What About Rail?

[PonderInc]

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.

That's why I get all my news from 94.1...the strict journalistic standards.

[cannon_fodder]

quote:...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.

Exactly!  

How often do we expand a freeway and go "there, done.  It's good forever now."  That doesn't happen.  Because now that it is a larger freeway it is more attractive to drive on and so more people do, then it gets crowded again.  Most of the best urban cities had no choice but to abandon this model or never got on board in the first place.

I'm still not sure about the viability of rail, but certainly changes in long term planning (including mandatory parking spots) should be reconsidered.

[TheArtist]

quote:Originally posted by 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.

Where is the money going to come from?

I dont think many people in Tulsa are wanting more roads or more lanes, they just want what we have fixed. And a lot of them do not want any taxes raised to do it. They certainly arent going to want some tax raised to do rail if they dont want taxes raised to fix the roads,,, and they still want the roads fixed. If we dont have enough money to fix the roads without raising taxes, how on earth are you going to add rail and fix the roads without raising taxes?

I think we have a looot of infill and redevelopment of underused properties to do. I would rather see the roads improved, infill of areas that have very low traffic as it is and are underperforming tax earnings wise. You have large areas of the city that hardly have any businesses, residential, etc, but have roads already in place, that need to be fixed, where redevelopment and infill development can occur. Also, focusing on encouraging those areas to be walkable, bikeable, higher density will increase tax base, make them more efficient transportation wise because walkable areas "theoretically" take trips off the roads or at least make the trips much much shorter.  


Rail sounds all cool and neat, but...

Basically I see that we have many more opportnities to do cool and neat things that will improve our city. If its the creation of wonderful, dense, urban, pedestrian friendly districts... we can do a looot of that right now, without doing rail. I would rather have some "extra money" if there is any or wherever it comes from, at this point going to help creating those districts. Rail could be a part of that some day, but we can and should do a lot of infill and redevelopment stuff before then. Thats really what I want to see in Tulsa anyway. And we can get that without rail at this point. And by doing rail I am afraid we will be diverting funds away from what we really want to create. For every example you could find where rail stimulated TOD, I can find dozens of examples of areas that are successful, are more dense and walkable than anything we have in this city. Heck we have large areas that have practically nothing and could, for comparable costs be turned into great places. Where is the money for the Pearl District going to come from? And the roads? And now rail too? You really think we are going to be able to get all of that and more for other areas? I dont.

We often comment on how we dont need to follow what other cities are doing, that we should be unique. Rail seems to be one of those things that people would like to be able to say we have, to "drop" that we have one and sound like a big city or something. But we can improve our city a long way, even transportation wise, without that extra expense. Perhaps easier without it.

[Renaissance]

On the money question: From what I gather in the news and on this forum, Tulsa voters are going to be presented with a massive bond proposal to fund a plan to renovate our transportation infrastructure.

I have to assume that these discussions will lead to a final decision on whether and how passenger rail will fit into that plan.

There will be some trying to make the case that certain passenger rail options might be more cost effective in the long-run than the same dollars spent on expanding roads and highways.  This seems a highly sensible proposition to me; but, then again, it may not be true for Tulsa.

Anyway, given that this relationship between passenger rail and passenger traffic exists, PFox's assertion that "it doesn't have to be an either/or situation" strikes me as the proper way to approach the question.  I will be very interested to see what rail proponents have in mind, and whether it makes sense.

[PonderInc]

Tangent:
I'm officially tired of the phrase: "fix the streets."  I'm starting to think it's the general public's version of: "Not tonight, Dear, I have a headache."  It avoids having to think about any new opportunities or options.  It avoids having to face and solve other problems. It avoids having to think about the long run.  It avoids having to do anything at all, except roll over and fall asleep...and then wake up the next day and complain about the roads again.

Viable, efficient transit is part of the solution to "fixing the roads."  These things are not mutually exclusive. Transit planning and transit-oriented development is a long-term solution.  "Fixing the roads" is a short term solution that temporarily fills potholes...before they need to be filled again in 10 or 15 years.  

Long-term transit solutions may take years to reach fruition.  Fixing potholes is "maintenance."  It "solves" the problem for a few months or years before the "solution" begins to degrade...and you're right back where you started.  

Transit systems may cost millions to implement.  Pot holes and road repair/expansion cost hundreds of millions of dollars every few years. (Tulsa's 3rd penny sales tax includes $125 Million for repair and expansion of streets and highways for a 5-year period).

[TheArtist]

quote:Originally posted by Floyd

On the money question: From what I gather in the news and on this forum, Tulsa voters are going to be presented with a massive bond proposal to fund a plan to renovate our transportation infrastructure.

I have to assume that these discussions will lead to a final decision on whether and how passenger rail will fit into that plan.

There will be some trying to make the case that certain passenger rail options might be more cost effective in the long-run than the same dollars spent on expanding roads and highways.  This seems a highly sensible proposition to me; but, then again, it may not be true for Tulsa.

Anyway, given that this relationship between passenger rail and passenger traffic exists, PFox's assertion that "it doesn't have to be an either/or situation" strikes me as the proper way to approach the question.  I will be very interested to see what rail proponents have in mind, and whether it makes sense.

To me that sets up a false dichotomy. For instance, Its not about do we expand the BA or do rail and which is most cost effective. Whats most cost effective is to do neither.

If someone chooses to live in BA then sits in traffic, thats not my problem. Tulsa taxpayers should not have to pay for that bad descision. If that commuter doesnt like sitting in traffic and a long commute, then MOVE to Tulsa. Move to the Pearl District for instance. I would hope that traffic would finally get that idea into peoples heads. OR, if its so unbearable for the citizens of BA to sit in traffic along the BA, let the city of BA buy that rail line and pay for commuter rail. Again, why should I have to pay for it?

And if the person decides to stay in BA and work there... Bavo! Smart move. I want to see us develop another couple dozen Brooksides and Cherry Streets, heck better and even more dense, in run down areas of Tulsa. We got pleeenty of areas all over the city that can be made to be wonderful, urban places. Thats where our money, thoughts, time and efforts should go.  

I want to see people living, working and shopping IN the city. I do not want to be spending money on enabling people to use the city as a "transit corridor". Screw the suburbanites, they should not be our concern. They are quite capable of taking care of themselves. Tulsans should focus on building great communities in Tulsa. Again, rail could be a part of that, but I dont see a need for it now, would rather see those funds going to other things at this time. And rail costs millions to keep running as well, its not just spend a little then it goes on automatic.  Someone mentioned how much the rail sytem in, I think it was Denver cost to run per year, it was absurd.  


Let me put it this way...

Do you think we can improve our city, even improve it greatly, without spending money on rail?  Yes or No

I say yes.

Everything you say that rail can do for you, that matters, you can do in a better, more productive, way.

[bokworker]

Nice post Artist.... we complain about the "sprawl" we face and then work to make engress and regress from our city even easier...

[pfox]

quote:Originally posted by TheArtist

Screw the suburbanites, they should not be our concern.

Really?

That is a hard one for me to swallow, honestly.  Not to pull a Hillary on you, but statements like that smack of elitism and is, frankly, the kind of divisive lanuguage that prevents successful collaboration, which we need as we think about managing our growth patterns.

For what it is worth, I'll use INCOG's bicycle advisory group as an example.  I have two to three representatives who live in Broken Arrow and Owasso respectively.  Why do they choose to live there?  Who knows? School choice? Affordability? A spouses' proximity to work? Regardless, they live there, and make a choice to ride to work. One works at TCC North Campus, one at American Airlines, one for TPS (I think). Conversely, one of our reps lives in Midtown Tulsa but works in far East Tulsa.  I think they chose to live in Midtown, for all of the reasons we all love Midtown; but their employer is not in Midtown.  They are all doing meaningful and important jobs, and we need them in our community.  They want access to the city and all of the amenities that living in a large metropolitan area provides, just like you or I.  Should they be denied this because they weighed their needs and it made sense for them to choose to live in BA, or some other place?  Are these the people we are 'screwing'?

Basically, you are saying, "you live in a car oriented environment, therefore you must drive a car."  That doesn't seem right.  It seems like we should be making it easier for those people to not have to drive a car.  It seems that 'punishing' those for living in a suburb, by not providing options to them, doesn't just punish them, Artist, it punishes us.  Worse traffic. Worse air quality. More auto driven development.  What we could be doing instead is providing a way for those who live there to live more compactly, using transit to provide more non-auto dependent mobility, to create those "brooksides" in Broken Arrow or Owasso, and to drive shorter distances (perhaps walk or bike to the transit station), to avoid idling on an expressway at 5:15 pm Thursday evening.

I understand the Kunstler argument. I really do.  But it isn't reality.  Broken Arrow, Owasso, Bixby are not going away.  BUT what happens beyond Broken Arrow and Bixby and between Owasso and Tulsa can still managed...think about that!  Is Coweta the next big thing?  It's even further than Broken Arrow from Tulsa.  How can that be influenced?  These are the questions we should be asking. Not the only questions, but some of them.

So how does this help Tulsa?  Your suggestion is that instead of rail, we spend money on neighborhood revitalization?  What do you mean?  Should the city build buildings and condos and such?  Or is that the role of the private market?

I contend that the city's role is to provide for the health, saftey and welfare of the community by providing services and infrastructure that, in turn allows for investment from the market that fill those community needs.  Investment in transit and fixed guideway transit is by no means the silver bullet for all of Tulsa's issues, but it certainly attempts to address many of them.  Our economy, our built environment, our socially and economically disadvantaged population, and our environmental needs are all impacted through such an investment.  You would be hard pressed to find an investment that crosses as many boundaries public transportation.  And from a cost-benefit standpoint, there may be no better investment.  So if you consider yourself to be a fiscal conservative, you need to take a long, hard look at how far your contribution to your communities transportation system is going currently, and then look at how far your dollar would go, in terms of return on investment, with transit.  I disagree wholeheartedly that the most cost effective solution is to do neither.  Doing nothing is exactly what got us into this 1.6 Billion dollar streets mess in the first place.

[TheArtist]

quote:Originally posted by pfox

Screw the suburbanites?

Really?

That is a hard one for me to swallow, honestly.  Not to pull a Hillary on you, but statements like that smack of elitism and is, frankly, the kind of divisive lanuguage that prevents successful collaboration, which we need as we think about managing our growth patterns.

For what it is worth, I'll use INCOG's bicycle advisory group as an example.  I have two to three representatives who live in Broken Arrow and Owasso respectively.  Why do they choose to live there?  Who knows? School choice? Affordability? A spouses' proximity to work? Regardless, they live there, and make a choice to ride to work. One works at TCC North Campus, one at American Airlines, one for TPS (I think). Conversely, one of our reps lives in Midtown Tulsa but works in far East Tulsa.  I think they chose to live in Midtown, for all of the reasons we all love Midtown; but their employer is not in Midtown.  They are all doing meaningful and important jobs, and we need them in our community.  They want access to the city and all of the amenities that living in a large metropolitan area provides, just like you or I.  Should they be denied this because they weighed their needs and it made sense for them to choose to live in BA, or some other place?  Are these the people we are 'screwing'?

 It seems that 'punishing' those for living in a suburb, by not providing options to them, doesn't just punish them, Artist, it punishes us.  Worse traffic. Worse air quality. More auto driven development.  What we could be doing instead is providing a way for those who live there to live more compactly, using transit to provide more non-auto dependent mobility, to create those "brooksides" in Broken Arrow or Owasso, and to drive shorter distances (perhaps walk or bike to the transit station), to avoid idling on an expressway at 5:15 pm Thursday evening.

I understand the Kunstler argument. I really do.  But it isn't reality.  Broken Arrow, Owasso, Bixby are not going away.  BUT what happens beyond Broken Arrow and Bixby and between Owasso and Tulsa can still managed...think about that!  Is Coweta the next big thing?  It's even further than Broken Arrow from Tulsa.  How can that be influenced?  These are the questions we should be asking. Not the only questions, but some of them.

So how does this help Tulsa?  Your suggestion is that instead of rail, we spend money on neighborhood revitalization?  What do you mean?  Should the city build buildings and condos and such?  Or is that the role of the private market?

Investment in transit and fixed guideway transit is by no means the silver bullet for all of Tulsa's issues, but it certainly attempts to address many of them.  Our economy, our built environment, our socially and economically disadvantaged population, and our environmental needs are all impacted through such an investment.  You would be hard pressed to find an investment that crosses as many boundaries public transportation.  And from a cost-benefit standpoint, there may be no better investment.  So if you consider yourself to be a fiscal conservative, you need to take a long, hard look at how far your contribution to your communities transportation system is going currently, and then look at how far your dollar would go, in terms of return on investment, with transit.  I disagree wholeheartedly that the most cost effective solution is to do neither.  Doing nothing is exactly what got us into this 1.6 Billion dollar streets mess in the first place.

I dont know how thats "elitist" lol. Its usually the suburbs who snub and look down on the city if thats what you are talking about. And frankly I dont care about the usual elitism comments I hear. Its ok to make fun of liberal, Murano driving Latte drinking city dwellers but if you dare mention a conservative, beer drinking, truck driving, bubba, your an elitist? Both are labeling. If thats who you are and thats what you like,,, great! It shouldnt be seen as a badge of disgrace. Embrace it dont be insecure about it. Someone crying "elitist!" is showing that they are insecure by indirectly saying that what the other person likes or does is seen as better or "elite". Its only seen to be that way if you choose to see it that way. Why not value who you are and what you like and do equally?

Not "screw the suburbanites" as in actively do something to hurt them, but as in, we dont need to go out or our way, or our of our pockets to pay more for their transportation and living descisions. As for pointing out the people you know that live in the suburbs, I dont know what your point was. I know lots of nice people, even some of my family that live in the suburbs. Again I dont want to HURT them but I am not going to pay extra for them. I would rather they live in town actually. And if they  drive into the city every day to work and didnt like the commute, I sure as heck wouldnt feel sorry for them, thats what they decided to do. That was their choice not mine. If they want access to the city and all its amenities, they can live here, enjoy those amenities, and work to make the city a better place. They can have meaningful and important jobs here or in the suburbs.  

........."Basically, you are saying, "you live in a car oriented environment, therefore you must drive a car."  That doesn't seem right.  It seems like we should be making it easier for those people to not have to drive a car."....

I am saying you CHOOSE to live in a car oriented environment"they arent forced to". By living in a pedestrian friendly environment they do not have to drive a car. Or will not have to drive as far and worry about traffic. Nobody is forcing anyone to drive a car, they chose to live the way they do. They are the ones making it more difficult to create pedestrian friendly environments by choosing to live in sprawling suburban areas. They are choosing to drive long distances in polluting cars hurting the environment.

One other thing, if we worked to create more dense, mixed use, urban environments through zoning and other measures... trips you do take by car wouldnt be so far.

We frankly dont have a lot of traffic anyway but the areas in which we do,, the BA during rush hour or the 71st corridor is because of a lemming effect in which so many people live in segregated areas. Live here, work over there, shop in this area. Now imagine comparing that to say a moderately dense and more mixed use area like 21st and Utica. If you lived at Utica Place or that other apartment tower, just about everything you want is right outside your door. Grocery store, bank, barber, eating establisments, shopping, beautiful parks, possibly even your work, etc. This takes away trips on the road, lessening traffic, AND what trips you do take are short and nearby. You arent traveling with a herd of other people from one spot to another spot farther away and all funneling onto the roads in those areas. The new apartments possibly going in behind the Wild Oats and Albertsons on Brookside. Possibly a couple hundred more people living in an area where they will not have to drive to a grocery store at least, other things close by, other things within a very short distance. Such that even if there is a bit more traffic, you wont have to wait long because your not going far. Plus it opens up different transportation options, walk, bike, small motorbikes "which are great for short distances in urban environments, inexpensive, environmentally friendly, easy to park, etc". Buses that we already pay for can become more used and efficient, taxis, etc.

Another thing about the traffic and density. We have many areas in the city, near highways even, like the 6th street corridor near downtown, that are practically empty and dead. I stood down there to get a pic of the area to do a rendering for the Pearl District the other day during a "peak traffic" time. Hardly a car went by. Those areas would be great to turn into another Cherry Street or Utica Square, mixed use, type area. The density of even our most dense areas is barely "medium density" let alone high density. There are many areas that dont have any density to speak of. Lets encourage those areas to be mixed use and do just as you say...."I contend that the city's role is to provide for the health, saftey and welfare of the community by providing services and infrastructure that, in turn allows for investment from the market that fill those community needs. "

Back to the suburbs again. I think they too should work to have more dense, mixed use, pedestrian friendly environments "Brooksides in Broken Arrow". People can work there doing similar jobs in those communities, shopping in those communities, etc. We wont lose population or lose good people because we will gain people who WILL live in Tulsa, work in Tulsa, shop in Tulsa. Its not a finite pie. Each is its own pie of people, jobs, etc.

Rail wont eliminate all the traffic off the BA, so it cant eliminate all pollution. Building many dense, mixed use, pedestrian friendly environments can alleviate just as much future pollution, or more, than that rail line. If they want to sit in traffic and pollute instead of creating dense, mixed use, environments. Its not something we are forcing on them. Its their choice. We and they can deter that by creating good, dense, urban environments. And if the suburban, commuter traffic does get bad, and they pollute more... Shame on them for cshoosing to do so, perhaps we should punish or tax them for that choice.


Our choice should be to create wonderful, dense, mixed use, pedestrian friendly environments all over the city. Helping to eliminate road trips, make the ones you do take shorter, encouraging walkability, biking, motorbikes, etc. You do that by zoning, Form Based Codes, excellent schools, reducing crime, creating beautiful spaces, parks, streets and sidewalks that work and encourage community,,,, and all kinds of other things that make the city a desirable place.  

The suburbs can do that as well. If people want to live in suburban sprawl, we cant stop that. We can encourage the suburbs to also create more efficient cities, or green zones perhaps, but even rail cant stop someone from building the next neighborhood off on some field if they want that lifestyle. For if they want that lifestyle instead of a more dense, urban one. They arent going to live in an urban environment whether its in the suburbs by some rail line, or the city. I dont see how you figure rail can have an influence on the "next big thing" suburban wise.  Rail does not stop sprawl in the suburbs. The suburbs can "densify" if they want to and if people want to live that way. If people want to live in a suburban environment, we can encourage them to not do so, but so many seem to want to regardless. If people want to live in good urban environments, lets make Tulsa the place of choice in the area. Not some "TOD node" on a line in the suburbs.

[Red Arrow]

Answers to most of the questions I've seen posted here are answered at the site for Light Rail Now. They are dedicated to providing accurate information on public transit. Go to www.lightrailnow.org .


Real trolleys ride on steel rails and use electric power. A vehicle with rubber tires and an internal combustion engine is a bus.  It's not a bad vehicle, it's just not a trolley.

[sgrizzle]

In my opinion, a train to BA is a bad idea. I've noticed no-one really mentions it anymore so I'm guessing others know this as well. While urban development can happen in absence of rail, a short line rail connecting dense urban and destination environments could be a big benefit. There are constant mentions of connecting riverside to downtown, rail would be a great way to do it, especially if plans to develop the west bank come to fruition. You could have an OSU/Greenwood station and ride from there to the Arena. That would give an easy connection from the East End and possibly driller's stadium to the BoK Center.

[TheArtist]

quote:Originally posted by sgrizzle

In my opinion, a train to BA is a bad idea. I've noticed no-one really mentions it anymore so I'm guessing others know this as well. While urban development can happen in absence of rail, a short line rail connecting dense urban and destination environments could be a big benefit. There are constant mentions of connecting riverside to downtown, rail would be a great way to do it, especially if plans to develop the west bank come to fruition. You could have an OSU/Greenwood station and ride from there to the Arena. That would give an easy connection from the East End and possibly driller's stadium to the BoK Center.

I agree. The West Bank to just past OSU Tulsa seems to currently offer the best synergies and potential.  But even here I would like to see cost estimates to set it up and estimates for what it would cost to maintain it.

I wish Tulsa were growing as fast as a lot of other cities that are mentioned like Dallas, Austin and Denver. Those cities caught the growth bug before rail really caught on and development happened in parts of the city that didnt have rail access, first. Those cities had dynamic areas that did not have rail. Rail does not create growth, it can draw growth to a certain area. But there has to be "growth" to draw from. Just like there is a draw now for developers to build near Brookside and Cherry Street and to some small amount areas in and around downtown. I still do not see that we are at the point where we have the growth, and the growth in type of people who want to live in say midrise condo buildings in urban environments. There are plenty of areas where those types of places could go, but yet we arent seeing a push for that type of development. Heck even Brookside and Cherry Street still arent exactly booming with even small stuff. Not like similar areas in those before mentioned cities. Those cities became a draw for other reasons, it wasnt because of rail. We need to work on those other reasons first. Then when be start rockin and rollin development wise THEN you can add the rail and reasonably expect to get good TOD. Just like they said we woud get all this neat stuff by the Arena, and it does happen in other cities, it hasnt because we still arent growing and attracting people like those other cities. The demand isnt there.

Look at that Bomasada development in Brookside. He was having a hard time making the numbers work. They crunched the numbers, looked at demand, demographics etc and figured they can only get so much for their residences. That development is nothing like in those other cities. Yet even in one of our most desirable areas for urban dwellers to want to move... developers are pushing it to build something cheap eonough to sell, yet nice enough to be a draw with the demand that we have. Our demand for that type of living still isnt that strong. We still do not have enough of the types of people with good paying jobs to create that demand. If there were the demand like there was in Denver, Dallas, and Austin we would see some towers going up. Or at least certainly more smaller 4 and 5 story developments. Plus those cities can draw from a larger population, city and metro, to attract the kind of people who want more dense urban living. OKC does not have rail yet they are out doing us on development. They created the environment that attracts those types of people in another way. Though even they are stagnant compared to Austin, Dallas and Denver.

 Once an area gets started with enough critical mass, if there is demand, it will grow to meet that demand. 6th street near Peoria could be another place to help get that critical mass, once you get even a few small businesses and shops in an area and it looks attractive, then developers will start moving in. Unlike Brookside for instance you can build much taller near 6th street and if the market is there to pay for that type of development it will occur. It would already BE occuring in other parts in and around downtown if there was a market for it.

Sticking a rail in some where will not make the market. The market has to be there first.  And if there is the market for it we have places that should already attract it and thus should be seeing more of that type of growth, I am not seeing it. We should be seeing it already in at least some minor form some place in the city. The growth we have seen so far is pitiful. I am thankful for every tiny bit we get. But the demand just doesnt seem to be there even in the areas where we would be seeing it first . We got a ways to go. Heck I would be thrilled to catch up to OKC.

Even our suburbs arent growing that much. They seem like it because of "percentage" growth. They are so small to begin with it doesnt take much to have a large percentage. But actual population growth, our area is still stagnant. Rail wont help spur that population growth either.

[pfox]

I know you aren't an 'elitist' Artist.  I have met you... I hope you didn't take that as a personal attack.  I meant the language you were using sounded elitist.

I feel like we are talking past each other a little here.  I think we are on the same page, roughly, about what kinds of environments we are trying to create as we attempt to revitalize our city.

Where we differ is in our opinion regarding approach, the method itself on how to accomplish this.  Fair enough.  I look forward to this dialogue, and I am glad you are participating.

Let me throw another issue into the mix, and that is housing costs.  This issue is just beyond the horizon for Tulsa, and as we create value in our core neighborhoods, what was once 'affordable' housing will likely no longer be without a concerted effort to preserve some of that housing for lower to middle income households.  I bring this up, because this is one of the reasons people "choose" where they live.  I use that term loosely, because not everybody has a "choice".  So, thinking about that, how should we ensure that these great neighborhoods and commercial districts remain accessible to the broad economic stratum of our population?

In the meantime here is some light reading for your enjoyment:

By the Center for Housing Policy with partner the Center for Neighborhood Technology:

http://nhc.org/pdf/pub_heavy_load_10_06.pdf

and from Chapter 2 of "Realizing the Potential: Expanding Housing Opportunities Near Transit"
Reconnecting America's Center for Transit-Oriented Development for FTA and HUD:

http://www.reconnectingamerica.org/public/download/rtp4



This new national study funded by the Federal Transit Administration and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development shows that location matters a great deal when it comes to reducing household costs. While families who live in auto-dependent neighborhoods spend an average of 25 percent of their household budget on transportation, families who live in transit-rich neighborhoods spend just 9 percent, the study says. The report examines five case study regions – Boston, Charlotte, Denver, Minneapolis, and Portland -- to better understand the proactive strategies being undertaken to create and preserve affordable housing near transit.

[PonderInc]

Heard an interesting story on NPR this morning.  It seems that in cities around the country, housing prices are falling (and construction has crashed) in areas that require long commutes.  

Where is housing strong?  In places close to work centers AND in locations close to TRANSIT.  These areas continue to see growth, and the builders predict it will remain strong in coming years.  

Statistics show a growing "childless" population (aging baby boomers, YPs, double-income-no-kids--etc).  These are folks who don't want the big house/big yard model.  What they DO value is more time, greater convenience and the ability to get to work and entertainment centers quickly.  Also, people have learned that they may save money on a mortgage by being far from the city core, but they spend more than they save on transportation.  

Many Tulsans will say that our commute times are "not that bad" compared to other cities.  The thing about planning for the future is that the future is not the past.  It's not the present.  It will be different.  In Tulsa we can expect to see a 36% increase in vehicle miles traveled by 2030.  During that time, we will expand our arterial roads and highways by 13%.  You do the math.

While the NPR story was not specific to transit, it makes several points that support the need for TOD planning. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=89803663

[pfox]

On that note...one of the speakers at the event will be Sonya Lopez, Station Area Planning project manager in Austin Texas. She will introduce Austin's Transit Oriented Development Program, which officially began in May 2005. She will outline the framework TOD ordinance that was approved on this date and the process for developing station area plans. She will highlight elements of the on-going station area planning process for three urban core TOD Districts, emphasizing the diversity of public opinion expressed and the challenges of providing affordable housing in station areas.

This is incredibly relevant for us, as, potentially, these lines travel through a variety of neighborhoods.  Suburban, employment based areas, light industrial, established Midtown neighborhoods, targeted redevelopment areas (Sixth Street, West Bank...).