"where even the rich use public transit..."

[PonderInc]

"An advanced city is not one where even the poor use cars, but one where even the rich use public transport." - Enrique Peñalosa

If you find this statement intriguing, or you wonder why so many cities give "pieces of metal" priority over people, check out this TED Talk video:
http://www.ted.com/talks/enrique_penalosa_why_buses_represent_democracy_in_action.html

From the TED Talk website:
In this spirited talk, the former mayor of Bogotá shares some of the tactics he used to change the transportation dynamic in the Colombian capital... and suggests ways to think about building smart cities of the future.

Enrique Peñalosa was the mayor of Bogotá, Colombia, between 1998 and 2000. He advocates for sustainability and mobility in the cities of the future.

[PonderInc]

Some of my favorite quotes from the video:

"Cities are human habitats. Humans are pedestrians."
"Those who walk are as important as those who have cars."
"Parking is not a constitutional right."
"Sidewalks and bikeways are a right, unless we believe that only those who own cars have a right to safe transportation."

I couldn't write fast enough to capture all of them... Watch the video.

[Rookie Okie]

Many wealthy residents use subways in major urban areas....NYC, London, and to a larger extent Singapore are some examples that come to mind.  I don't care how much money one has or access to limos, Bentleys or Ferraris, you simply cannot travel longer distances in the mega cities faster on the ground than you can via subway.

[Red Arrow]

Many wealthy residents use subways in major urban areas....NYC, London, and to a larger extent Singapore are some examples that come to mind.  I don't care how much money one has or access to limos, Bentleys or Ferraris, you simply cannot travel longer distances in the mega cities faster on the ground than you can via subway.

It was a hard sell to get my friends to take the trolley in Memphis TN rather than dig the car out of the motel parking garage to go less than a mile to dinner but I succeeded, twice. (Convention in Feb 2007)  We did ride around in the car for a while one afternoon just to see things.  I spotted a few places to go via trolley. One was the Flying Saucer Draught Emporium. We had a few beers there before going on to dinner someplace on Beale St.  I will have to be a bit inconsistent here and say I enjoyed walking down Beale St.  I find old buildings to be interesting.  And yes, it's because they have windows and things to look at.  Some of the buildings on the Main St pedestrian area, in various stages of neglect or restoration were just as interesting.

[Weatherdemon]

It pains me that while public transportation needs development in Tulsa, we're actually cutting back on it.
How is it that despite an improving economy, the city can't meet their budget forecasts?

[nathanm]

It pains me that while public transportation needs development in Tulsa, we're actually cutting back on it.

Might have something to do with streets being paid for largely by bond issues. It would be illegal to use a bond issue to buy a bunch of new buses or trolleys and cover the unavoidable losses for a few years while ridership caught up to an expansion. Yet another way in which transit is hobbled in this state.

[TheArtist]

It pains me that while public transportation needs development in Tulsa, we're actually cutting back on it.
How is it that despite an improving economy, the city can't meet their budget forecasts?

Because the economy of Tulsa isn't improving as much as they had projected it would.  Interestingly enough, the company they hired to do the comprehensive plan said that if we continued "as usual" our growth would be around 1%, but if we implemented the plan to grow more pedestrian/transit friendly infill development our growth would be around 3%.  More and more cities their cores are becoming the drivers for growth as more people want pedestrian/transit friendly lifestyles.  

Just looked at the newest census data and Tulsa shows we have been averaging about 2,000 per year population growth lately.  And I think downtown has been growing by about 500 people per year.  That means of the several hundred square miles of city, the about 1 mile area of downtown is capturing a quarter of our entire population growth.  Again, in more and more cities, the core is the lions share.  If we made our core more desirable I bet we would be able to ramp up our growth numbers considerably.  But we still seem more worried about competing with the suburbs for suburban style growth rather than acting like a grown up city. Which imho is one reason why we are growing so slowly compared to our competitor cities who are indeed adding more transit.

[Hoss]

Because the economy of Tulsa isn't improving as much as they had projected it would.  Interestingly enough, the company they hired to do the comprehensive plan said that if we continued "as usual" our growth would be around 1%, but if we implemented the plan to grow more pedestrian/transit friendly infill development our growth would be around 3%.  More and more cities their cores are becoming the drivers for growth as more people want pedestrian/transit friendly lifestyles.  

Just looked at the newest census data and Tulsa shows we have been averaging about 2,000 per year population growth lately.  And I think downtown has been growing by about 500 people per year.  That means of the several hundred square miles of city, the about 1 mile area of downtown is capturing a quarter of our entire population growth.  Again, in more and more cities, the core is the lions share.  If we made our core more desirable I bet we would be able to ramp up our growth numbers considerably.  But we still seem more worried about competing with the suburbs for suburban style growth rather than acting like a grown up city. Which imho is one reason why we are growing so slowly compared to our competitor cities who are indeed adding more transit.

Tulsa's square mile footprint (city limits) is about 196 mi2.  Not several hundred.  You're confusing us with OKC...

Just pointing that out.  

[rebound]

Tulsa's square mile footprint (city limits) is about 196 mi2.  Not several hundred.  You're confusing us with OKC...

Just pointing that out.  

Did the original study include the suburbs?  Don't know, but curious.   When I generically say "Tulsa", I usually mentally include the surrounding 'burbs unless the context of the question is specific to an area.  if we include the greater metro, it would be at least "a few hundred".

[TheArtist]

Tulsa's square mile footprint (city limits) is about 196 mi2.  Not several hundred.  You're confusing us with OKC...

Just pointing that out.  

Actually 196 was more than I thought it was, should have said "about" or "almost".   

[TheArtist]

Did the original study include the suburbs?  Don't know, but curious.   When I generically say "Tulsa", I usually mentally include the surrounding 'burbs unless the context of the question is specific to an area.  if we include the greater metro, it would be at least "a few hundred".

No, the original study was for the city proper.  It showed that we would get about a 15 year reprieve with the opening of Tulsa Hills area generating some suburban style "easy" growth at the same time we generally fill out our southern boundary.  Then after that things would slow down even more if we did not lay the groundwork for good urban infill type growth, for the remaining available land in the north and east parts of the city would not likely be as competitive with the suburbs.  We can see that our city will be relying more and more on urban infill development but our zoning is currently set up to be essentially suburban which will not get us the kind of urban infill that will be as competitive and desirable compared to other cities or will be able to grow at a even a moderate rate.   

[SXSW]

No, the original study was for the city proper.  It showed that we would get about a 15 year reprieve with the opening of Tulsa Hills area generating some suburban style "easy" growth at the same time we generally fill out our southern boundary.  Then after that things would slow down even more if we did not lay the groundwork for good urban infill type growth, for the remaining available land in the north and east parts of the city would not likely be as competitive with the suburbs.  We can see that our city will be relying more and more on urban infill development but our zoning is currently set up to be essentially suburban which will not get us the kind of urban infill that will be as competitive and desirable compared to other cities or will be able to grow at a even a moderate rate.   

That is both a big challenge and opportunity Tulsa faces in the next decade or so.  The city aside from the northwest hills and Far East sections will be essentially built out.  Infill and adding density will be essential for the city to grow.  It's a challenge because our zoning sucks and leadership can't get form based codes installed nor do they actively advocate for dense development and increased transit.  The opportunity is that we can't sprawl more so we'll have to change or remain fairly stagnant with <1% growth.  Obviously there is lots of potential and a lot has been moving in the right direction, especially downtown, but also plenty of room for improvement.  In addition to leadership we need citizens to demand and advocate for it.

[AquaMan]

Logroll zoning reformation with a bill to allow guns in restaurants and bars and it will pass. Otherwise, not likely the general public gives much thought to it.