Our Situation Has Become a National Story

[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.

[sgrizzle]

Let's take Bill's widening money and buy us a friggin' train!

[TheArtist]

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.

[pfox]

Yep...this is a now situation.

[cannon_fodder]

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

[Renaissance]

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?

[swake]

Here is the actual report:

http://www.neckride.org/NR-NEWS/Common-Current-Release-20080304.pdf

[PonderInc]

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...?

[TheTed]

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.

[azbadpuppy]

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.

[PonderInc]

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.

[chlfan]

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.

[deinstein]

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)

[Conan71]

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.

[buckeye]

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.