Vision 2025...Part 2?

[heironymouspasparagus]

I'm telling you, my company's offices in LA and Philadelphia are both just a few blocks a train station. The one in San Jose is less than a mile with a bus line in-between. We pay for employees transit passes to keep people from driving so the train is basically FREE. They still almost all drive, some of them drive for an hour.

There is part of the problem....San Jose...who wants to be there more than a second or two more than absolutely necessary.  Even if only 3 minutes, too much to wait on a train.  RUN to the car and get out of there as fast as possible.  Philly pretty much the same....

[heironymouspasparagus]

I'm don't recall saying that 90% of my company would. I said I would 90% of the time.
I've taken the commuter train from NYC to Connecticut and enjoyed it.
I would likely take more trips to OKC if we had train service there.

It seems some of the train routes stop so many times that it takes as long as driving so I wouldn't take it to Dallas or KC and also because I would also have to rent a vehicle when I got there.

I would be on that OKC train EVERY time!!  Can't wait for it...even though it ain't ever gonna happen.  Sadness.

[Oil Capital]

Swake's stats include Staten Island, which for fairly obvious reasons, relies on cars more than any other borough. It looks/works more like the rest of the country than the other boroughs. Your commute options, should you live there, are a train (which is only recently back in service) to a slow ferry to another train/bus/whatever. The vast majority of the transportation capacity on and off the island is road-based. No shock there that people would choose cars.

Even accepting that we'll never do better than Staten Island, take even 1 in 5 cars off the road and suddenly we need a lot less widening and somewhat less maintenance. We'll never get even that far with inconvenient schedules and an incomplete transit network, though. So we'll keep spending billions on roads and nearly nothing on transit and we'll continue to be the same sort of city we've been for the past decade. Good for us.

To be clear, Swake's stats are for the metro area, not just the city.  So yes, it includes areas that do not have the same transit infrastructure as Manhattan.  That being said, The majority of the metro area, including Staten Island, has greater transit infrastructure than Tulsa will ever have and still only 1/3 of workers take transit. In the city itself, despite having FAR greater transit infrastructure and service than Tulsa can ever hope to achieve, only 54.7% of workers take transit.  While you are correct that Staten Island has less transit infrastructure than the other boroughs, I wouldn't go so far as to say it is more like the rest of America.  The Staten Island Railway operates a 14 mile rail with 22 stations on an island that is only 58 square miles (less than 1/3 the size of the city of Tulsa).  Even with this along with a very healthy bus system, only approximately 30-35% of Staten Island workers take transit to work.

You are dreaming crazy dreams to think that we could take 1 in 5 (20%) cars off the road by implementing rail mass transit in Tulsa.  As Swake mentioned, there are only 5 metro areas in the country where more than 10 percent of workers take transit, only one (NYC) is above 20%.  When promoting the idea of rail transit for Tulsa, we should try to stay within the bounds of some sort of reasonable possibilities.  Even in the highly-worshipped Portland, with its induced density, only 6.1% of workers take transit to work.

Here are quick numbers I could find for the use of transit by workers in the largest metro areas in the US.  (These are as of 2009; in most places I think transit usage has gone down since then.)

The 5 metro areas with greater than 10% transit usage:
NYC:                30.5%
San Francisco:  14.6%
Washington DC:14.1%
Boston:            12.2%
Chicago:           11.5%

[TheArtist]

To be clear, Swake's stats are for the metro area, not just the city.  So yes, it includes areas that do not have the same transit infrastructure as Manhattan.  That being said, The majority of the metro area, including Staten Island, has greater transit infrastructure than Tulsa will ever have and still only 1/3 of workers take transit. In the city itself, despite having FAR greater transit infrastructure and service than Tulsa can ever hope to achieve, only 54.7% of workers take transit.  While you are correct that Staten Island has less transit infrastructure than the other boroughs, I wouldn't go so far as to say it is more like the rest of America.  The Staten Island Railway operates a 14 mile rail with 22 stations on an island that is only 58 square miles (less than 1/3 the size of the city of Tulsa).  Even with this along with a very healthy bus system, only approximately 30-35% of Staten Island workers take transit to work.

You are dreaming crazy dreams to think that we could take 1 in 5 (20%) cars off the road by implementing rail mass transit in Tulsa.  As Swake mentioned, there are only 5 metro areas in the country where more than 10 percent of workers take transit, only one (NYC) is above 20%.  When promoting the idea of rail transit for Tulsa, we should try to stay within the bounds of some sort of reasonable possibilities.  Even in the highly-worshipped Portland, with its induced density, only 6.1% of workers take transit to work.

Here are quick numbers I could find for the use of transit by workers in the largest metro areas in the US.  (These are as of 2009; in most places I think transit usage has gone down since then.)

The 5 metro areas with greater than 10% transit usage:
NYC:                30.5%
San Francisco:  14.6%
Washington DC:14.1%
Boston:            12.2%
Chicago:           11.5%

People are still missing the forest for the trees or are deliberately trying to sabotage the discussion by deflection.  Forget "commuter transit" all together for a moment.  

We aren't ready for commuter transit... and we aren't even taking the first steps to get ready for it if we ever decide we did want it.  

Creating transit friendly spaces requires creating pedestrian friendly spaces.  

Pedestrian friendly areas can actually help bend the curve downward, on the number of car trips people take, and the length of those trips (Not just to work, but do do many things, we don't just use cars to get to work!).  Increasing pedestrian/transit friendly areas, begins to take cars off the arterials (that would otherwise be increasing as population increased) and increases the number of people "per square mile" paying for the road infrastructure there, versus what we are doing, increasing the lane miles, average miles driven, and wear and tear, faster than the population is growing.      

We are talking about having, maintaining, building and spending more on road infrastructure than we need to.  Wider roads and intersections and more lanes per road mile (more "lane miles" per person to pay for) are not the only paths we must travel.  

Another thing is that while your focusing on "commuter transit" numbers, your not seeing people who, may have a car, but who use it less because they live in or nearby pedestrian friendly/transit friendly areas.

 Or people who have a car, but don't use it, or commute to work, but walk or bike, because they live in or near transit friendly/pedestrian friendly areas.  Lansing Michigan is one extreme example.  Out of just over 20,000 workers only 1,700 people took transit to work there.  But over 5,000 people walked or bicycled to work.  And here again we are only looking at "commutes" and not daily trips to shop, go out and eat, entertainment, chores, etc. which if people walk or bike to do, again takes car trips off the roads.    

So looking at those "commuter transit" %/usage numbers only tells a fraction of the story.

When I stayed with a friend in NYC, actually Jersey, she drove to work.  But 90% of the time she did just about everything else, she took transit.  She took transit into NYC to shop, go to the museums, parks, eat, and or didn't use her car or transit, but simply walked to places nearby. You don't just use transit to go to work! lol  And once your in a transit friendly area, you can walk instead of driving or using transit to do lots of other things.

[Weatherdemon]

I would be on that OKC train EVERY time!!  Can't wait for it...even though it ain't ever gonna happen.  Sadness.

Not to mention any evening runs into Tulsa for adult beverages.
The free tow service doesn't make it to Owasso from downtown (10 mile limit) so it would be nice to cab it to the depot, train into downtown, train back, and cab a few miles home.

But to the other points, I think a GREAT and logical starting point would be to establish Tulsa to OKC service. I think it would benefit both towns immensely.

[heironymouspasparagus]

People are still missing the forest for the trees or are deliberately trying to sabotage the discussion by deflection.  Forget "commuter transit" all together for a moment.  

We aren't ready for commuter transit... and we aren't even taking the first steps to get ready for it if we ever decide we did want it.  

Creating transit friendly spaces requires creating pedestrian friendly spaces.  

Pedestrian friendly areas can actually help bend the curve downward, on the number of car trips people take, and the length of those trips (Not just to work, but do do many things, we don't just use cars to get to work!).  Increasing pedestrian/transit friendly areas, begins to take cars off the arterials (that would otherwise be increasing as population increased) and increases the number of people "per square mile" paying for the road infrastructure there, versus what we are doing, increasing the lane miles, average miles driven, and wear and tear, faster than the population is growing.      

We are talking about having, maintaining, building and spending more on road infrastructure than we need to.  Wider roads and intersections and more lanes per road mile (more "lane miles" per person to pay for) are not the only paths we must travel.  

Another thing is that while your focusing on "commuter transit" numbers, your not seeing people who, may have a car, but who use it less because they live in or nearby pedestrian friendly/transit friendly areas.

 Or people who have a car, but don't use it, or commute to work, but walk or bike, because they live in or near transit friendly/pedestrian friendly areas.  Lansing Michigan is one extreme example.  Out of just over 20,000 workers only 1,700 people took transit to work there.  But over 5,000 people walked or bicycled to work.  And here again we are only looking at "commutes" and not daily trips to shop, go out and eat, entertainment, chores, etc. which if people walk or bike to do, again takes car trips off the roads.    

So looking at those "commuter transit" %/usage numbers only tells a fraction of the story.

When I stayed with a friend in NYC, actually Jersey, she drove to work.  But 90% of the time she did just about everything else, she took transit.  She took transit into NYC to shop, go to the museums, parks, eat, and or didn't use her car or transit, but simply walked to places nearby. You don't just use transit to go to work! lol  And once your in a transit friendly area, you can walk instead of driving or using transit to do lots of other things.

I second that motion!!!  And third...

It's a complete infrastructure and environment that is required.  Sadly, none of the powers that be in this state - that we keep electing - have enough imagination to get past their fetish of passing unconstitutional laws, let alone do something that makes good sense!  (Laughingstock moment once more....)

[sgrizzle]

I think much of it has to do with the graduated license that Oklahoma (and much of the nation) has adopted.  When I was 15 1/2, you took your written test and then you could drive with a licensed driver in the passenger seat.  It's not quite as easy these days to get your full license.

Plus, my license back then was 7 dollars.

Miles driven and license ownership is down for people in their 20's and 30's too. Don't think graduated license still effects them.

[heironymouspasparagus]

Miles driven and license ownership is down for people in their 20's and 30's too. Don't think graduated license still effects them.

I got my license the day I turned 16.  And had been driving regularly for about 2 years before that....luckily, never got caught.

None of the kids or grandkids (population of 11 so far) has gotten a drivers license before their 19th birthday...this includes kids in their 40's now.  Just not interested enough to do something about it...they used other means.  (Friends, family, walking...the whole gamut).  Go figure.  I don't get it.

[TheArtist]

  If I could get by without a car (in my case a truck) I would, and am hopefully working towards that direction.  Why would you "WANT" a car unless you had to have it?  It's a lot of money that could better be spent on other things.  I keep thinking, gosh if I didn't have a car payment, insurance payment, pay for gas, etc.  what I would do with that money instead.

[nathanm]

But to the other points, I think a GREAT and logical starting point would be to establish Tulsa to OKC service. I think it would benefit both towns immensely.

Agreed. Well, I think it should be our second priority, after putting in a couple of starter trolley lines. As I've said before, I think a downtown circulator and something to connect Brookside and Cherry Street to would both be immediately useful. From there to an airport connector, and eventually onwards to some commuter rail and further trolley lines. And all this while improving frequency on our existing bus service, I'd hope.

The problem with looking at NYC metro area transit usage statistics is that the metro includes some exurban area, much as our own does. And 1 in 5 cars off the road is an aspirational goal, not something to expect in year one.

[Red Arrow]

Why would you "WANT" a car unless you had to have it?  It's a lot of money that could better be spent on other things. 

If you don't understand why someone would want a car, it will not be possible to explain it to you.  It's similar to asking why someone would want to live in a cracker box full of neighbors.

I still think we need real trolleys.  We used to have them in Tulsa before the Transit Holocaust.  I guess Tulsa Republicans must have been in charge then too.

[AquaMan]

If you don't understand why someone would want a car, it will not be possible to explain it to you.  It's similar to asking why someone would want to live in a cracker box full of neighbors.

I still think we need real trolleys.  We used to have them in Tulsa before the Transit Holocaust.  I guess Tulsa Republicans must have been in charge then too.

RA, conservative businessmen were in charge of Tulsa then. Have been for a long time. Whether they called themselves Democrats (up til 1964) or Republicans or Independents, they were and always have been varying degrees of conservative.

When Tulsan's stop knee jerk voting for these guys who don't even bother with putting their party affiliation on their yard signs ( as in, Jones....A True Conservative...), we may actually start to realize that the population will support transit friendly zoning and real trolleys.

[heironymouspasparagus]

If you don't understand why someone would want a car, it will not be possible to explain it to you.  It's similar to asking why someone would want to live in a cracker box full of neighbors.

I still think we need real trolleys.  We used to have them in Tulsa before the Transit Holocaust.  I guess Tulsa Republicans must have been in charge then too.

Read up on General Motors and their efforts after WWII to kill trolley AND bus transit in this nation.  There were many lawsuits around it, but eventually they won.  Which means that for many years there were many fewer trolley/bus systems than there were in the 50's.  It was company policy.

[DTowner]

Read up on General Motors and their efforts after WWII to kill trolley AND bus transit in this nation.  There were many lawsuits around it, but eventually they won.  Which means that for many years there were many fewer trolley/bus systems than there were in the 50's.  It was company policy.

William Levitt and his legacy probably had as much or more to do with the demise of trolley's as GM could have ever accomplished. 

[Oil Capital]

Read up on General Motors and their efforts after WWII to kill trolley AND bus transit in this nation.  There were many lawsuits around it, but eventually they won.  Which means that for many years there were many fewer trolley/bus systems than there were in the 50's.  It was company policy.

You are misrepresenting the history.  GM did indeed enter into a joint venture that bought up trolley lines in a number of cities (most of which were failing), but, they did not engage in an effort to kill bus transit.  Quite the opposite.  The mission of the joint venture was to sell buses, which GM at the time manufactured.