The Tulsa Forum by TulsaNow

What everyone seems to forget is when you take transit, it doesn't drop you at the front door of where you are going, you have to walk it.  With the way this city is set up, there are few places in it that walking a block or more just seems to be a task more than anything.

It's even easier in downtown Tulsa because you can cut through all the parking lots.  No buildings to bother you.

in the same state where people circle the walmart parking lot for 20 minutes just to get a spot 20 feet closer

Adelaide, Australia has a slightly lower density than Tulsa, actually.  But it does have three times the population, which makes a big difference.  It's also almost 4 times as big in area.  It doesn't make a very good comparison, IMO. 

Like Artist said, we need a pedestrian friendly city for transit to work.  What everyone seems to forget is when you take transit, it doesn't drop you at the front door of where you are going, you have to walk it.  With the way this city is set up, there are few places in it that walking a block or more just seems to be a task more than anything.

Actually Adelaide, AU has a population of about 1.2 Million and that's the metro area so yes the total city population is much larger than just Tulsa but comparing the metro areas they are pretty similar, and Adelaide has a lower but similar population density to Tulsa as well. So it's a reasonable comparison.

I'm not sure how to even compare a metro and a city like that, and don't know if there are suburbs to Adelaide (though I'm not finding anything saying there is).  

From everything I've found Adelaide is basically like Indianapolis where there isn't really suburbs, it's all the main city... so when comparing Tulsa you have to compare the metro population (950,000-1 Million) to Adelaide's city population (around 1.2 Million or so)

So in reality the population is not that much different.

Edit-

Just for reference as well, the population of the entire South Australia state is about 1.64 Million

So shouldn't we look at several different city centers when looking at Tulsa Metro as compared to one city center when looking at Adelaide?

And also as a point that a lot of people say that transit isn't ready to be built in Tulsa is false. I think the planning process we are in is very important but we need to act on it very soon once we have the right plan of action and not wait 10 years and let other cities pass us by.

Sorry but I don't think I understand your question, but I'll try.

Adelaide still has multiple centers throughout the cities, such as Tulsa... but with Tulsa they just happen to be called Downtown BA, Downtown Owasso, Woodland Hills, and so on. Adelaide just happens to connect these centers with high capacity commuter rail with higher frequencies, similar to what you see ran in Chicago or northeastern cities.

Basically if you took all the different municipalities (imaginary borders) and made them one in Tulsa, the city of Tulsa would have a population of about a million. Adelaide still has the different city centers, just without the imaginary borders that we have here in Tulsa. Granted the fact we do have the metro area here broken into different cities does make transit more difficult to plan, finance, and build then say Adelaide but that a whole different area.

With the pictures I showed my main point was to show how vastly different the downtown core can be with proper walkability and transit options in a population area the same size as the Tulsa metro. 

And also as a point that a lot of people say that transit isn't ready to be built in Tulsa is false. I think the planning process we are in is very important but we need to act on it very soon once we have the right plan of action and not wait 10 years and let other cities pass us by.

Oklahoma City, Albuquerque, Tuscon, and more are all in the process of building streetcar lines.

To start to get close to the population point as Adelaide, you have to include Bartllsville into the Metro area.  At this point, the population density drops dramatically.  Also, from what I can tell, Adelaide's multiple "centers" were developed as the city grew.  The Tulsa metro is the result of several towns in the area growing towards the city.  Creates a different growth pattern entirely.  I'm just really seeing the comparison between the two.

Also, Adelaide had an urban plan laid out for future growth starting in 1888.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Karte_Adelaide_MKL1888.png (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Karte_Adelaide_MKL1888.png)

I just don't see a real comparison of Tulsa to cities that had rail established as public transport before Oklahoma became a state. And as I have said before, and to Tulsa's credit, they are trying to undo 30+ years of neglect to downtown.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adelaide (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adelaide)

Again I'm not trying to say they are twin cities. I'm asking people to look at examples and find what Tulsa can learn from them. Goodness, I don't think I ever said they are both the exact same size.

If you fail to look at the comparison and learn anything from it then that is your choice as well.

You are the one that said "hey, this city is comparable to Tulsa in size, population, and population density, and look what they did."  That was rather misleading.  Yes, they can make for a good model of how transit can work in a smaller population, but please don't try to present a cat as a dog.  The two cities are different animals, and while have some similarities and something can be learned from another, there are limitations to what can be done to one because of what is different.

Regardless of the comparisons or not, or how each one got to where they are today.  I think the point is...

1. Does what they have work?

2. Does it, or parts of "it", work better or worse than what we have and why?

3. And then are there are some things we could learn and what are they?   

To me they are comparable (not exactly a like), it's an opinion. Never did I state that this was the exact model Tulsa should follow, I was planning on just showcasing some models in general, in cities that are a similar size to Tulsa just to help people visualize what some successful transit cities are in cultures similar (disclaimer: not exactly a like, don't take it so serious), yet you guys have to jump all over me for it. An idiot could understand that there are limitations to what can be done because no city is exactly the same. Maybe I need to link the definition of similar because I think some of you understand it.

Thank You, at least one person gets it.

So if people just want to attack me then I'm done with trying to discuss anything, because all my goal was to try and bring examples of successful transit in similar sized markets that we could analyze and see what worked there, what didn't work there, and see what we might be able to use here in Tulsa.

I was just pointing out that your "model" was further from Tulsa then you made it out to be.

That's your opinion. Do you have anything constructive to add to the conversation or just here to criticize?

How is it opinion?  Adelaide, SA, Australia to Tulsa?

9433.4 Miles

That's pretty far away.

Plus, it's also in a different country, which likely has a culture that isn't more vehicle based like America is.

Use an American city as a comparison.  It's like apples and oranges.

Have you read anything I've actually said, or just jumping in to criticize a subject meant toward a positive discussion of transit issues in Tulsa?

I had no idea this city was in Australia.. honestly I thought it was across the Arkansas River and was Tulsa twin city and I was just jealous of their transit system!!  ::)

Australian cities actually has a very similar culture to American cities except they haven't done away with rail transit like most cities here. Like I said in one of the original posts they have what is called the "Australian Dream"... does that sound familiar?

If you have something to add to the conversation please add it, if not move on.

So if people just want to attack me then I'm done with trying to discuss anything, because all my goal was to try and bring examples of successful transit in similar sized markets that we could analyze and see what worked there, what didn't work there, and see what we might be able to use here in Tulsa.

Obviously not if you're still posting.  I've already added my thoughts earlier in the thread.  America <> The Rest of the Limited Auto Driving World.  The NE and places like San Francisco are where transit systems really work.  Why?  Because they're walkable.  Look at Tulsa's walkability index and tell me that we can do something like that.  I'm not against mass transit.  I'm against it done poorly, and in cities with a lot of urban sprawl (right here) you really need to think it out before doing it.

Right now, our transit system sucks.  If you can't get bus ridership up and have a decent bus system, don't even think about light rail.

If you can't get bus ridership up and have a decent bus system, don't even think about light rail.

It would seem so but it turns out to not be necessarily true.

Check out the facts and myths.
http://www.lightrailnow.org/

Might it be possible that a website named "LightRailNow!" is just a wee bit biased towards light rail?

It obviously is.  Have you looked at any of it?  I believe they do a reasonable job of presenting opposing views and data. The conclusions will obviously be a bit biased but you are free to draw your own conclusions.  They have several authors that have extensive experience in the public transportation industry and government agencies.  There is a lot of information collected there in one convenient location.  There are some road warrior sites around if you want mega parking spaces and the expressways to have 8 lanes in each direction like the LA area

Briefly.  It looked like it had some interesting information.  Unfortunately, most mass transit usually gets undersold on costs and oversold on ridership projections.   While rail is always more sexy than buses in the minds of planners and the public, it is so much more expensive and less flexible as a people mover.  Attitudes towards mass transit in this area will be difficult to change, especially given current low usage and familiarity.

That's your opinion. Do you have anything constructive to add to the conversation or just here to criticize?

Briefly.  It looked like it had some interesting information.  Unfortunately, most mass transit usually gets undersold on costs and oversold on ridership projections.   While rail is always more sexy than buses in the minds of planners and the public, it is so much more expensive and less flexible as a people mover.  Attitudes towards mass transit in this area will be difficult to change, especially given current low usage and familiarity.

This is interesting.
http://www.heritagetrolley.org/articleTennyson.htm

Yes, another trolley site but read the author's credentials.

A little too briefly.  Certainly some have run over but name much of any transportation project that hasn't.  Spend some more time on the site.  The fact that it is less flexible can be an advantage too.  Development around a rail system can be more assured that it will stay there than a bus route which can be changed with a pen stroke.  Attitudes toward riding a bus are not always the same as riding rail, even on the same route as the predecessor to SEPTA (South East Pennsylvania Transit Authority) found when they replaced the Ardmore trolley line with buses running the exact same route.  If I get the chance, I'll dig up a few article titles that aren't just "XXX Light Rail a Big Success".

o Bill Cartwright, it's an old question -- one that's been answered for Tulsa's bus system in the past.

With limited resources, do you focus on bus frequency, or instead make sure all parts of the community receive some bus service?

Tulsa's system has a wide reach. But if a would-be passenger just misses a bus at their stop, it takes an average of 55 minutes of waiting for another bus to come by.

Last month, Tulsa city councilors asked Cartwright to study how the system might look if the focus was on frequency instead of reach.

While Councilor G.T. Bynum said he was "not in a position right now to make any sort of proposal," he and other councilors told Cartwright in a Sept. 13 committee meeting they wanted more information about how a system might work if the emphasis was placed on frequency rather than coverage area.

In an interview, Cartwright explained how the bus system arrived at its current state.

"Back in 2002, when the national economy declined dramatically and the city economy and the city budget declined dramatically, we got our budget cut quite a bit," said Cartwright, general manager for the Metropolitan Tulsa Transit Authority.

Cartwright said the idea of cutting bus routes met with strong public opposition.

"When we have a large number of transit dependent people like we do in Tulsa, if you decide you're going to cut out service in this area or that area, they don't have a way to get there," Cartwright said.

But where is there? In the city council meeting, Cartwright told councilors that 54 percent of riders use the bus system to make it to work, while another 11 percent use the system to get to school.


However, at the meeting, Councilor Blake Ewing spoke about other ideas for the bus system, citing as a concern a report of an arduous odyssey for someone trying to get to a grocery store from north Tulsa, which he said has a dearth of grocery stores.

"If it's making it impossible for people to use it for the regular everyday parts of their life, those are the things that I'm interested in addressing. Yes, work and school is important, but I would say purchasing fresh produce and dairy is important, and people aren't able to do that," Ewing said. He also offered a rhetorical question: "Are we ever going to provide a public transportation system in Tulsa that allows people to live without a car?"

Cartwright told UTW he expects to have the information requested by councilors within two to three weeks.

He said Tulsa Transit also works with the Indian Nations Council of Governments, which is considered a planning authority for the region. In October of last year, INCOG adopted a 25-year transportation plan that identified high-traffic corridors that might be appropriate for enhanced public transit.

Tulsa Transit was formed as a public trust in 1968 with $60,000 in city funds to continue service that had been abandoned by a private bus company.

While it relies on the city for funding, Cartwright's position is filled by the Tulsa Transit board -- so he reports to the board, rather than the city councilors or Mayor Dewey Bartlett.

When the city asked citizens to suggest projects that might be funded through the Vision2 proposal to extend a sales tax hike through 2029, roughly 320 submissions came in online during the three weeks immediately after the call for public input. About 10 responses described a desire to use Vision2 funds to improve the bus system.

"We did check on the Vision2 funding, but the message we got back from the city council was that they thought that the city's capital improvement projects, CIP, would be more appropriate for our funding needs," Cartwright said.

At the Sept. 13 meeting, councilors spoke somewhat vaguely about boosting funding for bus service.

Councilor Phil Lakin described how starting the process of studying bus service now could lead to a better-informed solution come June, when it's time to finalize yearly budgets.

"It's better to start now than try to do this ... [in June] to get you the kind of funding that you're requesting," Lakin said.

In an interview, Cartwright mused about funding challenges faced by Tulsa Transit.

"A lot of cities have a special allocation. They'll have a one-cent sales tax or a half-cent sales tax that's dedicated for transit operations. That would be terrific to have something like that, because then you can plan ahead years in advance much better than we can," Cartwright said.

Cartwright said fares have held steady at $1.50 since 2009, which he called a "pretty average fare in the Midwest."

"Tulsa Transit has no plans right now to recommend any fare increase," he said.

As far as the systems philosophy, Cartwright put it this way: "We're here to deliver the best system that we can to serve as many people as possible. And the people that we're serving, the people that are currently using the system, their input means quite a bit to us. We feel like the final say in how the system looks should really be based on the input from the general public that rides the system, because they know what they're needs are better than someone else would."