actually end up with less traffic. - Rick Cole

The problem is not the automobile. There are plenty of cars and traffic jams in European cities, but urban planning and design there does not simply revolve around making space for the car. In American downtowns, however, that has too often been the case. For years, downtowns have been decimated as buildings have been cleared and streets widened in an effort to get more cars into the city. Since most cars are driven only a few hours per week, storage is a big problem. Parking lots often take up more space than any other land use. - Larry Ford

We need to design our cities so that one feels embarrassed, inconvenienced, and like one who is missing out on all the fun when driving a car. - Dom Nozzi

Anything you do to make a city more friendly to cars makes it less friendly to people. - Enrique Penalosa




This one is my favorite, pretty much sums it all up.

If you plan cities for cars and traffic, you get cars and traffic. If you plan for people and places, you get people and places. - Fred Kent

[JoeMommaBlake]

Killer quotations.

Our city planners should have them painted on their office walls...or on the walls of their parking garages.

[RecycleMichael]

Welcome village idiot.

I am glad to see fellow idiot company. A village our size needs more than one so we can work shifts.

[dsjeffries]

Our own RecycleMichael is making news, again! []

quote:Rail Service -- In Tulsa's Future Or Not?
 
From KTUL: http://www.ktul.com/news/stories/0408/512077.html

How would you feel about boarding a train to get around Tulsa? Is it an option for the future? The idea has been studied for more than a year. And now, for the first time, you'll get to weigh in on the concept.

Officials have looked at the plans and the costs. Now, they are bringing in the experts and are looking for your feedback on the possibility of upgrading some of Tulsa's rail lines to carry people around the city.

The people behind the plan say it can't be done unless you support it.

Tulsa's Enviro-Expo is promoting the greenest groups in the city, hoping to add rail service to the mix. Michael Patton is with the MET, or Metropolitan Environmental Trust.

"If we can reduce the demand, reduce the number of vehicle miles traveled by having the rail we ride together, we'll have a better planet, better air quality for Tulsa in the summers, a better community," he says.

But, the question is more than one of social conscience. It's about the future of how people get around.

"As congestion rises and as fuel costs rise, we're going to be facing the choices of dealing with that congestion in some way," says Transportation Planner Patrick Fox.

They're taking cues from cities like Austin, Portland and Denver. The Indian Nations Council of Governments started studying the idea more than a year ago. It starts with upgrades to rail lines already in place so they can carry people from Broken Arrow to Tulsa and later adding service to Jenks, Sand Springs, Sapulpa and Owasso.

Bryant Harris commutes to Tulsa and says he's on board with the concept, but not paying more taxes to get it.

"If they're not taking care of the streets like they're supposed to, who's to say they're not going to misuse the funds for a so-called railroad," he says.

The cost of starting rail service could vary from seven to 21 million dollars a mile, depending on what kind of technology is chosen and if it's supported at all.

"So, where does Tulsa want to be," asks Fox. "That's up for the public to decide."

And, this is where you come in. Next week, INCOG is using grant money from the Federal Transit Administration to fly in experts from Denver, Austin, and Portland to answer questions about rail service in Tulsa. It's expected to be the first of many discussions on this topic.

The first discussion is next Thursday night, April 24th. It will begin at 6 p.m. at the Jazz Hall of Fame at Union Station. For more information, visit http://www.whataboutrail.blogspot.com/.
© 2008 KTUL-TV, LLC
All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Advantage Lifestyles Audiology & Hearing Aids

[RecycleMichael]

My comments were not about any particular rail line or about the costs of any new rail system.
I am just commenting on rail lines are a good environmental way to move people.

I got a call this morning from someone who was listening to FM94.1 this morning. They said the DJ said The M.e.t. was pushing a rail line that would cost 20 million dollars. The DJ said that money should be spent on roads instead.

[Conan71]

RM,

Interesting how quickly things can get twisted in the media.  94.1?  I didn't know they had a news-worthy morning drive show.

Unfortunately, I've got a conflict this evening otherwise, I would like to be there.

My problem with local rail to now has been the image of a large infrastructure cost for a handfull of riders.  I like the approach that densities are being studied and considered.  I do hope that the powers that be will really listen to individuals as well instead of sticking to pre-concieved paradigms they might have.

[sgrizzle]

quote:Originally posted by Conan71


Unfortunately, I've got a conflict this evening otherwise, I would like to be there.

The 24th is next week, FYI.

[pfox]

quote:Originally posted by RecycleMichael

My comments were not about any particular rail line or about the costs of any new rail system.
I am just commenting on rail lines are a good environmental way to move people.

I got a call this morning from someone who was listening to FM94.1 this morning. They said the DJ said The M.e.t. was pushing a rail line that would cost 20 million dollars. The DJ said that money should be spent on roads instead.

This is why we are having this event...to talk ahout this.

Money will be spent on roads...but it shouldn't be an either/or situation.

JMO.