New sports bar downtown

[we vs us]

Pfox, I like the different way of thinking about transit -- emphasis on trips rather than a total transportation solution/replacement.  But I still don't see how that changes some of the basic roadblocks:  the need for destination nodes to take trips to, the need for a level of density to guarantee enough trips to make it economically feasible, and a way to make these trips palatable to the average dude or dudette so that it becomes the first choice for getting around.

I'm a skeptic about transit in Tulsa, I have to say.  As someone (Conan?) upthread said, people here are totally dedicated to the idea of the car, and not only do decades of our city planning reflect that, but so do decades of Tulsa's culture and biases (away from downtown; towards the cul de sac and the shopping development and the unending parking lots and toll roads and drivethroughs; even the central concept of our flagship local corporation is to change the filling station into a suburban social center -- doing essentially what Starbucks did for urban environments. 

The best bet is to make areas you drive to that you can walk in.  As Blake says, come up with good parking strategies so that people will go to a destination, leave their cars behind and walk around.  If we could all just see it as turning downtown into a more organic sort of mall, I think Tulsan's might understand and get behind the idea. 

[TheArtist]

Its interesting how people get it that you can build say the Gilcrease Expressway, and zone for car oriented development (and zone to not allow mass transit oriented development) to spur new development in that area, but they cant for the life of them fathom how you could build and zone for rail and new mass transit development. Plus, if we ever want it, its no mystery where its going to have to go and start. We have what we have because we: build/pay for it, zone for it, and in many cases, require it and disallow anything else. Downtown is one of the few places that allows it, but doesnt fully zone for it.  Its mostly left up to whim and chance.

[cannon_fodder]

Wow, we've taken a tangent . . . and I'm ok with that.

If we want anything to happen with mass transit (particularity rail) in Tulsa we need to make several things clear to the public:

1) It will not replace your car, but it will reduce your usage of it.

A family could get away with one car.  Or you could get away with having an older car.  Or if nothing else, driving less.  Teenagers are getting more and more restrictions on getting their license, but with quality public transit they would have other options to get around.  And with a little planning a public transit option could significantly cut down on drunk driving issues as an added bonus. 

2) It can save money

Cars are expensive.  It isn't just gas - it's maintenance and wear and tear.  The IRS has set the rate over 50 cents a mile for years now.  For teach tank of gas you burn (call it 300 miles) you actually spent closer  $250, not the $40 it costs to fill up.

Add to that the costs of infrastructure and ancillary costs:  wider roads, road repairs, accidents, tickets, traffic deaths, delays, etc. etc. etc.  and the costs are huge.  The amount of money spent worshiping the car is crazy.

3) Space management

Car crazy cultures need huge immediate parking lots.  This spreads out the structures, destroys walkable areas, and reduces land usage.  A parking lot isn't worth nearly as much as 3 story structure.  Quality mass transit would enable areas of denser development to take off.

4) IT ISN'T JUST ABOUT DOWNTOWN

If we do a light rail system, it does need to allow commute to downtown simply because that is the most common commute.  But it also needs to connect to the malls, to Utica, to Brookside, to TU, EXPO, ORU, the Airport . . . areas that people readily visit.  These connections could be by bus from rail stations or from rail themselves.  But in addition to the commuter rail people need to be able to go where they want to.  Incidentally, that would also increase the service to areas where people live.

Can you imagine how popular a rail line running down 71st would be around Christmas?  The ability to gain access to all those shops without waiting 45 minutes on 71st street? Or if convention visitors could head to Utica Square to spend some money?  Or Expo visitors, people in town for TU/ORU, or any number of visitors could stay in a different portion of the city and hop a trolley to their destination(s)?

It needs to be made clear that mass transit doesn't mean "shuttle to downtown".

[SXSW]

I like the idea of commuter rail from BA, Owasso, and Jenks BUT would rather see an urban streetcar system that connects downtown to uptown, Cherry Street, Brookside, etc.  These are our densest neighborhoods that would be best served by rail transit.  Building better transit can make these areas even denser.

[Red Arrow]

Wow, we've taken a tangent . . . and I'm ok with that.

We haven't approached 90° yet so we're OK.


Can you imagine how popular a rail line running down 71st would be around Christmas? 

Or pretty much any weekend the weather isn't perfect for doing something else.

The ability to gain access to all those shops without waiting 45 minutes on 71st street?

Several well placed pedestrian bridges would be needed.  Park in any of the lots you can get to then hop the (real) trolley. Sounds great.

Or if convention visitors could head to Utica Square to spend some money?  Or Expo visitors, people in town for TU/ORU, or any number of visitors could stay in a different portion of the city and hop a (real) trolley to their destination(s)?

It needs to be made clear that mass transit doesn't mean "shuttle to downtown".  Just remember that riders of choice prefer rail.

[/color]

[Red Arrow]

I like the idea of commuter rail from BA, Owasso, and Jenks BUT would rather see an urban streetcar system that connects downtown to uptown, Cherry Street, Brookside, etc.  These are our densest neighborhoods that would be best served by rail transit.  Building better transit can make these areas even denser.

Commuter rail to those places would help workers get to downtown but there would still need to be a distributor system like what you are calling for.

[TheTed]

I'm as pro-transit, anti-driving as anybody. But rail to shop on 71st? That would require some major changes. Changes in attitudes. You'd end up walking miles just to go to two or three stores on 71st by the time you walk across a giant parking lot and around the store, back across the giant lot to the rail station, then on to the next store two blocks down to repeat the process.

I've never seen transit in a suburban area that was much more than a park and ride. How do you connect the stores on 71st to the rail stations and to each other in an inviting way.

Walking across giant parking lots is probably the worst part of being a pedestrian in suburbia. People speeding across the lot in every conceivable direction. They're downright hellish in the summer, what with no shelter, nothing to look at to distract you from the heat, etc. All I can think about when walking across a giant parking lot in the middle of summer is how freaking hot it is and how much I hate parking lots.

[PonderInc]

If we want anything to happen with mass transit (particularity rail) in Tulsa we need to make several things clear to the public:

1) It will not replace your car, but it will reduce your usage of it....

4) IT ISN'T JUST ABOUT DOWNTOWN...
...Can you imagine how popular a rail line running down 71st would be around Christmas?  The ability to gain access to all those shops without waiting 45 minutes on 71st street?

Two points: Imagine not having to buy a car for every member of your family.  Let's say, instead of three, you only need two.  You've just saved your family, on average, $7,000 per year.  (Based on a federal study on the cost to own and operate a car, including purchase price pro-rated over the lifetime of the vehicle, insurance, maintenance, fuel, etc.)  Now imagine if thousands of Tulsans suddenly had an extra $7,000 to plug into the local economy (which relies on sales taxes).  Hey, not a bad stimulus program...which also increases quality of life for everyone who can utilize transit.

As for the 71st street issue...unfortunately, the enormous setbacks create a barrier to transit users.  If you still have to walk a couple hundred yards in the rain to your destination, and a couple hundred yards between buildings, the geometry doesn't work.  (I noticed that in Stillwater, they actually have bus stops IN THE MIDDLE OF THE WALMART PARKING LOT!  I guess this is one way to deal with it.)

[Hoss]

While all of these are awesome ideas, the fundamental flaw is in the infrastructure of midwestern and most southern cities to begin with.

If you look a towns like San Francisco and New York, they're built practically vertically.  San Francisco is home to 3/4 of a million people in an area the size of square that would roughly equal north to south Admiral to 41st, and east to west Yale to Garnett.  San Francisco is also very walkable, and the BART makes everything easy.  New York, not much more needs to be said there.

Places like DC/NoVA though, are a lot more like Houston/Dallas.  More spread out.  The reason they work so well is because DC is a government center, and a lot of people work in the government sector.  They have park and ride for Metro out the wazoo.

Tulsa is just not currently a mass-transit friendly city.  A smaller percentage of us work downtown than did say 30 or 40 years ago.  Where I work now is not even really serviced by transit in a way where I wouldn't have to walk 2 miles from the closest bus dropoff point into work.  It's not that I mind the walk, but after two miles in our humid summers, who would want to be around me at work...well, for that matter, who does when I don't walk..harhar.

The composition of our city, like so many have said, relies on the automobile.  I hate that it does, because I liked being able to pay $10 a week for an unlimited pass on the DC Metro and not have to worry about the hassle of traffic on the Capital Beltway.  Or having to navigate the hilly and narrow San Francisco streets, and taking the BART instead.

I'd love the opportunity of spending a half-hour in my morning to read the paper or do other things on my way into work.

[SXSW]

While all of these are awesome ideas, the fundamental flaw is in the infrastructure of midwestern and most southern cities to begin with.

If you look a towns like San Francisco and New York, they're built practically vertically.  San Francisco is home to 3/4 of a million people in an area the size of square that would roughly equal north to south Admiral to 41st, and east to west Yale to Garnett.  San Francisco is also very walkable, and the BART makes everything easy.  New York, not much more needs to be said there.

Places like DC/NoVA though, are a lot more like Houston/Dallas.  More spread out.  The reason they work so well is because DC is a government center, and a lot of people work in the government sector.  They have park and ride for Metro out the wazoo.

Tulsa is just not currently a mass-transit friendly city.  A smaller percentage of us work downtown than did say 30 or 40 years ago.  Where I work now is not even really serviced by transit in a way where I wouldn't have to walk 2 miles from the closest bus dropoff point into work.  It's not that I mind the walk, but after two miles in our humid summers, who would want to be around me at work...well, for that matter, who does when I don't walk..harhar.

The composition of our city, like so many have said, relies on the automobile.  I hate that it does, because I liked being able to pay $10 a week for an unlimited pass on the DC Metro and not have to worry about the hassle of traffic on the Capital Beltway.  Or having to navigate the hilly and narrow San Francisco streets, and taking the BART instead.

I'd love the opportunity of spending a half-hour in my morning to read the paper or do other things on my way into work.

Not everyone would use the transit.  In NYC, San Francisco, etc. not everyone uses it if it's not convenient.  But still around 50,000 people work in downtown with the vast majority commuting in from elsewhere in Tulsa or the suburbs.  Many people who don't work downtown go there for entertainment.  Having a rail system would put provide another option.  Basically it comes down to do we spend hundreds of millions of dollars widening the existing roads and expressways or spend that money providing a transportation alternative?

But I digress, this needs to be a separate thread.

[DTowner]

Many good points have been made, but one thing overlooked is that getting around Tulsa by car is simply not a sufficient hassle to get people to park the car and hop aboard mass transit.  It simply doesn't take that long to get from one place to another in Tulsa and you find plenty of parking when you get there.  I live in midtown and can leave my house and be at 169 and 71st in 10 minutes in non rush hour and in under 30 minutes during rush hour.  Unless I live next to a station/stop, no mass transit is going to give me that convenience – not to mention everything depends on where the stops are versus where I'm going.

I previously lived in a large city and I took a subway to work downtown.  However, I lived a short walk from a stop and had another stop by my office.  After a job change, I got free parking and started driving because, even though the driving commute took a bit longer, my hours were not compatible with the rush hour train schedule and my "hassle" factor was lower by driving.

I know a lot of this discussion is about how future development should be planned to open up the possibility of mass transit, and I agree that it should.  But we cannot ignore the realities of the city as they exist right now.  And right now, retrofitting Tulsa for mass transit outside of a few lines in and around downtown/midtown and the airport is simply not financially viable.

[TheArtist]

I think most of us would agree that for mass transit to work in Tulsa we will have to take a step by step and multi-pronged (infrastructure and zoning) approach.  But I do believe, considering we are a relatively small city, starting to "bend the curve" early would be a good thing.  

Growing "until you have density" can be a mess if its car centric density. Look at Los Angeles, lots of density there believe it or not, but not all that pedestrian friendly.  Would rather start early and nurture pedestrian friendly/mass transit friendly, development density.

Even downtown is at that nexus point where we can see it going off in one direction or another. Concentrate pedestrian friendly development along the tracks while NOT adding parking within the loop, but shuttling people from parking that already exists or will exist on either end of the tracks. Or add more parking and spread out development within the IDL. Downtown IS going to continue to grow and infill at this point, and that growth can spread outward over the decades, hopefully along the tracks.

As for rail along the 71st corridor.... I would generally poo poo the idea, but people keep putting the idea out there. Perhaps we should change our mindsets a bit and begin to consider it as a second downtown. They both have lots of parking lots lol. They both have room for infill. There are other examples where they have taken successful areas like this and through planning and zoning begin an evolutionary process whereby the area becomes ever denser and more pedestrian friendly. Rather than go into a decline trying to compete with the next new suburban area, it transforms into a different, more classic form.  A rail/trolley could be part of that equation. Wouldnt want to think of trying to change things by doing rail by itself, it would have to be part of a larger picture/long range plan,,,,just like downtown. The one big difference with the 71st corridor is that there are far more people traveling through, working and living there  .

It may very well be that 50-100 years from now the 71st corridor will be the busiest, densest, urban node in the city (as Sam Walton hinted at all those years ago when the area was just fields with a new mall going in) While downtown is a beautiful, bustling but quiet, urban neighborhood, full of arts and entertainment attractions. Who knows...

[cannon_fodder]

We are also ignoring the "if you build it" mentality.  Downtown Tulsa used to have street cars.  It also used to have residence, shops, and a street scape that didn't include vast deserts of open parking. 

Currently areas like Brookside, Cherry Street, and downtown could easily benefit from good mass transit.  But with a good mass transit system other areas could quickly be brought into the fold (including the apartment blocks in South Tulsa, TU, 71st Street area, downtown Jenks/BA).  Add to that the idea that the mass transit and connectivity in one area would FEED other areas and help create the environment many of us desire.

It is a catch 22. Without mass transit the density isn't there to require it.  But without the density mass transit isn't really needed.  With infinite land and a strong desire to sprawl, I'm guessing the demand will never be there even if we continue to grow.  So if we want dense, sustainable, urban spaces - it looks like the mass transit will have to come first.

[Renaissance]

So what's the deal with the sports bar?   

[Red Arrow]

If you still have to walk a couple hundred yards in the rain to your destination, and a couple hundred yards between buildings, the geometry doesn't work. 

About like walking a city block in downtown Tulsa.