2/17 Pics of Brady

[Weatherdemon]

Going back to pics, I finally got my photos from last week uploaded.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/dscott28604/sets/72157629423512231

Awesome pics!

Thanks!

[erfalf]

Not to rail on the BOK anymore, but I just got to thinking the other day. I'll pose a question to you all:

Name one tier 1 city that does not have a mass transit system in it's core? Answer: None
Now, how many of those have an arena/stadium in their core? Answer: A bunch

Rarely has a big footprint attention grabbing project done what cities actually need it to be doing. To better explain, check this link out.
http://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2012/2/22/it-should-be-about-people.html

The thing I like about this group is that they aren't the usual off the deep end, gotta stop using fossil fuel zealots you usually find pumping this stuff out. They are just trying to show what is best for communities fiscally and "spiritually" I guess you could say.

While we can't change what we have already done, we can be sure not to repeat the same mistakes that so many other cities are making. OKC in particular is going to build ANOTHER convention center. More than likely it will be at the expense of their proposed street car system. Let's not be like that.

[Conan71]

Not to rail on the BOK anymore, but I just got to thinking the other day. I'll pose a question to you all:

Name one tier 1 city that does not have a mass transit system in it's core? Answer: None
Now, how many of those have an arena/stadium in their core? Answer: A bunch

Rarely has a big footprint attention grabbing project done what cities actually need it to be doing. To better explain, check this link out.
http://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2012/2/22/it-should-be-about-people.html

The thing I like about this group is that they aren't the usual off the deep end, gotta stop using fossil fuel zealots you usually find pumping this stuff out. They are just trying to show what is best for communities fiscally and "spiritually" I guess you could say.

While we can't change what we have already done, we can be sure not to repeat the same mistakes that so many other cities are making. OKC in particular is going to build ANOTHER convention center. More than likely it will be at the expense of their proposed street car system. Let's not be like that.

What sort of mass transit do you mean?  Rail?  Most tier I cities have at 2+ times the population of the Tulsa metro area, and therefore a larger local tax base for funding light rail.  I'm assuming Kansas City is a tier I city.  Far as I know, they still don't have light rail.  I believe they are still doing studies on it according to their web site.

We have mass transit in our core, it's bus service.  It doesn't have to be on two rails to qualify as mass transit.  I agree we need a downtown circulator and perhaps in the future there would be viability for rail lines from Owasso which would also have a stop at the airport, Broken Arrow, and Jenks/Bixby.  

We have the amenities and attractions to make downtown a desirable destination now.  Simply putting lines in would not have spurred downtown development, IMO.  

[DowntownDan]

I lived in Dallas for a few years.  They have a large DART network of trains, busses, and some light rail.  But Dallas is as addicted to their cars as Tulsa.  While you can get just about anywhere by train or bus on the DART system, it is nowhere near what is available in the largest metros like NYC and San Francisco, which I have experienced.  When my car was in the shop, I had to get to school, which was only about 2-3 miles from where I lived.  Not really walkable, especially with an expressway to cross in between (though possible because I did in fact do it once).  To get those 2-3 miles by bus, it was about an hour or more both ways.  Several transfers.  A large reason is that cities like Dallas (same with Tulsa and OKC) were not built around mass transit.  NYC developed with their subway system.  You can get anywhere you need fairly quickly using that system.  The only way the DART system is really practical is if you live and or work near a rail stop and are going somewhere near a rail stop.  If you need to get on a bus, you are in for several transfers and waiting periods.  Just not practical or convenient.  Much easier to use a car, even when traffic is bad.  The stop by my house only had a bus run by every 30 minutes, minimum.  Each time was a different bus on a different route subject to different transfers.  So aside from location to location, the time of day would make a big difference as to how many transfers you needed and which transfer to make and how long it would take to get where you wanted to go.  I suspect a large part of it is that the dart system is not in high demand for most people who can afford cars because it is much faster and convenient to use your car than to have hours wasted on transfers.  And busses are subject to the same traffic limitations of rush hour, unlike rail or subway.

Long story short, I don't think it is accurate that all "tier 1" cities have convenient mass transit.  Most of the growth of mid-western and western cities was centered on the individual ownership of cars.  The only western city I have been to that had a very good convenient mass transit system was San Francisco.  I just don't see that much investment in mass transit in Tulsa will make any real difference.  People are addicted to their cars.  When gas goes to $6 per gallon, they will switch to CNG or even electric cars.  The independence of not having to rely on a bus schedule is what makes cars so attractive over mass transit.  It will be especially difficult in Tulsa where traffic is not as bad as in other cities.  I always laugh when people complain about the "nightmare" of their 20 minute commute from downtown to Broken Arrow during rush hour.  To get that distance in Dallas or LA by car, you're looking at an hour, minimum, with several stops and slow downs.

[TheArtist]

  Like I have said before, we can start by making good efficient transit legal in Tulsa.  Right now it is illegal and has been so for a long time.  Transit friendly and Pedestrian friendly are the same thing.  When your not allowed in most areas of the city to create pedestrian friendly areas, well your not going to have transit friendly areas, even if you want them.

[Red Arrow]

 I'm assuming Kansas City is a tier I city.  Far as I know, they still don't have light rail.  I believe they are still doing studies on it according to their web site.

It looks like KC is still in the planning stage.  They used to have a big PCC trolley system.

http://www.lightrailnow.org/facts/fa_lrt_kc1.htm

http://www.lightrailnow.org/success2.htm

http://www.lightrailnow.org/success1.htm

[Red Arrow]

Most of the growth of mid-western and western cities was centered on the individual ownership of cars.  The only western city I have been to that had a very good convenient mass transit system was San Francisco. 

San Francisco got the opportunity to re-boot at the height of cable car and trolley popularity.

[Jeff P]

Name one tier 1 city that does not have a mass transit system in it's core? Answer: None
Now, how many of those have an arena/stadium in their core? Answer: A bunch

I'm not really getting your point.

I'm not sure how you define "Tier 1 city", but I 'm sure that Tulsa isn't one.  There are lots of things that Tier 1 cities have that Tulsa doesn't.

I would ask this:

How many cities in the U.S. with similar total population and population density as Tulsa have a mass transit system in its core? (And I'm assuming you're not counting our bus system for some reason.)