So we have two different strategies so far. A grid based system and a circulator based system. I prefer to think of my circulator system as a neighborhood based system since it is designed primarily for neighborhood based tavel with connecting service between neighborhoods. Would it be fair to describe the grid based system as primarily a crosstown commuter system?

So we have two different strategies so far. A grid based system and a circulator based system. I prefer to think of my circulator system as a neighborhood based system since it is designed primarily for neighborhood based tavel with connecting service between neighborhoods. Would it be fair to describe the grid based system as primarily a crosstown commuter system?

I think vice versa. Your idea does not follow existing patterns of movement between neighborhoods.

Let me try this again. My neighborhood circulator system is all about moving people within their neighborhoods. Each hub would be located at either the business or cultural center of their respective areas. It would encourage people to shop and do business locally by providing frequent neighborhood service to nearby shopping, office, and professional services. Local communities would then be connected to each other via a downtown hub with express service. My routes go directly through residential areas because I use much smaller 15 passenger buses. Every single home in the urban core (area bounded by I-240/I-44/I-35) would be 4 blocks or less from a bus route. As I posted earlier, most trips by car are less than 2 miles and most people drive less than 5 miles to work. How is a local neighborhood circulator not following existing traffic patterns?

Are you suggesting a new strategy: Existing Commuter Traffic Pattern (because I think that is what they are trying to do now). The difference between mine and the current system is the reason for the traffic pattern. Mine is to replace short car trips for daily essentials and the current city strategy is for people going to work. Of course mine also allows for commuters by using kiss and go drop-off and express non-stop service to a central hub.

Yeah, I just think we get too caught up on comparing ourselves to other cities on this forum. It's almost as if we can't voice our approval of something going forward UNLESS we are copying a bunch of other cities...
Of course by being a pioneer/guinea pig (depending on your point of view), it can be very expensive to be an early adapter of untested/unproven ideas/technology etc etc. If you have unlimited resources, that's one thing.

Let me try this again. My neighborhood circulator system is all about moving people within their neighborhoods. Each hub would be located at either the business or cultural center of their respective areas. It would encourage people to shop and do business locally by providing frequent neighborhood service to nearby shopping, office, and professional services. Local communities would then be connected to each other via a downtown hub with express service. My routes go directly through residential areas because I use much smaller 15 passenger buses. Every single home in the urban core (area bounded by I-240/I-44/I-35) would be 4 blocks or less from a bus route. As I posted earlier, most trips by car are less than 2 miles and most people drive less than 5 miles to work. How is a local neighborhood circulator not following existing traffic patterns?

Are you suggesting a new strategy: Existing Commuter Traffic Pattern (because I think that is what they are trying to do now). The difference between mine and the current system is the reason for the traffic pattern. Mine is to replace short car trips for daily essentials and the current city strategy is for people going to work. Of course mine also allows for commuters by using kiss and go drop-off and express non-stop service to a central hub.

You can't figure out that bouncing from hub to hub is not a natural traffic flow from one adjoining district to another?

Let me try this again. My neighborhood circulator system is all about moving people within their neighborhoods. Each hub would be located at either the business or cultural center of their respective areas. It would encourage people to shop and do business locally by providing frequent neighborhood service to nearby shopping, office, and professional services. Local communities would then be connected to each other via a downtown hub with express service. My routes go directly through residential areas because I use much smaller 15 passenger buses. Every single home in the urban core (area bounded by I-240/I-44/I-35) would be 4 blocks or less from a bus route. As I posted earlier, most trips by car are less than 2 miles and most people drive less than 5 miles to work. How is a local neighborhood circulator not following existing traffic patterns?

Are you suggesting a new strategy: Existing Commuter Traffic Pattern (because I think that is what they are trying to do now). The difference between mine and the current system is the reason for the traffic pattern. Mine is to replace short car trips for daily essentials and the current city strategy is for people going to work. Of course mine also allows for commuters by using kiss and go drop-off and express non-stop service to a central hub.

This system would require 100's of buses and much more $$$ than is presently spent or proposed.

This system would require 100's of buses and much more $$$ than is presently spent or proposed.

My system uses exactly 46 buses, which is 46% of the current fleet. With 46 buses I can get within 4 blocks of 99% of all house in the urban core. Not only that, but a majority of my buses cost half the price of a bus in the existing fleet.

You can't figure out that bouncing from hub to hub is not a natural traffic flow from one adjoining district to another?

Natural traffic flow to where?

You know what is kind of sad, is that you don't even understand that my local circulator concept is exactly like the downtown streetcar route, only I do it 28 times instead of just once (or twice depending of funding). The streetcar is a circulator that collects people and moves them through the downtown community and if people want to go to another community (like Norman or Edmond) they go to a hub, which takes them via an express to another hub. The local streetcar is smaller and operates more frequently on a continual basis (every 15 minutes) and tries to get as close to as many lots as possible. The express hub connectors are larger, faster, and run on a time schedule.

So we have two different strategies so far. A grid based system and a circulator based system. I prefer to think of my circulator system as a neighborhood based system since it is designed primarily for neighborhood based tavel with connecting service between neighborhoods. Would it be fair to describe the grid based system as primarily a crosstown commuter system?

This would prevent people using transit for work, entertainment, shopping, etc. I think the idea is to minimize transfers. As someone who used OKC's system for several months (as an experiment), some of the transfer spots were ridiculous.

This would prevent people using transit for work, entertainment, shopping, etc. I think the idea is to minimize transfers. As someone who used OKC's system for several months (as an experiment), some of the transfer spots were ridiculous.

My system would only have 7 transfer spots system wide and all 7 would be in a permanent transit hub that offered inside seating, food service, sundry items, etc. They would also offer kiss and go drop off and possible park and ride lots for commuters. An express bus would be available every half hour to the downtown transit hub.

Here is what a sample south OKC route map would like. This is just an example to show how the entire south part of the urban core could be covered. This route plan only uses 12 15-passenger buses running continuous loops and 6 express buses connecting to downtown (3 inbound and 3 outbound every half hour). The longest colored circulator route is 5.5 miles and almost all of them are under 5 miles. It gets within 4 blocks of 99% of all homes and business in the south core. Since most of the routes are on residential streets traffic is minimal and using mostly right turns reduces time waiting in traffic.

Of course these routes would have to be adjusted based on actual traffic counts and neighborhood surveys. The beauty is that the over-all system is not dependent on any given part since each hub operates independently from all the rest. A route adjustment in one area has zero impact on any other area so if something need adjusting to meet local requirments it can be done without having to make system-wide adjustments.

If a non-core entity (outlet mall, Penn Sq, Crossroads, OCCC, Airport) wanted bus service they could provide their own bus to connect at whatever hub provide the demographics they desired. Of course, via the central hub everyone would be connected to external route with just one transfer point.

http://i1178.photobucket.com/albums/x378/KerryinJax/SouthOKC.jpg

My system uses exactly 46 buses, which is 46% of the current fleet. With 46 buses I can get within 4 blocks of 99% of all house in the urban core. Not only that, but a majority of my buses cost half the price of a bus in the existing fleet.

But . . . (but) . . . What about the 54% of bus drivers who will become "displaced workers" under your plan?

It will be a sad day, indeed, when they are standing beside "Bus Stop" signs (from former Route 5, for example =) waiting for a bus that never comes, to transport them to re-training at that Vo-Tech over on Rockwell or a paying gig to turn a buck in the vicinity of Mercy Hospital. Well . . . wouldn't it? (Be sad)?

I wonder if a certain, well-known, local business personality, might begin to consider the Win/Win opportunities of providing a fleet of small buses--powered by compressed natural gas--to the City of OKC. I mean, novelty convenience stores featuring soda pop (out in the boonies) and boathouses (closer to home) and building a complex that resembles a Monopoly board gone wild have a certain appeal, (but) . . .

We live in a city where you can drive huge distances in 10 minutes. People are traveling everywhere to everywhere, not staying within their neighborhood. It's exactly the same reason the downtown hub and spokes system is a failure.

One more observation... The route with the most ridership is Route 23. It goes straight up and down 23rd Street from MacArthur to Lincoln (but deviates at its end points). This is not a coincidence. It is the most legible route in the system. Twists and turns are confusing for transit riders, especially if we want to attract new ones.

As part of the severance package I will offer free "Will Drive Bus for Food" signs. Maybe in the future place like Mercy and the Vo-tech will take their contribution to urban sprawl under consideration and choose to in-fill the urban core instead of building even further out. However, if they feel their business could benefit from mass transit they are free to pay for a bus to get people to them.

The route with the most ridership is Route 23. It goes straight up and down 23rd Street from MacArthur to Lincoln (but deviates at its end points). This is not a coincidence. It is the most legible route in the system. Twists and turns are confusing for transit riders, especially if we want to attract new ones.

Which part of route 23 do you think gets the most riders since not every rider is riding the full route?

As part of the severance package I will offer free "Will Drive Bus for Food" signs. Maybe in the future place like Mercy and the Vo-tech will take their contribution to urban sprawl under consideration and choose to in-fill the urban core instead of building even further out. However, if they feel their business could benefit from mass transit they are free to pay for a bus to get people to them.

Pay particular attention to 2:00--2:30.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-hPOvzTiPc

Natural traffic flow to where?

You know what is kind of sad, is that you don't even understand that my local circulator concept is exactly like the downtown streetcar route,

But you don't even understand what we are doing with the streetcar system. We are talking about a vision that is reaching into north side neighborhoods, and restoring the streetcar network. The couplet is NOT a loop or a circulator. It is a Midtown-to-Bricktown spine, that is just split up to put track down more streets. That is a line extending to the north side, that is going to be heavily influenced by reinforcing existing patterns of circulation. For instance, the fact that Classen is a major thoroughfare is relevant to the route, as is the fact that 23rd is a major thoroughfare, and so on. These aren't random loops like what you keep creating.

My system uses exactly 46 buses, which is 46% of the current fleet. With 46 buses I can get within 4 blocks of 99% of all house in the urban core. Not only that, but a majority of my buses cost half the price of a bus in the existing fleet.

Absolutely impossible, and I'll leave it at that.

Yes. A very pretty grid . . . But you are talking about Phoenix.
It's a "dry" grid.

(Just out of curiosity--and to clarify context--is that whole "streetcar deal" just an expensive frill?)

If you want to see a pretty grid Kerry, check out Phoenix's system map.

http://www.valleymetro.org/planning_your_trip/bus_rail_link/

Phoenix has about 55 million rides per year on its transit network. We have 3 million. A notoriously sprawly metro with 4x our population has a bus system based on their arterial grid and it results in almost 20x more bus rides per year!

What this city desperately needs is a bigger budget for the bus system. If this were to ever happen, I would like to see a grid system for the urbanized core with stops every fifteen minutes, and then something like what we currently have now for the suburbs. Of course the current system doesn't make any sense, but it wouldn't be fair for the people in which the bus is their only mode of transportation to simply drop the routes beyond the core.

If you want to see a pretty grid Kerry, check out Phoenix's system map.

http://www.valleymetro.org/planning_your_trip/bus_rail_link/

Thanks - that is a pretty good grid based system and at 55 million riders it seems to be working. Very interesting that they use transit hubs (15 of them across the valley). It seems their grid routes leave the grid to go to the nearest transit center for transfering pasengers and then return to the grid to continue their crosstown routes. A quick look at their system on Google Earth shows that the routes are only 1/2 mile apart which means everyone in the service area is within 1/4 miles of a NS and EW route. To do that in OKC we would need 4X as many buses as we have now.

http://www.valleymetro.org/getting_on_board/transit_centers/


A transit center is a facility where transit vehicles converge, enabling passengers to transfer among routes and services. Transit centers are generally located off the street and provide passengers with a shaded or enclosed waiting area, seats, drinking fountains and transit information.

Yes. A very pretty grid . . . But you are talking about Phoenix.
It's a "dry" grid.

(Just out of curiosity--and to clarify context--is that whole "streetcar deal" just an expensive frill?)

Well, it's not streetcar, in Phoenix it's actually full-blown LRT. But it was hugely fed-funded, which is nice for them I guess, and it actually does seem to be producing success in reforming their lackluster land use problems over there in the desert.

If our extreme drought conditions prevail, maybe we can be just like Phoenix!

I tried to model the grid type system used in Phoenix (1/2 mile between routes) and it is darn hard to do in OKC. We don't have the grid system many people think we have. The Oklahoma River, interstate system, and lightning creek really makes it hard to keep the routes in the 1/2 mile range. Sticking to a one mile grid would be easier (and use half as many buses) but I think that spreads the service too thin. If people have to get intheir car to get to the nearest bus stop then they will mostly likely just drive to their destination. The challenge is to prevent from getting in the car at all.

Isn't our grid essentially a 1-mile variety anyway? Seems the major intersections are spaced about that far apart. Seems logical to utilize the main thoroughfares anyway...doesn't it? But i understand your point about having to get in their car to get to the bus stop...LOL

Isn't our grid essentially a 1-mile variety anyway? Seems the major intersections are spaced about that far apart. Seems logical to utilize the main thoroughfares anyway...doesn't it? But i understand your point about having to get in their car to get to the bus stop...LOL

Even the 1 mile doesn't work as much as you might think, especially in the urban core. Phoenix seems to be the ideal grid model and they use 1/2 miles spacing; if you do something different then you aren't following the model and you can't expect the same results.

How do you propose the upfront cost to purchase the smaller buses required to operate a smaller grid system ? (your talking millions of dollars)

How do you propose the upfront cost to purchase the smaller buses required to operate a smaller grid system ? (your talking millions of dollars)

The smaller buses cost about $40,000 each and the larger buses cost just over $100,000. Metro Transit has 99 large buses and they only need 32 small buses and 14 large buses. Sell the larger buses to other cities and use the proceeds to buy the smaller buses.

Here is a story from June on shrinking the size of the bus system.

http://newsok.com/oklahoma-city-leaders-unsure-how-to-improve-outdated-metro-transit-system/article/3575188

The smaller buses cost about $40,000 each and the larger buses cost just over $100,000. Metro Transit has 99 large buses and they only need 32 small buses and 14 large buses. Sell the larger buses to other cities and use the proceeds to buy the smaller buses.

Here is a story from June on shrinking the size of the bus system.

http://newsok.com/oklahoma-city-leaders-unsure-how-to-improve-outdated-metro-transit-system/article/3575188

While that would help with purchase costs of buses, fuel and maybe even maintenance; personnel tends to be the largest cost in any operation anyway. I am guessing you are proposing a massive change in the routes since they can not cover the current the current routes with 99 with a low time between buses, they certainly will not be able to with half of that.

While that would help with purchase costs of buses, fuel and maybe even maintenance; personnel tends to be the largest cost in any operation anyway. I am guessing you are proposing a massive change in the routes since they can not cover the current the current routes with 99 with a low time between buses, they certainly will not be able to with half of that.

I don't know how many people Metro Transit employs now or how many employees a new system would need, but if I only have half as many buses then I probably only need half as many drivers and fewer mechanics since there is less to maintain. With the 7 additional transit centers there will be some new position created as well. But the bus system is not a 'job creation' operation for bus system employees. It is about moving people around OKC in an efficient and timely manner. One of the things that save money in my operation is the size of the service area being greatly reduced. I don't try to serve 400 sq. miles. I only serve the 50 sq. mile urban core.

I think it is better to serve a smaller area really well than to serve a large area poorly. The urban core would become a mass transit district where owning more than one car would become optional (thus freeing up $300 per month for other things). In fact, as the urban core fills in it would become totally possible to not even need a car.

An effective mass transit system would also allow the core to be developed much denser than would otherwise be possible and the increased density brings a lot of positives with it. It would encourage national retailers to locate near downtown, new technologies would come to OKC sooner (i.e. 4G), and it would reduce the tax burden of providing City services to an ever expanding geographic area. Of course, the increased density would also result in higher property values which would then better fund the school system.

I don't know how many people Metro Transit employs now or how many employees a new system would need, but if I only have half as many buses then I probably only need half as many drivers and fewer mechanics since there is less to maintain. With the 7 additional transit centers there will be some new position created as well. But the bus system is not a 'job creation' operation for bus system employees. It is about moving people around OKC in an efficient and timely manner. One of the things that save money in my operation is the size of the service area being greatly reduced. I don't try to serve 400 sq. miles. I only serve the 50 sq. mile urban core.

I think it is better to serve a smaller area really well than to serve a large area poorly. The urban core would become a mass transit district where owning more than one car would become optional (thus freeing up $300 per month for other things). In fact, as the urban core fills in it would become totally possible to not even need a car.

An effective mass transit system would also allow the core to be developed much denser than would otherwise be possible and the increased density brings a lot of positives with it. It would encourage national retailers to locate near downtown, new technologies would come to OKC sooner (i.e. 4G), and it would reduce the tax burden of providing City services to an ever expanding geographic area. Of course, the increased density would also result in higher property values which would then better fund the school system.

But with the type of grid system you favor, you couldn't do it with half the number of buses/employees.

The smaller buses cost about $40,000 each and the larger buses cost just over $100,000. Metro Transit has 99 large buses and they only need 32 small buses and 14 large buses. Sell the larger buses to other cities and use the proceeds to buy the smaller buses.

Here is a story from June on shrinking the size of the bus system.

http://newsok.com/oklahoma-city-leaders-unsure-how-to-improve-outdated-metro-transit-system/article/3575188

Facepalm.

You still have the upfront cost of purchasing all that equipment.

The real catch on small buses is explained in this FAQ from Madison, Wi. There is a particular prerequisite to receiving federal funding (which we desperately need) plus apparently there really isn't a lot of difference in gas savings when you add in additional insurance, maintenance skills, etc that would be required for operating varying types of buses.


Why does Metro use 40 foot buses? Or run small buses on some routes?

This is a recurring question. Residents look out their window during midday, weekend or evening hours and see a small number of passengers scattered through a 40 ft. bus. The bus they see looks like a needlessly expensive way to provide transit service, and a ‘small bus’ feels like the right sized package.

The simple answer to the question is that our ridership is too high; ridership during the peak exceeds the capacity of small buses.

Transit systems in general, including Metro Transit, tailor their fleets to meet peak hour needs. The average ridership per hour in Madison is over 30 passengers per hour, making us the envy of our peers. During the AM and pm peak hours, we have standing loads on core routes and commuter routes.


Then why not run small buses during other times? Wouldn’t that save money?

No, not necessarily.

The main cost of putting a bus on the street is driver wages. The skills needed for driving a bus - safety, customer-orientation, judgment, reliability - are the same regardless of the size of vehicle. Wages would not be lower for small bus drivers. And swapping out the big bus for the little bus after the AM peak, and then back again in the afternoon will increase labor costs due to the put-of-service time spent driving buses to and from the garage.

There are other added costs to small buses; you not only have to purchase buses that are only used part of the day, you also have to buy insurance for two vehicles instead of one, and keep parts on hand for another type of vehicle.

A further complicating factor is the federal regulation concerning spare ratio. The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) provides 80% funding for vehicles, and regulates the fleet size they will fund.

The FTA will not fund a duplicate fleet that allows changing buses off due to fluctuations in ridership over the course of the day.

A transit system is allowed a 20% spare ratio. Out of this spare ratio we need to accommodate buses out of service awaiting parts, buses damaged in vehicular accidents, buses held out of service for the day to allow for routine maintenance and repairs, buses in reserve to replace vehicles that encounter mechanical problems on the road, etc.

These negatives outweigh the slight savings in fuel cost of operating a small vehicle.

I rode the bus to work this morning (after walking the 250 or so yards to the bus stop.) The bus was right on time--if not a little early. I think it was one of the smaller buses and there were only about ten or so other people riding it at that time of day. But remember--as I said before--I rode it downtown early one morning (starting from the same area, but going south) and it was standing room only on one of the bigger buses. I'm certainly not sure of the "perfect solution" but as far as I'm concerned, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. =)

I gave my solution and ideas - but in the end, it's your bus system, you figure it out.

Read more: http://newsok.com/oklahoma-city-leaders-unsure-how-to-improve-outdated-metro-transit-system/article/3575188#ixzz1TvgRql9F

Rick Cain, director of Metro Transit, said the agency is doing better in terms of passenger counts, with average ridership going from 14 passengers per hour a few years ago to 16.22 per hour this past year. He said he is working to improve that figure next year to 18 per hour.
This is considered to be "Mass Transit"?

I desperately hope that refers to ridership on all the routes.

Sid: In order to validate your self-proclaimed credentials vis-a-vis actual "Bus Ridership, Experiencial" (even if "Experiencial" is misspelt . . . I think you might want "to re-think your numbers":

(And here's why) . . .
There is no [The/Number] 18 Bus! (Any actual occasional bus rider would know that! =)
All of the buses in the fleet have at least three, sometimes four digit designations!

The only thing that The 18 could apply to would be The Route! =)
Which would be eliminated or devolved into something completely different.
Like, maybe even using Abacus (as compared to Arabic) "Numbers" or whatnot . . . =)

Might I add this about capacity. While a larger bus might transport 50 passengers per hour, my local circulator buses would transport 60 passengers per hour. Hub to hub would be 200 people per hour. So I actually get more capacity (4X as much) AND faster service (in some case 4X faster). Sid, if you miss your bus how long till the next one?

Sid: I am sorry--really--that I erroneously nit-picked your deep appreciation of the current Bus System and the way it works.

I am, however, (personally) glad--maybe evey happy? like virtually happy?--that you have adopted (and or adapted to =) not only this somewhat anachronistic, yet completely functional (rather than fictional) means of Public Transportation . . . But the use of =) as a way of saying that you got the "joke".

And that from a dude who only rides The Five (5).
Mostly Northbound.

(Also the person responsible for Two (2) Westbound Turn Lanes (instead of only one) from The Exit Ramp of The Hefner Parkway Onto Memorial. With one email, a little waiting time and maybe $1,000 worth of time and labor--not graffiti: Sanctioned and Performed by Straight/CommonSense Thinkers in Local Government. With no carrots, sticks or bribes. =)

(Warning: More to follow on this topic . . . =)

Sid: Your opinion didn't sound arrogant at all.
(Groucho Marx take/give: In fact . . . I didn't hear any sound at all! =)

Your "opinion" simply sounded reasonable . . .
In the sense of "Come . . . let us 'reason" together" . . .

Dang.
Looks like we are caught in "The Cross-Post Traffic" (to parapharse that Jimi dude from Seattle =)

It bothers me when people plan millions of dollars of projects or changes when they have never once even tried it out. Seen the people that use it daily - rely on it daily.


Far more people don't ride the bus, than do ride the bus. I would say that ratio is at least 200 to 1. Instead of focusing on the one riding the bus, appealing to the 200 that don't might create more riders. After all, the current bus system already doesn't attract ANY of the 200 riders. If two can be gained while sacrificing one then that is progress (unless of course you are the one, then it sucks). But then again, it is a mass transit system, not a personal transit system.

Maybe a free lottery ticket with the purchase of a bus pass . . ?
For the funding . . . ? (For the children . . . and their future . . .?)

Kerry, I don't disagree. I want a grid system. No argument there. I also am interested in an Urban Core model, though would definitely want to see the details.

However, short of a massive influx in funding, you are not going to change the efficiency of the entire system more than single digit percentages. (IMHO)

I continue to ask, what is stopping that 200 from riding today? We both want the same thing but I am going to take a different approach. I want to get as many people riding the current system as possible. We are no where near our potential ridership with those that can use the bus system we have in place today.
Isn't that the crux of the problem? If people aren't riding it now (be it perception, routes or whatever) how is getting more people riding it going to solve the inherent problems it has (Mayor and Council have acknowledged as much). If ridership improves, then they will see that as validation that it isn't broken. otherwise, there is no "incentive" to get the powers that be to change.

The inherent challenge I see with any form of Mass Transit is multi-faceted:

1) Does it come where I am?
2) Does it go where I want to go?
3) Does it fit my schedule (run when I need it to run)?
4) Does it do so with the least amount of delay (time/transfers etc)?

Until those basic questions can be answered in the affirmative, those that have options are going to continue to use the options they have available.

Until those basic questions can be answered in the affirmative, those that have options are going to continue to use the options they have available.

If you live in the urban core, and your destination is in the urban core, my system will run within 4 blocks of your home every 15 minutes, and will go within 4 blocks of your destination every 15 minutes.
If you live outside the urban core you either need to own a car or move to the urban core.

If your destination is outside the urban core then you either need to own a car or do business with entities located in the urban core.

The number of transfers in my system depends on how far you want to go. If you stay within your immediate neighborhood, then no transfer is need at all. If you stay within your part of town you would transfer at a hub to another rapid service local bus (but only if your destination was not within walking distance of the local hub). If you are going across town you would have to transfer at the central hub.

If you live in the urban core, and your destination is in the urban core, my system will run within 4 blocks of your home every 15 minutes, and will go within 4 blocks of your destination every 15 minutes.
If you live outside the urban core you either need to own a car or move to the urban core.

If your destination is outside the urban core then you either need to own a car or do business with entities located in the urban core.

The number of transfers in my system depends on how far you want to go. If you stay within your immediate neighborhood, then no transfer is need at all. If you stay within your part of town you would transfer at a hub to another rapid service local bus (but only if your destination was not within walking distance of the local hub). If you are going across town you would have to transfer at the central hub.

Are you planning on having multiple local buses? A complete lap on many of the routes on page 3 of the thread is likely to take 15 minutes in a personal vehicle; however with the stops at the pickup and delivery points, plus time to allow boarding/exiting may be closer to 25/30 for a bus.

Are you planning on having multiple local buses? A complete lap on many of the routes on page 3 of the thread is likely to take 15 minutes in a personal vehicle; however with the stops at the pickup and delivery points, plus time to allow boarding/exiting may be closer to 25/30 for a bus.

His grid system would require at least 3, and possibly 4 buses per route to maintain a 15 minute turn-around.

Are you planning on having multiple local buses? A complete lap on many of the routes on page 3 of the thread is likely to take 15 minutes in a personal vehicle; however with the stops at the pickup and delivery points, plus time to allow boarding/exiting may be closer to 25/30 for a bus.

The routes I mapped were just examples and not the actual routes. It would take someone with the data, GIS, and route planning software to create ideal routes. But my example proves it can be done. My longest route is only 5.5 miles but most are around 4 miles, and some even down in the 3 mile range. At 25mph (the slowest possible speed) it would take 12 minutes to go 5 miles. On the 4 mile routes it would be 9 minutes 35 seconds.

Of course, it is possible that not every hub could be served by just 4 routes but in my vision I would not have two local buses on the same route. If a route was too long to be completed in 15 minutes than it would require spliting it into 2 routes. But just for fun, let's say there were 5 local routes per hub. That would still just be 40 local buses plus 14 hub connectors for a total of 54 buses. That is still nearly half of the 99 buses metro transit has now. The grid system prefered by others would require over 150 buses.

Also the hub placement I used were just examples. Once again, it would take someone with the data, GIS, and route planning software to pick the ideal spot.

RCJunkie, I think you are refering to the hub connectors when you say it would take 3 or 4 buses. Those buses are non-stop so they wouldn't be stopping for anything other than traffic and they would only run every 30 minutes anyhow. There is no 15 minute service between hubs.

If you live outside the urban core you either need to own a car or move to the urban core.


Do you not realize how ridiculous this would sound to people living on food stamps and minimum wage in run down apartment complexes and neighborhoods on the north side? Same situation with a lot of people in Mid-Del, Choctaw, Bethany. Imagine telling such a family they should just go ahead and go see if anything is available at Legacy at Arts Quarter, or that maybe they could find a fixer upper in Gatewood.

Do you not realize how ridiculous this would sound to people living on food stamps and minimum wage in run down apartment complexes and neighborhoods on the north side? Same situation with a lot of people in Mid-Del, Choctaw, Bethany. Imagine telling such a family they should just go ahead and go see if anything is available at Legacy at Arts Quarter, or that maybe they could find a fixer upper in Gatewood.

From what I have read so far from the bus riders, these types of people aren't riding the bus in any significant numbers anyhow. However, the urban core of OKC has some of the most affordable housing in the entire metro area. If Mid-Del, Choctaw, or Bethany want bus service they are free to fund it and have it connect to an OKC hub. Or do you think OKC residents should pay for bus service in other towns?

Or it is just possible you don't know what is meant by 'urban core'. The urban core is over 50 sq miles.

http://i1178.photobucket.com/albums/x378/KerryinJax/OKCTransitDistrict.gif

I continue to ask, what is stopping that 200 from riding today? We both want the same thing but I am going to take a different approach. I want to get as many people riding the current system as possible. We are no where near our potential ridership with those that can use the bus system we have in place today.

One of the things we've barely talked about here is bus stops. Some of them have nothing, some have a little bench with advertising, rarely you see a covered stop. What stops people who don't normally ride a bus from riding one? Protection from the elements is one thing. How many months of the year is it comfortable to sit outside on a bench, or stand on the side of the road hoping a bus will come along eventually? How about signage that allows you to easily see what a bus's route is and when you can expect it to arrive at the stop? When I use buses in other cities, I really depend on the signage. We have nothing like that. My kids in Chicago have apps on their phones to track their bus. They know exactly how long it will take to walk to the stop and they can see where their bus is. When it's a reasonable distance away, we leave for the stop. We need more than just knowing that every 15 to 30 minutes a bus going somewhere will go by a bus stop near you.

No doubt about it Betts, bus stops have to be more than worn place on the side of the road strewn with litter. There should be an app with real time GPS maps showing the exact location of every bus and the anticipated arrival time at each stop. Bus stops should at a minimum include a bench enclosed on three sides with glass and lit (best using a solar panel on the roof). It would also be helpful to have a system and route map posted. Buses should have an automated system that let rides know which stop is approaching and neighborhoods and businesses close to the stop.

The stops and buses should also have WiFi available. If Delta can provide internet service at 36,000 feet a city bus stop should have it also. Pack the pepople in and then making a killing selling advertising to a captive audience. Maybe Google should go into the bus business.

Thought I would pass this along.
From Congress for the New Urbanism, page 63


While communities should focus more transportation
dollars on small-scale solutions, transit
agencies must completely transform their image.
America is not getting on the bus. Transit is losing
its share while offering a product that has changed
very little in 40 years. It is not enough for transit
proponents to point fingers at suburban sprawl.
We can’t ask transit to be the metaphorical bridge
to the 21st century while riding a system locked in
the past. Transit needs to appeal both to its existing
market and to new markets. That means re-orienting
the focus of our transit systems to serve travel within
the suburbs as well as to the central city.

For transit to appeal to people in the vast
majority of places in America where growth is
occurring, it should include bus service that people
find just as enticing as rail. Buses need to be faster,
more frequent, more reliable, safer, and more comfortable
using existing technology. For example,
technology already can provide traffic signals to
speed the bus trip by turning the signal green by
remote control. Bus transit centers should be as
comfortable as the best rail stations. Printed schedules
must be widely and conveniently available.
Low-floor buses with high windows offer a better
ride. Small neighborhood buses create transit solutions
appropriate to the scale of the neighborhood.
A new technology provides real-time information
at bus stops that informs riders when the next bus
will arrive.

We can begin transforming transportation
by funding more small streets, more connections,
and different, not simply more, transit. But the
transportation formula for livable, vibrant communities
begins by rewarding the short trip and
the pedestrian.

Page 83


Transportation is one of the most controversial elements in community development.
In New Urbanist communities, transportation planning focuses on reducing dependence
on the automobile, increasing public transit use, and developing a more flexible
road system. These actions help reduce local traffi c problems, conserve energy, improve
air quality, and encourage people to walk, bike, or take the bus to get around within
their neighborhood or district.

Page 102


Some urban areas have taken a different
approach to public transportation. They realize
that they strengthen their economic viability and
resilience with diverse transportation networks.
Transit is treated as a precious resource.

One way to make transit an attractive option
is to return to a lesson learned earlier in this century:
Minimize the distance that patrons must walk.
Shops or offices can be located close to bus and
rail stations, thereby increasing the density of
surrounding development.

How could anyone possibly disagree with that?
(Why . . . It falls under the category presented by Thomas Paine under the heading "Common Sense.")

Just as long as They don't attempt to screw around with Route 5 that services many diverse sub-communities to and from The Hospital/Shopping/SalesTaxPaying to the north and what will be the torn up, redeveloping, olde-downetowne, areas to the south.

Take a quick visit to St. Paul to obtain a clearer picture of The Transition Zone. =)

Heck, I would have been happy with just some park and rides from the major suburbs (Edmond, Norman, MWC, and Yukon). Express bus that went downtown every 10 minutes during the workday. Get an HOV/Bus lane and beat the traffic.

Heck, I would have been happy with just some park and rides from the major suburbs (Edmond, Norman, MWC, and Yukon). Express bus that went downtown every 10 minutes during the workday. Get an HOV/Bus lane and beat the traffic.

That would be counter-productive from an urbanization stand point. Park and rides create the very low density development we are trying to get rid of.

Why not just cut off the water and the sewer service?
It would probably have more immediate results . . .
Wouldn't it?

Read more: http://newsok.com/oklahoma-city-leaders-unsure-how-to-improve-outdated-metro-transit-system/article/3575188#ixzz1YHCW9tMF

Oklahoma City leaders unsure how to improve outdated Metro Transit system
(Oklahoman, 6/8/11)

Rick Cain, director of Metro Transit, said the agency is doing better in terms of passenger counts, with average ridership going from 14 passengers per hour a few years ago to 16.22 per hour this past year. He said he is working to improve that figure next year to 18 per hour.
I asked this question before, but this is considered Mass Transit?


http://newsok.com/metro-transit-helps-serve-a-need-in-oklahoma-city-community/article/3604713?custom_click=headlines_widget

Metro Transit helps serve a need in Oklahoma City community (Oklahoman, Rick Cain, 9/17/11)

One bus is the equivalent of taking 35 cars off the road.
Maybe if the bus is filled to capacity but Mr. Cain stated in his presentation to the City Council, that they only average 16.22 riders/hr. What is the capacity of a City bus? Looks like we are taking fewer cars than that off the road and adding how many buses to the road, possibly adding to the pollution?


Ridership on ozone free ride days increased by 12 percent in June, 22 percent in July and 10 percent in August compared to the same days in 2010.
Sounds impressive but lets see now, that means the average number of passengers increased by 2 person/hr in June & Aug and a whopping 3.5 people/hr in July? And only on those days when it was free?


And while our system doesn't work for everyone because of a limited service area and the lack of frequent buses, it serves a need in our community with an average of 10,000 daily riders...
How many buses does the City have? How many are on the road during the day? Does the math work out (10,000/day with 16.22/hr)?

There has to be a better way. Suggestions?