What About Rail?

[citizen72]

Interesting article discussing light rail and monorail. There seems to be a wide diversity of positions.

light rail vs monorail"]

[Renaissance]

quote:Originally posted by TheArtist

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.

The Jenks and BA lines are the only ones that have been publicly discussed.  It would be useful if folks in the know could throw out some other possibilities--I understand that this symposium may be where this occurs.  But it would certainly help inform the public dialogue.  From where I stand, those commuter lines make the most sense, and light rail from scratch makes the least.  Enlighten me.

[tulsasignnazi]

quote:Originally posted by MichaelBates
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.

How to Move Around Small Kids in the Post-Fossil Fueled Tulsa, Without Really Trying:





How to Move Kids Around Town in a DOWNPOUR.

[si_uk_lon_ok]

quote:Originally posted by 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.

Michael, while I realize you directed that question to Chicken Little it was me and him that had the massive post on your last article in January about the ideas of Jitneys.

I've been very lucky to live somewhere where I don't need a car and have done so now for around six years. For some background, I live in a neighborhood near to both rail and a subway station with good bus links. The density of the neighborhood is around 37 dwelling units an acre. There are no garages and parking is horizontal to the street and there is a lot of free spaces. This neighborhood includes, due to its density, supermarkets, post offices, dentists, cafes, shops, schools, doctors, dry cleaners absolutely everything I need in the average day in a three minute walk. In my neighborhood lives a wide range of people young and old and they all get on with their lives absolutely fine. I think Michael you could happily live in my neighborhood and never use your car. Millions of people cope without a car everyday all around the world, I see no reason why Tulsans can't. Besides pt is in addition to the car anyway, it means people can become a two car family rather than three and four.

I think you are asking, please correct me if I'm wrong, how pt would work in a non mixed use environment. And you are right it would involve many trips, however in the mixed use neighborhood, you can drop the kids off at school on the way to work and go grocery shopping on the way home from the subway. It would all be very convenient.

I really think the issue with pt and Tulsa is, almost no one has a real experience of it. You included, you know how to ride it, but university is a rather unique time of our lives. People don't really get the benefits of density and mixed use as very few people really know what its like. This I think is one of the real barriers in this discussion. I think we need to raise awareness on what pt can be like and the benefits it can bring.

In my experience, I've noticed that kids who live in urban areas and children in rural areas are the ones who tire the least when it comes to walking. Its the suburban child who is ferried everywhere that wears out after a block.

[RecycleMichael]

I agree that a trainride would be difficult if I was lugging around young children to a stop each day. But I would ride one to work each day and would love to have a park and ride option for downtown events.

I am a neophyte on this topic and I hope to learn from both perspectives on this thread. I plan to attend the forum on the 24th.

I too worry about spending millions on a rail system that I would probably not use often, but if it spurred quality urban redevelopment, I would support it.

[tulsasignnazi]

quote:Originally posted by RecycleMichael

I too worry about spending millions on a rail system that I would probably not use often, but if it spurred quality urban redevelopment, I would support it.

Rail does NOT spur urban redevelopment.  It does a great job of cannibalizing bus ridership.

[booWorld]

quote:...I live in a neighborhood near to both rail and a subway station with good bus links. The density of the neighborhood is around 37 dwelling units an acre...

Interesting.  When I purchased my property near downtown Tulsa, it was already developed with a mixture of single-family and multi-family dwellings at a density of approximately 12 dwelling units per acre.  My property was zoned for a maximum of 29.25 dwelling units per acre (without a PUD).  INCOG decided that it needed to be re-zoned to a maximum allowable density of 2.66 dwelling units per acre by right, and 5.32 dwelling units per acre by special exception.

These kinds of low densities can't sustain a city with a viable mass transit system, but INCOG staff insisted on pushing the re-zoning of my property, even though I didn't request it.

What type of rail system are we talking about for Tulsa?  How much will it cost?  Where will the corridors be?  Who will pay for it and how?

[tulsasignnazi]

quote:Originally posted by booWorld

What type of rail system are we talking about for Tulsa?  How much will it cost?  Where will the corridors be?  Who will pay for it and how?

INCOG Manhattan Construction et al:  How MUCH can we scam from taxpayers?

Tulsa motorists who VOTE:  UP yours.

[si_uk_lon_ok]

quote:Originally posted by tulsasignnazi

quote:Originally posted by RecycleMichael

I too worry about spending millions on a rail system that I would probably not use often, but if it spurred quality urban redevelopment, I would support it.

Rail does NOT spur urban redevelopment.  It does a great job of cannibalizing bus ridership.

I've never heard of that institute or that conclusion. It goes against most conventional wisdom in the transport sector.

For buses and rail to work together they should feed into one another. Buses can't compete against the speed of trains, but rail has much less coverage, when you integrate them you have a functioning transit system.

[si_uk_lon_ok]

quote:Originally posted by booWorld

quote:...I live in a neighborhood near to both rail and a subway station with good bus links. The density of the neighborhood is around 37 dwelling units an acre...

Interesting.  When I purchased my property near downtown Tulsa, it was already developed with a mixture of single-family and multi-family dwellings at a density of approximately 12 dwelling units per acre.  My property was zoned for a maximum of 29.25 dwelling units per acre (without a PUD).  INCOG decided that it needed to be re-zoned to a maximum allowable density of 2.66 dwelling units per acre by right, and 5.32 dwelling units per acre by special exception.

These kinds of low densities can't sustain a city with a viable mass transit system, but INCOG staff insisted on pushing the re-zoning of my property, even though I didn't request it.

What type of rail system are we talking about for Tulsa?  How much will it cost?  Where will the corridors be?  Who will pay for it and how?

I can't suggest something really. It would need to be the result of a study and a cost benefit analysis. However that cost benefit analysis absolutely should take into account the benefits of agglomeration. I'm just saying rail can work, has worked and will work in the future. It spurs development that most people when they see it find attractive. I think it provides a good solution to Tulsa, one that can focus development within city boundaries, reduce the need for acres of parking and reduce the need to widen roads.

[booWorld]

quote: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. []

Is this what we call an open, public dialogue in Tulsa?

Are the discussions about some sort of rail transit system that will be subsidized with public funding?  Or is it to be a privately financed and operated rail system?

It is difficult to discuss something that's so ill-defined.  If the BA route isn't a priority, then why did Tulsa Transit bother spending $90,000 to study it?

If a line to Jenks isn't likely to happen anytime soon, then why did INCOG staff appear recently on the news to talk about it?  Why was a thread begun on this forum about it?

[tulsasignnazi]

quote:Originally posted by si_uk_lon_ok
For buses and rail to work together they should feed into one another. Buses can't compete against the speed of trains, but rail has much less coverage, when you integrate them you have a functioning transit system.

Santa could beat INTER-city rail, from ANY given Point A to ANY given Point B, within City limits.  

The problem is really not speed of the rolling stock.  The problem is the number of stops, headway spacing, and transfers.

The effective speed limit WITHIN City limits is 25 mph, given the number of signalized intersections AND their timing.  

In a race between Tulsa Transit and a bicycle, between 41st/Yale and Downtown, Santa would win by AT LEAST 15 minutes.

Assuming I lose the naysaying posture on rail, I'd go for INTRA-city rail, with DE-regulated, INTER-city bus, aka Sons of T-Town Trolley.  But, when gas hits $6, bikes will beat that scenario.

[si_uk_lon_ok]

quote:Originally posted by tulsasignnazi

quote:Originally posted by si_uk_lon_ok
For buses and rail to work together they should feed into one another. Buses can't compete against the speed of trains, but rail has much less coverage, when you integrate them you have a functioning transit system.

I bet Santa could beat INTER-city rail, from ANY given Point A to ANY given Point B.  

The problem is really not speed of the rolling stock.  The problem is the number of stops, headway spacing, and transfers.

The effective speed limit WITHIN City limits is 25 mph, given the number of signalized intersections AND their timing.  

In a race between Tulsa Transit and a bicycle, between 41st/Yale and Downtown, Santa would win by AT LEAST 15 minutes.

I bet you could, but am I right in saying you were in the marines? I would have also have read the morning newspaper, arrived nice and cool and not have eaten some flies. I'd also have done no exercise and thus be nearer my heart attack, so its horses for courses.

You are right, more stops means slower trains, thats why having bike racks and bus stops at stations is important. That allows the catchment area of the station to be widened.

I think cycling should be part of any mass transit strategy. I'd like to see the minimum number of car parking spaces swapped with a minimum number of cycle racks and the car parking requirement completely scrapped. I think the city should be safe for all cyclists, but remembering that not everyone can or wants to cycle.

[tulsasignnazi]

quote:Originally posted by si_uk_lon_ok
I think cycling should be part of any mass transit strategy. I'd like to see the minimum number of car parking spaces swapped with a minimum number of cycle racks and the car parking requirement completely scrapped. I think the city should be safe for all cyclists, but remembering that not everyone can or wants to cycle.

Why wouldn't EVERYONE want to cycle?  Works great for Santa.

City streets are ALREADY as safe for bicycling as they are EVER going to be.  If that were NOT the case, don'tcha think Santa would have been smashed into a two-mile long BLOODY mess on the Broken Arrow Expressway a long time ago?

The problem with Tulsa streets?  Santa gets kinda lonely on the BA.

[TheArtist]

Seems to me that if your going to do rail. Even in a small area of the city. You cant do it in a vacuum. We have to have other policies that say...no more widening of roads and commuter highways, and other policies that encourage high density development, less parking, etc.

If you dont do those things rail will likely fail in the slow growing environment that Tulsa has. Dallas is fast growing and has a lot more density than Tulsa as a result. We dont have that fast growing luxury. Things just kind of plod along here. And it may not "plod along" in the direction we want it to unless we knuckle down and do what we have to to make Tulsa more dense and walkable and not feed the car culture. Otherwise we may very well end up like those other cities that have rail stations with nothing around them. I like to imagine we can have TOD but there is no certainty of it, the amount of it, or the timescale we would be looking at for a good amount of it to occur. However doing things to change the car culture, in at least part of the city, would go a long way to encourage the kind of development and density we need. It cant just be by itself and I will not support it until those other things happen first.

But then the next thought I have is, Why bother period? If what we are shooting for is high density urban villages where you walk to most of your destinations... well then everything you need is near enough to you so you dont need either a car or rail, you walk or bike. On the occasion you want to go to the PAC, Arena, Baseball game, etc. you drive, taxi, bus or "jitney". The only call I can see for rail, if we were to get that kind of walkable density we want, is for commuting. But here again, growing walkable areas will alleviate traffic by eliminating trips "if you live and work in the same area, like downtown, then no problem". However, If the traffic is bad, people can either move closer to work or we encourage density in other areas as well so that where the person lives they are also likely to work, shop etc. If your stuck in a long commute, tough luck, it was your choice. The city saves money on not widening roads or building a rail. You get more tax money for other things per square mile because of added density. I say focus on creating beautiful, high density, walkable districts and if you have the itch to do something and spend some money spend it on that, not rail, widening roads or parking. If you get more people living downtown and near downtown, then they can work there as well. No need for ME to pay extra for those who wish to commute, it wasn't my choice. The work is downtown, a good portion of the workforce is downtown. Was that way once ya know. And you can do the same for other areas as well. Including BA. If the person living in BA doesn't want to commute, live, work and shop in BA. We should be trying to grow our own population and nice areas within Tulsa.