1918 Tulsa Aero View

[Dspike]

"Tulsa should embrace this and similar technology and try to be on the leading edge of it.  Let OKC, Dallas, Houston, et al. be stuck subsidizing their underperforming fixed rail systems as Tulsa zooms off into the future."

Yes. Lets look forward. Autonomous vehicles should be a big boon for cities like Tulsa that do not have an expensive fixed capital public transit service. And it should provide service to more people who are left behind by our current public transit system. What can we do to be ready for autonomous vehicles rather than being the 46th state to permit them?

[heironymouspasparagus]

That's some accusation.  If fixed rail had worked so well in 1952, it wouldn't have disappeared from virtually every city that was not densely populated.  Oh wait, I forgot, General Motors, acting as Dr. Evil, single-handedly killed off popular trolley lines all over the country and brainwashed Americans into moving to single family homes in the suburbs where they would need 2 cars per family.

Not an accusation - just a statement of historical fact.  GM was convicted of anti-trust violations at that time.  And no, not single handed, but in concert with big oil and tire companies.  Through National City Lines.  Now here is the accusation - you are unknowing of the history and as of this post, are not taking the time to learn it.  Ya gotta know the history....  I know you can do better than this - I have seen it here in the past!!

Yes, that last was part of the plan.  Watch the videos on some of those earlier links.  Good history intro.


So, where is your interpretation of how the entire rest of the civilized world can make this work very well, but we can't?  Is it a lack of engineering/technical talent?  Is it a lack of viability of concept?  Is it the same reasons we are #38 in the world for healthcare?

Who knows?   Tell us your thoughts!  And show how/why/what/when/where.


And we haven't even touched on how wasteful, in a wide variety of ways, urban sprawl is related to farm/ranch/agricultural land, and it's contribution to heat island effects.

[DTowner]

Even though it was the simple fifties, it was still a complicated, complex set of circumstances that created suburban sprawl, the death of mass transit, the change from railroad passenger trains to freight trains, etc. This thread has laid out some of those factors but you seem to think it was just old fashioned, single issue problems and solutions.

The idea of self driving cars in every driveway seems not real compatible with the move towards higher density in urban areas and conversion of high rise buildings into housing. Mass transit would seem to be a better fit for those movements. Maybe suburbia could justify them. I don't suppose we could have both?

While admittedly sarcastic, that was my point - American underwent a transformation in the boom years after WWII that fundamentally changed living and commuting routines and habits, and which doomed many trolley systems.

Self-driving vehicles will not be limited to single family cars.  I probably have the least amount of vision of anyone I know, but even I can see the potential for self-driving vans or small buses as a way of moving large number of people around the city much more efficiently and with much more flexibility than any fixed rail system ever can.  Tulsa is unburdened with an existing trolley or true mass transit system and the vested stakeholders of such systems looking to protect the status quo, so we can look to new technologies to address our transportation needs.  For once, our past years of inaction can work to our advantage, if only we seize it.

[heironymouspasparagus]

"Tulsa should embrace this and similar technology and try to be on the leading edge of it.  Let OKC, Dallas, Houston, et al. be stuck subsidizing their underperforming fixed rail systems as Tulsa zooms off into the future."

Yes. Lets look forward. Autonomous vehicles should be a big boon for cities like Tulsa that do not have an expensive fixed capital public transit service. And it should provide service to more people who are left behind by our current public transit system. What can we do to be ready for autonomous vehicles rather than being the 46th state to permit them?

Autonomous vehicles require no input from the passenger.  Move person/goods from one place to another with no input from the transportee.  

Sounds a whole lot like public transit - rail trolleys, possibly!

The first video in the previous post showed Congressional testimony by Mayor of San Fran (I think).  As is done so often today by the big corporate interests and their lackey's in Congress, they tried to attribute the idea to him that he wanted to get rid of cars.  Which of course was another RWRE lie from the 50's!  (Remember Senator McCarthy??)  Rail trolley was never the entire solution.  Autos also should NOT be the entire solution - a proper mix of technology and infrastructure is what is appropriate.  And if you had ever driven in California, or New  York, or Baltimore, or Boston, etc, you would have a great understanding of the problem.  Rail trolley along with subway is an excellent part of the solution.

[heironymouspasparagus]

Self-driving vehicles will not be limited to single family cars.  I probably have the least amount of vision of anyone I know, but even I can see the potential for self-driving vans or small buses as a way of moving large number of people around the city much more efficiently and with much more flexibility than any fixed rail system ever can.  Tulsa is unburdened with an existing trolley or true mass transit system and the vested stakeholders of such systems looking to protect the status quo, so we can look to new technologies to address our transportation needs.  For once, our past years of inaction can work to our advantage, if only we cease it.

And autonomous vehicles are widely used in some areas - go to a big airport sometime.

And a proper use of autonomous vehicles in personal transportation would be similar.  It is again, the wastes of individual transport for applications that are better served by other means.  Suitability to purpose!  Not to mention convenience, efficiency, etc.

[DTowner]

Not an accusation - just a statement of historical fact.  GM was convicted of anti-trust violations at that time.  And no, not single handed, but in concert with big oil and tire companies.  Through National City Lines.  Now here is the accusation - you are unknowing of the history and as of this post, are not taking the time to learn it.  Ya gotta know the history....  I know you can do better than this - I have seen it here in the past!!

Yes, that last was part of the plan.  Watch the videos on some of those earlier links.  Good history intro.


So, where is your interpretation of how the entire rest of the civilized world can make this work very well, but we can't?  Is it a lack of engineering/technical talent?  Is it a lack of viability of concept?  Is it the same reasons we are #38 in the world for healthcare?

Who knows?   Tell us your thoughts!  And show how/why/what/when/where.


And we haven't even touched on how wasteful, in a wide variety of ways, urban sprawl is related to farm/ranch/agricultural land, and it's contribution to heat island effects.

"Historical facts" are in the eye of the beholder.  There are lots of things written that debunk the "General Motors streetcar conspiracy."  Here's one:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_streetcar_conspiracy
Is this article more true than those you referenced?  I have no idea.  But then again, neither do you.

I'm not and have never held myself out to be a transportation expert, but it does not take an expert to see that Tulsa and cities like it will not become large users of traditional mass transit like fixed rail trolleys in my lifetime.  The money spent on building image burnishing amusement park trolleys around downtown can be much better allocated to improving existing bus service and adopting modern technologies that will make most existing midsize city mass transit systems obsolete within a decade or so.  That's not fact, that's just my opinion.

[Red Arrow]

I probably have the least amount of vision of anyone I know, but even I can see the potential for self-driving vans or small buses as a way of moving large number of people around the city much more efficiently and with much more flexibility than any fixed rail system ever can.  

Flexibility, yes.

More efficiently when sufficient quantities of people are going from-to the same places, no way.

[Red Arrow]

"Tulsa should embrace this and similar technology and try to be on the leading edge of it.  Let OKC, Dallas, Houston, et al. be stuck subsidizing their underperforming fixed rail systems as Tulsa zooms off into the future."

Yes. Lets look forward. Autonomous vehicles should be a big boon for cities like Tulsa that do not have an expensive fixed capital public transit service. And it should provide service to more people who are left behind by our current public transit system. What can we do to be ready for autonomous vehicles rather than being the 46th state to permit them?

How are you going to reduce the vehicle count with small autonomous vehicles?  It would save some of the need for parking downtown but that is the only saving I can see. 

[rebound]

How are you going to reduce the vehicle count with small autonomous vehicles?  It would save some of the need for parking downtown but that is the only saving I can see. 

The net vehicle count goes down with any use of non-personal transportation.  Cabs, Uber, autonomous, public transport, etc.   An individual only uses their particular auto for a small part of the day.  It sits somewhere for the remainder.  Any form of vehicle sharing increases the net active use of those vehicles, and results in a decrease in the number of actual vehicles in use over time.   (Same thing for any form of "distribution",  increase the utilization of the resource (fork truck, semis, etc...) and the number of those resources required goes down.

[AquaMan]

True, but that ignores the social, cultural, marketing and economic forces also at play. People see cars as freedom, expression of personality, status, pleasure, income generation, etc.  Change those views and the profit making enterprises that benefit from them and you can then apply your formula for reducing the vehicle count. That's a big job.

[Red Arrow]

The net vehicle count goes down with any use of non-personal transportation.  Cabs, Uber, autonomous, public transport, etc.   An individual only uses their particular auto for a small part of the day.  It sits somewhere for the remainder.  Any form of vehicle sharing increases the net active use of those vehicles, and results in a decrease in the number of actual vehicles in use over time.   (Same thing for any form of "distribution",  increase the utilization of the resource (fork truck, semis, etc...) and the number of those resources required goes down.

I should have been a bit more specific.  I was thinking of the number of cars on the BA, 169, 75.... during rush hour.  Unless there are single vehicles carrying large numbers of people, the same number of cars will be on the road.  Cars parked during the day take up space but don't contribute to traffic while parked. 

Another thought: Unless the non-owned vehicles are stored near the people that will use them, the number of miles driven by the non-personal transportation could easily be twice the miles driven by a personal vehicle.  I base "twice" on a vehicle that is downtown that is dispatched to perhaps Broken Arrow to take a person downtown.  That will not help either pollution or fuel consumption.  I realize that not all trips would be this wasteful but it is something to think about.

[TheArtist]

I think autonomous cars will help increase walkability and also transit use.

First, more people will opt to not have cars or not have as many and will use uber and autonomous cars more often.  The next logical step will be that people/neighbors will begin to carpool to work more often (perhaps again in autonomous cars/small busses/vans).  This will begin to introduce subtle mental/social changes (like getting used to waiting for a ride, which is kind of like a halfway step to getting more people used to... waiting on a bus or other forms of transit for instance).  Also there is a growing push to change zoning laws to allow for, and in some cases actually promote, more transit & pedestrian friendly areas, add that to more people getting more used to not having as many cars and or using other transportation options and once again, more subtle shifts towards creating a different type of environment. 

And on the topic of suburbia, remember in many instances there were pushes to change zoning laws to favor new, auto centric, suburban style development and prohibit pedestrian/transit friendly development.  Blacks and poor people use busses and transit, if you create areas where transit is essentially illegal, and or you have to be wealthy enough to at least have a car to get to those places, and you can't walk if you do manage to get there by transit.... well that helps keep the "undesirable" people constrained and out of your part of town.  You want to ride at the front of the bus so bad... go ahead, we will destroy that kind of lifestyle and build our own where you can't come.  I remember hearing some old people talking about that kind of thing in the South, and all that zoning just flew all over the US like wildfire. 

[Red Arrow]

I envision a new game where drivers with large, old vehicles try to trip up the autonomous vehicles the same way the British fighter pilots tipped the wings of the German V-1 Buzzbombs of WWII.

 

[Red Arrow]

I think autonomous cars will help increase walkability and also transit use.

First, more people will opt to not have cars or not have as many and will use uber and autonomous cars more often.  The next logical step will be that people/neighbors will begin to carpool to work more often (perhaps again in autonomous cars/small busses/vans).  This will begin to introduce subtle mental/social changes (like getting used to waiting for a ride, which is kind of like a halfway step to getting more people used to... waiting on a bus or other forms of transit for instance).  Also there is a growing push to change zoning laws to allow for, and in some cases actually promote, more transit & pedestrian friendly areas, add that to more people getting more used to not having as many cars and or using other transportation options and once again, more subtle shifts towards creating a different type of environment.  

And on the topic of suburbia, remember in many instances there were pushes to change zoning laws to favor new, auto centric, suburban style development and prohibit pedestrian/transit friendly development.  Blacks and poor people use busses and transit, if you create areas where transit is essentially illegal, and or you have to be wealthy enough to at least have a car to get to those places, and you can't walk if you do manage to get there by transit.... well that helps keep the "undesirable" people constrained and out of your part of town.  You want to ride at the front of the bus so bad... go ahead, we will destroy that kind of lifestyle and build our own where you can't come.  I remember hearing some old people talking about that kind of thing in the South, and all that zoning just flew all over the US like wildfire.  

You have the right idea for downtown.  I don't believe it makes sense for transit from BA, Jenks, Bixby....  For the outlying suburbs, large, multi passenger vehicles are the only thing that makes sense for transit from the burbs.   Waiting for a ride is OK up to a limit. That limit depends on the distance to be traveled.  I will not wait 30 minutes for a trip I could drive (or walk)  in 10 minutes.  One of the overwhelming issues of public transit is time between vehicles (headway). One of the things the Red Arrow lines (Where I got my TNF name) did to spur ridership was to reduce headway and fares.  It worked.  WWII and fuel rationing helped but the effect lasted well beyond WWII.

The $.11 fare (1963ish) for students equates to about $.85 today allowing for inflation.

[Red Arrow]

The money spent on building image burnishing amusement park trolleys around downtown can be much better allocated to improving existing bus service and adopting modern technologies that will make most existing midsize city mass transit systems obsolete within a decade or so.  That's not fact, that's just my opinion.

In the early 20th Century, amusement parks were a vital part of trolley lines.  The parks were built to encourage city dwellers to ride the trolleys on weekends to escape the heat of the city for a few hours.  It was certainly a financial ploy to use the trolleys on the weekends but it worked for quite a while. Willow Grove Park near Philadelphia PA lasted into the 1960s.

If you are instead referring to the entertainment value of a downtown circulator trolley line, you may have a valid point but I disagree.  Public transit to a dead end at downtown will probably result in a non-use failure.  Why would anyone ride transit only to be forced to walk a half mile to their destination?  Transit studies have shown that people are willing to walk about 1/4 mile.  Beyond that, they will seek an alternate mode.