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 19, 2017, 10:09:20 am
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Single-Occupancy Cars - Such a waste!  (Read 12004 times)
TheTed
City Father
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1095


WWW
« Reply #45 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.
Logged

 
rwarn17588
Guest
« Reply #46 on: August 02, 2008, 11:19:49 pm »

quote:
Originally posted by Red Arrow



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)



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

Posts: 10232


WWW
« Reply #47 on: August 03, 2008, 08:54:02 am »

quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
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.



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.
Logged

 
booWorld
Guest
« Reply #48 on: August 03, 2008, 09:18:15 am »

quote:
Originally posted by Red Arrow

quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
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.



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.



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.
« Last Edit: August 03, 2008, 10:20:08 am by booWorld » Logged
rwarn17588
Guest
« Reply #49 on: August 03, 2008, 09:54:24 am »

quote:
Originally posted by Red Arrow



Over the lifetime of a system, rail can be less expensive if there is sufficient ridership.  Determining that support is the difficult part.




"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.
Logged
booWorld
Guest
« Reply #50 on: August 03, 2008, 10:46:11 am »

quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588

quote:
Originally posted by Red Arrow



Over the lifetime of a system, rail can be less expensive if there is sufficient ridership.  Determining that support is the difficult part.




"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.



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.
Logged
TURobY
Social Butterfly
City Father
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1526



WWW
« Reply #51 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...
Logged

---Robert
booWorld
Guest
« Reply #52 on: August 03, 2008, 01:28:26 pm »

quote:
Originally posted by TURobY

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...



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
Logged
SXSW
City Father
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3416


WWW
« Reply #53 on: August 03, 2008, 03:36:31 pm »

quote:
Originally posted by booWorld

quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588

quote:
Originally posted by Red Arrow



Over the lifetime of a system, rail can be less expensive if there is sufficient ridership.  Determining that support is the difficult part.




"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.



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.



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???
Logged

 
booWorld
Guest
« Reply #54 on: August 03, 2008, 03:53:49 pm »

quote:
Originally posted by SXSW

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???



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.
Logged
booWorld
Guest
« Reply #55 on: August 03, 2008, 08:41:56 pm »

quote:
Originally posted by SXSW

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???



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

Posts: 10232


WWW
« Reply #56 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.

Logged

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

Posts: 2459


« Reply #57 on: August 04, 2008, 01:40:45 pm »

quote:
Originally posted by booWorld

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.


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

Posts: 2459


« Reply #58 on: August 04, 2008, 02:28:55 pm »

quote:
Originally posted by booWorld

...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.

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.


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.)
Logged
booWorld
Guest
« Reply #59 on: August 04, 2008, 06:49:50 pm »

quote:
Originally posted by PonderInc

quote:
Originally posted by booWorld

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.


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.


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:

The zoning code assumes that everyone will drive all the time.

It does not assume that in the CBD.


quote:

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.


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:

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.)


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:
The zoning code now requires sidewalks, which is nice...



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:
Modern suburban housing developments are often gated, full of curly-cue streets and cul-de-sacs, and miles from the nearest grocery store.


And I think I posted yesterday that I abhor cul-de-sacs.


quote:

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.


Except for the trail system that sounds correct to me.  There has been far too much emphasis on planning for cars.


quote:
We got what we planned for.  We got the city we designed.


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:
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....


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.....

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