The Tulsa Forum by TulsaNow

Not great but gives you a good idea of progress.

Hotel:
(http://www.tulsagoldenhurricane.com/images/brady2b.JPG)

Bridge:
(http://www.tulsagoldenhurricane.com/images/brady2a.JPG)


The rest:
(http://www.tulsagoldenhurricane.com/images/brady2c.JPG)

Crazy what a TIF and a ballpark can do.

That is the view from my office as well.  Love it.  I watched the ballpark go up and now to see all of this activity is exciting.  I can't wait to take a walk at lunch to the Brady Park, eat a sandwich from home, and enjoy the outdoors. 

B...b...bu...but that's corporate welfare!!!

Obligatory:

"BOK Center will be a wasteland after a few years."

"The only thing that will be there will be tractor pulls."

"Vision 2025 won't do anything."

 ;D

Fail, fail, fail.  Perhaps if I say it enough it will come true. 8)

I took a long walk through the Brady District yesterday.  For a February Sunday, there were a surprisingly large number of cars around, folks eating brunch/lunch at the restaurants, etc.  It was also interesting to see a lot of cars just driving around, stopping every so often with the people pointing at this or that new buildling going up.  As fantastic as all the new buildings are going to be, I think Tulsa's renewed sense of civic pride may be even more important.  In the last 10-15 years, it seems like Tulsans were always apologizing about Tulsa to outsiders - our city government was disfunctional, our roads crumbling, our large companies going under or moving elsewhere, etc.  It is hard to drive through downtown today and not get excited about Tulsa's potential and its future even though our city government is not always functional, our streets need more work and we are still fighting to save some of our large employers.

Agreed.  Even alot of teenagers (who hate everything) like it here.  Now if only we could give them a lifestyle and career choice that they would stick around for.

Let's just re-name it the "Fail Boat".

FailMotherShip.  Hmm...that right there might be a new hash-tag...

Boy's, especially Jeffie, I have always touted the Brady's potential to be uniquely attractive. Not so the white elephant. Vision 2025 remains a tax and spend  development whereby the jury will remainout until 2030.

OK.

We have a sizable amount of evidence building for said jury.

Like hundreds of millions of dollars in tax revenues for the city, county and state and hundreds of millions of dollars in private investment that was spurred by Vision 2025.

That doesn't even count numerous other intangible benefits that have value, like creative and vibrant young people staying in town instead of leaving en mass, civic pride, etc.

And do you think any of this would be happening in Brady without the Vision 2025 investment as a catalyst?

I understand funding was included in 2025 for additional projects, but I would dare to say that many of the projects wouldn't have happened without a direct investment in them. Tulsa is still a long way off from having many non-subsidized building going on downtown. Lets just go through the list on the Chamber's Downtown site.

1. Hardesty Arts Center - Private, this is a great project in my opinion as well.
2. Brady Flats - I believe they got city funding, correct me if I'm wrong please.
3. Enterprise Building - Dead as far as I can tell.
4. Fairfield Inn & Suites - I really don't have any idea of the funding on this one.
5. Greenarch - City funding, not moving for some reason, even though it is directly across the street from the ballpark which was supposed to spur this exact type of development.
6. Channel 6 - Private I believe
7. Mathew's Warehouse - I guess this is seperate from Hardesty although isn't it kind of the same thing?
8. Metro @ Brady - Lots of city funding for only 75 units and no commercial. INSANE!
9. Old City Hall/Aloft - Not even gonna comment. While I think a conversion to an ALOFT is really cool.
10. One Place - Don't know, but I think it is private. Or was this TDA owned land? I don't remember.
11. The Riverbend Gardens - Is this even happening, I have never heard anything about it.
12. Robinson Packer Lofts - Again thank you Mr. Kaiser
13. Brady Streetscaping - Public
14. Brady Park - Kaiser
15. City Parking Garage - Public
16. Oklahoma Pop Museum - Mostly Public
17. First Presbyterian Church - Private
18. Boulder Avenue Bridge - Public
19. Oklahoma Pop Museum - Does anyone at the chamber proof these things?

The map includes the following as well
1. ARCO/Downtown 119 - Dead

So in summary we have the Kaiser projects in Brady which are awesome, KOTV, OnePlace, Fairfield, and a Church expansion all done privately. The rest are either dead or heavily reliant on public funds. I would dare to say the jury is still out on 2025. Just because downtown sees development does not necessarily mean that V2025 was the cause. Although that is what the politicians will assume. I believe it is due more to a rekindled desire for people to live/be in urban areas. My opinion only.

The doom and gloomers will never be convinced and as each prediction of failure is proven wrong they simpy create new grounds for opposing.  Now it's that all the development downtown would have happend without the BOK Center and OneOk Field.  It's the perfect revisionist history position because it cannot be absolutely proven wrong.

You know that all of the public funds for housing have to be paid back right? These are revolving funds that can be allocated over and over again ad infinitum. The One place property was purchased by the developer from the TDA at fair market value, which is a cash flow positive transaction.

Isn't erfalf a resident of Bartlesville?  Does this person go to downtown Tulsa on a regular basis for entertainment or other things?  I'd reserve judgement on this poster's opinion of our downtown pending disclosure of that.

I'm not trying to be an a$$ about it; but if this person has really no skin in the game aside from viewing from afar it would be akin to me judging the CBD of Bartlesville while I live here in Tulsa.

I've lived in both (not downtown), and in all fairness Bartlesville's fate hinges greatly on Tulsa's. Casting my opinion to the side because I don't currently reside in your fair city is exactly the attitude that should be frowned upon. If this is the way things are, get ready for Tulsa to continue at the snails pace it has. Bartlesville has the same problem. If you are not in the club, you don't matter. It is a terrible view point and is why Bartlesville has literaly stood still for the last 30 years.

I thought that was a TDA property. Does the TDA attempt to make money on properties it sells or does it try to just break even? Just wondering what it's goals in that respect are.

Not trying to be a negative nancy, but how do these loans work? I was under the impression that they are both lower interest bearing and probably granted to projects that couldn't get financing otherwise. If it's not the case please let me know. I also thought some (not all) were forgivable after so many years.

It is just confusing to here things like "unless TDA funding comes through the project is dead". How is that the case? It makes the funding appear as a subsidy whether it really is or not.

Where have you heard that?  Which projects?

But the problem is, if you aren't funneling sales tax into the county, then you don't qualify to complain about it.  And when I say funnel, I mean on a regular basis, not just coming in and visiting from time to time.  If you do, that's fine and please accept my apologies.

But if you don't, it's like someone complaining about the current Presidential candidates when you're not registered to vote.  Sure, you can cast your opinion, but don't expect people to consider it when decision-making is done.

Sorry, V2025 is something I think Tulsa County should be proud of.  Can you imagine what would have happened without it?  Or more accurately, what wouldn't have happened...

I think the general consensus on this board is TDA has been more a hindrance than a help in downtown development.  That said, I don't believe TDA provides any funding, but owns the land that must be acquired at a negotiated price by the developer.  

The housing money, however, is often the lynchpin for a development because it allows the developer to access private financing.  Thus, if the developer does not get the city housing loan, then the deal often dies.

It never hurts to get an outsider's opinion.  We are welcome to take it with a grain of salt or to act on it.

It doesn't hurt, but, his posts make it obvious he's not here. The change in downtown really isn't about all those projects anymore. It's in all the little places that have followed those projects downtown, it's in all the things and events that happen downtown now. It's really in the number of people that are downtown now on a very regular basis. It's so different from five years ago it's truly shocking. The majority of people in Tulsa used to at best dislike downtown and at worst fear it. Now most people go downtown on a regular basis because they want to.

This all happened with an economy in the crapper. The next five years may well make the last five look small.

Let me start by saying I mean nothing I am about to say to be taken as critical of you or anyone else here:

I do spend a considerable amount of my hard earned money in Tulsa, it is only a 45 minute drive. Tulsa greatly effects my overall quality of life. I want Tulsa to thrive. I would also like Bartlesville to thrive as well, but I also realize it's limitations. Tulsa will be my only option for many other things that Bartlesville will never be able to offer. I have no ulterior motive. Bartlesville will not be gaining anything at Tulsa's expense I can guarantee that for sure. Besides a great city always will have bedroom communities that complement it. As much as Jenks/BA/Owasso are reliant on Tulsa, the same can be said for the opposite. Tulsa is fortunate to have Jenks/BA/Owasso. Development is not a zero sum game.

One of the most powerful "voting" tools people have is where they spend their money. I choose to spend a majority in Bartlesville, however I live here and want the best for my town as well. Downtown Tulsa has some great offerings that I have tried. But, as we will see, some things will succeed and some will fail. Customers will decide with their wallets.

Just because I don't reside in Tulsa does not mean I have no skin in the game. I think what I am mostly trying to get people to look at here is to find out what really is the cause of things. If, for example, we have inaccurately diagnosed the reason for an occurrence, we may keep doing the same thing  with different results. The city of Tulsa (government) has limited resources with which to use. They need to best assess what gives the most bang for the buck.

I have never said that I don't think the BOK/ONEOK aren't great additions to Tulsa. However, are they what they were sold to be; an economic development tool? My personal opinion is that it's not as much as it was billed. It is a nice addition, no doubt. That being said I think there are things the city could be doing alternatively that would go much further in spurring economic growth throughout the city (mass transit PLEASE!). I also think the general view of living in a more urban environment is swinging in the favor of downtown regardless stadiums and arenas. That is ALL I am saying.

Most of all I want Tulsa to be great, because I am considering moving back at some point. So I am selfish in that respect. Sorry!

And there is nothing wrong with that...I just disagree with you on the point of did the BOK/Oneok Field attract more business.  Absolutely, and anyone who frequents downtown, or those who have businesses there will tell you as much.

I lived in Houston for three years in the early nineties.  When I left Tulsa in 1991, I left to a 71st street that was two-laned from 169 to Mingo, didn't have the Creek Turnpike and NOONE went downtown.

That all changed around the time Arnie's opened, and the Blue Dome started getting a little recognition.  Some of us would go down there after hockey games and think "wow, this really has potential", when all it was at that point was two or three bars that started to take lives of their own.

Then the talk of V2025 got underway, and the talk of a viable arena that would pull not only people from out of the region, but those from in the region as well and get them downtown and spending money in an area that didn't see commerce for years.

I'm not exactly sure when Eliot got McNellie's started, but for me, that was the seed that got the plant started.

I look at the Blue Dome now and see a thriving village with little shops here and there...nothing like what it was 10 years ago.  Hell, even five years ago.

Bringing business downtown is dependent though on having people who WANT to live there.  That's never an easy process, but it is happening.  And it is good to see that when so many people are scaling back, you see so much construction inside the IDL.

I'd wholeheartedly disagree with your assessment that the MotherShip and OneOk Field haven't spurred development.  Fat Guys Burgers and other little shops right around the ballpark...helping the old Greenwood district to get her face back again.  That's great to see.  How about the hotels?  Place One?

Opinions and thoughts are always welcome and outsiders can bring useful perspectives.

I think your original list had two major shortcomings that diminish your argument that the BOK and Oneok Field have not delivered on their backers' promises.  The first is you over included public moneys in the ongoing projects you listed.  As previously discussed, the housing money is a loan and is more like seed money to help projects, not fund them entirely.  Indeed, some of this money predates Vision 2025.

Second, your list ignored a number of developments that have already occurred and that the developers have said were done because of the public investment of Vision 2025.  Some of the bigger such projects include the Mayo Hotel and the Courtyard by Marriott, and the Mayo Lofts and Tribune Lofts II.  There are also numerous restaurants and clubs in the Brady and Blue Dome that would probably not exist if not for the BOK Center.  OnePlace is also directly attributable to the BOK Center and its developers have said it would not have occurred otherwise.

I don't think the BOK supporters ever said it would solve all of Tulsa's problems.  What they said was that it would provide a venue to attrack top tier entertainment, attrack events and visitors downtown and help attrack private investment to push revitalization forward.  Vision 2025 also made our outdated convention center competitive with our regional peers.  The BOK Center is in its third year of operation and I think by any measure it has more than lived up to promises made when Vision 2025 was considered.  The biggest knock was the lack of development around the arena.  That is now changing with OnePlace and the Aloft Hotel.  I think Oneok Field has been beneficial to the Brady, but has not yet had the impact supporters predicted.  However, try to go to McNellies or Joe Mamma's on a Drillers' game night.

While I'm not sure anyone can ever prove to a doubter's satisfaction that the completed projects and those under construction would not have occurred but for Vision 2025 and the ball park, I know how little had happened and was happening downtown before passage of Vision 2025 and that much of what has happened after Vission 2025 has occurred during a deep recession and a slow recovery.  I also know that Tulsa's experience is not unique - numerous cities that made similar public investments have seen similar private development follow.

While I think it is fair to ask whether the BOK Center and Oneok Field have lived up to their promise, you can't ignore the reality of what is happening in forming your answer.  If you believe the development that has occurred and is occurring would have happened had Tulsa done nothing, then the burden is really on you to prove that point and demonstrate where it has worked out that way.

I guess it depends on your definition of "economic development."

But even if your definition varies, I don't know how you could possibly say that the BOK Center has been anything but a smashing success on this front.  In its 3+ years of operations, it has brought literally dozens of events to town that would have in no way, shape or form been here without it.  Practically every A-list concert, other travelling events like the Dinosaurs alive show (or whatever that was called), the NCAA Tournament, etc.

Those events generated untold amounts of hotel rooms and local spending that would have otherwise not been here.  Every one of those events would have been in OKC, Kansas City, Little Rock, Wichita or wherever.  How is that not "economic development"?

And while some downtown projects might get the benefit of different sources of public funding, do you think they would have all happened had the BOK Center not been there?  Would we have added two hotels downtown with two more on the way?

Would Blake and Elliot have been able to build the Blue Dome District from scratch?  Would Dwelling Spaces, Fleet Feet and Lee's moved downtown?  What about all of the residential units going in... or the grocery stores?

I don't doubt that some of this stuff would have happened... but there's no way we would have reached this critical mass of development that's going on right now without the BOK Center.  No way.  It may not directly cause everything, but it was the first domino to fall in the transformation of downtown.


I would like to see mass transit, but I have a very hard time believing that investing in mass transit in a spread out city with low population density would actually spur the kind of economic development we've seen in the wake of the BOK Center.

And I'm downtown enough (as an Oiler season ticket holder, which puts me down there at least 30 times in 8 months) that I see the dynamism of what is going on.  Watching Place One go from a leveled parking lot to what it looks like now is beauty to behold.  Being able to go see Foo Fighters downtown instead of having to travel to Little Rock or KC or OKC or Dallas...that's the intangible called 'quality of living'.  Getting upset that I have to detour around a construction zone that wasn't there last week.  Seeing the Boulder Bridge started.  Watching the transformation over the years along 3rd Street...I can name so many more, but it's pointless.  Unless you see it on a regular basis.

So we can call the millions of taxpayer dollar invested in the ballpark and higher downtown property taxes worth it because a burger joint sprouted up next door?   I'm not aware of anything else that's been developed around the ballpark.
Kinda operating in the red there.

PS I think the ballpark is good for downtown, but so far... it hasn't spurred squat.

Nice way to cherry pick.  OneOk is spawning more than just that..the hotel comes to mind...

The hotel is being developed because of the ballpark??
Is the ballpark also responsible for the Matthews warehouse, AH-HA, Tribune-II, KOTV, park, etc??

Going back to pics, I finally got my photos from last week uploaded.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/dscott28604/sets/72157629423512231 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/dscott28604/sets/72157629423512231)

I would say, yes... it's of course not the sole reason, but it is one of the reasons that development is happening - particularly in the Brady District.

The Drillers have drawn an average of more than 380,000 fans in their first two seasons downtown.

You think that 380,000 additional visitors to downtown doesn't play a part spurring development?

Can you disprove it?  It's in proximity closer than the arena.

The others?  I can't speculate to those.  But I am pretty sure of one thing:

*that without the arena OR the ballpark, the hotels and other things (save myabe KOTV's new facility) would not have been built this soon.

The ballpark has done more for that area of downtown than 50 years of Downtown Tulsa Unlimited did.  It's changed the whole streetscape of the eastern end of the Brady.

The ballpark has helped spur more rapid development in the Blue Dome and the Brady.  It was a bargain.  Without it, I suspect the east end of the Brady district would have Spaghetti Warehouse and some transient gang-banger night clubs.  I also suspect it's helped the Greenwood District.  It very much helped accelerate interest in the first & Elgin to Cinncinnati area.

But what I am saying is, that I am absolutely certain that had Tulsa spent $350M plus on transit (light rail or something) those developments would have all been done 5 years ago.


* Plus the other projects that would have taken place all around transit stops that will now NOT happen until decades later because we built an arena instead.

Not really.  Mass transit in a car-oriented city like Tulsa wouldn't matter if there were no major destination locations which can draw 7,000 to 18,000 people on a periodic basis.  Why would anyone need to come downtown with so many other entertainment destinations for food, drink, and club music around Tulsa?  It's the same formula as every other major and medium market.

How could I use Tulsa's fancy light rail when I'm in my car driving to OKC or Dallas to see a concert that Tulsa can never get because we have no arena?

When you make a statement that says you are certain development would have happened based solely on construciton of a transit system, you must back that up with an example of a city comparable to Tulsa where it actually worked as you say it would.

Yeah -- I hate to pile on, but I also totally disagree with this.

Here's the way I look at it --

If we go back in time about 10 years, what would you say was the limiting factor in getting economic development downtown?  By that I mean additional hotel capacity, new bars and restaurants, new living spaces and new retail.

If you're proposing that the problem was inexpensive and easy transportation access was that limiting factor, then I disagree.  Getting to and from downtown cheap and easy has never been a problem.  We're a mid-sized city with virtually no traffic problems.  There is good access to downtown from every major highway in the area.  Basically you can get to downtown from anywhere in the Tulsa metro in 20 minutes or less.  And as we all know, there is plenty of parking.  :)

I would propose that the limiting factor to development back then was that after 5 p.m. every day, downtown became a ghost town.  There was no reason for anyone to stay downtown after work because there was nothing to do.  There was no reason to come downtown on the weekends for the same reason.

The BOK Center gave people reason to come downtown after hours.  That, in turn, gave new bars and restaurants a reason to open.  That, in turn, gave people reasons to stay downtown after work and on weekends.  That, in turn, gave reason to open more bars and restaurants, and on and on and on.

I'm piling on, too. 

We just aren't big enough or dense enough to support major transit infrastructure like light rail.   Compare Tulsa County with Cook County (Chicago) and some things become apparent right away:

                                    2010 pop                            2010 density

Tulsa County (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulsa_County,_Oklahoma)                   603,403                              988/sq mi

Cook County (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cook_County,_Illinois)                   5,194,675                           5491.3/sq mi

This isn't to single out Chicago, per se, but it's to point out that the kind of light rail transit that we undoubtedly envision is based on densities and populations that are several orders of magnitude greater than what we're dealing with here in Tulsa.  It doesn't help that, in Tulsa, no matter how you slice it, the time it takes to get in your car, drive to 71st and Mingo, shop, get back in and drive home will undoubtedly trump a walk to a transit node, a wait for a train or bus, a trip with multiple stops down to 71st and Mingo, and then the shopping, and then the reverse trip back.  I can drive and get that done in literally half or less than the amount of time it would take for a trip using transit.  But in Cook County that's not the case.  The density and the population is such that, given the choice of an excruciating (and expensive!) car trip to and from the mall, I'd much prefer to have a train or bus take me there and home again

This is why the economics of transit won't work in places like Tulsa.  We're not just talking the dollar economics, but also time and convenience economics.  It's simply too easy to drive here.  We would have to do some seriously draconian smile to make driving less convenient than what transit currently is in Tulsa. 

After lunch with Hoss, I ran an errand near the Brady and decided to drive through. I can't believe all the activity in just the last three to six months.  I counted no less than six cranes in the air today.  Great going, Brady!

Get some chocolate? Ducats for all the great shows coming through?

Nah, just unloaded some 28 year old chains up on North Denver.  ;)

Tell everybody here at TNF what that means......


sheeesh, without Guido and now this from you, TNF could become singular despite Gassie.....
then again, it's only labels. Change has come to America.  :'(

  Per transit I believe in starting small and building up.  Also, have a long range plan in place, zone for future expansion nodes so that over the decades by the time you are ready to expand your transit offerings your not building it out to a place that is not already on its way to being pedestrian/transit friendly.

  I know some don't believe in busses as a way to start, but think about it this way.  

1.  If you put in stations with signage, times, route maps, etc. that are just like a rail transit stop.
2.  Have quick turn around times so people are not waiting long at a stop and electronically post when the next bus will arive.
3.  Use busses that are nice, unique looking and specific to downtown or that route.
4.  Its on a route that in your master plan you say will someday have rail, or will connect to rail of some sort and you implement that plan and zoning to have pedestrian/transit friendly developments...

Those efforts and expenditures (though not as great as putting in even a starter rail line to begin with) give a decent amount of reasurrance to developers to begin creating TOD (and not feeling like they have to put in as much parking and thus can save on costs making things more affordable). Then put in that first rail line say down 5th or 6th street, or up Boulder and have that route be on part of or all of one of those first bus routes.  Right there you have proven your word and shown your sincere.  Part or all of one bus route is now rail or connected to rail, and you have anchored your transit and very much reasurred developers.  Then keep adding on little by little over time.   The cost of doing the starter bus route could be offset by taking the tens of millions you would otherwise spend on more parking garages and using it for the busses.  Instead of the city building more parking garages, take those properties and allow more density to be built on them instead (which will help the pedestrian experience and transit).  All your doing is allocating your money in a different manner.  Instead of building new roads (for the new homes, urban neighborhoods, and businesses going into downtown) and parking garages, your slowly building transit.  

  I would like to see light rail happen,,, but even if it were to happen and we said we wanted to do that next, it would likely take a long time to implement and imo, during that time we would be wasting potential and wasting money paying for two infrastructure types. Thats one reason why I think this town could buy the "baby step by baby step" approach and the "different allocation" of money that would already be spent or would otherwise be spent on one type of infrastructure, but for another type, mass transit.  We just threw 8mill out the window imo, 8mill that could have been used for that transit start.  Now they are talking about a new parking garage for the Brady District.  Again, we could be using that money instead for that transit start. 

Although I would like to start with rail, I understand the upfront costs involved.
 
Per above:
1. Would show a commitment to a route and make the route more identifiable than a bus stop sign the size of a no parking sign.  A good first step.
2. Necessary regardless of rail or rubber tires.  If people can walk there faster than wait for transit they either won't be there to begin with or will walk.
3. Yes
4. Yes

Awesome pics!

Thanks!

Not to rail on the BOK anymore, but I just got to thinking the other day. I'll pose a question to you all:

Name one tier 1 city that does not have a mass transit system in it's core? Answer: None
Now, how many of those have an arena/stadium in their core? Answer: A bunch

Rarely has a big footprint attention grabbing project done what cities actually need it to be doing. To better explain, check this link out.
http://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2012/2/22/it-should-be-about-people.html

The thing I like about this group is that they aren't the usual off the deep end, gotta stop using fossil fuel zealots you usually find pumping this stuff out. They are just trying to show what is best for communities fiscally and "spiritually" I guess you could say.

While we can't change what we have already done, we can be sure not to repeat the same mistakes that so many other cities are making. OKC in particular is going to build ANOTHER convention center. More than likely it will be at the expense of their proposed street car system. Let's not be like that.

What sort of mass transit do you mean?  Rail?  Most tier I cities have at 2+ times the population of the Tulsa metro area, and therefore a larger local tax base for funding light rail.  I'm assuming Kansas City is a tier I city.  Far as I know, they still don't have light rail.  I believe they are still doing studies on it according to their web site.

We have mass transit in our core, it's bus service.  It doesn't have to be on two rails to qualify as mass transit.  I agree we need a downtown circulator and perhaps in the future there would be viability for rail lines from Owasso which would also have a stop at the airport, Broken Arrow, and Jenks/Bixby.  

We have the amenities and attractions to make downtown a desirable destination now.  Simply putting lines in would not have spurred downtown development, IMO.  

I lived in Dallas for a few years.  They have a large DART network of trains, busses, and some light rail.  But Dallas is as addicted to their cars as Tulsa.  While you can get just about anywhere by train or bus on the DART system, it is nowhere near what is available in the largest metros like NYC and San Francisco, which I have experienced.  When my car was in the shop, I had to get to school, which was only about 2-3 miles from where I lived.  Not really walkable, especially with an expressway to cross in between (though possible because I did in fact do it once).  To get those 2-3 miles by bus, it was about an hour or more both ways.  Several transfers.  A large reason is that cities like Dallas (same with Tulsa and OKC) were not built around mass transit.  NYC developed with their subway system.  You can get anywhere you need fairly quickly using that system.  The only way the DART system is really practical is if you live and or work near a rail stop and are going somewhere near a rail stop.  If you need to get on a bus, you are in for several transfers and waiting periods.  Just not practical or convenient.  Much easier to use a car, even when traffic is bad.  The stop by my house only had a bus run by every 30 minutes, minimum.  Each time was a different bus on a different route subject to different transfers.  So aside from location to location, the time of day would make a big difference as to how many transfers you needed and which transfer to make and how long it would take to get where you wanted to go.  I suspect a large part of it is that the dart system is not in high demand for most people who can afford cars because it is much faster and convenient to use your car than to have hours wasted on transfers.  And busses are subject to the same traffic limitations of rush hour, unlike rail or subway.

Long story short, I don't think it is accurate that all "tier 1" cities have convenient mass transit.  Most of the growth of mid-western and western cities was centered on the individual ownership of cars.  The only western city I have been to that had a very good convenient mass transit system was San Francisco.  I just don't see that much investment in mass transit in Tulsa will make any real difference.  People are addicted to their cars.  When gas goes to $6 per gallon, they will switch to CNG or even electric cars.  The independence of not having to rely on a bus schedule is what makes cars so attractive over mass transit.  It will be especially difficult in Tulsa where traffic is not as bad as in other cities.  I always laugh when people complain about the "nightmare" of their 20 minute commute from downtown to Broken Arrow during rush hour.  To get that distance in Dallas or LA by car, you're looking at an hour, minimum, with several stops and slow downs.

  Like I have said before, we can start by making good efficient transit legal in Tulsa.  Right now it is illegal and has been so for a long time.  Transit friendly and Pedestrian friendly are the same thing.  When your not allowed in most areas of the city to create pedestrian friendly areas, well your not going to have transit friendly areas, even if you want them.

It looks like KC is still in the planning stage.  They used to have a big PCC trolley system.

http://www.lightrailnow.org/facts/fa_lrt_kc1.htm

http://www.lightrailnow.org/success2.htm

http://www.lightrailnow.org/success1.htm

San Francisco got the opportunity to re-boot at the height of cable car and trolley popularity.

I'm not really getting your point.

I'm not sure how you define "Tier 1 city", but I 'm sure that Tulsa isn't one.  There are lots of things that Tier 1 cities have that Tulsa doesn't.

I would ask this:

How many cities in the U.S. with similar total population and population density as Tulsa have a mass transit system in its core? (And I'm assuming you're not counting our bus system for some reason.)