Mass Transit Options for Tulsa

[TURobY]

As Tulsa continues to grow (both physically and populous), it would behoove the city to consider some better possibilities of mass transit (other than strictly bus lines).

Personally, I think a great strategy would be for Tulsa to extend a web over the current populated areas, including (East, West, North, South, Midtown, and Downtown). The ability to bypass traffic when traversing the city could cause enough demand on its own. In addition, travellers to the city would be able to get to the vicinity of their conference.

A transport web with stops at points of importance (event center, fairgrounds, colleges, airport, etc) could also be a drawing factor for more businesses to hold conventions in Tulsa, as well as produce an easier way to promote tourism in town.

Perhaps one or two stations per suburb with a nice parking garage would help draw suburbanites into the city of Tulsa to spend money.

I understand that Tulsa may not be able to support the system currently, but it should be on our mind as our city continues to grow. I also realize that Tulsa's road situation is comparatively docile compared to other cities and I also realize that midwesterners love their cars. But something like this could really help boost the city's transportation grid by reducing street traffic and reducing parking needed downtown.

Also, a maglev or light rail system between Tulsa and OKC could help spur growth between OKC and Tulsa. Who knows... in 50 years, it could be the Tulsa-OKC metroplex! (Okay, maybe that is wishful thinking, but it doesn't discredit the need for a transport between Tulsa and OKC.)

So, I am ultimately asking for discussion about mass transit opportunities for Tulsa and possibly the surrounding metro area. Is there any reason why the city seems to dismiss the idea outright without considering the fact that, if done correctly, an improvement in mass-transit could be beneficial to Tulsa?

[Matthew.Dowty]

Article from the National Association of Realtors describing how streetcars encourage development.

Snips:

"All aboard'' may be the new clarion call for American cities eager to revitalize their downtowns. That's because city planners and officials are discovering that streetcars are the most desirous and efficient way to help move people in and around urban cores.

"Maybe you have to be Atlanta or Washington D.C. to think big and heavy or Denver or Minneapolis to think light rail, but there are lots of smaller cities that would just be fantasizing about light rail that can realistically think about a streetcar system," said Hales.

Additionally, while buses often are used by the transit dependent, rail service attracts those who could drive, but choose not to. Getting a driver to jump on a trolley means there's one less car congesting streets.

The trolley attracts development dollars, she said, because the streetcars must run on track, which means there is a permanent commitment to the line.

[tshane250]

Alright, Tulsa needs to step up its effort to have rail transit. Isn't a study currently being undertaken? I hope the results are what we (I) want.

quote: Also, a maglev or light rail system between Tulsa and OKC could help spur growth between OKC and Tulsa. Who knows... in 50 years, it could be the Tulsa-OKC metroplex!

Eeew, let's hope not.  I would hope better public transportation would lead to less sprawl and more density.  Sprawl is just so darn expensive.  The state cannot even maintain the roads and bridges it currently has, why should we build more so people can move further and further from where they work.  People complain about taxes. . . well if we keep sprawling taxes will have to be increased just to keep up with the infrastructure maintenance costs.  

So yes, let's talk transit!

[TheArtist]

Start with trolleys and bus stations keeping in mind, as ridership improves, making the areas where those stations are into high density core areas. This way when the population and density grows you will already have right of ways and "density infrastructure" to support light rail.

For the moment just getting enough ridership for trolleys mid-town may be a struggle. Let alone light rail. A good beginner loop would be along the 71st corridor from BA hitting the mall area and drawing from the growth around 81st, then on down 71st to Yale picking up the density each mile up and down Yale, then on to Riverside, down Riverside to Downtown, then from downtown back along the BA to BA then back south to 71st. There are already areas of budding density all along this loop and everything from shopping districts, to business and medical, recreational and hotels. From that have bus and trolley routs that intersect with, and pull from, the areas around each station on the light rail.

While that is far in the future.  Having a potential route mapped out, and zoning for more density in areas around its future sub stations, now,  would make a light rail more feasable, cost effective, and easier to install when that day finally comes.

A light rail "web" can not work in Tulsa at the moment. It would cost a fortune to make enough rail lines to cover the city at enough points.  A "beginner loop" having high density, multi- use areas on it with bus and trolley routes "webbing" out from that as needed, would be the best scenario IMO.

[mspivey]

It seems to me that for public transportation to work you need a compact territory that is densely populated. Tulsa has neither attribute.

The bus routes that exist today are tailored demographically to ensure the greatest ridership per mile. And they still lose a bunch of money. Does anyone know how much money they lose per rider?

If you accept my premise that that the existing routes are the most efficient, wouldn't expanding routes mean more loss?

One other thing. Why does everyone focus on trolleys? Aren't they functionally the same as buses? Are they just more socially acceptable?

[SoonerRiceGrad]

Mr. Spivey, do you have any idea how corny you sound with your bus talk? Not only are busses ghetto, but all mention of the bus on online forums, is also ghetto talk.



Just food for thought.

[perspicuity85]

What needs to be expanded is the rubber tire trolley system.  That would not require installation of a rail or streetcar track, and would cater to a more upscale market than regular city buses do.

[SoonerRiceGrad]

Uhh ... no. What Tulsa needs is the real deal. LRT is cheaper than BRT by far in the long run.

People will ride the real deal. These rubber-tire trollies are just plain kitschy.

[TheArtist]

I think trolleys would indeed not be practical for most places in Tulsa.  But having a few downtown running the, Cherry Street, Utica, Philbrook, Garden Center, Brookside, Riverside (hopefully a development on Riverside) Back to downtown route would be a nice start. Plus if you were to have light rail that had stops in Downtown you could then easily get on the Trolley system from there to see the other things.  

This would be very helpful if Tulsa ever decides it wants to cater to tourists, visitors, convention people, etc. Plus it could be a nascent start to get more people in downtown to use mass transit. Trolleys are friendlier and not as "serious" as buses, they can act as a way to acclimate the uninitiated  to start using mass transit.

Any where else in Tulsa a trolley might look a bit ridiculous. Buses are fine.

[NCTulsan]

Tulsa will have nothing it wants in significant transit improvements until the people step up and support it financially.  A dedicated source of funding is the real key.  

Even a half-penny sales tax, dedicated to fund transit expansion (including any mix of LRT, BRT, streetcars, commuter rail, etc), can have far-reaching implications.  

I've worked with the current situation in Tulsa and I now work with the dedicated source of funding situation in Charlotte ...... it's like night and day.

[TheArtist]

If a tax was what was needed.  I would say use a new tax to first flesh out our fledgling colleges (with some emphasis on the medical ones, I keep reading about the impending doctors and nurse shortage) This would help downtown as well. And boost general education.  Then do some basic infrastructure improvements keeping in mind right of ways and places for future mass transit. THEN in time go for the light rail option.

But here again I think much of what TU Robby was initially saying was.  Start "planning" for where light rail lines and stations will be needed, now, not necessarily build now. Perhaps that will be a component of the new Comprehensive Plan?

[shadows]

In the jungles of central America they are clearing away the brush from preexisting empires that was returned back to nature from the lack of planning.  Tulsa is a city that is noted for intersection and strip planning.   After  the 40's businesses wanted the downtown areas and removed the stores that brought the citizen to town.
Now we have grown in a disenfranchised distribution of the population that is trying to beat the dead horse until it gets up to run another race.

The city is moving to the south and east and taking with it the down town stores.  The city is without a hub for the installation of a mass transportation to bring the people to a central area.  The love affair with the auto makes impossible even the present city layout to consolidate in a mass transportation system.

The down town sits on a undesirable part of restate far from the center of the city that could become a hub for any workable type  of mass transportation.   As the planning is being done to move the city hall now would be time to plan for transporting not only city dwellers but also the suburbs

When we use high rise towers for offices we cannot protect the employees from the 911 disasters.  Not long ago we taught the children in school how to make rockets and their propellants.  The time may come when such items are used against the governing bodies by unstable persons in high rise buildings.

If the downtown real state has so much value then sell it for loft dwellings to the brave of heart.  We could build a new low profile city hall in a location where it represented the accumulated population taking in mind it would be a hub for mass transportation.

Simple words would correct our ails.  "Intelligent planning"        

[mspivey]

quote:Originally posted by SoonerRiceGrad

Mr. Spivey, do you have any idea how corny you sound with your bus talk? Not only are busses ghetto, but all mention of the bus on online forums, is also ghetto talk.

Sigh.
I hoped I could voice my opinion without a personal attack. Guess not.

Isn't a rubber tired trolley just a glorified bus? It has a driver, runs routes, takes money, etc. Withour sounding corny, can someone explain the difference (except one is socially acceptable and one isn't)?

I think a light rail system around a downtown/midtown route is a great idea. I just wonder if many people want to pay for something they will never use. Laying rail on farmland is one thing. Laying it in a developed city (while at the same time keeping it close enough to legitimate destinations) seems to be a pretty large task.

I hear three distinct public transportation scenarios and they are somewhat separate.

1. The one we have now. For lower income people who have no other way to get around. SRG calls this "Ghetto".

2. A botique trolley system like Ft Worth and many other cities. Mainly a tourist facility. Runs to the hotels, train station, Six Flage, the Stockyards, the zoo.

3. The one the Green people want (I'm getting greener all the time but I'm not quite there yet). Like NEW YORK CITY (get a rope) where people leave their BMWs at home and take a public transportation system to work.

I have no problem with doing a little work on 1 and 2 (I've seen the trolleys around but don't know much about them), but 3 ain't never gonna happen. Even with trolleys. That corny enough?

[si_uk_lon_ok]

quote:Originally posted by SoonerRiceGrad

Uhh ... no. What Tulsa needs is the real deal. LRT is cheaper than BRT by far in the long run.

People will ride the real deal. These rubber-tire trollies are just plain kitschy.

I think the best idea would be get the right of ways either in the form of bus lanes or separate bus only routes and see if the demand is there. At a later date LRT can be added.
Personally I would advocate guided bus ways, which I have mentioned on here before. The important thing is to pick buses not because they are the cheapest option, but they fit the cities needs. Tulsa has a fairly low density that would need lots of bus routes to have a degree of coverage. These bus routes could then converge onto a central artery to the city centre, along which buses could be running with high frequency.
People can ride buses, and a well designed bus system can improve property values along its route. However all to often buses are not considered a middle class mode and the money isn't spent on things such as real time information displays or air conditioned waiting rooms. If you are willing to spend the money with buses you can achieve a great level of service which on dedicated routes can match the capacity of LRT.

[Steve]

My 2 cents worth:

I think Tulsa should completely overhaul the bus routes and abandon the hub and spoke routes MTTA has used for years.  Busses should run on the north/south and east/west grid pattern of major Tulsa streets.  A Pine, Admiral, 11th, 21st, 3st, Peoria, Lewis, Harvard, etc. straight line bus routes, from one side of the city limits to the other, if possible.  That way, people catching the bus would need to make only one transfer if at all, to reach close to most destinations.  Some walking may be required to the departure and destination, but should be no more that a half mile at the most.  Busses should be added so a person has to wait no more that 15 minutes at his original departure point, but I know that would take more money.

I have never perceived riding the bus as "ghetto."  I rode the bus to and from work daily for nearly 12 years, when I used to work downtown.