|
Title: Single-Occupancy Cars - Such a waste! Post by: PonderInc on July 29, 2008, 11:16:30 am Lately, I've been thinking about a few pictures that John Fregonese showed at the TulsaNow "PLANiTULSA" event. They pertain to the absurdity of single-occupancy vehicles...and how much infrastructure we waste catering to the needs of one driver/one car. These pictures really stuck with me, so I wanted to share them. Food for thought.
(http://www.tulsanow.org/news/autopeople1.jpg) (http://www.tulsanow.org/news/autopeople2.jpg) (http://www.tulsanow.org/news/autopeople3.jpg) (http://www.tulsanow.org/news/autopeople4.jpg) Title: Single-Occupancy Cars - Such a waste! Post by: Hoss on July 29, 2008, 12:31:46 pm quote: Maybe it is food for thought, but even moreso is the horrible status of transit in this town. Would I use public transit? Sure! I have in the past. Why don't I now? Because it takes me three hours to get where I need to go via Tulsa Transit vs twenty minutes by automobile. We have almost the nation's worst transit system. The two hub system, which I could never understand why it was implemented, is horrible. We need to look at transit structure first. Ours stinks. Title: Single-Occupancy Cars - Such a waste! Post by: Hometown on July 29, 2008, 12:43:25 pm Our old stupid cars will soon be replaced by smart cars that we can feel good about driving. Tulsa and her many parking lots will be perfectly positioned for the advent of the smart car.
I was thinking about the absolutely luxury and waste involved in my daily one or two baths. This morning I actually stopped short of filling the tub to the top. I thought about the world tomorrow where no one is going to have enough to drink then I thought about the swimming pool we didn't build. Anyway, I've spent most of my adult life on public transit and now I love driving my car to work. Anti car seems sort of old fashioned to me. And stadiums and arenas without dedicated parking strike me as nearly totally crazy. Title: Single-Occupancy Cars - Such a waste! Post by: PonderInc on July 29, 2008, 01:32:42 pm A lot of public polling has been done in Tulsa to get ready for PLANiTULSA...the comp plan update. (www.planitulsa.org (http://"http://www.planitulsa.org")
70% of Tulsans say they are "not very satisfied with their transit choices." In addition to their cars, people would also like to use: 46% rail/streetcar 40% bus 37% walk/bike Given $100 to invest in transportation, Tulsans would spend: $38 - Streets $21 - Highways $15 - Rail or streetcar $11 - Buses $10 - Sidewalks, bike paths, trails $5 - Tollroads Which means that Tulsans would like to invest 36% of their transportation budget on alternatives to auto-only transportation. I've been asking around, trying to get an idea of what percent of our budget actually goes to alternatives to auto transportation. As far as I can tell, it's in the single digits...and closer to 1% than to 10%. (More analysis needed...or just look around you for the proof.) Title: Single-Occupancy Cars - Such a waste! Post by: OurTulsa on July 29, 2008, 01:47:17 pm Density, Density, Density...is what is needed to support an efficient transit system. I am hopeful that many will step up and publicly advocate a Comprehensive Plan that encourages delightful density (it doesn't at all have to look and feel like public housing complexes) that will support a good public transit system. We are going to have to bleed a little to get there though...we are either going to have to build our density with reluctance to accommodating the hell out of the car until we get the critical mass to support transit or we invest soundly in transit and support it for a while, while encouraging density around the line(s).
Title: Single-Occupancy Cars - Such a waste! Post by: Hometown on July 29, 2008, 01:52:23 pm BART or Bay Area Rapid Transit, in the Bay Area, is very popular, kind of expensive, and will never pay it's own way -- ever. It will always depend on State and Federal subsidies.
Tulsa should beef up its bus system with an eye to serving working people, including people that work late shifts, and people in difficult to serve neighborhoods. Building a railsystem at this point is too little too late and would essentially be underwriting the commute of well off downtown workers at the expense of everyone else. Title: Single-Occupancy Cars - Such a waste! Post by: OurTulsa on July 29, 2008, 01:52:50 pm I saw an article the other day that exposed many who traditionally and vigorously oppose density (infill). The article provided that the very people who fight density in their own back yard typically seek these very environments (dense) out when considering vacation...
I often wonder why so many will visit Boston, Paris, Montreal and absolutely love it but then come back to their woefully inefficient ranch at 31st and Harvard and fight the hell out any infill project that even hints at elevating the density. My observation is that more often they are fighting the additional cars the new development will bring. Title: Single-Occupancy Cars - Such a waste! Post by: OurTulsa on July 29, 2008, 01:54:57 pm quote: US Hwy 169 in Tulsa is very popular, kind of expensive, and will never pay it's own way -- ever. It will always depend on State and Federal subsidies. No highway project that I know of will ever pay its own way...guess it's all a matter of preferences. Title: Single-Occupancy Cars - Such a waste! Post by: Hoss on July 29, 2008, 02:02:10 pm quote: Then almost everyone in the country has built arenas crazy. I cannot think of one, outside of the Kansas Colisuem, that has it's own dedicated parking. Title: Single-Occupancy Cars - Such a waste! Post by: OurTulsa on July 29, 2008, 02:05:51 pm quote: You're kidding? Building a rail system at this point, in my mind, would be one of the smartest things we could do to ensure Tulsa has a viable future. Costs of single occupancy vehicles and the system that supports that mode (economical, social, and environmental) will never be at a level once enjoyed. A rail system, and the development that emerges around stations couldn't be a more equitable form of transportation. A good rail system would serve many more areas outside of downtown including schools, hospitals and essential commercial and employment areas. While new housing that crops up around stations will in all liklihood be market rate and for many unaffordable, eventually they will mature and even out with regard to affordability. The areas around stations will more than likely be walkable (accessible to anyone who has two feet or a wheel chair). The stations could also be the mini-hubs for more efficient shuttle bus systems to outlying areas while the rail system would be the backbone. Would a rail system be expensive? Absolutely. More expensive than our excessive road system? Not even close. Less costly to maintain over time? Big time. More socially, economically, and environmentally equitable? Hello? Title: Single-Occupancy Cars - Such a waste! Post by: Hometown on July 29, 2008, 02:08:27 pm I'm just curious how many in the pro rail transit crowd are homegrown, and how many were committed to the idea of rail transit before arriving here? My sense is you are invested in an ideal that has little to do with Tulsa.
Increased bus service would be more affordable and would really make sense, especially buses that serve working people. Unless we see a significant decline in the price of gasoline, well off office workers will have smart cars before too long. Title: Single-Occupancy Cars - Such a waste! Post by: TURobY on July 29, 2008, 02:10:46 pm quote: I was born and raised in Tulsa, and I am pro rail. Title: Single-Occupancy Cars - Such a waste! Post by: Hometown on July 29, 2008, 02:18:37 pm Is the train going to stop in North, West or East Tulsa?
Or is the train going to serve downtown office workers that can well afford to drive anyway? And is the train ticket going to be priced for the working people of Tulsa? If it's like BART it won't be. And working people will still be scrambling for a ride home to the ghetto after getting off at 1 a.m. in the morning because the train isn't running, it doesn't go there, and they can't afford it anyway. Title: Single-Occupancy Cars - Such a waste! Post by: PonderInc on July 29, 2008, 02:30:43 pm quote: Me too! (Though if I had never travelled to other cities in America and in other countries, I may never have learned how convenient, practical, and enjoyable rail transit is...) Title: Single-Occupancy Cars - Such a waste! Post by: Hometown on July 29, 2008, 02:46:23 pm Well go for it Homeys. Lord knows I've been wrong before. But they are kind of gross when they are packed.
I have to admit I've had some very memorable moments on trains. Title: Single-Occupancy Cars - Such a waste! Post by: PonderInc on July 29, 2008, 02:56:32 pm Here's a fun little tool where you can calculate your annual fuel costs, based on price of gas, average MPG, and how many miles you drive each year. http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/savemoney.shtml
For example, if you get 25 MPG on average (most SUVs don't), and you drive 15000 miles a year, and the price of gas is $3.85...you are spending approximately $2,310 per year on gas alone. Of course, this doesn't factor in your car payment, your insurance, your car maintenance and repairs...or the tax dollars you spend on building/maintaining roads and highways....but it's a start. Imagine the system we could build if every driver in Tulsa contributed $2,000 per year! (Let's see...382,000 x 2,000 = $764 Million per year. Yep...we could do something cool with that!) I agree, however, that any rail would have to be designed in concert with appropriate and dense infill near strategic stations. And I also believe that you can't have viable rail without a working bus system. All three components (planning for transit-oriented-developments, rail, and buses) are needed to make it work. Oh, and BART tickets? BART offers 62% discounts to kids, seniors, and people with disabilities. Other discounts are also available. Compared with the price of gas, parking, and car ownership...even a full-price ticket is cheap! Title: Single-Occupancy Cars - Such a waste! Post by: Hometown on July 29, 2008, 03:09:09 pm BART, seems like I was paying $8.40 a day roundtrip (and I was only 2 stops away from downtown). Not my idea of cheap. Office workers can often get discounted tickets through employers though. But the night crew at the restaurant cannot. They don't qualify for any discount. And BART shuts down early. BART mainly serves well off financial district workers. And some BART stations have subsidized parking that mainly benefits well off financial district office workers.
Your post didn't address how rail will help North, East and West Tulsa. And for most Tulsans $2,000 would be a hardship. Title: Single-Occupancy Cars - Such a waste! Post by: PonderInc on July 29, 2008, 03:40:28 pm That's my point: $2,000 / year IS a hardship. That's the cost to buy gas for a single car for a single year (assuming you get 25 MPG, which you probably don't). Now multiply that times the number of cars in your household. Every man, woman, and teenager who must drive in Tulsa b/c there are no workable alternatives...they are already faced with this hardship.
I believe that North, East, West and South Tulsa would all benefit from an intelligently designed rail and bus transit system. First of all, it would alleviate the need for every member of your family to own a car. It would provide reliable and efficient transportation to the approximately 35% of people who don't drive (kids, the elderly, people with physical limitations, folks who can't afford a car, and those who don't want to drive for environmental or other reasons.) And, intelligently planned transit-oriented developments (higher density, mixed-use villages near transit stops) would breathe new life into areas of town that are currently not seeing much investment. Because rail is a fixed route, and a long-term investment, developers and businesses are willing to invest private money along a transit system. One reason is that it guarantees fairly consitent/predictable transportation costs over time. That is, they would not need to worry about tennants moving b/c the price of gas went up (or war broke out in an oil producing country). There are also a lot of people who would like to have the CHOICE of whether or not they want to drive. This would bring that choice to thousands of people who can't (or don't want to live) in midtown or downtown...currently the only places in town you can live somewhat car-free. I'm rambling...and there are others on this forum who can address this topic far better than I. I just wanted to get people thinking and talking. Title: Single-Occupancy Cars - Such a waste! Post by: OurTulsa on July 29, 2008, 03:49:27 pm quote: To me, a public created/enabled and in many cases subsidized land development pattern that more or less 'requires' car ownership for mobility is a hardship to the working poor. For many poor living in North, west, east and south Tulsa in order to get to gainful service employment or others requires that they purchase and maintain a car...nevermind the socially debilitating effect riding around in a beat up jalopy has on the working poor... Side note, to me that was one of the beauties of good public transit and a pleasantly walkable city was that it seemed to put the general public on equal footing. In many cases working poor rubbed shoulders with corporate executives. And we all had a stake in the public environment; it wasn't just a blur or an image in our rear view mirror while escaping on limited access highways at 55 mph. In many ways a driving dominated environment is far more socially isolating and enables if not directly encourages class isolation. I had many conversations with lawyers, advertising executives, financial district employees waiting for a train while one of the starving working poor in the City. Title: Single-Occupancy Cars - Such a waste! Post by: SXSW on July 29, 2008, 04:01:06 pm When I lived in Denver last summer I rode the RTD light rail everyday to work. I paid $50 for a monthly unlimited pass which I could also use for the bus (but never did). I lived about half a mile from a stop about 4 miles southeast of downtown near the Univ. of Denver. I biked to the stop, usually waited anywhere from 3-6 min. for the train (rush hour), loaded my bike and rode about 10 min. to a station about 3/4 mile from my office on the south side of downtown. All in all my commute was about 25-30 min. which is close to what it would be if I drove and then had to park about half a mile from my office. I preferred the train ride because I could read the Denver version of Urban Tulsa (Westword) they have available at the stations on the ride in/out and I got some light bike exercise. Plus I would have to pay to park downtown, which was $60 a month. And then there's the cost of gas, so I was coming out ahead.
If something like this was available in Tulsa I think many would choose to ride the train and not drive, especially those that live in suburbs that have 30-40 min. commutes on traffic-clogged highways. For me in Denver it was nice but not necessary as I was only a few miles from downtown, but if I was in Boulder or Littleton (Owasso, Jenks, BA) it would be MUCH easier taking the train even with driving to the station to park before the ride into downtown. So yes it would help downtown workers, especially those whose companies would be more willing to pay for their pass than to pay for their parking. But each line would also have stops that connect different parts of the city: the Jenks line could have stops in west Tulsa near the river, the BA line could have stops in east Tulsa, and the Owasso line could have stops in north Tulsa and the airport. Really the only area that wouldn't be served would be midtown (except for potential stops on the BA line at 11th and Lewis and 4th and Peoria) and south Tulsa. Title: Single-Occupancy Cars - Such a waste! Post by: inteller on July 29, 2008, 04:02:39 pm quote: maybe to you, but you probably view cars as just a way to get from point a to point b and not a form of leisure. I ENJOY driving, so paying for the gas is just part of the hobby. Title: Single-Occupancy Cars - Such a waste! Post by: YoungTulsan on July 29, 2008, 04:23:48 pm quote: I agree with inteller. I love driving around just for the hell of it. Title: Single-Occupancy Cars - Such a waste! Post by: nathanm on July 29, 2008, 04:23:58 pm quote: I enjoyed driving much more when gas was a third its current cost. I enjoyed it even more when I was a kid and a buck would fill up my motorcycle's tank and still buy me a coke and a candy bar. As far as getting to work every day, that's just a chore no matter what car I'm driving. I'd much rather nap, read the paper, play a video game, or read this forum than sit behind the wheel for half an hour or more in congested traffic. Now, driving out in the country on some nice dirt roads or one of the many very twisty state highways over in Arkansas..that's fun unto itself. Commuting to work? Boooooorrring. Title: Single-Occupancy Cars - Such a waste! Post by: PonderInc on July 29, 2008, 04:29:00 pm quote: Wow! You're right! Usually, I'm annoyed by cars, traffic, etc...and I'm not that comfortable sitting in a lot of cars (no head room, no leg room). A few years ago, I had to drive back and forth to Owasso on a regular basis. I started eating sunflower seeds in the car b/c I was so frustrated/antsy with the drive...I needed a nervous habit (and I don't smoke). I've also discovered how ugly most of our streets are, now that I no longer live close to downtown by the river (where there's natural beauty, and inspiring architecture and lots of landscaping to admire). Now, I have to drive on Harvard almost every day, and I realize that it's so ugly, I try not to look left or right...I just sort of stare straight ahead and hate every minute of it. (I sometimes take narrow, pothole-filled Lewis, just b/c it's so much more attractive.) Ugly streets really bother me, and make me unhappy to be on them. Parking lots, billboards/signs, boring lack of architecture, no landscaping...it all adds up. I've discovered that I take routes based on whether or not the street is attractive (versus soul-crushing ugly). Much like I walk downtown along the interesting streets...not those that offer a blank wall, or parking lot to look at. But then, again, I'm sensitive that way. Title: Single-Occupancy Cars - Such a waste! Post by: inteller on July 29, 2008, 08:04:53 pm quote: you need to move. it is obvious that you have a neurosis regarding cars...and Tulsa is definitely not the place for you. I think Portland or some other various locale on the left coast needs you. They have plenty of people there that share your malady. This is a car town. Always has been and always will be. In the 50s Tulsa was second only to LA in cars per capita. Your second little cute picture from Frego displays exactly what Tulsans want.....their space! Title: Single-Occupancy Cars - Such a waste! Post by: azbadpuppy on July 29, 2008, 11:11:41 pm There's a really simple answer and it won't take years to build, won't cost anyone a dime, doesn't have to be voted on, and in fact could be implemented as soon as tomorrow.
Carpool! Why is this idea met with such hesitation? Have Americans regressed that far back into the depths of anti-social behavior? Are we that afraid of other people? What are the reasons? I am truly curious. Title: Single-Occupancy Cars - Such a waste! Post by: Hoss on July 29, 2008, 11:19:33 pm quote: The reasons are that most of the people of this town do not work in a central enough location with relation to one another for this to work in a fashion that is measurable unless you work in the CBD. Tulsa got away from the CBD years ago; now you have areas like 61st and Yale, to some extent the area I work at on 45th and 129th East Ave at the old Occidental complex and have office workers spread out all over town. For quite some time I was carpooling with people; but fact of the matter is, in some cases, a lot of companies aren't flexible enough to allow workers to change their hours to accommodate carpooling. For that matter, some workers aren't. It's sad too. But, Park N Ride could be an option if Tulsa would pull it's head out and work on more of a circulator system than a hub-and-spoke system. Title: Single-Occupancy Cars - Such a waste! Post by: sgrizzle on July 30, 2008, 05:36:18 am I work in the CBD and am not served by our mass transit system. Closest Bus line to me is alittle over half a mile and it doesn't go downtown. If I go about a mile I can get to a bus that goes downtown, but unlike the BA shuttle which drops people off all over downtown, that bus would drop me off at the denver station and I'd have about another mile to get to my office, at which I would arrive about a half hour late.
Title: Single-Occupancy Cars - Such a waste! Post by: azbadpuppy on July 30, 2008, 11:39:06 am quote: All good points. However I do notice that no matter where you go in the US, when you look around at other cars on a freeway during peak hours, nearly every car only has one driver. And then also look where many of those cars get off the freeways. Almost at the same locations, right? You say your arguments against carpooling are specific to Tulsa, everyone being spread out, etc, but then is this the case for every major American city? I think not. Many large groups of people live, and then work in the same areas, even in Tulsa. How many people work downtown, or close to downtown? Tens of thousands, no? How many of those live within a mile or so of each other in South Tulsa, or BA, or Jenks, or Owasso? Many, many of them. Carpooling of course won't work for everyone, but it could work for many people if people could get over their issues with it. A little bit of inconvenience and getting used to something different could go a really long way. If just 2 people carpooled together for a year, each of them would reduce their fuel cost by half, not to mention the reduced emissions. Can you imagine half the amount of cars on the road? That would be pretty awesome. There's many more reasons people do not want to carpool, and I suspect it mainly has to do with the 'bubble' mentality, where people do not want to share their private space or talk to strangers, etc. People are also reluctant to do anything the least bit inconvenient, but I also suspect that will all change as the price of gas continues to climb. Title: Single-Occupancy Cars - Such a waste! Post by: SXSW on July 30, 2008, 01:03:13 pm I used to carpool when I was working at Benham in OKC. The people who lived in Norman carpooled together, as did the people who lived in Edmond and Yukon. The manager sent out an email that set it all up. Maybe if more Tulsa businesses did the same thing it would work. As it is you may not know who in your office lives nearby. And for non 8-5 type jobs it's more difficult, especially if you have to leave during the day for any reason.
Would HOV lanes on certain Tulsa highways like 169, the BA, and 44 have any impact?? I always wonder why we don't have HOV lanes and every major Texas city has them, is it because our traffic is relatively calm compared to the nightmare that is driving at rush hour in Dallas, Austin, Houston, etc. Title: Single-Occupancy Cars - Such a waste! Post by: AVERAGE JOE on July 30, 2008, 01:17:01 pm quote: Said the same thing about Dallas, Houston, Denver, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, blah, blah, blah. Btw, the 50s were 50 years ago. Does your wife still wear pearls to vacuum the house and serve pot roast every night? Golly gee, that would be swell. Title: Single-Occupancy Cars - Such a waste! Post by: PonderInc on July 30, 2008, 02:02:47 pm According to these people, "Tulsa is a horse town. Always has been and always will be..."
(http://www.tulsalibrary.org/JPG/D3612.jpg) Photo: Beryl Ford Collection Title: Single-Occupancy Cars - Such a waste! Post by: Red Arrow on July 30, 2008, 10:08:06 pm quote: I often wonder why people who live in Boston, Paris, Montreal like to visit places like the Grand Caynon, Yosemite, Smokey Mountains (TN, NC), the Skyline Drive in the Appalachian mountains, the Alps, the Taj Mahal (sp?) Fiji etc. Then they go back to their dense urban lifestyle. I expect that it's nice to visit something different without wanting to live there. I have enjoyed my visits to Boston, LA, NYC, Seattle, etc. I just don't want to live there. Title: Single-Occupancy Cars - Such a waste! Post by: Hoss on July 30, 2008, 10:12:42 pm quote: Agreed. I was born and raised in Tulsa; had a brain fart in my early to mid twenties and moved to Houston. Moved back, although it was a divorce that was the catalyst. I had no family in Texas and realized how much I valued family and my lifelong friends. Houston was really 'cool', and I learned an awful lot about myself in the time I lived there. I wouldn't change the path I took for the world. It made me more patient sitting in traffic on the BA, because I could always think 'it's damn sure better than 5 PM on the westbound Katy Freeway'. I have friends from one coast to the other, one in Alaska. I've been to twenty-six states in my lifetime and would like to say I've visted all 50 before I shuffle off this mortal coil. But, I always wind up back home. Tulsa just feels like home. I love travel. But I love Tulsa more. Title: Single-Occupancy Cars - Such a waste! Post by: Hoss on July 30, 2008, 10:16:45 pm quote: I lived in Houston and used the HOV lane pretty frequently. It's a nice incentive to avoid the crappy traffic, but it's a nightmare to implement properly. I just don't think Tulsa can justify having the HOV lane unless it's on the BA only, and then it would be difficult to justify funding. Title: Single-Occupancy Cars - Such a waste! Post by: Red Arrow on July 30, 2008, 10:33:13 pm quote: I have to admit to being an import from suburban Philadelphia, PA since 1971. Rail does not need a density of multiple story apartment/condo building as far as one can see to support a rail system. It does need enough people going from one area to another on a regular basis. Where I grew up still has a trolley (real ones, not fake bus ones) that were established in the early 1900s. A large portion of the route passes through areas of single family homes and a mix of some apartments. (Google SEPTA route 101) There are areas around Tulsa that could benefit from a similar system. If it helps the well to do, so what. It still gets cars off the road and Tulsa will reap the benefits. The less economically advantaged still need to be addressed. If enough go from one area to the same other area, rail can be effective. The up front cost is big but the continuing cost can be less. Roads do not support themselves, why should we expect rail to do so? Just as a sidebar, SEPTA route 101 was privately owned until the late 1960s. Check it out. There is still a LOT of rail transportation in the Phila suburban area, for many miles from center city. It is crowded by BA, Jenks, and Bixby standards, but not concrete jungle. The nice thing about buses is that the route can be changed with the stroke of a pen. Developers do not see this as an advantage. Bus routes can be used to feed rail, the same as park and rides in other neighborhoods. Life stopped being fair in 1st grade, maybe kindergarten. Title: Single-Occupancy Cars - Such a waste! Post by: OurTulsa on July 31, 2008, 08:54:06 am quote: Apples/Oranges...I've visited the Alps and thought 'I could die here (happily)' but really, that environment would'nt provide me with the social, physical, and cultural elements that I need to sustain. I don't hear of too many Parisians that go to Framingham, MA, Islip, NY, (think Broken Arrow) and love what they experience. They may have a brief infatuation with the space but my experience has been that once they realize the emptiness in that space it becomes repellant. I guess,at the end of the day, I really want to argue how cars impact the experience of a place. In NYC, I absolutely avoid Times Square but absolutely love Washington Park or the West Village. Love Beacon Hill but get a little irritated with Copley Square. While the scale of a place plays a big role fact for me is that the places I tend to enjoy more are less impacted by the automobile. The presence of a dense and stimulating urban environment not overtaken by the automobile is heaven for me. And in our day that can only be accomplished with a very good transit system. I remember going to Rome not that long ago and really disliking the experience...due to all the damn cars jamming the streets and the noise, exhaust, and feeling of subordination. Title: Single-Occupancy Cars - Such a waste! Post by: Red Arrow on July 31, 2008, 10:13:52 am quote: Apples/Oranges. Ok, I didn't make my point. It's ok for a suburbanite to want to visit the big city. It's different. I admit, there are things to see and do that aren't in the suburbs. That is changing to some exent. I don't think too many visitors to a large city really want to tour the living areas unless there is some historical significance like Beacon Hill. I certainly didn't enjoy riding through the less economically fortunate areas of Philadelphia when taking my dad to the airport for a business trip. Mostly people will go to the museums, theater and the cultural places that you seem to require every day. But... not everyone wants to live in a dense place. There are plenty of places that could be infilled downtown (read parking lots). There is no present need to increase the density of places where the neighbors don't want it. Why would you want to live there anyway? Those places are not at the center of the activity you crave. I visited Germany in 1995. My friends lived in one of the suburbs of Frankfurt. We took the park and ride method to go downtown. We took the Autobahn to visit some other places. I took a side trip to Munich via the Autobahn in a rental car. When I got to Munich, I parked the car at the motel and it stayed there until I left a few days later. Frankfurt and Munich were nice to visit but if I were to move to Germany, I would live in a suburb. You are an urbanite, I am not. So what? There are cities for you and suburbs for me. Cars in a crowded city? I agree it's crazy except as an escape tool. Then it depends on how often you want to escape whether you own or rent. Obviously a good transit system is a must. We agree on that. I have seen pictures of large cities with gridlock trolley (real ones, not buses) cars from the early 1900s. At least they were not emitting diesel exhaust. The point here is that even a good transit system can become overwhelmed by high density. Many of the trolley companies built amusement parks just outside the city. It offered several opportunities. It gave the city dwellers a chance to escape to the "country" on a weekend. It also provided weekend income for the trolley companies. It was an interesting part of our history. Suburbia as we know it didn't really exist. City folk needed to escape the heat and crowded conditons of their day to day existance at least for a while. The road to near extinction of light rail in the US was too complex to describe it all here. Several main factors were the convenience of the automobile, public subsidy of roads while trolley companies were still privately owned, and an intentional effort by bus manufacturers GM), oil companies (Standard, I believe), and tire companies (Firestone). Tulsa (except the line to Sand Springs) fell in the 1930s. Title: Single-Occupancy Cars - Such a waste! Post by: PonderInc on August 01, 2008, 01:56:42 pm quote: I think you're on to something. Different people like different things. Tulsa has, for the past 50 years, been limiting its planning efforts and infrastructure investments to concepts that appeal only to people who like cars, sprawl, and suburban living. I think we're long overdue for a new approach....One that would appeal to a variety of people with a variety of needs and priorities. Among other things, we need to think about those who appreciate human-scaled development; those who desire beautiful and pedestrian friendly places; those who want better transit options; and those who care about a more sustainable (economic and environmental) approach to living. If the goal is to attract/retain bright, talented, forward-thinking people to Tulsa, then complacency with the status quo is not the answer. Sure, if you think Tulsa has reached the pinnacle of its potential, then we can be satisfied with what we have. If you believe, as I do, that Tulsa isn't even close to reaching its full potential, then we need to provide more diverse options to appeal to more people. Is Tulsa a "car city" because Tulsans love their cars so much? Or is Tulsa a car city because we have no other choice? Title: Single-Occupancy Cars - Such a waste! Post by: booWorld on August 01, 2008, 06:38:19 pm quote: False. Tulsa has a variety of zoning districts which are a result of planning efforts which appeal to a variety of people. I'll agree that there has been far too much emphasis on planning for cars and sprawling suburban lifestyles, but there have been some urban planning efforts since 1958 for high density development, especially in central Tulsa. The current Comp Plan (from the 1970s) called for a range of densities in my neighborhood. It has since been perverted by the TMAPC staff toward ridiculously low densities, but it included some sound urban planning goals 25 or 30 years ago. Title: Single-Occupancy Cars - Such a waste! Post by: USRufnex on August 01, 2008, 06:45:10 pm Tulsa is a "car city" because it has very short commute times, some of the shortest commute times in the entire country... it's really that simple. If I feel like going downtown to McNellie's from 41st & Garnett, it takes only about 10 mins and there's usually parking within a block of the pub.... so I drive. If there were a convenient bus or light rail, I'd still drive nine times out of ten... and I happen to love public transit...
Do I wish there were more pedestrian friendly places in Tulsa, especially midtown? You betcha. I've seen sprawl. Most of Tulsa is NOT sprawl, including south Tulsa... I get sick of hearing community activists misuse the term "sprawl" and act like the city of Tulsa needs to PUNISH the evildoers who don't live in midtown... most of midtown has urban density no greater than the rest of Tulsa... and... newsflash... MOST TULSANS DON'T WORK DOWNTOWN ANYMORE. Dallas and Houston have horrible traffic problems, they've had these problems for years and years... ditto for Chicago, a city that has commuter rail and the "L"... yet most Chicagoans don't live in Chicago, they live in "Chicagoland." Why is this? Could it be that larger families don't like living in overpriced urban brownstones and need something that more efficiently meets their needs? [:O] I lived half a mile from friends on the northside of Chicago who have a pricey place right around Wrigleyville.... in Tulsa, it would take me less than 5 mins to drive that half-mile..... in Chicago, I had four choices... a) 10 min drive due to high traffic on narrow 2-laned streets with cars parallel parked... another 10-15 mins to find a legal parking spot.... and another 5+ mins to walk from the spot where I parallel parked to the brownstone... b) Pay a king's ransom for a cab to/from the point of destination... 10-15 mins total since cabbies are pretty active-- just flag one down... c) Wait 5-15 mins for a bus, then 5-10 mins for the "L" train, then another 5 minute walk to the condo... d) The Cubs game just let out.... don't wanna be anywhere near the ballpark tonight... so I'll just call or email... I find some of this discussion laughable because we already have mass transit from the Jenks Riverwalk to Downtown/Blue Dome/Brady... it's called the Lewis bus... how 'bout we extend the hours on Tulsa Transit before we start fantasizing about light rail from Jenks across open spaces on the west side of the river?...... commuter rail makes more sense, but wouldn't that actually exacerbate sprawl???.... Or we could pull a Michael Bates/CATO Institute solution and dismantle Tulsa Transit so private jitney service could magically succeed.... yeah, can't wait for the Lewis bus to be replaced by the Victory Christian Jitney Service, where Randi Miller passes out glossy gospel tracks while you're getting on the bus.... a nice improvement over accidentally sitting on an old John Chick track.... /end rant. Title: Single-Occupancy Cars - Such a waste! Post by: booWorld on August 01, 2008, 07:05:39 pm quote: So do I. Some of these extremist posts are written as though Tulsa has a huge traffic crisis. We don't. Title: Single-Occupancy Cars - Such a waste! Post by: rwarn17588 on August 01, 2008, 07:41:09 pm quote: Thank you for bringing some sense to the discussion. Light rail is not needed unless you're having traffic jams six hours a day. St. Louis needs light rail. Chicago needs light rail. Houston needs light rail. Tulsa does not. Believe me, I'm all for alternative transportation. So the obvious answer -- which seems to be completely overlooked -- is to extended the hours and scope of the current Tulsa Transit bus routes. Expanding an existing program is a helluva a lot cheaper than starting a new one from scratch. I'd use buses more, but this business of shutting down at 7 p.m. doesn't do much good if you're wanting to go home from McNellie's or after a Drillers game. Title: Single-Occupancy Cars - Such a waste! Post by: booWorld on August 01, 2008, 07:49:56 pm quote: Watch out, both of you. Sensible discussion about public transit on this forum most likely will be met with over-the-top arguments from the pro-rail zealots. How many more posts until this thread devolves into Bates-bashing or is locked down? We'll see.... Title: Single-Occupancy Cars - Such a waste! Post by: Red Arrow on August 02, 2008, 09:06:29 pm quote: Tulsa may not need rail but that doesn't mean that selected areas wouldn't benefit from rail. There are a lot of thing we don't need but life is better with them. (edit, forgot "r" in better) Title: Single-Occupancy Cars - Such a waste! Post by: TheTed on August 02, 2008, 09:27:18 pm I'd love to have rail.
But I'd settle for a decent bus route, something like the MAX in Kansas City. Runs every five minutes most of the day, runs until 1am. It's a bus for people who don't have to take the bus. Our bus system now is a waste of money. It's done so half-assed it's not useful to many people. It's worthless if you don't want to ride for an hour to go five miles. It's worthless if you want to go somewhere after 6pm. It's worthless on weekends. We should do something like the MAX. Maybe a route from Jenks, through South Tulsa, Brookside, downtown and over to TU or something. Run it at least every 15 minutes 7 days a week until bar time, so you can ride the bus without having to plan your life around the bus. Title: Single-Occupancy Cars - Such a waste! Post by: rwarn17588 on August 02, 2008, 11:19:49 pm quote: Well, of course life would be better with rail. But life also would be better with more transit buses and a greatly expanded schedule for them. And it'd be a heckuva lot cheaper. Title: Single-Occupancy Cars - Such a waste! Post by: Red Arrow on August 03, 2008, 08:54:02 am quote: Please see the myths section of www.lightrailnow.org Over the lifetime of a system, rail can be less expensive if there is sufficient ridership. Determining that support is the difficult part. Title: Single-Occupancy Cars - Such a waste! Post by: booWorld on August 03, 2008, 09:18:15 am quote: I went to the Light Rail Now link you posted, and there are lots of links to myths. Are you talking about one or more of the links to BRT myths? The way that Tulsa is so spread out, I don't see how a light rail system could be as effective as an improved bus system. If we had light rail and dense development near the stations, it might work well on a limited basis. But our street network would allow a bus to go most places, including to and from most if not all light rail stops. Title: Single-Occupancy Cars - Such a waste! Post by: rwarn17588 on August 03, 2008, 09:54:24 am quote: "If there is sufficient ridership ..." A rather big caveat, do you think? Listen, I'm not trying to dissuade you because I dislike rail. I love rail. I used Metrolink plenty of times in the St. Louis area. But with St. Louis, you also are talking about a city with humongous traffic problems -- such problems that simply don't exist here. There's no incentive for light rail in this region -- especially when light rail costs in excess of $10 million a mile with a ton of uncertainty on whether anyone will use it, especially if you can hop in your car from Broken Arrow and be in downtown Tulsa in 20 minutes. Title: Single-Occupancy Cars - Such a waste! Post by: booWorld on August 03, 2008, 10:46:11 am quote: I've enjoyed rail travel myself, in this country when there was private passenger train service and more recently on Amtrak. I've also ridden urban and regional rail systems in this country and in Europe. The rail system most recently discussed for Tulsa involves using existing tracks rather than building mostly new tracks. That would help save some of the infrastructure cost. But keep in mind where the existing tracks run through Tulsa. Many of these areas are places where people don't live or don't want to live. Some are places where people do live but don't want more people to live (NIMBYs). Many tracks run through industrial wasteland. It would be possible to build stations at intervals along these existing tracks and allow for high density development near the stations (TOD), but even if that were done, large sectors of Tulsa would be too far from the train stations to be within a reasonable service distance. As long as the activities people needed and wanted to do were close to the train stations, a light rail system could work for Tulsa. But without an improved bus system capable of taking people to and from the train stations, I don't think light rail would work very well here. We're too spread out over too large an area, and it's relatively easy and fast to drive most places in the Tulsa metro area. Title: Single-Occupancy Cars - Such a waste! Post by: TURobY on August 03, 2008, 01:02:04 pm I am a huge fan of using the a smaller light-rail route through downtown from the Westport/Festival Park area through Civic Center, past the arena, through Williams, and over to Brady/Blue Dome. Why not start with something like that, and let it evolve from there? This talk about commuter rail is a waste at this point. Start with a sure thing...
Title: Single-Occupancy Cars - Such a waste! Post by: booWorld on August 03, 2008, 01:28:26 pm quote: I think the downtown rail plan is too ill-defined right now to call it a sure thing yet, but it has better odds of success that a larger system. I'd like to see details and time frame on the proposal. Tulsa really needs to re-think its land planning policies before implementing a rail transit system on any scale. -- Sybil Title: Single-Occupancy Cars - Such a waste! Post by: SXSW on August 03, 2008, 03:36:31 pm quote: The same was said about Denver when we were closer to the same size back in the 1980's. They said Denver was too spread out (and it is, way worse than Tulsa with its suburbs), the existing tracks run through undesirable neighborhoods and through industrial wastelands (still true to this day although some of those "wastelands" are now attractive TOD's), and it's way too expensive for a car city. But they believed in what it could do in the future and now it is one of the most successful systems in the country. The same could be said for Dallas, Houston, Minneapolis, Charlotte, etc. all of which have built successful LRT systems in the past 15-20 years. Of course Tulsa isn't as large as those cities but we're not too far behind and the PLANNING should start now so the system can be up and running in the next 15-20 years when we are the same size as some of those cities, especially Charlotte, Austin, and Albuquerque. OKC is pretty serious about starting a system, will we let them keep staying a decade ahead of us in everything??? Title: Single-Occupancy Cars - Such a waste! Post by: booWorld on August 03, 2008, 03:53:49 pm quote: I don't think I've ever said that I'm opposed to planning for rail-based or other modes of transit. In fact, I think we ought to keep many options open. More importantly, we need to have comprehensive planning which includes transportation and land use. From what I've seen, those efforts are not coordinated at INCOG, and sometimes they are at odds. What I'd like for everyone to keep in mind is that nearly all of Tulsa's built environment wasn't here 100 years ago. It was all planned. There is not a transportation crisis in Tulsa right now, and with careful integrated planning, we might be able to avert crises in the future. Title: Single-Occupancy Cars - Such a waste! Post by: booWorld on August 03, 2008, 08:41:56 pm quote: Houston has a successful light rail "system"? Houston is growing rapidly. I think their metro area has population of approximately 6 million. Tulsa's metro population is less than 1 million. If Tulsa had a single line about a mile or a mile and a quarter long with 2 or 3 stops, then our light rail "system" would be on par with Houston's, per capita. Assuming that Tulsa and Houston grow at the same rate over the 20 years (which isn't likely), then Tulsa would need to add about 10 or 11 miles of track to its light rail system by the year 2025 to stay even with Houston's system on a per capita basis. If we start planning right away, this might be feasible for Tulsa. But remember that it's possible to drive across Tulsa's entire metro area relatively quickly and easily. That's not as simple to do in Houston, which results in a higher demand there for other forms of transportation, especially during rush hours. Title: Single-Occupancy Cars - Such a waste! Post by: Red Arrow on August 03, 2008, 10:50:34 pm I actually got enough repsonses that I can't quote just one to reply. Thanks, a first for me.
My thoughts about light rail are admittedly biased by having grown up next to a trolley line in suburban Philadelphia, PA. I like to refer to www.lightrailnow.org because they have enough links to answer most questions. I also have several books, some out of print, that detail the history of electric rail around the USA. I may occasionally remember a reference from a book that may not be at Light Rail Now. The reference to BRT often answers the usual "buses are cheaper than rail" question. The life of rail equipment and operating costs, even for a downtown circulator system will often overcome the initial cost of the infrastructure. Other benefits to electric rail include not having diesel exhaust all over town. Think Ozone Alert. Buses are better than cars, electric trolleys are better than diesel buses. Some consider electric trolley buses as an intermediate step between diesel buses and electric rail. Some say they have the advantages of both; some say they have the disadvantages of both. As far as ridership, people like rail. They will ride rail before they take a bus. One suburban Philadelphia trolley line was subsituted with buses on the same right of way as the previous trolley line in the 50s or 60s. It was not totally grade separated but would be today's equivalent of BRT. Ridership dropped significantly within months. If anyone is really interested, I will list the titles and authors of my references. Tulsa has at least two potential uses for light rail. The first is a downtown circulator system. It could disperse commuters from incoming bus or rail routes, perhaps even parking structures for cars. Parking garages could eliminate some surface parking, allowing better use of the space. Some will complain about the visual polution of the overhead wires but good design can minimize that view, especially for relatively low speed lines. Our Ozone situation would be improved. Operational costs will be less than for buses. Think about the price of diesel fuel. I believe many would ride it in preference to even an improved bus system based on what I have read. It wouldn't take everyone directly to the front door of their office but I doubt a bus could do that effectively either. A bus system may cover the same area but I believe it would be less well received, more expensive over a continuing life evalution, and a less effective solution to pollution. Commuter rail may be more effective than some think. It probably wouldn't replace the automobile for errands but park and rides have proven effective in several places around the country. It may only take 20 minutes to drive from BA to downtown but if you drive you still have to pay to park your car, somewhere. Unless you need the mobility of a personal vehicle, rail is a nice alternative. Fewer miles on the car, less frustration with rush hour drivers, lower gas bills. The Albuquerque (NM) Rail Runner is similar to the proposed line from Tulsa to BA. My sister uses the Rail Runner, really likes it and says it is well patronized. There are several corridors that are being considered around Tulsa. Even if they don't serve everyone, they could free up some existing infrastructure for those they cannot serve. On a strictly personal level, I consider downtown Tulsa to be car unfriendly without a viable alternative. It caused me to not consider a downtown job when looking for my present job. I already have a place to live that I like and have no desire to move downtown. Living downtown has, of course, been the subject of many other threads. I don't expect light rail from 111th and Memorial (near me) to anywhere in my lifetime. I do think light rail could be effective (more than even a better bus system) for some areas of Tulsa and the suburbs. Title: Single-Occupancy Cars - Such a waste! Post by: PonderInc on August 04, 2008, 01:40:45 pm quote: Boo, I have to respectfully disagree...or perhaps clarify. Here's what I mean: In Tulsa, you have to go before the BOA and get a variance if you want to develop a commercial property without (ridiculously oversized) onsite parking. The zoning code assumes that everyone will drive all the time. Why aren't there requirements for bicycle racks? Scooter parking? Attractive and comfortable transit shelters? Our current zoning also requires deep setbacks of commercial developments, which push buildings away from sidewalks (and pedestrians and potential transit users). Again, you have to get a variance to bring the structure closer to the street. In Tulsa, it seems that traffic engineers design our roads, rather than our urban planners. So, what we get are enormously wide arterial streets with 5-lane (each way) intersections, that are not safe for pedestrians to cross. Great engineering...if you're driving a car all the time. (Thus, you need a car to cross the street safely.) The zoning code now requires sidewalks, which is nice...but take a look at almost any commercial development, and notice where the sidewalks lead. Imagine yourself pushing a baby stroller down the sidewalk, on your way to the grocery store. The sidewalk invarably feeds directly into...the auto ramp! (Where cars are whipping in and out of the parking lot.) It's the LAST place you would want to be with your child...and the opposite of pedestrian-friendly. Even without a kid, it's neither safe nor pleasant to cross the ocean of asphalt on foot...with distracted drivers tearing around the parking lot like boats on a lake. Modern suburban housing developments are often gated, full of curly-cue streets and cul-de-sacs, and miles from the nearest grocery store. Again, this is not conducive to pedestrians, cicylists, or transit. When I look around Tulsa, the built environment is not geared towards alternative transit (at least not the areas that have been developed since 1950), so I have to assume that we've not been planning for alternatives to auto-travel. We got what we planned for. We got the city we designed. A place where 93% of the people say they have to drive cars to get around, but 37% of the people want to have an alternative. Oh yeah, and we didn't make plans to protect all the amazing and historic downtown buildings that would have allowed an incredible array of urban living/entertainment options. But we've got a lot of surface parking lots.... Title: Single-Occupancy Cars - Such a waste! Post by: PonderInc on August 04, 2008, 02:28:55 pm quote: So true! Transit can't work in a vaccuum. It's one part of a multi-faceted solution. Tulsa doesn't have a traffic crisis...YET. Let's not wait for a crisis, and then try to react to it and solve it. (Always much harder, and much more expensive.) Title: Single-Occupancy Cars - Such a waste! Post by: booWorld on August 04, 2008, 06:49:50 pm quote: No parking is required by the zoning code in the CBD commercial district. The zoning code allows for slight reductions in required parking for mixed-use commercial developments of a certain size. The code requirements could and should be relaxed and/or eliminated in many districts, but onsite parking currently is not required in all commercial districts. quote: It does not assume that in the CBD. quote: This is true in some cases, but completely false in others. The CBD and CH commercial districts require no setbacks from the street other than those dictated by the major street and highway plan or by sight lines at intersections. In many instances, developers choose to set buildings back farther from the street so they can build a parking lot in front. "Build-to" instead of "setback" lines would help to bring about the results you're wanting. quote: This is almost always true, and I don't like it. There are a few standards for urban arterials and commercial streets with right-of-way widths of about 80 feet, which is the width of most of streets in Tulsa's original townsite (with a few exceptions which are 60 feet wide). I think we definitely need standards for urban streets along the lines of what Allan Jacobs suggests in Great Streets and The Boulevard Book. quote: I'm not sure where that requirement is in the zoning code, but the City has had sidewalk ordinances and standards since at least the 1930s. For the most part, I think those standards are good. The problem is that they are not enforced uniformly. Developers use the excuse that since the requirements for sidewalks have not been enforced in the past, they should not be required to abide by them now. That reasoning factored into the case of the developers of the highrise south of Utica Square suing the TMAPC in order to not build a sidewalk along the east side of Utica. The City Council needs to pass an ordinance on sidewalks for now and the future regardless of what happened in the past. Around 2004 I complained to Tulsa's Urban Development department about some curb ramps in the Blue Dome district which were not built to the City's standards or to the guidelines for the American with Disabilities Act. The response was that they had someone on staff who was very adamant that curb ramps be done a certain way (his way, I guess) and that his feelings would be hurt if I pushed the issue further. I really don't care who designed those curb ramps. My point is that the City had a good standard for them, and that the standard ought to be followed. I walk often, especially downtown. I have plenty of strong opinions and ideas about how to improve Tulsa's sidewalks -- far too long and boring to post here. But sticking to the standards we already have would be a great start. quote: And I think I posted yesterday that I abhor cul-de-sacs. quote: Except for the trail system that sounds correct to me. There has been far too much emphasis on planning for cars. quote: I agree 100%. That's what I've been saying over and over for years on this forum to the point where others simply tune me out. quote: We didn't make plans to save all the historic buildings, but the CORE Tulsa plan was presented to the Tulsa Preservation Commission in an effort to save some of those buildings. But the Preservation Commission deferred the proposal for further study about two years ago. I haven't heard much about it since, most likely to the delight of DTU and downtown property owners along with developers. For many it's easier to raze those pesky "functionally obsolete" buildings and start with cleared ground, preferably assembled into a super-sized super-block with the annoying alleys and streets vacated and ripped out. But since our zoning code does not require off-street parking in the CBD district, most of the parking lots you see downtown are market-driven. After the PLANiTULSA process is complete, I hope Tulsa creates a new zoning code from scratch. But we can look at the code we have now and emphasize the positive aspects: CBD and CH districts in terms of setbacks -- let's have more of that. No parking requirement in the CBD -- let's extend that to other areas of the City. I know many of you love to hate Santa on this forum, but please take his advice and read The High Cost of Free Parking by Donald Shoup. It's one of the best gifts I've ever received for Christmas or otherwise. (Thanks, Santa. [:X]) Narrower streets would be wonderful. Let's start with our arterials and see how we can improve upon them. The RM-2 district is wonderfully flexible and allows for a range of densities, some of which are great enough to support viable mass transit options. I think it's fair to say that most of our planning efforts for the past 50 years have been car-centric, but not all of them have been. I have some hope that the updated Comp Plan will emphasize other modes of transportation. We'll see..... Title: Single-Occupancy Cars - Such a waste! Post by: booWorld on August 04, 2008, 06:52:29 pm quote: If Tulsa has a crisis, I'd say it's a integrated planning coordination crisis. |