What About Rail?

[booWorld]

There has been a trend to down-zone in central Tulsa neighborhoods to promote lower densities, not higher densities.

Midtown is mostly zoned for low densities already.

The Pearl District is planning on much higher densities, and yes, their neighborhood plan indicates an interest in a future rail stop.  But residents of the Pearl District need and want to go where?

Rail transit could work, but who's going to pay for it?  Who will benefit from it?  Unless our settlement patterns change dramatically, most Tulsans won't live or work near a train station.  Most existing train tracks run through low density areas zoned for industry.

[Renaissance]

Pop into Dallas sometime and I'll show you full rail lines in a city more dramatically sprawled than Tulsa will ever be.  

You are letting your preconceived opinions blind you to what is possible.  I don't know that Tulsa needs rail, or that it would be cost-effective.  But I'm sure people would use it.

[Chicken Little]

quote:Originally posted by booWorld

There has been a trend to down-zone in central Tulsa neighborhoods to promote lower densities, not higher densities.

Midtown is mostly zoned for low densities already.

The Pearl District is planning on much higher densities, and yes, their neighborhood plan indicates an interest in a future rail stop.  But residents of the Pearl District need and want to go where?

Rail transit could work, but who's going to pay for it?  Who will benefit from it?  Unless our settlement patterns change dramatically, most Tulsans won't live or work near a train station.  Most existing train tracks run through low density areas zoned for industry.

I suspect that you are being intentionally obtuse.  I've refuted your argument thoroughly...twice.  MOST of Tulsa, and most Tulsans, could have a sustainable train system with transit-oriented development even if fussy midtown and south Tulsa reject the two-fold strategy of trains and development.

[booWorld]

I'm sure people would use rail.  But how many?  And at what cost to those people who wouldn't or couldn't use rail?

Let's keep our minds open to the possibility that many Tulsans don't want to pay for a rail system and don't want to be in dense urban settings.

Remember that virtually everything we have now was planned:  the streets, the railroads, the low density zoning.  Someone must have wanted low densities.  

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by Chicken Little

quote:Originally posted by booWorld

There has been a trend to down-zone in central Tulsa neighborhoods to promote lower densities, not higher densities.

Midtown is mostly zoned for low densities already.

The Pearl District is planning on much higher densities, and yes, their neighborhood plan indicates an interest in a future rail stop.  But residents of the Pearl District need and want to go where?

Rail transit could work, but who's going to pay for it?  Who will benefit from it?  Unless our settlement patterns change dramatically, most Tulsans won't live or work near a train station.  Most existing train tracks run through low density areas zoned for industry.

I suspect that you are being intentionally obtuse.  I've refuted your argument thoroughly...twice.  MOST of Tulsa, and most Tulsans, could have a sustainable train system with transit-oriented development even if fussy midtown and south Tulsa reject the two-fold strategy of trains and development.

I don't think Boo is being obtuse, your view isn't necessarily the only correct one when it comes to development.

One of the attractions to living in the central plains is that single family housing is a lot more afforadable than in denser urban areas in the midwest or on the coasts.  At least, that's always been attractive to me.  I like not living on top of my neighbor and shouldn't be made to feel like a selfish SOB for wanting to live in single-family housing.

I don't think the cost of dirt has gotten high enough yet that all that many people care to live on top of each other in Tulsa yet like they do in other cities where the price of land is un-Godly high.  That day may eventually come, considering all developable land between Tulsa and our neighboring cities is getting closer and closer to being swallowed up.

Inner city neighborhoods which have not been as well maintained, like the Pearl could be ripe for denser infill.

I'd tend to agree that putting the transportation infrastructure ahead of business and residential development districts would be a novel change for Tulsa.  That is one of the things we have always suffered from.  Traffic capacity of our roads has always seemed to lag by 10 to 20 years behind the demand.

[booWorld]

My view of development is not necessarily the only correct one, either.  I'm an urbanist, or at least I try to be in Tulsa's rather anti-urban environment.  I purchased property within walking distance of the river and downtown.  The apartments and the RM zoning in my neighborhood did not bother me, but they must have bothered some people at INCOG, because they pushed and pushed to have the allowed density of my property down-zoned by a factor of 11.  I was satisfied with the allowed density as it was.  INCOG wasn't.  They thought I'd be better off with the lower density zoning.  I tried to explain how higher density was required to sustain a mass transit system.  That didn't matter to them.  Their response was to push for the down-zoning of my property against my wishes.  

"What about rail?"  Is that what INCOG's asking now?  

That's interesting.  I remember when their question was, "What about down-zoning?"  I let my thoughts be known, but INCOG had other ideas -- pre-conceived ideas about the answer to their question.  I didn't approach the subject with a closed mind.  They did.

INCOG got there way.  My property was down-zoned against my wishes on an [8D]zone Alert! day.  I walked to my home in defeat.  My guess is that they all drove, individually, to theirs.

[Transport_Oklahoma]

This is about the future -what the Tulsa area will be, not what it is now.  

Any plan that is developed now won't come to fruition for quite some time.

Consider the price of gasoline and diesel when you evaluate transit.

The plug-in hybrid Chevrolet Volt is now expected to cost at least $40,000.  

[booWorld]

Plans for the future are based on the realities of the present.  We won't be starting from scratch.

Consider the suburban mindset of the TMAPC and many Tulsans when evaluating transportation plans.  

What about reality?

[citizen72]

quote:Originally posted by Chicken Little

quote:Originally posted by booWorld

There has been a trend to down-zone in central Tulsa neighborhoods to promote lower densities, not higher densities.

Midtown is mostly zoned for low densities already.

The Pearl District is planning on much higher densities, and yes, their neighborhood plan indicates an interest in a future rail stop.  But residents of the Pearl District need and want to go where?

Rail transit could work, but who's going to pay for it?  Who will benefit from it?  Unless our settlement patterns change dramatically, most Tulsans won't live or work near a train station.  Most existing train tracks run through low density areas zoned for industry.

I suspect that you are being intentionally obtuse.  I've refuted your argument thoroughly...twice.  MOST of Tulsa, and most Tulsans, could have a sustainable train system with transit-oriented development even if fussy midtown and south Tulsa reject the two-fold strategy of trains and development.

And, you sir are obviously in return being selectively obtuse. You completely ignore basic planning facts related to rapid transit and density nodes. Choosing to ignore or put aside these basic planning facts you garner up all kinds of positions to support your flawed premise(s). It gets down to you debating just to debate with no clear objective in mind.

A rail system would not work in Tulsa to service the city limits of Tulsa. It might work to some degree when servicing surrounding communities, but then again they tried that years ago. It all became defunct.

[si_uk_lon_ok]

quote:Originally posted by citizen72

quote:Originally posted by Chicken Little

quote:Originally posted by booWorld

There has been a trend to down-zone in central Tulsa neighborhoods to promote lower densities, not higher densities.

Midtown is mostly zoned for low densities already.

The Pearl District is planning on much higher densities, and yes, their neighborhood plan indicates an interest in a future rail stop.  But residents of the Pearl District need and want to go where?

Rail transit could work, but who's going to pay for it?  Who will benefit from it?  Unless our settlement patterns change dramatically, most Tulsans won't live or work near a train station.  Most existing train tracks run through low density areas zoned for industry.

I suspect that you are being intentionally obtuse.  I've refuted your argument thoroughly...twice.  MOST of Tulsa, and most Tulsans, could have a sustainable train system with transit-oriented development even if fussy midtown and south Tulsa reject the two-fold strategy of trains and development.

And, you sir are obviously in return being selectively obtuse. You completely ignore basic planning facts related to rapid transit and density nodes. Choosing to ignore or put aside these basic planning facts you garner up all kinds of positions to support your flawed premise(s). It gets down to you debating just to debate with no clear objective in mind.

A rail system would not work in Tulsa to service the city limits of Tulsa. It might work to some degree when servicing surrounding communities, but then again they tried that years ago. It all became defunct.

Maybe Tulsa would be better suited to Personal Rapid Transit.

[tulsasignnazi]

quote:Originally posted by si_uk_lon_ok

Maybe Tulsa would be better suited to Personal Rapid Transit.

Oh, fo' shure!  It's on TWO wheels and works great for Santa.

[si_uk_lon_ok]

quote:Originally posted by tulsasignnazi

quote:Originally posted by si_uk_lon_ok

Maybe Tulsa would be better suited to Personal Rapid Transit.

Oh, fo' shure!  It's on TWO wheels and works great for Santa.

Lol

Well thats one form of PRT. I think INCOG should get a PRT study done though before rushing into rail.

[T-TownMike]

Tulsans just don't have it in them to think big. They want nice things but when it comes time to pay up, they look for every excuse to not go through with progress. Mass transit helps in many facets, one of the biggest being less wear and tear on the roads. Another, is it brings masses in to spend money and increase tax revenue, but Tulsans don't actually want something that will benefit them and improve the city's coffers. Why move forward when you can poo poo everything to death and save pennies for that rainy day? Those extra pennies sure will help you.

[booWorld]

quote:Tulsans just don't have it in them to think big.

That depends.  In terms of required setbacks and minimum lot sizes, many Tulsans love to think big.  Bigger is better.

In terms of allowed density, many Tulsans want to think small.  They want lower densities.

[T-TownMike]

quote:Originally posted by booWorld

quote:Tulsans just don't have it in them to think big.

That depends.  In terms of required setbacks and minimum lot sizes, many Tulsans love to think big.  Bigger is better.

In terms of allowed density, many Tulsans want to think small.  They want lower densities.

How irrelevant.