Upcoming 2015 City Sales Tax Proposals

[LandArchPoke]

First of all, let me start with saying that I am a massive, huge proponent of public transit in Tulsa.  I think the permanence of rail investment (like a streetcar) signals that the city is invested in an area in a way no bus route can.  They usually do a great job of drawing development.  Functioning transit is also the only way that Tulsa can ever heal the wounds of sprawl and bring density back to the center city.  It's what enables awesome things like 24/7 downtowns.

THAT SAID, the river is such a no-brainer for the city.  As it is, the state of the river has turned Tulsa's greatest natural asset into an embarrassment.  As far as bang for your buck for quality of life in Tulsa, putting water in the river should be the city's #1 priority.  The waterfront is a draw for investment, development, people, and happiness that pretty much nothing else can rival.  Chicago's lake, San Francisco's ocean, Austin's river are one of the defining characteristics of the city.  

I lived in Austin for three years.  Austin has terrible transit but an incredible river, which is actually a crappy trickle of a creek they dammed to make what it is today.  That river is a center for public life, recreation, development, and post-card pictures in a way that the Arkansas should be in Tulsa.

Lastly, public transit works because traffic congestion makes it a better alternative than driving.  Tulsa simply isn't at that point.  You can park for free downtown at 10am on a workday.  This will hopefully change, but in the meantime putting water in the river has immediate and enormous benefits.  It's a win for everyone - drivers, pedestrians, bikers, diners, and everyone else.  Most cities would kill to a major river flowing through it, and Tulsa is wasting the opportunity.  

There is a huge difference between what Austin can do with it's river due to the terrain and width of the river by downtown and what Tulsa could do. They are apples and oranges.

There is a huge difference between what Austin can do with it's river due to the terrain and width of the river by downtown and what Tulsa could do. They are apples and oranges.

Your statement of we don't need alternatives to driving is very short sited too. This is such a massive problem with the US is our planning is always reactionary and not visionary. Why wait for gridlock when we can see that eventually it will happen.. and solve for it now. At some point Tulsa metro will be twice this size and close to Austin's population (it may not happen for another 100 years, but it will happen). How much wider can we make the BA? What about I-244? We just did this for I-44 and tore out TONS of tax producing properties for a cost of $100 million per mile. We could have built an underground rail line like Vancouver's SkyTrain for almost the same amount of cost per mile. We did all this so people can drive through Tulsa on their way to OKC or Missouri slightly faster. It's maddening.

Transit should be the #1 priority over the River. I think cannon_folder just won the debate, it's to bad we will have to see this come up for a vote again. To many great points to quote them all.

For $350 million we could fix Zink Lake, which would put water in the only part of the river that has development potential and will have a lot of attention draw to it by the Gathering Place. Then take the rest of the $$ and build BRT and Streetcar lines. The City of Tulsa land, concrete plant, and the apartment complex could all eventually be redevelopment into higher density mixed-use development. However, even with water in the river there.. market conditions will take a long time to make anything significant viable when there is much cheaper land to development in the CBD or Uptown that has much more desirable demographics. Odd are we would have to form TIF District or some sort of public assistance to get development done along the river. So not only are we subsidizing development through paying for the damns, we would have to do it to even get new real estate development too. Just look at the River District in Jenks - before the economy crashed they were asking for a HUGE TIF. I would rather put this public money into something that has a much higher potential of economic development return.

If there is so much development potential, form a tax assessment district for Riverside properties and finance damn construction that way.

I heard that a shopping center with a bank, retail and restaurants is going in where the volleyball courts are currently.

This land was for sale recently, noticed the listing disappeared. Wouldn't surprise me to see another strip center built there. I figured it would probably be multifamily like the complex just to the south on Riverside, but retail doesn't surprise me. I hope it's not a Kings Pointe Landing II.

[RecycleMichael]

This land was for sale recently, noticed the listing disappeared. Wouldn't surprise me to see another strip center built there. I figured it would probably be multifamily like the complex just to the south on Riverside, but retail doesn't surprise me. I hope it's not a Kings Pointe Landing II.

Developers (through Sack and Associates) presented today to TMAPC technical committee and are on TMAPC agenda for two weeks from today. Maybe then we will find out their plan.

[Red Arrow]

If there is so much development potential, form a tax assessment district for Riverside properties and finance damn construction that way.

Interesting spelling choice.

[TeeDub]

Unless public transportation becomes cheaper and more convenient than cars, it will not work.  

While working downtown I tried riding the express bus in.    Truly it was a wonderful experience.   I would get on a couple of blocks from my apartment (71st and Lewis) and ride it downtown.   That 15 minutes was a great way to start my day.   I didn't get angry at traffic, I could plan out my workload, read the paper, whatever.    It would drop me off a couple of blocks from the front door of the MidContinent building.   Everything was roses.

The real problem came when I left work.

The express runs back at 4:50.    While my employer loved to see me there at 7:30ish, there often was things going on last minute.   If I missed that express bus, I had to call friends with cars to get me home as there was NO easy way other than trying to navigate the morass of changing buses and routes.  

I would say to add more buses, but even that express bus, as full as it was, probably barely paid for itself.    Add more and it just gets worse.  

If you figure in your time as having a value, driving to the bus stop is a non-starter.   Plus, who wants to leave their $20,000 car at the bus stop?   I still don't think we have the densities that are necessary to make public transportation more than a novelty.   

[saintnicster]

Where do you park for free on a workday at 10am?  If you are, you're likely parked illegally or just not-paying.

I'm curious about this one, too   I had a couple of coworkers who were playing the wack-a-mole game with free parking spaces, but the crackdown was pushing them to almost the edge of the IDL

[LandArchPoke]

Interesting spelling choice.

The real problem came when I left work.

The express runs back at 4:50.    While my employer loved to see me there at 7:30ish, there often was things going on last minute.   If I missed that express bus, I had to call friends with cars to get me home as there was NO easy way other than trying to navigate the morass of changing buses and routes.   

You hit the nail on the head here on why public transit isn't used in Tulsa. Frequency is the main driver of ridership. There's been studies after studies after studies about this. Frequency needs to be about 5 minutes, any longer than that you loose ridership very quickly.

Once you limit transit by stopping at certain times and limited frequency you leave it to riders to basically only have no choice to take it because they can't afford a car or to the select few people who make the concise decision to take transit.

Our entire bus system needs a route make over. It's overly confusing and the hub system we have, has proven it doesn't work in practice and through research in other cities. We are bless with an amazing street grid, and running routes straight along them and having minimal transfer times would do a world of good for ridership.

[carltonplace]

We have lots of options for transportation in Tulsa and we aren't pursuing or planning for any of them. I disagree that people would not use public transportation if it was a viable alternative to their cars. Look at Dallas which is arguably as conservative as Tulsa and they have a growing PS system that is highly utilized.

Tulsa needs to plan for the future or we will have to spend much more money to solve the problem after our commute times and accident rates double. As mentioned above, SH54 is already as wide as it is going to get through mid-town and downtown. Most of our intersections (21st and Utica for example) cannot easily be made larger. Tulsa will need alternatives to get people around and I think that the desire for alternatives is greater than one would expect.

[Conan71]

We have lots of options for transportation in Tulsa and we aren't pursuing or planning for any of them. I disagree that people would not use public transportation if it was a viable alternative to their cars. Look at Dallas which is arguably as conservative as Tulsa and they have a growing PS system that is highly utilized.

Tulsa needs to plan for the future or we will have to spend much more money to solve the problem after our commute times and accident rates double. As mentioned above, SH54 is already as wide as it is going to get through mid-town and downtown. Most of our intersections (21st and Utica for example) cannot easily be made larger. Tulsa will need alternatives to get people around and I think that the desire for alternatives is greater than one would expect.

More people in Dallas hopping onto mass transit is likely a result of how bad the traffic is there.  Unfortunately, for us out here on the prairie who have forsaken mass transit over the last century, an overburden of traffic seems to be required before people will park their cars and take mass transit.

[Gaspar]

More people in Dallas hopping onto mass transit is likely a result of how bad the traffic is there.  Unfortunately, for us out here on the prairie who have forsaken mass transit over the last century, an overburden of traffic seems to be required before people will park their cars and take mass transit.

Traffic and parking.  As long as we have plenty of lots and spots, we won't get too many public transportation users.  I watch the 471 zip down 71st street several times a day.  It's usually empty, but every now and then I see one or two people on it.  It's obvious that the city doesn't need more busses, they just need to put the busses where the people will use them. 

[TheArtist]

Density and more stuff will not equal more ridership either.  Was in an extremely dense area of Dallas a while back on a unseasonably beautiful day.... nobody out walking.  Went inside some restaurants and such in the area, lots of people at the restaurants and shops.  

2 things about the area.

1. It was not pedestrian/transit friendly.  You wouldn't want to walk in the area even if you were an urban type person perfectly prepared and used to walking in a city.

2.  Just about every mid-rise to high-rise living, shopping, office tower, restaurant, etc. had parking.

The area was not designed for pedestrians or transit.  It was designed for cars.


Currently in Tulsa our city is also designed/zoned for cars as well and it's illegal to build good pedestrian/transit friendly development.

Sure you could spend more money to add busses and routes, and perhaps also tweak what we currently have to get some more ridership, but I doubt it would get us that far, especially per the cost.  

Some say, "Well in time we will get enough development it will happen on it's own"  Not a chance. We could only dream of having the growth and density that Dallas has had, it would take us generations to get to what they have now at our current rate of growth, but even they show that more growth and density without allowing for, or zoning for, pedestrian friendly/ transit friendly development won't get us what we really want.  



The easiest and most cost effective way to get pedestrian/transit friendly development, to get people walking more, to get more cost effective and efficient transit, and more ridership, is to put in the zoning to allow for it.  

[TeeDub]

Tulsa makes the list at #235.    At least we beat Oklahoma City at #261.

Other notable cities behind Tulsa....   Terra Haute IN,  Montgomery AL,  Columbia SC, and the burgeoning metropolis that is DeKalb IL.



http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/how-your-citys-public-transit-stacks-up/