Mass-transit in Tulsa-sized cities

[Conan71]

Once gas prices here get to the levels you are used to paying in the UK and Europe, people will have more interest in mass transit.  Streetcars would be more of a novelty to attract people to downtown, which wouldn't be a bad thing.  They could be somewhat practical for people to shuttle from their office tower to the various restaurants at lunch time.

You are right, bail bond companies advertising on city busses does nothing to enhance the image of what is inside the bus.

[si_uk_lon_ok]

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

Once gas prices here get to the levels you are used to paying in the UK and Europe, people will have more interest in mass transit.  Streetcars would be more of a novelty to attract people to downtown, which wouldn't be a bad thing.  They could be somewhat practical for people to shuttle from their office tower to the various restaurants at lunch time.

I would say that road congestion would be more of a push to cause people to leave the car at home rather than high gas prices. I think congested large cities have realsied that it either impossible or very expensive to build your way out of congestion by roads.

It has to be said that a lunch time shuttle really isn't much of a mass transit system. I don't understand why you would wait for a shuttle to take you to lunch when you could walk in less time.

[perspicuity85]

quote:Originally posted by si_uk_lon_ok
I realize that Tulsa has a bus system, I've seen them frequently downtown. Although I do have to wonder about all the bail bond adverts on them, I find that really off putting when you are trying to market a service to indicate that the majority of the customers using your buses might at some point need a bail bond. Perhaps Council Oak cheese and wine could advertise on them?  I'm just saying you can reinvent the bus system at quite low cost compared to other possibilities and have something comparable with light rail. There are schemes in Australia that have amazing rapid buses, where the local areas around the stops have seen property prices on par to those next to new light rail lines.

I agree also that in addition to implementing streetcars or other new forms of transportation, we can do something to reinvent the bus system.  I know they are cheesy, but the rubber tire trolley buses could be used in this way.  The trolley bus could be slightly more expensive to ride than regular buses, and marketed to business professionals.  The trolley buses could run direct routes from suburban areas directly into downtown.  It may seem like a gentrification of the bus system, but most people in suburban Tulsa don't want to ride a city bus because they don't want to sit next to the perceived average bus rider.  In other words, the trolley bus would have a snob appeal.  If you lived in east Broken Arrow and knew you could avoid a 30-40 minute commute to work as well as hundreds of dollars in gas from filling up your SUV every month by riding an executive-class taxi with several of your peers, why wouldn't you?

Perhaps this is an idea for a private industry...

[Conan71]

Someone should talk to Blake Lund about it.  Last I knew he was the owner of the old Tulsa Trolley(s).  He's always looking for new ways to make a buck.

[si_uk_lon_ok]

quote:Originally posted by perspicuity85

quote:Originally posted by si_uk_lon_ok
I realize that Tulsa has a bus system, I've seen them frequently downtown. Although I do have to wonder about all the bail bond adverts on them, I find that really off putting when you are trying to market a service to indicate that the majority of the customers using your buses might at some point need a bail bond. Perhaps Council Oak cheese and wine could advertise on them?  I'm just saying you can reinvent the bus system at quite low cost compared to other possibilities and have something comparable with light rail. There are schemes in Australia that have amazing rapid buses, where the local areas around the stops have seen property prices on par to those next to new light rail lines.

I agree also that in addition to implementing streetcars or other new forms of transportation, we can do something to reinvent the bus system.  I know they are cheesy, but the rubber tire trolley buses could be used in this way.  The trolley bus could be slightly more expensive to ride than regular buses, and marketed to business professionals.  The trolley buses could run direct routes from suburban areas directly into downtown.  It may seem like a gentrification of the bus system, but most people in suburban Tulsa don't want to ride a city bus because they don't want to sit next to the perceived average bus rider.  In other words, the trolley bus would have a snob appeal.  If you lived in east Broken Arrow and knew you could avoid a 30-40 minute commute to work as well as hundreds of dollars in gas from filling up your SUV every month by riding an executive-class taxi with several of your peers, why wouldn't you?

Perhaps this is an idea for a private industry...

That's why I suggested luxury coaches for longer distances. Although I know that some areas have started to do shared private minibuses. I realise that buses have an image problem, but I don't think that is because buses are a bad mode of transport. I think it because most Tulsans and Americans have never experienced how good buses can be. They can be more frequent than trains, cheap, reliable, luxurious and faster than the car.

I'm not following how someone in Broken Arrow could avoid a 30-40 minute commute. I'm guessing they would still have to spend a comparable about of time commuting no matter what mode they chose. Personally I wouldn't want to organise a private taxi, I'd rather have the flexibility of mass transit so if I need to stay late I don't lose my lift or hold people up.

[perspicuity85]

Avoiding a 30-40 minute commute for some people is about avoiding the hassle of fighting through traffic.  If someone else is driving, it can be less stressful.
And you wouldn't be organizing a private taxi.  The trolley bus would make regularly scheduled stops at the front of your master-planned subdivision every day.  If a private company operated the service the same way a heavily subsidized transit system did, so be it.  It would be highly unlikely for any private company to not recieve some subsidy for that type of service anyway.

[pmcalk]

Si--To get back to your question regarding the point of mass transit, I see it as an opportunity to spur growth in areas that are underdeveloped.  While I am not opposed to the BA line to downtown, I don't see it as very effective.  Park-n-ride systems are generally ineffective, particularly in areas such as Tulsa where traffic is very light.  Once people get in their car to drive, they are more likely to drive to the ultimate destination.  Unless it is more cost-effective or time-efficient, why would someone get in their car, drive a few blocks, park, get out, and wait on another form of transportation?  In the amount of time that takes, he or she could drive to their destination.  Mass transit is much more effective when it is within walking distance.  By creating a line to the north, the city has the opportunity to develop/redevelop land intensely in and around the transit stops, so that residents are within walking distance of the train.  In general, I believe it works better for development to follow transit, not the other way around.

As for buses, I see them as the last alternative for mass transit.  For whatever reason, even in cities with excellent bus service (DC, New York), most people avoid them if possible.  In DC, I know people who religiously take the subway everywhere; however, they wouldn't think of taking the bus anywhere.

[si_uk_lon_ok]

quote:Originally posted by pmcalk

Si--To get back to your question regarding the point of mass transit, I see it as an opportunity to spur growth in areas that are underdeveloped.  While I am not opposed to the BA line to downtown, I don't see it as very effective.  Park-n-ride systems are generally ineffective, particularly in areas such as Tulsa where traffic is very light.  Once people get in their car to drive, they are more likely to drive to the ultimate destination.  Unless it is more cost-effective or time-efficient, why would someone get in their car, drive a few blocks, park, get out, and wait on another form of transportation?  In the amount of time that takes, he or she could drive to their destination.  Mass transit is much more effective when it is within walking distance.  By creating a line to the north, the city has the opportunity to develop/redevelop land intensely in and around the transit stops, so that residents are within walking distance of the train.  In general, I believe it works better for development to follow transit, not the other way around.

As for buses, I see them as the last alternative for mass transit.  For whatever reason, even in cities with excellent bus service (DC, New York), most people avoid them if possible.  In DC, I know people who religiously take the subway everywhere; however, they wouldn't think of taking the bus anywhere.

I would agree. I've used park and ride schemes before, but that was due to the following; buses being quicker than driving and finding a space, there being a lack of parking at my destination, the parking being very expensive compared to free parking at the park and ride and not needing a car once I reach the destination. I think the low cost of parking and lack of traffic is a real disincentive.

I do think that certain modes work a lot better within walking distances, although massive amounts of cycle racks would be a good thing too. And it is really a chicken and egg situation, with what does first development or the transit. I do think that the costs are much lower to plan the transit before, rather than after development.

I think the reason people avoid the buses are mainly appearance, journey time and journey time reliability. I think buses everywhere on the whole are a bit tatty, or alternatively covered in adverts indicating that the occupants are in marketing terms sub prime. I think that this is avoidable and the new buses that I pictured are like light rail without the expensive rails. On journey time and journey time reliability the problem with buses is that they on the whole share the road space and therefore can get delayed, this tends to make them slower and increases the likelihood they will be late. Tulsa I think has light enough traffic and wide enough right of ways that bus routes could be given dedicated lanes and junction priority. This would enable buses to be reliable and quicker than the car. Also with there own right of ways if the day came they could easily be upgraded to a tram or light rail.

Although if Tulsa could replicate Nashville and had rail at a cost of only $1.2m a mile. I would be for that as long as subsidies meant that rail users were only paying the marginal cost of their journeys.

[Matthew.Dowty]

Each year as gasoline hits a new high in the peak season, pro-transit voices will gain more credibility.  

Eventually the retail business community will scream for it as a way to maintain access to low cost labor.

[si_uk_lon_ok]

quote:Originally posted by Transport_Oklahoma

Each year as gasoline hits a new high in the peak season, pro-transit voices will gain more credibility.  

Eventually the retail business community will scream for it as a way to maintain access to low cost labor.

I'm surprised retail hasn't played a larger part in the push for mass transit.

Some examples I'm aware of include:

In Auckland a department store gave part of its ground floor to the bus company for free to build a bus station intergrated into the store.

And in the UK supermarkets and shopping centres pay for the bus companies to serve them.

[TurismoDreamin]

Ya know, as great of an idea as this sounds on paper, I just don't think Tulsa is that needy of such a system. Where would the epicenter of the system be?..most likely downtown.

Sure these all look great, but consider how many people work in downtown...not that many. Consider the reason's why people would use such a system during times other than 8-5pm on Monday's thru Friday's...not enough. And then, consider the number of people who would actually use them...not that many.

I remember when an out-of-state guy asked if "downtown still shuts down at 5pm". Plus, I know people who don't go to downtown because they have no reason to go. Tulsa's epicenter is not in downtown, at least not at this moment. In all honesty, that mass transit idea would only benefit those who work in downtown, bums who gained enough money panhandling and want a ride to the food drive, and those who need to go pay speeding tickets. I say wait until downtown comes to life and turns into something better than 50% surface parking and little to no residential/commercial areas to speak of...

[perspicuity85]

Turismo-
1st off, yes obviously downtown has a long way to go, but to say "not that many people work down there" is ridiculous.  Hundreds of people work downtown every day.  Have you ever driven on the BA expy. towards downtown at 7 AM on a weekday?  Where do you think all of those people are going?

But to get to your point:
You've got yourself in a chicken or egg situation. Perhaps implementing an upscale appeal mass transit system would actually help speed the downtown development process as well as begin the mass transit process.  I really like the idea of downtown streetcars.  They could provide mass transit ideal for lunchtime and connect nightlife destinations of the Blue Dome, Brady Arts, and Uptown(SoBo).  It seems to me that the mass transit could itself be incorporated into the overall development effort.

[TurismoDreamin]

quote:Originally posted by perspicuity85

Turismo-
1st off, yes obviously downtown has a long way to go, but to say "not that many people work down there" is ridiculous.  Hundreds of people work downtown every day.  Have you ever driven on the BA expy. towards downtown at 7 AM on a weekday?  Where do you think all of those people are going?

But to get to your point:
You've got yourself in a chicken or egg situation. Perhaps implementing an upscale appeal mass transit system would actually help speed the downtown development process as well as begin the mass transit process.  I really like the idea of downtown streetcars.  They could provide mass transit ideal for lunchtime and connect nightlife destinations of the Blue Dome, Brady Arts, and Uptown(SoBo).  It seems to me that the mass transit could itself be incorporated into the overall development effort.

Yes, I agree. I have been on the BA during rush hour and there seem to be quite a few cars headed in the direction of downtown. But to say that everyone that works in downtown also lives in BA, and to say that everyone who travels on the BA also works in downtown is also an inaccurate overstatement. Tulsa is too sprawled out to consider any area a high density area of employment. I won't deny that many people work in downtown though. But would it really be worth it if the news was right...that only a projected 600 to a max of 2,000 people would use the system. Those 600 people would probably be charged a ton of money just to help support the cost of the system itself...or not enough and in effect, help the system flop. Too many people work in too many other places.

Consider the estimated population of Tulsa County as of 2006 according to the Census Bureau...577,795. If only 600 people rode the commuter rail, it would not even amount to 1%. How helpful will that really be? Tulsa just needs time to develop. That rail will still be there, i'm sure. Now is just not the time.

Now, I do, however, fully support an inter-downtown rail that operates within the downtown loop. That would definitely be much more useful since there is plenty of foot traffic at lunch time and at downtown events.

[Renaissance]

Tulsa Transit releases preliminary study.  Interesting stuff.

http://www.tulsatransit.org/news-info/commuter-rail-study/

[TheArtist]

If they think its feasible at all to do now, then now is exactly the time to do it.

If you put it in now there will be incentive to put in more dense development around it, thus over time making it even more "feasible" and more likely to build up that density you are talking about and to have that density in the right areas.

Another thing, if you look at the map you can see where they are already limited in where they can put the stations because of growth and businesses that already exist. (one station is proposed to be on sheridan using the space where the Wal-Mart is) If you wait longer you will lose even more of those few available spaces.

Plus now is the time when both Tulsa and BA are putting a lot of emphasis on their downtowns.  For example knowing where the end point station is going to be in their downtown will allow them to know where to put their parking infrastructure and where they can have synergies with it and say their new convention center or other places downtown.  

Once you know where the stations are going to be the cities can start considering and developing their options, where to place things, where to incentivise certain types of growth etc.  Plus builders can use the line as a selling point for say a mid or high rise living development.

If its just barely possible, starting it now will encourage growth to make it more used.

In time downtown BA will become more built up and it will cost more to purchase the property to put in a station. The places along the line will fill in and cost more.  

If the line is in downtown then the city of Tulsa will know better where to put future garages, where not to put a Wal-Mart perhaps lol, the baseball stadium would be nice to have near it, or just have those spaces closest to the stations for high density business and living, etc.  

Its not just about whats immediately near the stations, developers and planners look at the arteries and flow patterns around them to start planning bus and trolley routes, what corridors, say Sheridan perhaps as one, to encourage the placement of more high density development, etc.  It can help future growth be more organized and purposeful.

I am actually amazed that it is feasible at all.  So I say lets do it and allow the system to grow "development infrastructure" around it and ridership as well.