What About Rail?

[booWorld]

Density is relevant to a healthy, public discussion about rail transit.

Many Tulsans enjoy low density development.

[citizen72]

It quite simply distills to one basis planning consideration. "The defined infrastructure model of a given locale governs the conveyance for that given area." To try to artificially impose a system that does not satisfy the given locale or regional needs is inviting disaster and failure. We can talk about it until the sky is purple, but it will not alter the basic facts. Basic Urban Planning 101. Further, to say density plays no part in this is folly.

[Chicken Little]

I'm not an expert.  What I am is a guy who recognizes a bad argument.  Bates says Tulsa, as it exists in this brief moment in time, does not have the density to support trains.  So?  Can't we change?  Why shouldn't we study our options?

Bates accurately observes that Tulsa is mostly a sprawling and inefficient city.  Whether we have trains or not, if development patterns stay the same, then we are going to continue to pay a steep price.  Sprawl costs money: high taxes to maintain inordinate amounts of infrastructure; extra fuel to get from places that should be accessible through walking and mass transit; productivity lost behind the wheel; and even added health care costs for a society that walks too little and drives too much.  It all adds up.

Citizen schools us, "The defined infrastructure model of a given locale governs the conveyance for that given area."  That sounds awfully fatalistic...and static.  Tulsa is different than it was 30 years ago.  I remember.  And it will be different again in another 30 years.  Tulsa is constantly changing.  So why shouldn't we be figuring out how to shape that change into something that is more efficient, and more sustainable?  It's healthy, both for our city and its people.  Nobody wants to gut every neighborhood, but there are plenty of places that, if given a choice, would love to change.

I'm not a frickin' ideologue, Conan.  You don't have to feel guilty about sprawl as long as you recognize the choices and are willing to pay the premium without *****ing.  If planning is figuring what we want and how to make it work, then I'm all for planning.  If your game plan is to pay more, then I say that's a fine plan.  But it probably isn't for everyone.

Problem is, Bates doesn't want to pay the premium and doesn't want us to study our options.  He seems to want to throw spitballs at every idea that comes down the pike.  That's his prerogative, of course.  But, is that planning?

[booWorld]

I looked at BatesLine.com today.  Michael Bates has posted information about the "What About RAIL?" open house on the 24th.  He also posted links to Paul Weyrich's column supporting electric trolleys.

How many Tulsans have blogs, and of those, how many posted any reference at all to the "What About RAIL?" open house?

If I didn't want Tulsans to study their transit options, then I would not devote time and effort blogging about an open house inviting the public to begin a dialogue on the subject.  That would not be logical.

[TheArtist]

I will be interested to hear peoples reactions to what Jack Crowley has to say. I was at a meeting with him a couple weeks ago. He said some things that made a lot of sense. He isnt talking about a BA to Tulsa rail or a Jenks to Tulsa rail. Dont remember what parts of the meeting I can talk about and cant, so I am not going to say anymore lol. Cant say what could be, but can say what wont be. There wont be any need to worry about "Mid Town elitists not wanting density" because the rail wont be near them either.

However the person who did talk about a future rail between Tulsa and BA, year 2035, did point out what its currently costing to finish widening I44, 320 million for 3 miles. Thats 100 mill a mile. If the BA corridor ever needs widening because of increased traffic flow... "Does anyone believe that it wont have increased traffic and will not need to be widened?" then widening 14 miles of the BA would easily cost a looooot more than a rail line would. That line is a long range plan but it is wise to have that plan in place so that during the time before the rail actually goes in place you can zone and plan for dense development around the station nodes. Also developers will be more likely to invest in those areas because they know that rail is an investment, and unlike bus routes which can be changed, the rail line isnt budging. The developer knows that city investment is staying there and enables him to more securely invest there. Yes there are people in this town who want to live in urban environments and use rail. And there will likely be more in the future as Tulsa evolves into a more urban city.



Here is another completely different notion.... Lets say you have a destination point, or more, a lot of people will be visiting for events or whatever. Say there isnt "enough parking". Say your thinking about building a parking garage. Cost easily 12 mill? Say you have a line already in place practically right next door to some of these destinations and also areas with looots of available parking. That right there could be a nice little incentive to utilize that rail, even if the rail line you would be using is only a mile long, rather than build the parking garage. You could also see other development go in around that rail line to utilize either end of it and the stops.  Lets say that the city owned a good chunk of property at an end point. An area thats currently underdeveloped. Whatever is developed on that property, a hotel as one example, would have a tiny portion of its profits go to help maintain the rail investment. Once that area developes sufficiently you could extend the route a little bit further to the next area for development that also happens to be on the line. Incrementally expanding the line little by little.... Just a very vague notion. Hope I dont get killed. [8D]

[booWorld]

Tulsa has had railroads for more than a century.  But we haven't had passenger rail service for decades.  The low demand for passenger rail service doesn't justify the expense.

How much will a rail system for Tulsa cost, and who will pay for it?  
Who will benefit from a rail system and how?  
Where will the stations be?  
When will the trains run, and who will operate the rail system?
Who will set the fares, and how much will they be?
How many Tulsans will live or work within a 10 minute walk of a train station?

[citizen72]

Well think monorail or a derivative of it and you will have a mass people mover that will fit into the infrastructure of Tulsa. Relatively cheap to build and by its nature can executed repeated stops servicing scattered density centers.  

Think of it, a configuration that ties all the major density nodes together. Nodes that would include commercial as well as sports centers. Of course a logical extension would be to include other density centers such as the surrounding towns.

[Chicken Little]

quote:Originally posted by booWorld

I looked at BatesLine.com today.  Michael Bates has posted information about the "What About RAIL?" open house on the 24th.  He also posted links to Paul Weyrich's column supporting electric trolleys.

How many Tulsans have blogs, and of those, how many posted any reference at all to the "What About RAIL?" open house?

If I didn't want Tulsans to study their transit options, then I would not devote time and effort blogging about an open house inviting the public to begin a dialogue on the subject.  That would not be logical.

Oh, please.  He's not encouraging anyone to go to the "What about Rail?" event, he's simply using the notice as a springboard for yet another post that tells us we'd rather drive.

In his January column, Bates said that light rail in Tulsa would be a colossal waste of money.  He doesn't want us to "tie ourselves to the train tracks" (heh.) and has said as much.

[si_uk_lon_ok]

quote:Originally posted by Chicken Little

quote:Originally posted by booWorld

I looked at BatesLine.com today.  Michael Bates has posted information about the "What About RAIL?" open house on the 24th.  He also posted links to Paul Weyrich's column supporting electric trolleys.

How many Tulsans have blogs, and of those, how many posted any reference at all to the "What About RAIL?" open house?

If I didn't want Tulsans to study their transit options, then I would not devote time and effort blogging about an open house inviting the public to begin a dialogue on the subject.  That would not be logical.

Oh, please.  He's not encouraging anyone to go to the "What about Rail?" event, he's simply using the notice as a springboard for yet another post that tells us we'd rather drive.

In his January column, Bates said that light rail in Tulsa would be a colossal waste of money.  He doesn't want us to "tie ourselves to the train tracks" (heh.) and has said as much.

Didn't we have some massive thread going about that? I seem to remember the general conclusion was rail could work (although there was pages of chicken and egg arguments over should density come first or follow) and that Bates was peddling a poor quality transit system (Jitneys).

[booWorld]

quote:Problem is, Bates doesn't want to pay the premium and doesn't want us to study our options.  He seems to want to throw spitballs at every idea that comes down the pike.  That's his prerogative, of course.  But, is that planning?

Neighborhood Conservation Districts?

Prop 1 on the ballot last week?

Prop 2 on the ballot last week?

Councilor Martinson's ideas for funding streets?

Annexation of the fairgrounds?

[booWorld]

quote:Oh, please.  He's not encouraging anyone to go to the "What about Rail?" event, he's simply using the notice as a springboard for yet another post that tells us we'd rather drive.

Possibly correct.  Possibly wrong.

Regardless, dissenting opinions ought to be allowed as part of an open, public dialogue.

I wonder how many local websites are read as much as BatesLine.com?  Of those, how many made any mention at all of the "What About RAIL?" open house?  How many posted opinions contrary to those of the website's owner, as Michael Bates did?

[T-TownMike]

Bates is all about making a name for himself, he doesn't actually put Tulsa's best interest in mind and he's far from being an expert on city matters. I would consider Bates irrelevant to the discussion and more of a ruse to hide behind.

[Renaissance]

You all are talking past each other.  

No one is proposing that Tulsa suddenly become encrusted with light rail lines going up and down each arterial, or that Tulsans are suddenly going to give up their cars.

The suggestion on the table is that Tulsans could benefit from one or two light rail/commuter rail lines.

There should be no questions that Tulsans should ride these lines.  They get ridden--if you think they'll stay empty, you either haven't traveled to Dallas, Houston, Denver or Atlanta, or your are purposefully obscuring facts about "average Tulsans."

The real question is practicality and money.  How feasible are multiple lines?  How expensive would they be?  How long would it take?  Where would the first lines be?  Would they be commuter-based or mostly in-town?  That's what I hope would be addressed at these forums.  

The question is not "to be or not to be," but how.  You people are trying to make this into some sort of ideological question and it's impossible not to get frustrated.

[MichaelBates]

Chicken Little,

As I've said before, I like using rail. I didn't have a car in college, and I depended on the MBTA's network of streetcars, subways, and buses, our fraternity's informal jitney service between the house and campus two miles away, and my own two feet to get around.

I didn't have a car for the summer I spent in Manila, either. Although they had a single rail line connecting the airport to downtown, it didn't go near the house or the campus. Instead, I depended on a network of privately owned buses and jeepneys to get me around.

Back then, I was navigating the public transport network on my own. I could easily tolerate walking a mile in whatever kind of weather between the subway station or bus stop and where I needed to go. Walking the two or three miles between home and campus or work, at a 4 mph clip, was always an option if I had to wait too long for a streetcar or a bus.

Now, a quarter of a century later as a dad with three kids, I can't hit 4 mph walking speed very often, particularly if I have to lug a 30 lb. two-year-old whose legs are tired. If I were to try to manage getting a family around town without a car, it would be crucial that every place I needed to go were within at most a quarter-mile of public transport.

I don't see the advocates of rail in Tulsa, such as yourself, addressing the practical issues I encountered as a public transport user.

You and others seem to be saying that the presence of commuter rail will eventually result in nodes of high-density, pedestrian-friendly, transit-oriented development that will make it possible for people to live most of their lives without a car. In the scenario you seem to propose, everything will be within easy walking distance of the stations, and you won't have to cross massive parking lots on foot to get between the street and the front door of a store.

What I don't hear from you is any attempt to explain how people, particularly families with small children, get from home to work to school to shopping to the doctor's office via public transport between now and when your glorious future is realized.

I want to know how you propose to make it convenient enough for people, particularly families with small children, to use public transport of any form to get where they need to go, convenient enough to forgo using their own cars.

I'd especially like to know, Chicken Little, whether you have any personal experience living without a car for more than a year.

I do not want to see Tulsa spend tens or hundreds of millions on a rail line with three trains a day before we explore more modest and practical ways of providing public transport to far more people.

[TheArtist]

Seems to work in Dallas. Most of the areas there also arent places where you can live without a car. What do the people who ride those lines do with their kids?

Again. What Tulsa will be talking about is a small starter line. Not something that will service all of Tulsa and that you will use to get to every single place you would want to go to. It would help in the creation of walkable districts, alleviating trips, help with the revitalization of severely underutilized areas within the city and encourage those areas to be redeveloped in a more urban manner.

We just had someone point out something very important. We dont want to build any more parking garages downtown. We want to have people walking. I pointed out earlier that a BA or Jenks line is not likely to happen anytime soon and they arent the first line that Tulsa will likely see. There are ways to get things started that wouldnt cost as much as people think.


Does anyone who went to the meeting with Jack Crowley remember what we can talk about pertaining to rail? If Bates would show up at TN meetings once in a while he would know whats going on rather than rattling on about stuff thats has no relation to whats being worked on. []