http://money.cnn.com/2008/06/12/news/economy/cities_oil/index.htm?postversion=2008061207
Well, we knew it was bad, but check this out. Tulsa is rated as the 2nd worst nation in the city for public transportation infrastructure. Guess who was the worst - OKC.
This local topic has gone national. Oklahoma needs to invest in public transportation infrastructure in a dramatic way. Rail linking our two cities would be a great first step.
Let's take Bill's widening money and buy us a friggin' train!
Another sad thing about this is, the more money local people put into their gas tanks, the less money they have to put into local businesses, shops, restaurants, etc. Every extra dollar that goes into the tank, is one less to support your local businesses. The only saving grace for us is the fact that we get a lot of money from the oil business pumped into our economies as well which help support other local businesses. But think of how much more wealthy our cities, how much better our economies, would be if we were reaping the benefit of both oil company profits and not spending so much on fuel. We would really be in the catbird seat.
Yep...this is a now situation.
The poll on that page is awesome:
"1. Should oil companies be allowed to drill in protected wildlife areas to increase the oil supply?"
Bias questions much? The land is NOT protected from drilling, it was actually set aside FOR drilling a couple decades ago. Get rid of the work "protected" as it does nothing but attempt to bias the survey.
But still, 58% of CNN readers say yes - drill away.
- - -
Tulsa and OKC have severe problems with public transit. We are so spread out and blatantly car based that changing the status quo will be hard to do AND a hard sell. Tons of people commute to Tulsa from Oolagah, Pawhuska, Muskogoo and even Vanita on a daily basis to make any sense.
Within Tulsa people continue to spread out more and more, then ***** about the roads not being made to handle them and the lack of public transportation. Move to Owasso, Bixby, or those far flung "exurbs" listed above and then complain about your commute costing too much money...
Basically, we've spent the last 60 years in Tulsa making it as car oriented as possible and now we complain about it. It's time to get serious about density or just accept the fact that the average Tulsan will spend over $3,000 a year in gas. With things continuing to spread out more and more, it's damn hard to organize worth while mass transit.
But which came first, the mass transit or the density (they usually grew up together)?
/frustrated
I'm flummoxed as to why funding for commuter rail isn't being discussed as a part of the streets package. In all this talk of repair versus widening, is transit not even on the table? And why not?
Here is the actual report:
http://www.neckride.org/NR-NEWS/Common-Current-Release-20080304.pdf
I, too, wish that real transit investment were part of the streets package. But I guess the idea is too bold and courageous and visionary, in this timid political climate (with everyone terrified of our powerful, myopic "NO" lobby).
Just the fact that there's any debate about funding street widening in the far reaches of the city is a clue to the problem. Folks just don't get it. (How many hundreds of millions of dollars have we already spent to widen roads that transport people out of town, and to the fringes of our city? What if we'd spent that money making TPS the best school system in the nation, while encouraging traditional, walkable, more dense neighborhoods? How would Tulsa be different today?)
People don't seem to realize that we are in the current predicament because the way we do things today (and for the last 40 years) is broken. We have failed to recognize that sprawl is unsustainable. We annexed so much land in the 60's and then just said "go forth and prosper"...except we didn't realize that unrestrained, car-centric sprawl is not the right formula for long-term prosperity. Meanwhile, we decimated our downtown to satisfy the surface parking needs of our suburban workers.
Where's my magic wand when I need it...?
I'm strongly considering voting no on the streets package just because it doesn't include any of the recommended alternatives to just building more roads.
And although this won't specifically help Tulsa's transit infrastructure, I'm taking Amtrak/Megabus even when it's not all that convenient. I'm also considering taking the 'Hound for the few trips where that system doesn't double my transit time.
I plan on driving to OKC, then taking Amtrak for my next D/FW trip, riding the TRE and Dart trains once I get there.
Driving to Chicago supports the status quo. Driving to KC and catching the train to Chicago supports a better future, even if it may be a little less convenient.
I'd rather spend my money on anything than oil.
quote:
Originally posted by jackbristow
http://money.cnn.com/2008/06/12/news/economy/cities_oil/index.htm?postversion=2008061207
Well, we knew it was bad, but check this out. Tulsa is rated as the 2nd worst nation in the city for public transportation infrastructure. Guess who was the worst - OKC.
This local topic has gone national. Oklahoma needs to invest in public transportation infrastructure in a dramatic way. Rail linking our two cities would be a great first step.
That is not exactly accurate. The ranking is not for "worst public transit in the country", but cities least able to weather an oil crisis. Public transit is one of the factors, but so is walkability, bike ridership, and sprawl.
While I agree that Tulsa and Okc both need to improve their transit systems, I would hardly say they are the worst in the nation.
Phoenix, for example is a metro area of 5 million, and until the light rail system finally opens in December, is the largest city in the world without any type of rail service. A recent poll showed that even when rail is available, 70 percent of Phoenicians would not use it. Bus service is unreliable, and the bike paths (or lack thereof) are a joke. With a land area larger than Los Angeles and development sprawl continuing to devour the surrounding desert, I'm surprised Phoenix did not top this list. I guess the forthcoming light rail, however inconsequential and unused it might be, saved it.
quote:
Originally posted by Floyd
I'm flummoxed as to why funding for commuter rail isn't being discussed as a part of the streets package. In all this talk of repair versus widening, is transit not even on the table? And why not?
Here are some things that I think are true (please correct me if any of this is wrong):
Before implimenting any commuter rail in Tulsa, the first step would have to be getting the three miles of downtown track that Jack Crowley is always talking about. (This is sort of the "missing link"--the hub at the center of all spokes.) It's my understanding that this could be funded from a TIF, based on development that would occur at either end of the line.
It's also my understanding that the streets package does not PRECLUDE spending money on transit stops and pedestrian improvements along streets, etc, if these sort of amenities are determined to be important.
If I'm understanding things correctly, there will be a "Advisory Board" of some kind that will have oversight over the streets package, and will offer advice on how to make the streets better. I think the makeup of this board will be crucial. As currently envisioned it sounds biased towards a continuation of car-centric thinking. The board would include the city councilors ("My district! No, mine! Mine!"), the mayor, a transit authority member, "industry reps" (which I think means road construction guys), a member of the planning commission...and...who else?
I didn't hear anything about urban planners on the team (these are the guys who typically understand that every right-of-way should serve all people, not just cars). And I'm not sure how effective the one transit authority rep will be...given the current state of Tulsa's transit situation.
sounds like a case where one step forward and two steps back (in time) would be a good thing... bring on passenger rail and the jobs it would create.
We have the last two cities in the nation...
Even Arlington, TX...the largest city in the country with no public transportation beats us.
So go ahead and keep preaching that this place is a great city and we have some sort of progressive edge. We don't. And we bash OKC so much, because they are the only city worse than us.
Classic.
(repost)
I'm all for public transportation if it's convenient, relevant, cost-effective, and is financially feasible to operate.
Let's not get a case of restless leg syndrome over this just yet just though because there was a negative national survey.
I think it would make sense to budget in $200 to $300mm to get some light rail started in areas of Tulsa which would utilize it. I think the Jenks to downdown line would have great ridership, tracks are already there. I don't think you can replace widening or repair on the streets program because there's still going to be a need for both.
There's a scary evolution I'm starting to see though with what government services people are expecting these days. I literally would not be surprised if the average US citizen is paying 70% in income, property, sales, and imbedded taxes in 20 years.
We might starting thinking of some government services we can live without. Public transportation and ifrastructure, IMO is a service we should expect of gov't.
What's with all the self-flagellation about 60 years worth of car culture? The Inner Puritan coming forth? Punish us, please, we deserve it for being rapacious wretches!
The car culture developed because it was economically sensible and comfortable for many, many years. Tulsa has grown up right alongside the automobile, is it any wonder that the city took advantage of the technology that worked so well? Criminy...
Sure, we need to use other ways to live together and get around. Now that it appears that a car-based layout won't make economic sense, alternatives will spring up. If people figure they can make a bunch of money off it, they'll spring up FAST. (As fast as big infrastructure can move, anyway.)
That article makes mention of OKC's enormous land area, ignoring the fact that huge tracts of it are essentially rural. We have family living in the city limits, they're twenty minutes (by evil automobile) from the nearest urban area. OKC is a special case for sure, but that important caveat wouldn't make for sizzlingly scandalous news, now would it? Might as well criticize Osage county for a lack of commuter rail.
so tulsa is 49th out of 19,355 incorporated cities.
hey we are in the top 99.8% of cities that can weather an oil crisis.
not defending our dependance on the automobile but also putting these polls in perspective.
we do have some things to work on in terms of transit, but it isn't the end of the world an we aren't some sort of horrible place because of this poll.
We could always have a private company come forward and operate a mass transit system in Tulsa. I just spent a month in Japan (mainly in the city of Kyoto) and all the mass transit systems there are owned by private companies.
Kyoto had rail service lines that went out to the small country towns much like what Bartlesville and Muskogee are to Tulsa, and it also had subway lines that went out from the main rail lines. A subway/rail system could work in Tulsa. Kyoto only has about a million people and was not that much more dense then parts of Tulsa.
Here's a map of what I think could be a good transit system. Blue lines are light rail type and the red lines are subway lines.
http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF8&hl=en&msa=0&msid=116109457081287172010.00044f7f0991271ed885f&ll=36.211039,-95.534363&spn=1.030452,2.384033&z=9
quote:
Originally posted by UrbanPlanner
We could always have a private company come forward and operate a mass transit system in Tulsa. I just spent a month in Japan (mainly in the city of Kyoto) and all the mass transit systems there are owned by private companies.
Kyoto had rail service lines that went out to the small country towns much like what Bartlesville and Muskogee are to Tulsa, and it also had subway lines that went out from the main rail lines. A subway/rail system could work in Tulsa. Kyoto only has about a million people and was not that much more dense then parts of Tulsa.
Here's a map of what I think could be a good transit system. Blue lines are light rail type and the red lines are subway lines.
http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF8&hl=en&msa=0&msid=116109457081287172010.00044f7f0991271ed885f&ll=36.211039,-95.534363&spn=1.030452,2.384033&z=9
I like your plan... However, the railroad tracks leading to Skiatook from downtown Tulsa have been turned into a walking/biking trail [B)].
quote:
Originally posted by UrbanPlanner
We could always have a private company come forward and operate a mass transit system in Tulsa. I just spent a month in Japan (mainly in the city of Kyoto) and all the mass transit systems there are owned by private companies.
Kyoto had rail service lines that went out to the small country towns much like what Bartlesville and Muskogee are to Tulsa, and it also had subway lines that went out from the main rail lines. A subway/rail system could work in Tulsa. Kyoto only has about a million people and was not that much more dense then parts of Tulsa.
Here's a map of what I think could be a good transit system. Blue lines are light rail type and the red lines are subway lines.
http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF8&hl=en&msa=0&msid=116109457081287172010.00044f7f0991271ed885f&ll=36.211039,-95.534363&spn=1.030452,2.384033&z=9
Are all of these existing rail lines? There are some good routes. After seeing how much the "Big Dig" set the taxpayers of Mass. back, I don't think subterrainian construction is going to be in high demand- especially for privately-owned/operated.
Not saying the plan you put up isn't a good idea, it's definitely a good basis for further discussion. Welcome aboard and please don't be a stranger.
quote:
Originally posted by UrbanPlanner
Kyoto had rail service lines that went out to the small country towns much like what Bartlesville and Muskogee are to Tulsa, and it also had subway lines that went out from the main rail lines. A subway/rail system could work in Tulsa. Kyoto only has about a million people and was not that much more dense then parts of Tulsa.
The city of Kyoto has a population of 1.4 million which is nearly four times the size of Tulsa and would place it in the top ten cities in the nation in population. Kyoto's metro area with Osaka has over 18 million people and is just slightly smaller then New York's metro region.
I don't think it's a relevant comparison.
Yes, Kyoto has a population of 1.4 million.. but there really is no such thing as a suburb. So Kyoto is still larger then Tulsa, but it's not so much larger that you couldn't compare it to Tulsa.
They do group Osaka and a couple other cities together in a region, but it's still at the least a 30 minute train ride from Kyoto station to the closest major Osaka station. So just because the regional population is 18 million does not mean they are side by side. They draw off of each similar as Tulsa does to OKC and Dallas.
Most of the Rail lines I have on that map are existing lines in Tulsa that would just need to be upgraded. All the subway lines would be new lines that needed to be constructed underneath the city. I honestly have no idea how much that would be to construct, but I think if we could get the rail lines then slow build out subway lines it would increase the desirability of high density development inside Tulsa.
quote:
Originally posted by UrbanPlanner
We could always have a private company come forward and operate a mass transit system in Tulsa. I just spent a month in Japan (mainly in the city of Kyoto) and all the mass transit systems there are owned by private companies.
Kyoto had rail service lines that went out to the small country towns much like what Bartlesville and Muskogee are to Tulsa, and it also had subway lines that went out from the main rail lines. A subway/rail system could work in Tulsa. Kyoto only has about a million people and was not that much more dense then parts of Tulsa.
Here's a map of what I think could be a good transit system. Blue lines are light rail type and the red lines are subway lines.
http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF8&hl=en&msa=0&msid=116109457081287172010.00044f7f0991271ed885f&ll=36.211039,-95.534363&spn=1.030452,2.384033&z=9
What you are ignoring is that the Japanese railway system was built by the government then privatised later. When you say Kyoto is not much more dense I find that very hard to believe Kyoto has a density of 4,608 people per square mile, Tulsa 2,152. Thats more than twice as much.
I think it would be fine if the government got out of the business of providing public transport, but only if it got out of the business of building and maintaining roads. To force public transport to compete in the market when roads don't just seems plain unfair.
quote:
Originally posted by hoodlum
so tulsa is 49th out of 19,355 incorporated cities.
hey we are in the top 99.8% of cities that can weather an oil crisis.
not defending our dependance on the automobile but also putting these polls in perspective.
we do have some things to work on in terms of transit, but it isn't the end of the world an we aren't some sort of horrible place because of this poll.
We are 49 of 50. They didn't rank the other 19,305.
quote:
buckeye said
What's with all the self-flagellation about 60 years worth of car culture? The Inner Puritan coming forth?
Because in hind site, it was a bad decision. Roads cost tons of money to create and maintain while taking up taxable space. Tulsa is among the worst in the nation for road miles per capita. That means each person spends more to maintain roads than nearly anywhere else.
Add to the inherent sprawl element to it and we have to drive further that most people. Which, of course, means we are paying more for fuel.
The reliance on cars also means we need to waste more land on parking. Citizens need to have 2 cars per family. And on and on... as a whole the entire process is amazingly inefficient mode of transportation in an urban setting. It costs our citizens MONEY and the in place infrastructure limits our ability to remedy the situation.
Hence the frustration.
- - -
Urban Planner, looking at Kyoto as a analogy is misguided:Kyoto Japan, 1.4 Million people at 4,608 /sq mi
Tulsa, 382,872 people at 2,152.0/sq mi
So as a stand alone entity we are 25% the size of Kyoto and less than half of the density.
Tulsa MSA, 905,000 people, IN 850,000 SQUARE MILES!!! Or 1.06/sq mile.
Given that measure, we are still only 2/3's of Kyoto and spread over an area the size of it's entire Prefecture.
What I'm getting at, is the Kyoto model is simply not applicable to Tulsa. We are 25% of the people in more than twice the area, by that measure alone it won't work. NOW, add to the fact that Kyoto is hooked up to a national and regional rail network (Tulsa is not). That in Tulsa everyone owns a car, highways are plentiful, and parking is always available (Kyoto is not car centric).
There are significant and insurmountable differences.
Here is a list of cities with a subway system in the US:
New York City (18mil urban people, 27K sq/mi)
San Francisco (4mil urban [metro is bigger, but I'm trying to include only areas covered in their mass transit], 16K sq/mi)
Boston (4mil, 12K sq/mi)
D.C. (5mil, 9K sq/mi)
Baltimore (2mil, 8K sq/mi, limited)
Chicago (8mil, 12.5K sq/mi)
Los Angeles (4.8mil, 8,205 sq/mi)
Philadelphia (5mil, 11K sq/mi)
SO... the least dense US city with a subway is LA. With nearly ten times the people as metro Tulsa (not counting exurbs) and with 8 times the density. I don't think a subway is feasible.
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
Tulsa MSA, 905,000 people, IN 850,000 SQUARE MILES!!! Or 1.06/sq mile.
850,000 sq miles is like 12 Oklahomas.
The downtown Tulsa (Union Depot) to downtown BA commuter rail would be a good start. Use the existing rail line along the BA Expy. Connect suburban BA and east Tulsa to dense neighborhoods in Midtown and to downtown. Have stops along it at:
- Greenwood-East End/Drillers Ballpark?
- Peoria-Pearl District
- Utica-Kendall-Whittier neighborhood
- 11th St.-Hillcrest/TU
- 15th-Cherry Street
- 21st-Midtown
- Yale
- Memorial
- 71st-Kenosha
Where the train follows the highway the stations could be configured like they are in Denver:
http://maps.live.com/default.aspx?v=2&FORM=LMLTCP&cp=qmb8r267pgks&style=b&lvl=1&tilt=-90&dir=0&alt=-1000&scene=10318596&phx=0&phy=0&phscl=1&encType=1
Hind sight is 20/20 and all that...in other words, useless to retroactively criticize decisions that were well-made in their time. Sure, we know it's not going to work well anymore, but all the bellyaching here, in the press and peppering the internet at large makes me annoyed.
Far more people use it as an excuse to ***** up a storm than to make sensible suggestions for the future.
That said, there's some good stuff going on in this thread.
quote:
Originally posted by buckeye
Hind sight is 20/20 and all that...in other words, useless to retroactively criticize decisions that were well-made in their time. Sure, we know it's not going to work well anymore, but all the bellyaching here, in the press and peppering the internet at large makes me annoyed.
Far more people use it as an excuse to ***** up a storm than to make sensible suggestions for the future.
That said, there's some good stuff going on in this thread.
Buckeye, you hit the bullseye, for lack of a better expression. I absolutely agree, complaining only takes time away from planning.
Without further hesitation: my main idea for improving public transportaion in Tulsa is the implementation of a streetcar system-- this allows the use of existing arterial streets (no eminent domain needed), and differentiates the product of public transportation to something more than just a means of getting from point A to point B. A blunt example: many people don't ride the Tulsa Transit bus system because of its low-class perception. Streetcars have a nostalgic and tourist appeal, which can result in a wider ridership market. Furthermore, the higher the quantity of public transportation seats demanded, the higher the city can charge for ticket prices. So, more people riding + higher ticket prices = much much more public transportation revenue, and therefore, possible revenue to maintain our ailing street/utility infrastructure. Not to mention the fact that public transportation supports walkable urban neighborhoods, which help reduce suburban sprawl. I think streetcars are
possibly viable in the following locations:
a) along Riverside Dr., between the park and the street, from 18th St. to the 96th St. Jenks bridge.
b) along Peoria Ave. from 6th St. to I-44.
c) along 6th St. from Peoria Ave. into Downtown.
d) along 21st St. from Peoria Ave. to Yale Ave.
e) along 11th St. from Harvard Ave. into Downtown, and across the 11th St. bridge into the West Side.
f) along 41st St. from Peoria Ave. to Sheridan Rd.
g) Within Downtown: along Cincinnati and Detroit Avenues, from OSU-Tulsa to 11th St. Along 1st and 2nd Streets, from Denver Ave. to Greenwood Ave. Along Denver Ave., from 1st St. to 18th St.
I'll try to post a map with my route.
We did win the battle of Japan by bombing their civilian population. We won the battle of Japan but they have won the war.. They concentrated on becoming the industrial giants of the world while we destroyed our industries in favor of recreation. In an survey released they showed $8,000 in savings for all their population while we showed nearly the same charged on our credit cards.
One has only to observe the TV pictures of the sleek snaking light rail transporters of the their people, streaking across the cities. They have had no trouble financing them as we have paid the bills before they were turned over to private operators.
Tulsa is a small town that wants to wear a hat two sizes to large that falls over their ears and makes it where it cannot see the progressing world of today. We call on out-of - towners to promote such things that could be a failure in cities three times our size.
Tulsa is an aging city with retires who have paid for their now considered substandard homes over the years, living on very limited incomes, who in their retirement years cannot any longer afford these illusions of necessity that take the very essentials to their lives from them in taxes and fee's.
They are faced with the city budget (that includes the process of collecting money) for the next decade to spend it now and we will further raise more taxes when that time arrives.
The bond issue is not for fixing the streets, (as the money if used properly) the state road tax pays the city one dollar for each person on the last census each month.
The bond issue also covers buying buses, fire equipment, telecommunications systems, maintaining police, fire, parks, public works, equipment management facilities, Gilcrease, Performing arts and Tulsa convention center.
We don't even have a plan for a light rail system but we are sure getting a ride through the smoke of one. The only thing not mentioned is that "its for the children" to pay off in decades to come.
Then too we will need another 100 desks in the new glass cube for another 100 supervisors to note where the money will be spent.
I need to look up what the word "stupid" means.
quote:
Originally posted by jackbristow
http://money.cnn.com/2008/06/12/news/economy/cities_oil/index.htm?postversion=2008061207
Well, we knew it was bad, but check this out. Tulsa is rated as the 2nd worst nation in the city for public transportation infrastructure. Guess who was the worst - OKC.
This local topic has gone national. Oklahoma needs to invest in public transportation infrastructure in a dramatic way. Rail linking our two cities would be a great first step.
I think fixing our existing roads and using our tax dollars as intended would be a great first. Then a rail system.
quote:
Originally posted by Floyd
I'm flummoxed as to why funding for commuter rail isn't being discussed as a part of the streets package. In all this talk of repair versus widening, is transit not even on the table? And why not?
Because in many areas with much larger populations and denser areas it is not profitable so their thinking is why do it here?
I'm in favor of a light rail system but I also dont want it to be a tax dollar sink with the roads in the condition they're in. I would right light rail from Owasso to downtown so long as the trains were clean, on time and it wasn't a means of transport only for the low lifes.
quote:
Originally posted by perspicuity85
quote:
Originally posted by buckeye
Hind sight is 20/20 and all that...in other words, useless to retroactively criticize decisions that were well-made in their time. Sure, we know it's not going to work well anymore, but all the bellyaching here, in the press and peppering the internet at large makes me annoyed.
Far more people use it as an excuse to ***** up a storm than to make sensible suggestions for the future.
That said, there's some good stuff going on in this thread.
Buckeye, you hit the bullseye, for lack of a better expression. I absolutely agree, complaining only takes time away from planning.
Without further hesitation: my main idea for improving public transportaion in Tulsa is the implementation of a streetcar system-- this allows the use of existing arterial streets (no eminent domain needed), and differentiates the product of public transportation to something more than just a means of getting from point A to point B. A blunt example: many people don't ride the Tulsa Transit bus system because of its low-class perception. Streetcars have a nostalgic and tourist appeal, which can result in a wider ridership market. Furthermore, the higher the quantity of public transportation seats demanded, the higher the city can charge for ticket prices. So, more people riding + higher ticket prices = much much more public transportation revenue, and therefore, possible revenue to maintain our ailing street/utility infrastructure. Not to mention the fact that public transportation supports walkable urban neighborhoods, which help reduce suburban sprawl. I think streetcars are possibly viable in the following locations:
a) along Riverside Dr., between the park and the street, from 18th St. to the 96th St. Jenks bridge.
b) along Peoria Ave. from 6th St. to I-44.
c) along 6th St. from Peoria Ave. into Downtown.
d) along 21st St. from Peoria Ave. to Yale Ave.
e) along 11th St. from Harvard Ave. into Downtown, and across the 11th St. bridge into the West Side.
f) along 41st St. from Peoria Ave. to Sheridan Rd.
g) Within Downtown: along Cincinnati and Detroit Avenues, from OSU-Tulsa to 11th St. Along 1st and 2nd Streets, from Denver Ave. to Greenwood Ave. Along Denver Ave., from 1st St. to 18th St.
I'll try to post a map with my route.
I like the street car vision. Don't forget the corridors around the hospitals. Utica from 244 to 31st. And around St.Francis and Regional Medical. Much of the traffic congesting Utica Square is medical related.
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
quote:
Originally posted by perspicuity85
quote:
Originally posted by buckeye
Hind sight is 20/20 and all that...in other words, useless to retroactively criticize decisions that were well-made in their time. Sure, we know it's not going to work well anymore, but all the bellyaching here, in the press and peppering the internet at large makes me annoyed.
Far more people use it as an excuse to ***** up a storm than to make sensible suggestions for the future.
That said, there's some good stuff going on in this thread.
Buckeye, you hit the bullseye, for lack of a better expression. I absolutely agree, complaining only takes time away from planning.
Without further hesitation: my main idea for improving public transportaion in Tulsa is the implementation of a streetcar system-- this allows the use of existing arterial streets (no eminent domain needed), and differentiates the product of public transportation to something more than just a means of getting from point A to point B. A blunt example: many people don't ride the Tulsa Transit bus system because of its low-class perception. Streetcars have a nostalgic and tourist appeal, which can result in a wider ridership market. Furthermore, the higher the quantity of public transportation seats demanded, the higher the city can charge for ticket prices. So, more people riding + higher ticket prices = much much more public transportation revenue, and therefore, possible revenue to maintain our ailing street/utility infrastructure. Not to mention the fact that public transportation supports walkable urban neighborhoods, which help reduce suburban sprawl. I think streetcars are possibly viable in the following locations:
a) along Riverside Dr., between the park and the street, from 18th St. to the 96th St. Jenks bridge.
b) along Peoria Ave. from 6th St. to I-44.
c) along 6th St. from Peoria Ave. into Downtown.
d) along 21st St. from Peoria Ave. to Yale Ave.
e) along 11th St. from Harvard Ave. into Downtown, and across the 11th St. bridge into the West Side.
f) along 41st St. from Peoria Ave. to Sheridan Rd.
g) Within Downtown: along Cincinnati and Detroit Avenues, from OSU-Tulsa to 11th St. Along 1st and 2nd Streets, from Denver Ave. to Greenwood Ave. Along Denver Ave., from 1st St. to 18th St.
I'll try to post a map with my route.
I like the street car vision. Don't forget the corridors around the hospitals. Utica from 244 to 31st. And around St.Francis and Regional Medical. Much of the traffic congesting Utica Square is medical related.
Add a few street car routes to S.E. Tulsa and you might be able to sell it. Where some of the streets need to be widened, there would be room for street car tracks. At the $15 million/mile that someone mentioned to widen what we have out here we probably could start a real trolley system (steel rails, no rubber tires please).
As far as the street cars being private companies, they typically were in the early 20th century. Then publicly subsidized roads for buses and autos helped make that impossible to continue. Electric rail typically had to maintain the portion of the streets they used AND had to pay franchise fees to citys. Too much money going to the towns and cities to remain profitable.
Hey Patrick,
What is the feasibility of installing dual sets of rails in the streets that are planned to be completely rebuilt in the proposed infrastructure plan?
This can't be that expensive. Little El Reno did this for their tourist street car.
It would be a forward thinking thing to do and save money in the long term.
And no they wouldn't have to be rough. If the rails are integrated into the street from the beginning, they are flush with the surface. You barely feel them when you drive over them.
Matt
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
Let's take Bill's widening money and buy us a friggin' train!
+1
quote:
Originally posted by dsjeffries
quote:
Originally posted by UrbanPlanner
We could always have a private company come forward and operate a mass transit system in Tulsa. I just spent a month in Japan (mainly in the city of Kyoto) and all the mass transit systems there are owned by private companies.
Kyoto had rail service lines that went out to the small country towns much like what Bartlesville and Muskogee are to Tulsa, and it also had subway lines that went out from the main rail lines. A subway/rail system could work in Tulsa. Kyoto only has about a million people and was not that much more dense then parts of Tulsa.
Here's a map of what I think could be a good transit system. Blue lines are light rail type and the red lines are subway lines.
http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF8&hl=en&msa=0&msid=116109457081287172010.00044f7f0991271ed885f&ll=36.211039,-95.534363&spn=1.030452,2.384033&z=9
I like your plan... However, the railroad tracks leading to Skiatook from downtown Tulsa have been turned into a walking/biking trail [B)].
And so long as they let you take yourself and your bike on the train that they put back in that right of way, I'd be quite happy to see rail. Well, presuming that it ran more than twice a day.
quote:
Originally posted by nathanm
And so long as they let you take yourself and your bike on the train that they put back in that right of way, I'd be quite happy to see rail. Well, presuming that it ran more than twice a day.
That should be possible but be sure to bring it up in the planning stages. Many of the light rail operations around the country have provisions for bicycles. Not all are equal.
The tragic outcome of building an unplanned city is it creates clutter by intertwining business with residential areas without a terminal destination, There is no solution for a feasible self sustaining system of mass transportation for T-town. Oklahoma will always be of small towns scattered along the expressways.
The alarm is falling on deft ears as the planners of the large corporations are establishing their retail outlets in the suburbs and with them goes the sales taxes. We have become dependant on this source to feed our blotted bureaucracy, thus mass transportation will not be economy feasible if we anticipate the bringing back the milk and bread business to a scattering of destinations when the same source is available in their suburbs.
We are making every effort to tax ourselves into prosperity and in the future there is an indication we will join our place in history with the pony express and stage coach.
quote:
Originally posted by shadows
The tragic outcome of building an unplanned city is it creates clutter by intertwining business with residential areas without a terminal destination, There is no solution for a feasible self sustaining system of mass transportation for T-town. Oklahoma will always be of small towns scattered along the expressways.
The alarm is falling on deft ears as the planners of the large corporations are establishing their retail outlets in the suburbs and with them goes the sales taxes. We have become dependant on this source to feed our blotted bureaucracy, thus mass transportation will not be economy feasible if we anticipate the bringing back the milk and bread business to a scattering of destinations when the same source is available in their suburbs.
We are making every effort to tax ourselves into prosperity and in the future there is an indication we will join our place in history with the pony express and stage coach.
The intertwining of business and residential areas is one of the most important things in encouraging public transport. In fact research has shown that it's more important than density.
While I'd like to see Tulsa much more dense, public transport can work in Tulsa. It has to be adapted for Tulsas needs, what works in NY won't necessarily work in Tulsa. However I am in no doubt that if the city took a holistic approach twinning planning and transport together Tulsa could have a viable, effective, usable and cost efficient public transport system.
quote:
Originally posted by Red Arrow
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
quote:
Originally posted by perspicuity85
quote:
Originally posted by buckeye
Hind sight is 20/20 and all that...in other words, useless to retroactively criticize decisions that were well-made in their time. Sure, we know it's not going to work well anymore, but all the bellyaching here, in the press and peppering the internet at large makes me annoyed.
Far more people use it as an excuse to ***** up a storm than to make sensible suggestions for the future.
That said, there's some good stuff going on in this thread.
Buckeye, you hit the bullseye, for lack of a better expression. I absolutely agree, complaining only takes time away from planning.
Without further hesitation: my main idea for improving public transportaion in Tulsa is the implementation of a streetcar system-- this allows the use of existing arterial streets (no eminent domain needed), and differentiates the product of public transportation to something more than just a means of getting from point A to point B. A blunt example: many people don't ride the Tulsa Transit bus system because of its low-class perception. Streetcars have a nostalgic and tourist appeal, which can result in a wider ridership market. Furthermore, the higher the quantity of public transportation seats demanded, the higher the city can charge for ticket prices. So, more people riding + higher ticket prices = much much more public transportation revenue, and therefore, possible revenue to maintain our ailing street/utility infrastructure. Not to mention the fact that public transportation supports walkable urban neighborhoods, which help reduce suburban sprawl. I think streetcars are possibly viable in the following locations:
a) along Riverside Dr., between the park and the street, from 18th St. to the 96th St. Jenks bridge.
b) along Peoria Ave. from 6th St. to I-44.
c) along 6th St. from Peoria Ave. into Downtown.
d) along 21st St. from Peoria Ave. to Yale Ave.
e) along 11th St. from Harvard Ave. into Downtown, and across the 11th St. bridge into the West Side.
f) along 41st St. from Peoria Ave. to Sheridan Rd.
g) Within Downtown: along Cincinnati and Detroit Avenues, from OSU-Tulsa to 11th St. Along 1st and 2nd Streets, from Denver Ave. to Greenwood Ave. Along Denver Ave., from 1st St. to 18th St.
I'll try to post a map with my route.
I like the street car vision. Don't forget the corridors around the hospitals. Utica from 244 to 31st. And around St.Francis and Regional Medical. Much of the traffic congesting Utica Square is medical related.
Add a few street car routes to S.E. Tulsa and you might be able to sell it. Where some of the streets need to be widened, there would be room for street car tracks. At the $15 million/mile that someone mentioned to widen what we have out here we probably could start a real trolley system (steel rails, no rubber tires please).
As far as the street cars being private companies, they typically were in the early 20th century. Then publicly subsidized roads for buses and autos helped make that impossible to continue. Electric rail typically had to maintain the portion of the streets they used AND had to pay franchise fees to citys. Too much money going to the towns and cities to remain profitable.
SE Tulsa would certainly be in my long-term plan. The focus of my initial route is connecting the main entertainment districts. I also think a private street car line is feasible, given the startup cost of implementing a street car line. My idea is a public/private partnership, that uses a benchmark financing system (i.e. build initial trolley line in a high-traffic zone, allow it to pay for itself and much of the cost of the next line.) In many ways, a trolley car company could operate like a taxi company, although there would be a lot of kinks to work out concerning the fact that the trolley line would have to be owned by the city. I think it's even possible for the Turnpike Authority to build/own/operate a trolley line-- the politics of the agreement would be similar to the Creek Turnpike in South Tulsa.
Just from brainstorming, I would think a private trolley company would have to have an agreement with the city to share the cost of implementing and maintaining new trolley lines. The trolley company and the city could share ticket revenue and advertising space, however it should be noted that the agreement will almost always be a net positive for the city based on projections of increased property and tourism marketing values. Streetcars bleed all sorts of great perceptions about a city, such as "progressive," "cosmopolitan," or "historic," all of which add a great deal of intangible value to the city as a whole.
I just spent several days in Seattle, Wa.
They have a combination of busses and streetcars, supported by an intricate system of overhead lines that spread like a spider-web across their downtown area.
Oddly, in Seattle, the streetcars look very similar to the busses. We took the bus around town and enjoyed the ease of use.
I've said for some time, and it was reinforced by my trip, that Tulsa could very easily do the same thing.
I'd like to see a connected Riverside, Brookside, Utica, 18th and Boston, Cherry Street, Fairgrounds, 11th Street, 6th Street and of course downtown. It could be amazing. I'm all for it.
Seattle's mass transit system wasn't easy to construct, and the same type of system in Tulsa would not be easy.
For all the info you would probably care to read about Seattle's public transit system, visit: http://www.lightrailnow.org Then click on the search tab. Type in Seattle and you will get a bunch of stuff.
Or...if the following link works, just use it.
http://search.atomz.com/search/?sp-q=seattle&sp-a=sp10031ca9&sp-advanced=1&sp-p=all&sp-w-control=1&sp-w=alike&sp-d=custom&sp-date-range=-1&sp-start-month=0&sp-start-day=0&sp-start-year=&sp-end-month=0&sp-end-day=0&sp-end-year=&sp-x=any&sp-c=10&sp-m=1&sp-s=0&sp-f=ISO-8859-1