A grassroots organization focused on the intelligent and sustainable development, preservation and revitalization of Tulsa.
 
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
November 23, 2017, 03:39:16 am
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Single-Occupancy Cars - Such a waste!  (Read 12016 times)
AVERAGE JOE
Guest
« Reply #30 on: July 30, 2008, 01:17:01 pm »

quote:
Originally posted by inteller


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.


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.
Logged
PonderInc
City Dweller
City Father
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2459


« Reply #31 on: July 30, 2008, 02:02:47 pm »

According to these people, "Tulsa is a horse town.  Always has been and always will be..."

Photo: Beryl Ford Collection
Logged
Red Arrow
T-Town Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 10232


WWW
« Reply #32 on: July 30, 2008, 10:08:06 pm »

quote:
Originally posted by OurTulsa

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.



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.
Logged

 
Hoss
I'm a Daft Punk
T-Town Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 10920


I might be moving to Montana soon...


WWW
« Reply #33 on: July 30, 2008, 10:12:42 pm »

quote:
Originally posted by Red Arrow

quote:
Originally posted by OurTulsa

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.



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.




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.
Logged

Libertarianism is a system of beliefs for people who think adolescence is the epitome of human achievement.

Global warming isn't real because it was cold today.  Also great news: world famine is over because I just ate - Stephen Colbert.

Somebody find Guido an ambulance to chase...
Hoss
I'm a Daft Punk
T-Town Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 10920


I might be moving to Montana soon...


WWW
« Reply #34 on: July 30, 2008, 10:16:45 pm »

quote:
Originally posted by SXSW

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.



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.
Logged

Libertarianism is a system of beliefs for people who think adolescence is the epitome of human achievement.

Global warming isn't real because it was cold today.  Also great news: world famine is over because I just ate - Stephen Colbert.

Somebody find Guido an ambulance to chase...
Red Arrow
T-Town Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 10232


WWW
« Reply #35 on: July 30, 2008, 10:33:13 pm »

quote:
Originally posted by Hometown

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.




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.
Logged

 
OurTulsa
Guest
« Reply #36 on: July 31, 2008, 08:54:06 am »

quote:
Originally posted by Red Arrow

quote:
Originally posted by OurTulsa

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.



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.




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.
« Last Edit: July 31, 2008, 08:57:24 am by OurTulsa » Logged
Red Arrow
T-Town Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 10232


WWW
« Reply #37 on: July 31, 2008, 10:13:52 am »

quote:
Originally posted by OurTulsa

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.



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.
Logged

 
PonderInc
City Dweller
City Father
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2459


« Reply #38 on: August 01, 2008, 01:56:42 pm »

quote:
Originally posted by Red Arrow

You are an urbanite, I am not.  So what?  There are cities for you and suburbs for me.


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?
Logged
booWorld
Guest
« Reply #39 on: August 01, 2008, 06:38:19 pm »

quote:
Originally posted by PonderInc

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.


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.
Logged
USRufnex
Guest
« Reply #40 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.

Logged
booWorld
Guest
« Reply #41 on: August 01, 2008, 07:05:39 pm »

quote:
Originally posted by USRufnex

I find some of this discussion laughable...


So do I.

Some of these extremist posts are written as though Tulsa has a huge traffic crisis.  We don't.
Logged
rwarn17588
Guest
« Reply #42 on: August 01, 2008, 07:41:09 pm »

quote:
Originally posted by USRufnex


... 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???....




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.
Logged
booWorld
Guest
« Reply #43 on: August 01, 2008, 07:49:56 pm »

quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588

quote:
Originally posted by USRufnex


... 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???....




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.


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....
Logged
Red Arrow
T-Town Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 10232


WWW
« Reply #44 on: August 02, 2008, 09:06:29 pm »

quote:
Originally posted by booWorld

quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588

quote:
Originally posted by USRufnex


... 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???....




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.


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....



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)
« Last Edit: August 02, 2008, 09:14:56 pm by Red Arrow » Logged

 
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

 
  Hosted by TulsaConnect and Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
 

Mission

 

"TulsaNow's Mission is to help Tulsa become the most vibrant, diverse, sustainable and prosperous city of our size. We achieve this by focusing on the development of Tulsa's distinctive identity and economic growth around a dynamic, urban core, complemented by a constellation of livable, thriving communities."
more...

 

Contact

 

2210 S Main St.
Tulsa, OK 74114
(918) 409-2669
info@tulsanow.org