Parking: Can't live with it, can't live without it.
Revitalization and development efforts in Tulsa invariably include talk of "where to park." Thus, it's time to realize the potential for beautiful, mixed-use...and, yes...pedestrian-friendly parking structures.
Impossible? Not at all. Here are some award-winning examples of exemplary parking structures.
(http://www.pinkardcc.com/assets/images/portfolio/pearlstparking_lg1.gif)(http://www.pinkardcc.com/assets/images/portfolio/mainstreet_lg1.gif)
(//%5Bimg%5Dhttp://www.seassociates.com/images/psaksgarage.jpg)(http://www.agaconsulting.com/images/projects/images/haymarket.jpg) (http://www.walkerparking.com/portfolio/images_pop/west01.jpg)
Yes, you can park in them! These are parking garages! (These examples can be found in Boulder and Bloomfield, CO; Kansas City, MO and Lincoln, NE; and Miami Beach, FL.)
Proposal 1: Parking garages should be encouraged over surface parking lots whenever possible.
Proposal 2: All parking garages should include ground-floor retail space, accessible to pedestrians.
Proposal 3: Parking garages should blend naturally with the architecture of the surrounding built environment.
Proposal 4: Let's do it, Tulsa!
(http://si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/OB-RK411_0118GA_H_20120117154804.jpg)
QuoteFrank Gehry designed this steel-mesh garage that is illuminated at night by multicolored LED lights as part of his New World Center concert hall in Miami Beach, Fla. The city has become a magnet for high-end architects intent on rethinking the often drab parking garage.
And more on a slideshow:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204468004577167130430862756.html?mod=yahoo_RE#slide/1 (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204468004577167130430862756.html?mod=yahoo_RE#slide/1)
(http://blog.archpaper.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/tiny_walmart_01-500x334.jpg)
Good excuse to post a pic of a new garage at the University of Arkansas at Fayetteville. First level is shopping (campus bookstore, the world's first mini-Wal Mart) and then there're are least a couple (probably more) levels of parking.
A total improvement from what used to be there when I was at the U of A. A poorly graded gravel lot, if I remember correctly.
Quote from: Townsend on January 20, 2012, 08:19:16 AM
(http://si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/OB-RK411_0118GA_H_20120117154804.jpg)
And more on a slideshow:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204468004577167130430862756.html?mod=yahoo_RE#slide/1 (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204468004577167130430862756.html?mod=yahoo_RE#slide/1)
That reminds me of one I saw in Boston a couple of years ago.
I wonder if they could add lights to the parking garage at 6th & Boston and make it look similar to the Gehry design you posted?
Quote from: rdj on January 20, 2012, 09:55:43 AM
I wonder if they could add lights to the parking garage at 5th & Boston and make it look similar to the Gehry design you posted?
I thought the same thing but I don't know if there are any issues to be overcome in order to do so.
Are there zoning issues against lighting like this in DT?
Quote from: Townsend on January 20, 2012, 10:02:03 AM
I thought the same thing but I don't know if there are any issues to be overcome in order to do so.
Are there zoning issues against lighting like this in DT?
It would probably give patric a stroke.
Quote from: Conan71 on January 20, 2012, 10:04:44 AM
It would probably give patric a stroke.
Have there been issues with the neons in Bluedome?
That garage was purchased by an investment group in Dallas, Belclair Co, from Central Parking Corp in 2008. They also own the parking lot that is north of the Kennedy Building.
I think it'd be worth exploring. I've never parked there. Is it a daily fee garage or a monthly reserved?
Quote from: Conan71 on January 20, 2012, 10:04:44 AM
It would probably give patric a stroke.
Thinking the same, you and I.
I'm really disappointed that the new parking garage extension north of the BOK Tower does not include any ground floor retail space. It is a good parking area for BOK Center events and several people walk by that area and park there on a daily basis. I wish they had incorporated some store fronts into it.
Quote from: DowntownDan on January 20, 2012, 11:38:44 AM
I'm really disappointed that the new parking garage extension north of the BOK Tower does not include any ground floor retail space. It is a good parking area for BOK Center events and several people walk by that area and park there on a daily basis. I wish they had incorporated some store fronts into it.
"Several people" does not a good business model make.
I had some people at the museum space the other day from Toronto and Singapore who were in town to check out Tulsa's Art Deco attractions. They wanted to see the Boston Ave Church so I went out front with them to point it out. They opted to drive to see it. AND ITS JUST RIGHT THERE! Now, they already had a parking space, and they were urbanites used to walking MUCH longer distances. When I was in NYC last you would easily walk miles... and enjoy it! But because our downtown is so decimated, people who would normally walk a few measly blocks from one area to the next, most likely won't. This is not a "parking shortage" problem, its a pedestrian friendly/transit friendly problem.
Do we want to spend more money on parking garages or use that money to get better transit going? Also, parking garages take up money and space that could be used to hold people instead of cars, aka several floors of living and or businesses, thus they decrease pedestrian traffic in the core. Plus, the more parking garages you have, the more likely you are to have the situation where people drive near to where they want to go, go to that place, go back to the car, and not walk by my restaurant/shop,museum, etc. They take people off the sidewalks. Just as the suburban business likes a street with lots of cars "eyes" driving by to see their business, the urban business likes having as many people as possible walking by.
A while back there was another group of people from back east that had stopped at the museum while they were in town to see the Route 66 attractions in Tulsa. They wanted to go somewhere to eat and I told them about the stuff nearby and the stuff in the Blue Dome. They opted to go to the Blue Dome. I would have told them to walk for its a short distance, but then thought about how miserable a walk it is and suggested they drive.
Again, not a parking shortage problem, they already had parking, and were now going to drive to another place, not walk by more businesses etc. to find yet another parking space. It was a pedestrian friendly/transit friendly problem. The better your pedestrian streets are the better and more cost effective your transit will be.
What if we had good downtown transit and pedestrian friendly streets linking the different areas of downtown?
Some say that if you build parking garages with retail on the ground floor it acts as a "transition" from the car culture to the pedestrian friendly. What I have seen does not support this. Look at Uptown Dallas for instance. Lots of "fake urbanity" in which people still drive and there are more and more parking garages and transit that never really works well for the sidewalks arent working well enough with enough "people density". The people density is taken up instead with parking garages. Blocks that are essentially hollowed out shells full of parking spaces wrapped with a faux urban facade "the Texas Donut".
What I see happening is that this mutated form that is a cross between urban and suburban itself keeps growing. It doesn't transition from one to the other. Its expensive and doesn't really make either the urbanite or suburbanite truly happy. Good urban streets are a joy to walk down and could really give Tulsa an edge.
Its not going to be easy to create a vital downtown no matter which direction we go. We are a lot slower growing than some other cities so if we go down the "mutated/fake urbanity" model, we will be stuck with it for a LONG time, never really catching up with those "greener pastures" our young people and businesses look at today. But I submit to you that we have plenty of parking already and instead of the city and businesses paying for more parking, pay instead for transit that circulates around to the parking we have already. This will allow us to evolve and create a more dense, pedestrian friendly, attractive, above average, more competitive, urban environment.
Look again at those examples I stated earlier. Those people could have parked by the Boston Ave church and then gone everywhere else in downtown with transit. Also this again frees up new construction from having to build as much parking and thus enhancing and extending our pedestrian friendly zones which reinforces transit, which reinforces the pedestrian nature, etc. etc. (compare that to the fake urban model which requires you building more and more parking garages surrounded by a facade of retail/businesses, living, etc.)
Or they could have parked by the arena, gone to the Deco District, then the Blue dome, then back,,, and parked just once. Perhaps there would even be a day when people could park across the river, or at the Fin Tube site, and take a starter rail to downtown and be able to walk block after block after block throughout our downtown and spend the whole day there. Businessmen, tourists/visitors, people who live downtown, etc. not feel like they need a car at all or rent one on the occasion when they do. There is PLENTY of parking in and around downtown, lets help people get from that parking to the core that will then grow more pedestrian friendly, etc. with transit) But growing Dallas type fake urbanity with people driving to an area that is not really dense enough to support true urbanity, full of parking garage after parking garage (essentially expensive suburbia trying to pay for both parking garages and transit and neither that satisfactory) and never walking very far, etc.,,, I just don't want that for Tulsa. We can do better and now is the time in our development to make the descision on which growth model we are going to go for.
I don't care how fancy a parking garage looks. I would rather spend the money on a trolley going by the ample parking we got all around downtown and dropping people off in the core. That would look much better imo. And work better in the long run to boot.
Quote from: TheArtist on January 20, 2012, 04:00:15 PM
I don't care how fancy a parking garage looks. I would rather spend the money on a trolley going by the ample parking we got all around downtown and dropping people off in the core. That would look much better imo. And work better in the long run to boot.
I'm wishing for any pony that gets rid of a few surface lots.
Quote from: Townsend on January 20, 2012, 04:08:31 PM
I'm wishing for any pony that gets rid of a few surface lots.
If I were a developer and there was transit getting people to my business, or the pedestrian friendly area around my business,,,I wouldn't have to build or pay for parking nearby, or nearly as much parking. If every developer is looking at a space and going... I have to pay for my development and parking, how am I going to squeeze in more parking because I need to get my clients to my building, etc.... but what if the trolley ran nearby? What if there were more and more people walking by? What if instead of block after block of light/fake density, you had a lot of higher real density (aka lots of potential clients) nearby. Might alleviate some of that concern. If downtown has FANTASTIC pedestrian friendly streets. This is a way to compete with the suburbs. You cant compete with the suburban strip mall for car convenience. But if downtown itself is an attraction because it has superb, lively pedestrian friendly streets that are a joy to walk down, and transit is available to get you from the parking that exists and through the core,,, then you can compete. Not just with suburbia, but with other cities as well. You don't compete with suburbia on its terms, you will lose if you try that.
There are around 200 square miles of suburbia in Tulsa for those who want that lifestyle. And bravo for Tulsa being able to offer some of the best suburban style living anywhere. But can't we make .5% of that area be good urbanity for the urbanites that want that? Statistics and demographics show that more and more people are wanting to live in a good urban environment. Not a half-arsed urban environment.
Seems like we first think of catering more to the suburbanite than the urbanite in our downtown. But so many of them will never be truly happy downtown or going downtown. Guess what I heard some say the other day? "Parking garages are scary"... Yet we will try and do what they want while ignoring what a real urbanite wants. We got plenty of suburban for those that want that, why try to cater to them while ignoring what the real urbanite wants? We keep losing urbanites to other cities while we scramble to soothe suburbanites worrying about bums and homeless, not enough lighting, scary looking buildings in downtown, ugly highways leading into downtown, not enough parking, etc. etc. etc.
As a mural artist I often get asked to do a little redecorating or advice on a room. One lady I remember had some pictures from a magazine and had tried to make her room like the one in the pictures. She had tried and tried but couldn't do it. I talked with her for a bit and realized that what was happening was that she didn't realize what it truly was that made the room attractive to her,,, she had missed the real factors. She thought she knew, but didn't. One time another client wasn't happy with a room and I could see that all the parts were there, they just needed to be arranged differently. I tried explaining things to her but everything seemed to go against what she "knew" to be right. But I told her to trust me (sometimes have to do this with my art for it often doesn't look the "way they think its supposed to" at first) and when I was done, they loved it.
A great urban environment is kind of like that. The suburbanite may say we need to do this or that, etc. complain about this or that,,, but they are really missing the point.
Nobody is going to walk in Tulsa.
I submit that its not because people here simply won't walk, but its because we don't have any (or many) really good places too walk. Even big city people will not walk far in our downtown because the walks are so sucky lol.
I was at a downtown CORE meeting the other day. There were some wide ranging opinions on what needed to be done in downtown. But I did notice a couple of trends. I noticed that some people who had lived in other big cities at one time or another saw problems differently, or didnt see there was a problem at all, compared to some old time locals and "suburbanite types". City person,,, bums? who cares? So what? Others, OMG what are we going to do about the bums scaring off everyone!? ( I know that in NYC I felt safer on the streets than in Tulsa. Not because there may or may not have been more or less bums, but because there were hundreds of other people on the streets with me. A bustling streetscape will make the streets feel safe. Plus city dwellers are used to that. And don't tell me about scary looking people. I have been in those suburban Wal-Marts and seen whats in there. If I hadn't been with a bunch of other people or had seen them on the street with me being the only other one there I might have been scared too lol). One lady complained that the street parking restriping had taken a parking spot from in front of her business. Another business owner who I know is more of an urbanite spoke up and said... "So what, I simply walk another block, big deal." OVer and over you could see this dichotomy and how the different perspectives, urban vrs suburban, ended up coming to different conclusions. Which direction do we want our downtown to go?
Do we want to grow our downtown to become a place where urbanites and their concerns, likes/dislikes are the most important to be taken into account, and take their advice on how to create a vibrant, attractive urban core,,, or do we want to primarily listen to the advice of suburbanites? I think we can attract suburbanites to downtown, but their notions on how to make a downtown work, might not be the best ones to listen to. They may know what they like when they see it, but like I illustrated above with my clients, they often don't know how to get there. They are used to their world and how it works. Trying to use their solutions for what they see as problems downtown, over the advice of people who are urbanites, might not be so wise.
30,000 dollars a space......
Personally, I think Tulsa people don't like to walk unless they are under 30.
It's amazing to me that the number one complaint about TU athletics isn't product on the field or court, it's not ticket prices (which are cheaper than 90% of all D1 schools), it's not the price of concessions or the availability of them, it's that people can't park right next to the stadium. They think that parking 3 blocksaway is insane, 5 blocks away is unheard of. The fact they have to walk an extra 100 feet to get to concessions at a football game with no line to get away from the one that is 5 people deep at every window is an insane inconvenience.
There has been a ton of requests for a large parking garage on campus with the people asking for them not even considering the traffic nightmare of getting 1,000 or more vehicles out of the garage and onto Harvard after a game. IMO, if a 1000-1100 car garage was built people would complain about lighting, security, people tailgating on the roof, and having to wait in line 20 minutes to leave after the game then fight traffic for another 10 to the highway. If people just walked 5 blocks, it would take 5 minutes more than the walk to the garage and they would be on the highway in 5 more minutes.
As for downtown, you're right though. If there can be enough shops, resturants, and bars in conjunction with a good population of younger professionals living downtown, people wouldn't think of the walk as a "walk" but as an enjoyable stroll.
Looking out the 33rd floor window the other day when I took that pic I thought, "Wow. We're just a year or so away from increasing the number of people in the Brady District at ANY given hour to 500-1500. That many extra people in that small area will do wonders for the foot traffic down there. Like you said, walking in Wal Mart can be scary if it were just you and the strange Wal Mart people. When you're in there with hundreds of somewhat normal people, the scaries aren't as scary.
Once the bridge is done I do really think that the Brady will profit immensley from it after shows at the BOk Arena.
I also think a trolley back and forth from OneOk field to Brady would be a great idea. People could leave the game if it was a blow out or they were just bored, take a 3 minute ride to Brady and check out the museum and other attractions and take a 3 minute trolley back to the game where they could catch the 8th and 9th innings or simply walk back to their car. Before too long a lot of these people might take the short walk over and enjoy the parks and other Brady offerings.
Anyway... just my .02 in reply to yours ;o)
Quote from: Weatherdemon on January 20, 2012, 11:20:26 PM
Personally, I think Tulsa people don't like to walk unless they are under 30.
I'm passed that 30 year mark, but I prefer to walk when in a pedestrian friendly place. Problem is, not a whole lot of that around here.
So, basically you think over 30's Tulsan's are lazy whiners? Could be. You could also add impatient and fickle.
At games in Norman I have never had to walk less than 5 blocks to the stadium. Usually we walk over past the Student Union to Campus Corner and loiter, then past the band having a pep rally and finally across the oval to the stadium where people are camping and cooking. Its a real experience. Average age of those visitors seems to be well in excess of 30. Probably the same at Stillwater.
Tulsa? Not so much. Walking along the neighborhood streets around TU is cramped, feels dangerous and uncomfortable and there is no real Campus Corner experience. Closing 11th street is not really the same.
Some notes about downtown and its walkability.
-We went downtown just before Christmas one Saturday hoping to enjoy the temporary shops set up that I read about here. They were closed. All of them. I forced my better half to walk with me and window shop but that seemed pointless after a bit as we needed gifts. So, we got back in the car and drove over to Blue Dome to check out some real live open for business shops. Notably Dwelling Spaces. I love that place. Stuff was happening over there. A photo shoot, people shopping and people eating breakfast. Still pretty slow and mostly under 30. They were walking. A passing truck full of rednecks sped by and honked at us as we crossed Elgin on foot. Yeah, that's the real Tulsa.
-My wife never likes to eat or drink in a nearly empty restaurant/bar. Part of the fun for her is the excitement of a crowd. It also validates the place as worthy of visiting. Next comes service, then food quality, then accessibility.
-A trolley is an excellent idea in concept. Its operating costs are high though and its success difficult to document. It would need to be underwritten by some large sponsors or government subsidy both of which are difficult to find right now. I too believe that within a year the traffic problems created by the energetic development and marketing of the area will necessitate some way to move people around...or they won't come back. Never a second chance for a good first impression ya' know.
-When I visited Bricktown, there were mobs of people walking all around the general area. Lots of paths. Trolleys weren't very visible but were available. It might be that the area was planned with walkability in mind. The paths lead to restaurants, displays, bars, movie theater etc. And, the average appearance and girth of the walkers implied well over 30.
Quote from: AquaMan on January 21, 2012, 12:39:37 PM
-A trolley is an excellent idea in concept. Its operating costs are high though and its success difficult to document.
The upfront cost of a trolley is certainly high with the rail and overhead electric service and initial vehicle cost. From what I've read, the overall cost is comparable or less than rubber tire vehicles when costs are adjusted to include the life of the equipment.
Quote from: Weatherdemon on January 20, 2012, 11:20:26 PM
Personally, I think Tulsa people don't like to walk unless they are under 30.
30 was a long time ago. Unless the weather is horrible, I walk each weekday about 2 miles just to get out of the office for a while and get some exercise. I park my car away from the crowds near the door at our suburban shopping places. It helps reduce door dents and keeps the people working at New Balance shoes with a customer.
But then, I'm technically not "Tulsa" since I live in the north edge of Bixby but my workplace is in the Tulsa city limits.
Wow! I coulda had a V8.
Downtown is great. I love it. IMO, it still suffers from fragmentation and lack of a central identifying attraction. You can't say the Arena is it. You can't say the ballpark is it. Both are nice but pretty much expected these days. It certainly isn't an old Blue Domed gas station from the thirties. It isn't the growing number of creative alternate uses of warehouses and structures from early day Tulsa. It isn't the accumulation of artists or yearly art festivals. All of these are the seeds planted for a downtown population that isn't there yet. We went at it backwards and the housing is now in process. Probably, like Artist implies, because the money and mentality for development is suburban oriented. Can't blame them for doing what they know how to do.
So, a few years from now it will be a convenient place to live and work. Development downtown has been like the three characters of Wizard of Oz each needing something to be complete. We found the brains. We found the courage. Now, if we want it to be attractive to people outside of the nearby downtown area, we need a heart.
Then, keep this in mind. Of the half million or so souls that reside here, how many are possible customers of downtown goods and services? Has anyone assembled a true profile of who that person is? The demographic attracted to the inner city is much smaller than most would assume I wager. Anyway, why would they visit and spend money, on a continuing basis, downtown when most every need they have can be met within their own residential area?
In short, its time to focus on a central attraction or feature that differentiates our downtown from its suburbs or other downtowns.
Quote from: Red Arrow on January 21, 2012, 01:20:58 PM
The upfront cost of a trolley is certainly high with the rail and overhead electric service and initial vehicle cost. From what I've read, the overall cost is comparable or less than rubber tire vehicles when costs are adjusted to include the life of the equipment.
I certainly agree. The capital costs are high for a railed trolley but offset by the durability and low operating costs. However, it would have to be an authority that underwrites the cost and therefore controversial. Justifying its success would always be difficult as it is in the same category as other subsidized infrastructure. Not profitable as an entity but necessary to ensure profitability of the area served.
The flexibility of a rubber wheeled trolley can't be ignored. It can change routes as needed and can be privately operated.
Quote from: AquaMan on January 21, 2012, 01:35:58 PM
The flexibility of a rubber wheeled trolley bus can't be ignored. It can change routes as needed and can be privately operated.
That same flexibility is also one of its detractions. With the stroke of a pen, a good development site can be changed to just another inaccessible location. Potential riders know pretty much where a rail vehicle is going. Not so much with a bus.
With that in mind the time to build a rail trolley was probably two years ago in conjunction with a good development plan. Since we didn't do that, we still have to consider rubber wheeled people mover vehicles (eliminate the word trolley) as another possible solution. Especially given the easier start up costs of doing so. The vehicle should be designed to reflect a theme that fits into the area's attractions. I wouldn't rule out that a real trolley couldn't be feasible in another area (Pearl) or at another time.
Remember, imo, the fragmentation (part of it physical) of the area is a hindrance to the exploitation of its uniqueness. You have to be able to cross over the railroad tracks.
Unlike a MTTA vehicle their only purpose would be to specific destinations within the entertainment/deco district and its parking areas.
Quote from: AquaMan on January 21, 2012, 02:22:13 PM
With that in mind the time to build a rail trolley was probably two years ago in conjunction with a good development plan. Since we didn't do that, we still have to consider rubber wheeled people mover vehicles (eliminate the word trolley) as another possible solution. Especially given the easier start up costs of doing so. The vehicle should be designed to reflect a theme that fits into the area's attractions. I wouldn't rule out that a real trolley couldn't be feasible in another area (Pearl) or at another time.
Remember, imo, the fragmentation (part of it physical) of the area is a hindrance to the exploitation of its uniqueness. You have to be able to cross over the railroad tracks.
Unlike a MTTA vehicle their only purpose would be to specific destinations within the entertainment/deco district and its parking areas.
Bus. Say the word after me. Bus. It's not a 4 letter or cuss word.
Rail is a part of the Fast Forward transit plan for Tulsa. http://www.fastforwardplan.org/Portals/0/Documents/102011RTSP/Handout_10-13-2011.pdf
It won't be here for a while though. A bus circulator system would certainly have a lower startup cost than fixed rail, could occur almost overnight and would be better than no system. However, the ridership of a bus system
may not be indicative of what the ridership of fixed rail transportation would be. The failure of a bus system is not the guarantee one way or the other of the failure of a fixed rail system.
I don't see crossing the railroad tracks to be much, if any, more of a technical problem for a fixed rail trolley than a bus. A bus can fail to climb or stop on a snowy or icy grade of a crossing bridge just as easily as rail. At grade crossings would be similar.
Whatever circulator system would be developed would need something like an all-day or multiple ride pass to attract riders. If you try to hit up riders with a (pick a cost) $1 ticket every time they board the vehicle, they will want to drive their car to the nearest parking lot.
Quote from: Red Arrow on January 21, 2012, 03:03:26 PM
Bus. Say the word after me. Bus. It's not a 4 letter or cuss word.
Rail is a part of the Fast Forward transit plan for Tulsa. http://www.fastforwardplan.org/Portals/0/Documents/102011RTSP/Handout_10-13-2011.pdf
It won't be here for a while though. A bus circulator system would certainly have a lower startup cost than fixed rail, could occur almost overnight and would be better than no system. However, the ridership of a bus system may not be indicative of what the ridership of fixed rail transportation would be. The failure of a bus system is not the guarantee one way or the other of the failure of a fixed rail system.
I don't see crossing the railroad tracks to be much, if any, more of a technical problem for a fixed rail trolley than a bus. A bus can fail to climb or stop on a snowy or icy grade of a crossing bridge just as easily as rail. At grade crossings would be similar.
Whatever circulator system would be developed would need something like an all-day or multiple ride pass to attract riders. If you try to hit up riders with a (pick a cost) $1 ticket every time they board the vehicle, they will want to drive their car to the nearest parking lot.
Such an engineer. Bus might as well be a four letter word. The image of buses is a four letter word...fail. Market it as a "people mover" or a trolley and its something with more charisma. Something you can market. Inferior to railed trolleys imo but cheaper to put in place. I'm glad there are plans for one. I support the concept, but I am dubious of it happening until the character of the city changes.
Unfortunately you won't find much widespread support for an infrastructure for railed anything in Tulsa. Vote no on new taxes will always win. And it will take taxes in one form or another to accomplish.
How do you get railed trolleys across existing heavy rail lines?
Quote from: AquaMan on January 21, 2012, 03:18:48 PM
Such an engineer.
I am what I am.
Quote
Bus might as well be a four letter word. The image of buses is a four letter word...fail. Market it as a "people mover" or a trolley and its something with more charisma.
I'd like to market my 1998 Buick as a 2012 Corvette. We've been through whether words have a meaning or not so I'll stop here for now on that.
QuoteUnfortunately you won't find much widespread support for an infrastructure for railed anything in Tulsa. Vote no on new taxes will always win. And it will take taxes in one form or another to accomplish.
I cannot disagree with that except there could be more support for rail with the proper promotion. (Just don't market it as a bus. ;D)
QuoteHow do you get railed trolleys across existing heavy rail lines?
Rail crossing rail is not a technical problem. I believe the trolley poles or pantographs will go high enough for the electric wires to clear existing heavy rail clearance requirements. There are probably a gazillion regulations that would make it difficult. You cannot run light rail on the same rails as heavy rails in the US but I don't know one way or the other about crossings. There is an excellent example of heavy rail crossing heavy rail at Wagoner where the Union Pacific Steam Locomotives stop. Unfortunately, the Google Maps satellite view is not detailed enough to see the frogs in the rail. You can't even see the rail details.
the only reason people don't walk all over downtown tulsa is because they don't HAVE to.
i currently live in new york, and the only reason i walk is because i have to. don't get me wrong, i appreciate, and use, the subway and busses, but i would much rather use a car.
as for trolleys in dowtown tulsa: i don't think tulsa will ever have the density that would necessitate a trolley on tracks downtown. it's much too expensive, and restrictive. once the tracks are down, they are down. bus "trolleys" would be a much more cost effective and flexible solution.
1998 Buick for sale. High miles. Leather upholstery. One owner.
Late nineties full size American luxury sedan. Built to run a quarter million miles. Sumptous interior. For sale to satisfy estate.
Which one do you call on? ;D
Quote from: AquaMan on January 21, 2012, 04:05:26 PM
1998 Buick for sale. High miles. Leather upholstery. One owner.
Late nineties full size American luxury sedan. Built to run a quarter million miles. Sumptous interior. For sale to satisfy estate.
Which one do you call on? ;D
Neither one sounds like a Corvette to me.
:D
Quote from: takemebacktotulsa on January 21, 2012, 04:00:28 PM
as for trolleys in dowtown tulsa: i don't think tulsa will ever have the density that would necessitate a trolley on tracks downtown. it's much too expensive, and restrictive. once the tracks are down, they are down. bus "trolleys" would be a much more cost effective and flexible solution.
Trolley buses still require overhead wires, two rather than one. They do offer the advantage of not having an internal combustion engine, thereby transferring the pollution problem to the electric plant. There are some trolley buses that have some on-board batteries to allow them to run short distances where overhead wires are not practical.
do trolleys on tracks have the same overhead wires? i'm pretty sure they do. if not, the run on a combustion engine, right? i mean, how else would it work? they wouldn't have live tracks in the middle of the street.
when i said trolley busses, meant actual busses that look like trolleys. like the one that used to run from brookside to cherry street to downtown, which i thought was great!
Quote from: AquaMan on January 21, 2012, 03:18:48 PM
How do you get railed trolleys across existing heavy rail lines?
I remembered an example of trolley crossing trolley. Just this side of the pole in the middle of the picture is the example. The rest appear to be turnouts (switches).
http://g.co/maps/9gdtd
Quote from: takemebacktotulsa on January 21, 2012, 04:37:54 PM
do trolleys on tracks have the same overhead wires? i'm pretty sure they do. if not, the run on a combustion engine, right? i mean, how else would it work? they wouldn't have live tracks in the middle of the street.
when i said trolley busses, meant actual busses that look like trolleys. like the one that used to run from brookside to cherry street to downtown, which i thought was great!
Trolleys on tracks have one overhead wire. They complete the circuit through the wheels to the rail. The rails are at ground potential so you can touch them if you want without even a tingle. Since trolley buses cannot complete the electric path through their tires to the road, they need two overhead wires. I believe I have seen an example of trolley buses using two overhead wires and rail trolleys using the "hot" wire of the two and completing the path through the wheels to the rails as usual. I don't remember where that was.
I actually knew what you meant by "trolley bus". They are not a bad vehicle but they are no more a trolley than my Buick is a Corvette or a pick-up truck or an 18 wheeler. I also think that running them from Brookside to Cherry St to downtown was a good idea since we don't have other regularly scheduled transit. I don't believe it is still running.
Edit:
This pretty much describes the differences:
http://sacramentohistory.blogspot.com/2007/10/what-isand-isnta-trolley.html
oh i see what you mean...
my opinion is that we can accomplish everything a trolly can with the infrastructure that we have already. real trolleys may seem nicer, but they do the same things as busses. but with less flexibility and more expenses.
the trolleys in u.s. cities that have them are intended for tourists mainly (mepmhis and san franciso are the only two that i can think of, really).
Quote from: takemebacktotulsa on January 21, 2012, 05:00:40 PM
oh i see what you mean...
my opinion is that we can accomplish everything a trolly can with the infrastructure that we have already. real trolleys may seem nicer, but they do the same things as busses. but with less flexibility and more expenses.
the trolleys in u.s. cities that have them are intended for tourists mainly (mepmhis and san franciso are the only two that i can think of, really).
Here are a few cities:
http://www.lightrailnow.org/success1.htm
Some are for tourists but many are actually used by the locals.
This is a lot of info about the Philadelphia, PA system history. There are still some trolleys running as regular transportation.
http://www.phillytrolley.org/
If you click on the "trackless trolleys" you will see what I mean about trolley buses.
I grew up next to the Springfield Rd stop of the Septa 101 route.
http://www.septa.org/maps/trolley/suburban.html
http://g.co/maps/c2zc2
If you are really interested, those sites will keep you occupied for hours.
QuoteHere are a few cities:
http://www.lightrailnow.org/success1.htm
Some are for tourists but many are actually used by the locals.
out of all those cities, the only one that is fair to compare to tulsa is little rock, and they have a "heritage trolley" which i think is code for "novelty trolley".
has anyone ever ridden the trolley in little rock? i mean, i could be totally wrong, and it could be used by people to commute to and from work.
ps. i hope i did the quote thing right.
don't get me wrong. i wish our trolley system had never been bought out by GM and dismantled. i wish we still had the infrastructure in place. that would make things totally different.
i suspect that little rock escaped our trolley fate.
Quote from: takemebacktotulsa on January 22, 2012, 11:36:58 AM
out of all those cities, the only one that is fair to compare to tulsa is little rock, and they have a "heritage trolley" which i think is code for "novelty trolley".
has anyone ever ridden the trolley in little rock? i mean, i could be totally wrong, and it could be used by people to commute to and from work.
Heritage trolley is the style of the vehicle. Old style rather than new style but may be new manufacture. Little Rock's were made/refurbed by Gomaco. http://www.gomacotrolley.com/index.html I was in Little Rock a few years ago but the folks I was with were more interested in seeing the Clinton Library than spending a few minutes riding the trolley. The system is mostly a downtown circulator but also crosses the river to North Little Rock. I don't know if there are any significant numbers of commuters. The recent system was built from scratch as I understand.
http://www.cat.org/rrail/streetcar.html
The other alternative I see to real trolleys and "trolley busses", is the small bus. When I was in NYC last we never rode a bus that was as huge as Tulsa's giant, lumbering behemoths. The busses we rode in were smaller and came every few minutes. If we had some sharp looking, smaller busses that only served downtown and surrounding areas like Brookside and Cherry Street, or even just a corridor where we eventually may want trolleys, and they were on a very timely basis... then I think you would have something. The busses must look distinctive from the regular city busses so that people will immediately know these are different. They must look sharp. The stops must have the route for each bus on a map at the stop so that people will know where the bus goes and the times for operation and the arrival time for the next bus. Having nice stops with that signage and electronic arrival times, etc. will show that you are making an investment in the service and thus give a little confidence to potential new developers that this route will be there for them.
Quote from: TheArtist on January 22, 2012, 12:14:35 PM
The other alternative I see to real trolleys and "trolley busses", is the small bus. When I was in NYC last we never rode a bus that was as huge as Tulsa's giant, lumbering behemoths. The busses we rode in were smaller and came every few minutes. If we had some sharp looking, smaller busses that only served downtown and surrounding areas like Brookside and Cherry Street, or even just a corridor where we eventually may want trolleys, and they were on a very timely basis... then I think you would have something. The busses must look distinctive from the regular city busses so that people will immediately know these are different. They must look sharp. The stops must have the route for each bus on a map at the stop so that people will know where the bus goes and the times for operation and the arrival time for the next bus. Having nice stops with that signage and electronic arrival times, etc. will show that you are making an investment in the service and thus give a little confidence to potential new developers that this route will be there for them.
What you describe reminds me somewhat of the shuttle buses used by rental car companies at large airports. Very effective and easy to use.
I believe you hit the really important parts. Knowing the route quickly and easily is a must. Knowing the locations of the stops along the route must be just as easy to determine. (Something I have been unable to do on the MTTA web site.) Buses (or whatever) must arrive frequently enough to make people willing to wait for the next one. Electronic ETA of the next vehicle at each stop is a plus. At that point, you don't really need a schedule beyond knowing when the transit day begins and ends and the frequency of service at a particular time of day.
QuoteWhen I was in NYC last we never rode a bus that was as huge as Tulsa's giant, lumbering behemoths. The busses we rode in were smaller and came every few minutes.
it has been a couple of years since i rode a bus in tulsa, but i don't remember them being bigger than the ones in nyc. the ones in nyc are definitely sleeker. and at each stop here in nyc there is a schedule and a map of the route. that is something tulsa could definitely do to help things.
QuoteWhen I was in NYC last we never rode a bus that was as huge as Tulsa's giant, lumbering behemoths. The busses we rode in were smaller and came every few minutes.
they have started to do that in at a few bus stops in nyc. it's pretty great.
i would love to see a route that circulates in between downtown, the pearl, cherry street and brookside.
Marketing and perception are the issues with the bus in Tulsa. Public transit buses in Tulsa are seen as a social service not a transit service. We in Middle America love our cars and the independence they provide for us to go where we want, when we want and how fast we want. The only public transit that will be utilized by those that can afford a car are circulator routes in urban areas that are marketed as a way to park and ride and enjoy the attractions of downtown, Brookside, Cherry St, etc. For a long time I felt a connection between these areas was needed. With the development in downtown a connector between the three primary urban districts is not needed. All three areas have developed enough density and diversity of dining and entertainment they are now distinct destinations on their own without support of the others. A rubber wheel "trolley" that travels back and forth on Brookside & Cherry St would be sufficient but most likely lightly used. However, a similar fleet of vehicles that travels between the various districts downtown would be very useful and with the right stops and marketing utilized by a great number of residents and visitors alike.
What are everyone's thoughts on a circulator route that runs north on Elgin, west on Brady, south on Denver, east on 5th (requiring 5th street to be turned into two way between Denver & Main, which is a no brainer IMO) and back north on Elgin?
That's right at two miles. I don't know how many vehicles you'd need to have stops at a 5-7 minute interval. The only drawback I see is the front door of the PAC is no closer than two blocks to the route and the Tulsa Convention Center is a block away. PAC has enough surface parking inside two blocks to not absolutely need a stop at the door. The Convention Center could probably use a stop closer than a block for visitors. However, that's a really easy route to remember and places a lot of emphasis on those streets for development.
Another option would be a route that runs south on Elgin, west on 5th St, north on Boulder (once the bridge is complete) and east on Brady back to Elgin. Then a second route that runs east on 4th St, north on Frankfort, west on 3rd St, south on Frisco, back to 4th St.
Thoughts on these routes?
Quote from: rdj on January 23, 2012, 11:41:09 AM
That's right at two miles. I don't know how many vehicles you'd need to have stops at a 5-7 minute interval. ... Thoughts on these routes?
With any single track or single direction loop, you will need to consider people wanting to go in the direction opposite the loop. Double track would be the nicest and, of course, most expensive. Having passing areas and good timing would allow traffic in opposite directions.
I think I've seen numbers around 10 mph for on street trolleys' average speed. That converts to 6 min/mile so a 2 mile loop would need 2 trolleys.
I thought of that. Could you turn fourth and fifth streets into single lanes with a trolley track or "lane" (for a rubber wheel down the middle)? In that scenario they would run from end to end and eliminate driving on Denver and Frankfort? Downtown HOU has a similar system and those trolley's are unmanned.
If it's a rubber wheel in a circulator pattern and the streets aren't reconfigured it might suck to be stuck behind one block after block, stop after stop. You'd certainly have to figure out the traffic flow. However, it might serve to cut traffic on those streets and make them more pedestrian friendly which is what we all want.