Transit : Planning and Issues (Streetcar, Light Rail, Bus, Bikes, etc)

[dbacks fan]

And also as a point that a lot of people say that transit isn't ready to be built in Tulsa is false. I think the planning process we are in is very important but we need to act on it very soon once we have the right plan of action and not wait 10 years and let other cities pass us by.

I'm affraid Tulsa is five to ten years behind in the transportation planning already. I'm not saying that something can't be done, but Tulsa needs to improve what they have now as part of the planning for the future. When was the last major redesign of MTTA's routes?

[custosnox]

Sorry but I don't think I understand your question, but I'll try.

Adelaide still has multiple centers throughout the cities, such as Tulsa... but with Tulsa they just happen to be called Downtown BA, Downtown Owasso, Woodland Hills, and so on. Adelaide just happens to connect these centers with high capacity commuter rail with higher frequencies, similar to what you see ran in Chicago or northeastern cities.

Basically if you took all the different municipalities (imaginary borders) and made them one in Tulsa, the city of Tulsa would have a population of about a million. Adelaide still has the different city centers, just without the imaginary borders that we have here in Tulsa. Granted the fact we do have the metro area here broken into different cities does make transit more difficult to plan, finance, and build then say Adelaide but that a whole different area.

With the pictures I showed my main point was to show how vastly different the downtown core can be with proper walkability and transit options in a population area the same size as the Tulsa metro. 

And also as a point that a lot of people say that transit isn't ready to be built in Tulsa is false. I think the planning process we are in is very important but we need to act on it very soon once we have the right plan of action and not wait 10 years and let other cities pass us by.

Oklahoma City, Albuquerque, Tuscon, and more are all in the process of building streetcar lines.

To start to get close to the population point as Adelaide, you have to include Bartllsville into the Metro area.  At this point, the population density drops dramatically.  Also, from what I can tell, Adelaide's multiple "centers" were developed as the city grew.  The Tulsa metro is the result of several towns in the area growing towards the city.  Creates a different growth pattern entirely.  I'm just really seeing the comparison between the two.

[dbacks fan]

Also, Adelaide had an urban plan laid out for future growth starting in 1888.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Karte_Adelaide_MKL1888.png

I just don't see a real comparison of Tulsa to cities that had rail established as public transport before Oklahoma became a state. And as I have said before, and to Tulsa's credit, they are trying to undo 30+ years of neglect to downtown.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adelaide

[LandArchPoke]

To start to get close to the population point as Adelaide, you have to include Bartllsville into the Metro area.  At this point, the population density drops dramatically.  Also, from what I can tell, Adelaide's multiple "centers" were developed as the city grew.  The Tulsa metro is the result of several towns in the area growing towards the city.  Creates a different growth pattern entirely.  I'm just really seeing the comparison between the two.

My point wasn't to say hey this is Tulsa twin. With this assessment you'd say that Oklahoma City aren't similar sizes population wise? Also we shouldn't ever look at what Oklahoma City (metro pop of 1.2 million) has done and try and learn from it because we just aren't even close to the same size. I mean it really is apples to orange I guess, but a city the size of 1 million is pretty close to the size of a size that's 1.2 million it's not like I was grasping for straws and made a comparison of Tulsa : Calgary , Tulsa : Perth , Tulsa : Edmonton and so on. If you choose to not look at what a similar size city has done and say what can we learn from this then that is your choice  

Also the cities around Tulsa didn't not grown into Tulsa, Tulsa grew towards Broken Arrow, Jenks, Owasso, Bixby and the growth overflowed into these other communities. Sprawl happens the same way in every city, it happened the same in Tulsa as it has in Adelaide, New York City, Seattle, Paris. So to say that the centers of cities grow different is odd to me? Yes they grew around the transit lines more, but isn't that the point of this topic is to try and analyze how Tulsa can because a denser, walkable, transit friendly city?

If you have better model cities to look at I would love to see them.

[LandArchPoke]

Also, Adelaide had an urban plan laid out for future growth starting in 1888.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Karte_Adelaide_MKL1888.png

I just don't see a real comparison of Tulsa to cities that had rail established as public transport before Oklahoma became a state. And as I have said before, and to Tulsa's credit, they are trying to undo 30+ years of neglect to downtown.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adelaide

Again I'm not trying to say they are twin cities. I'm asking people to look at examples and find what Tulsa can learn from them. Goodness, I don't think I ever said they are both the exact same size.

If you fail to look at the comparison and learn anything from it then that is your choice as well.

[TheArtist]

 Regardless of the comparisons or not, or how each one got to where they are today.  I think the point is...

1. Does what they have work?

2. Does it, or parts of "it", work better or worse than what we have and why?

3. And then are there are some things we could learn and what are they?   

[custosnox]

Again I'm not trying to say they are twin cities. I'm asking people to look at examples and find what Tulsa can learn from them. Goodness, I don't think I ever said they are both the exact same size.

If you fail to look at the comparison and learn anything from it then that is your choice as well.

You are the one that said "hey, this city is comparable to Tulsa in size, population, and population density, and look what they did."  That was rather misleading.  Yes, they can make for a good model of how transit can work in a smaller population, but please don't try to present a cat as a dog.  The two cities are different animals, and while have some similarities and something can be learned from another, there are limitations to what can be done to one because of what is different.

[LandArchPoke]

You are the one that said "hey, this city is comparable to Tulsa in size, population, and population density, and look what they did."  That was rather misleading.  Yes, they can make for a good model of how transit can work in a smaller population, but please don't try to present a cat as a dog.  The two cities are different animals, and while have some similarities and something can be learned from another, there are limitations to what can be done to one because of what is different.

To me they are comparable (not exactly a like), it's an opinion. Never did I state that this was the exact model Tulsa should follow, I was planning on just showcasing some models in general, in cities that are a similar size to Tulsa just to help people visualize what some successful transit cities are in cultures similar (disclaimer: not exactly a like, don't take it so serious), yet you guys have to jump all over me for it. An idiot could understand that there are limitations to what can be done because no city is exactly the same. Maybe I need to link the definition of similar because I think some of you understand it.

Regardless of the comparisons or not, or how each one got to where they are today.  I think the point is...

1. Does what they have work?

2. Does it, or parts of "it", work better or worse than what we have and why?

3. And then are there are some things we could learn and what are they?   

Thank You, at least one person gets it.

So if people just want to attack me then I'm done with trying to discuss anything, because all my goal was to try and bring examples of successful transit in similar sized markets that we could analyze and see what worked there, what didn't work there, and see what we might be able to use here in Tulsa.

[custosnox]

To me they are comparable (not exactly a like), it's an opinion. Never did I state that this was the exact model Tulsa should follow, I was planning on just showcasing some models in general, in cities that are a similar size to Tulsa just to help people visualize what some successful transit cities are in cultures similar (disclaimer: not exactly a like, don't take it so serious), yet you guys have to jump all over me for it. An idiot could understand that there are limitations to what can be done because no city is exactly the same. Maybe I need to link the definition of similar because I think some of you understand it.

Thank You, at least one person gets it.

So if people just want to attack me then I'm done with trying to discuss anything, because all my goal was to try and bring examples of successful transit in similar sized markets that we could analyze and see what worked there, what didn't work there, and see what we might be able to use here in Tulsa.

I was just pointing out that your "model" was further from Tulsa then you made it out to be.

[LandArchPoke]

I was just pointing out that your "model" was further from Tulsa then you made it out to be.

That's your opinion. Do you have anything constructive to add to the conversation or just here to criticize?

[Hoss]

That's your opinion. Do you have anything constructive to add to the conversation or just here to criticize?

How is it opinion?  Adelaide, SA, Australia to Tulsa?

9433.4 Miles

That's pretty far away.

Plus, it's also in a different country, which likely has a culture that isn't more vehicle based like America is.

Use an American city as a comparison.  It's like apples and oranges.

[LandArchPoke]

How is it opinion?  Adelaide, SA, Australia to Tulsa?

9433.4 Miles

That's pretty far away.

Plus, it's also in a different country, which likely has a culture that isn't more vehicle based like America is.

Use an American city as a comparison.  It's like apples and oranges.

Have you read anything I've actually said, or just jumping in to criticize a subject meant toward a positive discussion of transit issues in Tulsa?

I had no idea this city was in Australia.. honestly I thought it was across the Arkansas River and was Tulsa twin city and I was just jealous of their transit system!! 

Australian cities actually has a very similar culture to American cities except they haven't done away with rail transit like most cities here. Like I said in one of the original posts they have what is called the "Australian Dream"... does that sound familiar?

If you have something to add to the conversation please add it, if not move on.

[Hoss]

Have you read anything I've actually said, or just jumping in to criticize a subject meant toward a positive discussion of transit issues in Tulsa?

I had no idea this city was in Australia.. honestly I thought it was across the Arkansas River and was Tulsa twin city and I was just jealous of their transit system!! 

Australian cities actually has a very similar culture to American cities except they haven't done away with rail transit like most cities here. Like I said in one of the original posts they have what is called the "Australian Dream"... does that sound familiar?

If you have something to add to the conversation please add it, if not move on.

So if people just want to attack me then I'm done with trying to discuss anything, because all my goal was to try and bring examples of successful transit in similar sized markets that we could analyze and see what worked there, what didn't work there, and see what we might be able to use here in Tulsa.

Obviously not if you're still posting.  I've already added my thoughts earlier in the thread.  America <> The Rest of the Limited Auto Driving World.  The NE and places like San Francisco are where transit systems really work.  Why?  Because they're walkable.  Look at Tulsa's walkability index and tell me that we can do something like that.  I'm not against mass transit.  I'm against it done poorly, and in cities with a lot of urban sprawl (right here) you really need to think it out before doing it.

Right now, our transit system sucks.  If you can't get bus ridership up and have a decent bus system, don't even think about light rail.

[LandArchPoke]

Obviously not if you're still posting.  I've already added my thoughts earlier in the thread.  America <> The Rest of the Limited Auto Driving World.  The NE and places like San Francisco are where transit systems really work.  Why?  Because they're walkable.  Look at Tulsa's walkability index and tell me that we can do something like that.  I'm not against mass transit.  I'm against it done poorly, and in cities with a lot of urban sprawl (right here) you really need to think it out before doing it.

Right now, our transit system sucks.  If you can't get bus ridership up and have a decent bus system, don't even think about light rail.

See this response actually can start a conversation then just say "Nope doesn't work!"

I think everyone agrees that Tulsa needs to be more walkable. The question needs to be how to we become that why? Obviously our bus system is a failure.

Do we add streetcar lines and reform the bus system routes around this? Or do we try to reform the bus system first? Or do we try to redesign streets to become more bike friendly? That's what I tried to gear this more towards. I have my opinions on, but probably should keep them to myself. And I said I was done with the conversation if people keep attacking me, and if they do then I am and you guys are just trying to run people off that have different ideas and ways of thinking about subjects. Just because it isn't the exact way you do doesn't mean it's wrong.

In your opinion how does Tulsa move to the next level and get out of the transit hole we are in?

[dbacks fan]

Reform the bus system first. The routes were fine 40 years ago when downtown was the work center other than the airport area with Douglas, Nortrh American, and AA. When shopping and entertainment downtown was abandoned in the mid 70's the route system still worked, and the thought was "If it ain't broke don't fix it", that's why I made the comments about Tulsa is way behind the transportation curve.

I was born in Tulsa and lived there for 34 years until I moved to Phoenix 13 years ago. I have had the chance to use public transit in Phoenix, San Diego, LA, San Francisco, and Vegas, and I always look to see how they do things differently from each other.

For years Tulsa had three distinct areas, downtown, Southroads/South Land, and Woodland Hills. Things were spread out and Tulsa did nothing to really change mass transit, other than introducing what was Route 20 The Super Loop Route. Other cities in the 70's were developing and changing mass transit and planning for future growth. Phoenix developed a new master plan for rail and express buses in the late 70's and in the early 80's developed a combination of light rail and commuter rail that would run down the center sections of the proposed highway system to run into and out of down town. While the rail plan died, they contiuosly changed the bus system to meet it's growth, and is based on more of a grid system than routes. Same thing was gong on all along the west coast as well. Tulsa did very little.

So in answer to your question, yes do the buses first, and develop some form of downtown shuttle route that covers the hotels, major buildings and food and entertainment.I just don't see light rail (as much as everyone wants it) until things are developed more. Right now running lines to Owasso, Jenks/Glenpool and BA just isn't feasible as there are no other nearby destinations along possible pathways. If you look at the light rail in Phoenix, it connects the east valley which has a population of about 600k to downtown and to the west side which also has a population of 600k and runs through long established areas.