Oklahoma Opportunity

[Hoss]

I've been on one of the busses recently in a parade, and found it very clean and comfortable. 

We see the one that comes down Lewis regularly.  During the first of the month it's packed with folks going to the 71st st. Walmart. If you need to shop at that store, it's best to go at the end of the month. We've learned to stay away on the 1st through the 10th.

I think that bus must come from an area without a grocery store, because those folks pack up groceries, some bring garbage bags to put all of their Walmart bags in. The ritual repeats every month.

I've not been on one of the new CNG buses.  They do look nice.

[TheArtist]

Here's the thing, we already have a bus system which is under-utilized.  I don't see the need for light rail within the city until the bus system is better utilized (at least I assume you were talking about light rail).   The question is how do you get more people out of their cars and on to the bus who wouldn't even think of getting on a bus now?  Someone I know who owns a PR firm was working on a contract at one point with Tulsa Transit to come up with an image campaign to get more upwardly mobile adults to start riding the bus.  I'm guessing either the contract never materialized or the campaign was a failure.

Higher frequency will help some but at some point you will be putting in more and more money with less and less "return" because we have made it illegal to have good transit oriented development.  All the money and frequency in the world will not get you good ridership numbers if people can not or will not walk because the zoning makes it uncomfortable to do so.  We zone for "comfortable" car oriented development, and get it, but we do not zone for transit oriented development, and we do not get it.

[Conan71]

Higher frequency will help some but at some point you will be putting in more and more money with less and less "return" because we have made it illegal to have good transit oriented development.  All the money and frequency in the world will not get you good ridership numbers if people can not or will not walk because the zoning makes it uncomfortable to do so.  We zone for "comfortable" car oriented development, and get it, but we do not zone for transit oriented development, and we do not get it.

I point to buses only because they require no additional infrastructure to improve the system.  I understand they are less efficient, but the cost to add more buses is incrementally cheaper than adding rail lines as far as mass transit.

Do you really think it's all a zoning issue or is it more of a product of general laziness to leave our cars behind?  There are many places I will ride my bike for commuting or even shopping even though the direct routes to get to, say, the Cherry St. Farmer's Market from our house are less than hospitable to cyclists.  Mrs. Conan and I are also the sort that if we go downtown with multiple destinations within a mile area, we just park and walk where we want to go.  Or we just figure out the least heavily traveled route by cars and ride our bikes downtown and then from place to place.  Maybe that's why I'm somewhat oblivious to walkability issues or what sort of zoning issues seem to prevent people from riding, walking, or taking public transit.  Maybe the reason I see it that way is I usually walked, biked, or took public transit to school from 2nd through 5th grade and my brother and friends all either rode or walked to each other's houses or down to the convenience store or to run an errand to the market for our parents.  We did our paper routes by bike or on foot.  Perhaps the early exposure to a more pedestrian lifestyle that has stuck with me in some way that I've never grown out of.

I do know my limitations and what is a good and bad idea when it comes to cycling.  I generally will avoid busy thoroughfares, especially the narrower ones in mid-town, and just about any out in suburbia until it gets out to about 101st St. just so I can piss Guido and the other Southies off.    But, I can literally get to anywhere in the city by taking side streets.  You have to think a little harder to do it but it's not like it's a great effort.  Even if they did put bike lanes in out in the retail Hell corridor (71st St.) there's no way I'd trust distracted drivers looking for signs and storefronts enough to use them.

Based on that reasoning, does it sound like more of an image issue that it's too hard to get around, or unsafe to ride or walk?  Would changing zoning get people out of the decades-old mindset that we must have a car to go everywhere?  I'm not picking on your points, I'm simply tossing out some rhetorical points for us all to consider what would really motivate people to leave the car behind or to be willing to walk 6 or 12 blocks.

The only reason I don't ride a bike to work or take a bus every day is I have to have a car to carry out my work duties.  If I had a company vehicle, I would leave it at the office and use it during the day but find an alternate way to commute to the office.

[Gaspar]

Only takes 10-20 minutes to get downtown via Riverside or 169.  I'm willing to bet the bus is a good hour.  Combine that with standing out in the cold/heat/rain/arctic tundra and the lack of flexibility once you arrive at your destination, and you have the reason that the bus is not a popular option. 

Our britches just aren't that big yet.

When the hassle of driving, parking, and the associated cost exceeds that of taking a bus, we will be ready. People can want us to be like other cities all they want, but until we have the problems of other cities, we aren't justified spending money on the solutions of other cities. 

[Red Arrow]

I point to buses only because they require no additional infrastructure to improve the system.  I understand they are less efficient, but the cost to add more buses is incrementally cheaper than adding rail lines as far as mass transit.

Pretty much everything I have read indicates that riders of choice will choose rail over automobiles when they will not choose a bus over their automobile.

Do you really think it's all a zoning issue or is it more of a product of general laziness to leave our cars behind?

Since I am the only person in Tulsa Co that objects to paying for parking ( ), zoning is a contributor.  Headway/frequency is another contributor. General convenience of the car over Transit in Tulsa is a contributor.  I would probably not take transit to go grocery shopping or some other shopping that involves lugging a bunch of stuff home.  I would consider reasonably convenient transit (well, a trolley but probably not a bus) to go to work or out for an evening.  I wouldn't tolerate 30 minute or more headway time during any busy time of the day. 

There was a (real) trolley in the town where I grew up that went right past the High School and Jr. High School.  I took the trolley to school if the weather was bad. School tickets were less than 1/2 price at $.11 when bought at least 4 at a time.  If I missed the trolley, another would be along in less than 10 minutes at that time of day.

Maybe the reason I see it that way is I usually walked, biked, or took public transit to school from 2nd through 5th grade and my brother and friends all either rode or walked to each other's houses or down to the convenience store or to run an errand to the market for our parents.  We did our paper routes by bike or on foot.  Perhaps the early exposure to a more pedestrian lifestyle that has stuck with me in some way that I've never grown out of.

First through 8th grade was walk or bike except in bad weather and then sometimes even then.  9th grade was walk because it wasn't "cool" to ride a bike to school.  11th grade I mostly got a ride from a 12th grade friend that had a car because his family moved out of town but kept him in our school for his senior year.  Senior year it was back to walking except occasionally I got the family car on Fridays. Not all baby boomers are afraid to walk.

I generally will avoid busy thoroughfares, especially the narrower ones in mid-town, and just about any out in suburbia until it gets out to about 101st St. just so I can piss Guido and the other Southies off. 

You are a mile short.  You need to come out to 111th.  Out here we have a contest.  2 points for each bicyclist run off the road.  3 points if they damage their bicycle too much to ride home.  First driver to 100 points wins.  There is a penalty of 4 points though if an ambulance is needed for the bicyclist.  We try to keep it sporting. 

Would changing zoning get people out of the decades-old mindset that we must have a car to go everywhere?  I'm not picking on your points, I'm simply tossing out some rhetorical points for us all to consider what would really motivate people to leave the car behind or to be willing to walk 6 or 12 blocks.

When transit is at least close to convenience of a car, people will take transit.  There will always be some holdouts though. 

[Conan71]

Pretty much everything I have read indicates that riders of choice will choose rail over automobiles when they will not choose a bus over their automobile.
Since I am the only person in Tulsa Co that objects to paying for parking ( ), zoning is a contributor.  Headway/frequency is another contributor. General convenience of the car over Transit in Tulsa is a contributor.  I would probably not take transit to go grocery shopping or some other shopping that involves lugging a bunch of stuff home.  I would consider reasonably convenient transit (well, a trolley but probably not a bus) to go to work or out for an evening.  I wouldn't tolerate 30 minute or more headway time during any busy time of the day. 

There was a (real) trolley in the town where I grew up that went right past the High School and Jr. High School.  I took the trolley to school if the weather was bad. School tickets were less than 1/2 price at $.11 when bought at least 4 at a time.  If I missed the trolley, another would be along in less than 10 minutes at that time of day.
First through 8th grade was walk or bike except in bad weather and then sometimes even then.  9th grade was walk because it wasn't "cool" to ride a bike to school.  11th grade I mostly got a ride from a 12th grade friend that had a car because his family moved out of town but kept him in our school for his senior year.  Senior year it was back to walking except occasionally I got the family car on Fridays. Not all baby boomers are afraid to walk.
You are a mile short.  You need to come out to 111th.  Out here we have a contest.  2 points for each bicyclist run off the road.  3 points if they damage their bicycle too much to ride home.  First driver to 100 points wins.  There is a penalty of 4 points though if an ambulance is needed for the bicyclist.  We try to keep it sporting. 
When transit is at least close to convenience of a car, people will take transit.  There will always be some holdouts though. 

Good points. 

When we moved to 85th & Toledo before my 6th grade year, all of the Jenks campus was still at 1st & B Street in Jenks so it required either parents driving you to school or the bus.  Once kids got their license, they drove to school.  Or for a lucky few at age 14 you could get a motorcycle license.  As it was anywhere from four to ten miles for kids to get to Jenks, motorized transport was the way to go.  I would still use my bike to get around the neighborhood or go to the store until I got my driver's license, then I wanted to drive everywhere.

After my freshman year, I ended up going to Cascia Hall in midtown, so driving was absolutely necessary from out where we lived. 

[Red Arrow]

After my freshman year, I ended up going to Cascia Hall in midtown, so driving was absolutely necessary from out where we lived.

You had your license after your freshman year?  Flunk a year or two?   I didn't turn 16 until my Junior year (fall birthday).   

[TheArtist]

  Imho I think zoning actually trumps transit as a priority.

Few points.

1.  If you create good pedestrian/transit friendly streets, people will get out more and walk, and yes bike.

2.  Increased mix-use density can decrease the number and length of car and transit trips.
              (Actually when I think of it, if downtown were to keep infilling, increasing and diversifying its offerings, I wouldn't even have as much a desire to go to areas like Brookside and Cherry Street because everything would be right near me so I actually wouldn't feel the need to go to those areas).

One interesting example I have some numbers for is Portland.

From 2000-2012 the City of Portland saw it's Commuter Transit Mode "Share" decline from 12.3% to 11.9%

Now that may not look good at first glance but...

  This is "Commuter" share not "all trips made".  (Some numbers in Dallas for instance show that in 2012 they had 4,188 rail "commuters" but each day saw over 100,000 weekday boardings.)
  The number of people using transit in Portland has actually increased, but population also increased.
  Also car usage has declined in Portland while walking and yes Conan, bike ridership has increased. (from 2005-2009 citywide bicycle use increased by 20%)


 I think it still interesting from the replies I get that you still see people thinking of transit as primarily a means for commuters to get to work when that can actually be a fraction of its use. Also people seem to forget that TOD is important for once your in a TOD area, whether you use transit to get there or not, by being in and having those areas you decrease the length and or number of car trips.  In Tulsa if you want to go get a haircut you likely have to get in my car and go there, then if you want to go to the post office, car again, run to the drug store, car, grocery store, clothing, restaurant, etc. etc.  most trips require a car. However if your in or you get to a TOD or a higher density/pedestrian friendly/mixed use area, many of those trips can be easily made on foot or bike cause they are right around the corner. So in actuality, good TOD or mixed/use pedestrian friendly areas can decrease both auto and transit trips, while increasing pedestrian/cycle "usage".

[Conan71]

You had your license after your freshman year?  Flunk a year or two?   I didn't turn 16 until my Junior year (fall birthday).   

Got it November of my Sophomore year.  I was one of the "hold-backs" that was born after November 1 when they instituted that as the arbitrary date to establish what age to start your child in Kindergarten.  My birthday falls on Nov. 26 so I was always one of the oldest in my class.  Kind of the Jethro Bodine, if you will    All my buddies wanted to catch a ride with me, I had an El Camino then a Ford EXP so there wasn't a whole lot of room to haul friends around...somewhat on purpose.

[Conan71]

 Imho I think zoning actually trumps transit as a priority.

Few points.

1.  If you create good pedestrian/transit friendly streets, people will get out more and walk, and yes bike.

2.  Increased mix-use density can decrease the number and length of car and transit trips.
              (Actually when I think of it, if downtown were to keep infilling, increasing and diversifying its offerings, I wouldn't even have as much a desire to go to areas like Brookside and Cherry Street because everything would be right near me so I actually wouldn't feel the need to go to those areas).

One interesting example I have some numbers for is Portland.

From 2000-2012 the City of Portland saw it's Commuter Transit Mode "Share" decline from 12.3% to 11.9%

Now that may not look good at first glance but...

  This is "Commuter" share not "all trips made".  (Some numbers in Dallas for instance show that in 2012 they had 4,188 rail "commuters" but each day saw over 100,000 weekday boardings.)
  The number of people using transit in Portland has actually increased, but population also increased.
  Also car usage has declined in Portland while walking and yes Conan, bike ridership has increased. (from 2005-2009 citywide bicycle use increased by 20%)


 I think it still interesting from the replies I get that you still see people thinking of transit as primarily a means for commuters to get to work when that can actually be a fraction of its use. Also people seem to forget that TOD is important for once your in a TOD area, whether you use transit to get there or not, by being in and having those areas you decrease the length and or number of car trips.  In Tulsa if you want to go get a haircut you likely have to get in my car and go there, then if you want to go to the post office, car again, run to the drug store, car, grocery store, clothing, restaurant, etc. etc.  most trips require a car. However if your in or you get to a TOD or a higher density/pedestrian friendly/mixed use area, many of those trips can be easily made on foot or bike cause they are right around the corner. So in actuality, good TOD or mixed/use pedestrian friendly areas can decrease both auto and transit trips, while increasing pedestrian/cycle "usage".

Interesting points, thank you for replying.  Portland is considered somewhat of a Mecca amongst urban cyclists.  In ten years, I could see where someone could manage to live in downtown Tulsa and not own a car if they worked downtown as well.

MC and I hit Cherry St. for the farmer's market in season and we occasionally need something from a store along there.  We never hit Brookside to shop and it's rare we even eat along there, now that my daughter is no longer working at SR Hughes.  She and I would have lunch about once a week somewhere in the near area.

For that matter, the young hipster crowd is already doing that to an extent.  One I can think of is Chloe, the little blonde girl that works or worked at Mods doesn't own a car, she lives in the Brady and goes everywhere by bike.  I would love to be less car-dependent, Tulsa drivers keep my blood pressure up!

[nathanm]

Higher frequency will help some but at some point you will be putting in more and more money with less and less "return" because we have made it illegal to have good transit oriented development.

Thankfully, some parts of town still have it from back when that was just how you built a city. As you mentioned earlier, a circulator between DT and cherry street and brookside would be fantastic. Hell, even leave out brookside. When Reasors reopens, it will again be (somewhat unpleasantly) walkable for most people in that area. Folks trying to live on Cherry Street or DT are the people that really need a connection to staple shopping. It could be Brookside. It could be 21st and Yale, or it could be the WH Market on Lewis. What is important is to make it possible without > 1mi walks.

I can't help but think that even Dewey will have to come around when those areas near the circulator are packed to the gills and people are clamoring for more. Or maybe it won't work. It definitely won't work if we don't even try.

Rookie Okie: On street electric trolley construction costs are between $5 and $10 million a mile. If you include headhouses, maintenance shops, and a bunch of other stuff, you get to the $30 million a mile some (very short) projects have cost. Expanding those projects won't cost anywhere near that because those other included items have already been built, but that has been the cost for the initial phase of some recent trolley/streetcar systems. A DT/Cherry Street/Brookside circulator would probably cost between $60 and $100 million depending on exactly how we route it, how much of it is double-tracked/has passing areas, and exactly what number and what kind of stops we put in. Future expansion would be closer to the straight track and station cost, as with any system.

[heironymouspasparagus]

Got it November of my Sophomore year.  I was one of the "hold-backs" that was born after November 1 when they instituted that as the arbitrary date to establish what age to start your child in Kindergarten.  My birthday falls on Nov. 26 so I was always one of the oldest in my class.  Kind of the Jethro Bodine, if you will    All my buddies wanted to catch a ride with me, I had an El Camino then a Ford EXP so there wasn't a whole lot of room to haul friends around...somewhat on purpose.

I had a beetle and could still get 6 with one in the trunk...

[Conan71]

Thankfully, some parts of town still have it from back when that was just how you built a city. As you mentioned earlier, a circulator between DT and cherry street and brookside would be fantastic. Hell, even leave out brookside. When Reasors reopens, it will again be (somewhat unpleasantly) walkable for most people in that area. Folks trying to live on Cherry Street or DT are the people that really need a connection to staple shopping. It could be Brookside. It could be 21st and Yale, or it could be the WH Market on Lewis. What is important is to make it possible without > 1mi walks.

I can't help but think that even Dewey will have to come around when those areas near the circulator are packed to the gills and people are clamoring for more. Or maybe it won't work. It definitely won't work if we don't even try.

Rookie Okie: On street electric trolley construction costs are between $5 and $10 million a mile. If you include headhouses, maintenance shops, and a bunch of other stuff, you get to the $30 million a mile some (very short) projects have cost. Expanding those projects won't cost anywhere near that because those other included items have already been built, but that has been the cost for the initial phase of some recent trolley/streetcar systems. A DT/Cherry Street/Brookside circulator would probably cost between $60 and $100 million depending on exactly how we route it, how much of it is double-tracked/has passing areas, and exactly what number and what kind of stops we put in. Future expansion would be closer to the straight track and station cost, as with any system.

I fail to see what the added motivation is for someone to ride a railed trolley rather than a bus given the same route dynamics.  Mass transportation is mass transportation.

At a cost of up to $30 million per mile, it will never happen in Tulsa.  Any real transportation vision under this administration is nothing short of a pipe dream.

[Red Arrow]

I fail to see what the added motivation is for someone to ride a railed trolley rather than a bus given the same route dynamics.  Mass transportation is mass transportation.

I fail to see why people like to eat asparagus, but many do.

My personal experience with trolleys is with them running more in a interurban mode than a streetcar mode.  I remember sitting in the trolley at the 69th St Terminal waiting for departure.  The trolley was quiet except for the occasional sound of the air compressor.  The trolley made no noxious fumes.  The buses a few yards away were noisy and made stinky diesel exhaust fumes.  The tracks on the route I rode were in pretty good shape so the ride in the trolley was fairly smooth.  The trolleys were from 1932 and newer (with a few exceptions in really nasty, snowy weather when extra, older trolleys were added for the extra riders) with upholstered seating.  Running noise in the trolleys was also significantly less than the buses. Trolleys got up to speed quicker than buses which made for shorter route times.  On the down side, the older trolleys from the turn of the 19th to 20th century typically had wood seats and had inferior ride dynamics.  The single truck trolleys evidently bounced around quite a bit.  When buses started to take over trolley routes, the nearly new buses were smoother and more comfortable due to deferred maintenance and older equipment on the part of trolley lines.  Trolley companies typically had to maintain both the rails and the streets they ran on which were also used by buses for free.  Guess which mode had the economic advantage.  PCC trolleys were developed specifically to combat the rising use of buses.  Smoother, more comfortable, quieter... than the previous generations of trolleys.

One of my friends grew up in the age of declining trolley quality.  He wasn't too enthused about riding the trolley to dinner in Memphis several years ago but I managed to talk our party into taking the trolley to dinner, twice.  The rest of the group was more willing to try something new to them.  I couldn't understand the desire to get the car out of the underground parking lot, drive a mile, find a place to park, still walk a few blocks to dinner and then reverse the operation.  

Rails mean that where the trolley went yesterday, it will in all probability go today.  Find a trolley with the destination sign you want and you can be pretty sure no one changed the interim stops with a pen overnight. It gives riders the confidence to get on-board.

Economic analysis using equivalent life spans of equipment make rail more attractive than the initial cash required to get started but that is not part of why you would want hop on a trolley rather than a bus with all else being equal.  If buses were required to directly contribute to street maintenance the trolley would be even more attractive.

69th St Transportation Center (used to be "terminal")
http://goo.gl/maps/2UeQ6

It's obviously biased but for almost everything you want to know about Light Rail:
http://www.lightrailnow.org/index.htm

Enjoy!

[dbacksfan 2.0]

Phoenix light rail was $1.4 Billion for 20 miles, or $70,000,000.00 per mile.

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2008/12/09/20081209lrail-money1209.html

And a new expansion proposed in LA is

On January 4th, Los Angeles's Crenshaw light rail transit (LRT) project got a huge boost forward, winning final approval from the U.S. Federal Transit Administration, according to a Jan. 4th report in the LA-area Daily Breeze newspaper.

Funded by Measure R, a half-cent sales tax increase approved by LA County voters in 2008, the 8.5-mile (13.7-km) Crenshaw LRT line, currently estimated at $1.72 billion, is a project of the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) that would run partly along Crenshaw Boulevard, connecting the Green Line near Los Angeles International Airport (LAX) to the Expo Line. (See map below.) Because of its link to the airport, it's also known as the Crenshaw/LAX line.

or $202,000,000. per mile, according to the link provided.

http://www.lightrailnow.org/news/n_newslog2012q1.html