The subject of a grid route strategy came up again in the streetcar thread and I wanted to address it without hijacking the streetcar thread.

I setup a grid based simulation and I just don't see how it will work. A 24 route system (12 n/s and 12 e/w) produced 73 integration points (places where routes crossed each other). This makes timing almost impossible. People could be waiting for 20 minutes or more just to change buses with no way of know which route would be the most time effective. We would probably have to build some kind small station at all 73 stops.

I think we still need to use a wheel style system with a central hub downtown and 6 or 7 remote hubs. Each hub would be fed by upto 3 local circulators and then connected to each other by express service. Each remote hub would connect directly to downtown and a ring route that connects the remote hubs to each other with express buses running clockwise and counter-clockwise routes. All of this would still be limited to the urban core.

As time goes on the express routes could be replaced with streetcars and the system expanded.

Remote hub all connect via express to downtown hub:
http://i1178.photobucket.com/albums/x378/KerryinJax/express_route.jpg


Remote hubs connected to each other via express:
http://i1178.photobucket.com/albums/x378/KerryinJax/ring_route.jpg

As I said before, each hub would have at least 3 local circulators using smaller buses. Each hub would have a waiting area, kiss and go drop-off, system map, automated signage, and maybe food service.

Do "they" still make the drivers (on Route 5) get their buses back onto the road that circles Quail Springs Mall--ON THE SOUTH SIDE (with no actual bus stops)--after picking up passengers at the North entrance to the Mall, thereby rendering schedule compliance adherence on the part of the drivers nearly impossible to achieve? Not to mention all of the wasted fuel burned while sitting in an often LONG line of cars waiting to make the left turn out of the Mall area in order to proceed Westward toward the Mercy Hospital area turn-around?

Your question would be irrelevant in my system as both Quail Springs and Mercy would not be served by any bus. If you want to live, shop, or work out there you would need to get a car. My system is not an urban sprawl facilitator. If you want access to fast, affordable, and reliable mass transit you would have to live, work, and play in the Urban Mass Transit Zone.

But at the same time, you completely isolate people from being able to use anything outside of that zone. Why can't someone who can't afford a car, not be able to go to a mall, the airport, get a job at Tinker, go to Earlywine park for a gathering with friends, go to White Water Bay on a hot day. Or let's turn the table, let's say there are some out of town people at a hotel on Meridian Ave. They want to go to the Outlet Mall today and possibly go to White Water Bay. Looks like they'll be forced to rent a car, right?

RE: the 20 minutes or more waiting time, how long do they have to wait now if they 1) have to go all the way DT to the central hub and get a different bus or 2) have to wait for a bus from a different route (as was mentioned @ Council when they were talking about expanding a route out to the Outlet mall?

I agree that a spoke/hub system can be very time consuming (have direct experience with it out in Vegas and the Sams Town shuttle to the Strip and DT/Fremont..can't get directly from the Strip/DT but have to go thru the "hub" of Sams Town which adds 1.5 hrs to the trip (if you don't miss it)

Why do you think we would need 73 small stations? While they might be nice to have, why couldn't what we have now (a bus stop) serve?

The challenge I see with any form of Mass transit is:
1) Does it come to where I am
2) Does it go where I need to go
3) Does it do it when it fits my schedule

I think a grid system would better serve most of those challenges over a spoke/hub.

Oh. I see: A "workable plan" for the Urban [Elitist] Core.
News Flash: The Urban Sprawl doesn't need to be facilitated. It is already here.
Plus "elites" don't generally like to ride buses.
Even "Green Elites." And that's a Fact.

Do people outside of The Mass Transit Zone--yet still in Oklahoma City--get some sort of tax breaks?

BTW: I have a car. Sometimes I just choose to be "environmentally sensitive".

Oh. I see: A "workable plan" for the Urban [Elitist] Core.

Elitist? There is more affordable housing in OKC's urban core than any other section of the City.


News Flash: The Urban Sprawl doesn't need to be facilitated. It is already here.

How much more urban sprawl do we need?



Plus "elites" don't generally like to ride buses.
Even "Green Elites." And that's a Fact.

And your point is?


Do people outside of The Mass Transit Zone--yet still in Oklahoma City--get some sort of tax breaks?

No. They get 4 lane freeways, 6 lane streets, miles of sewer lines, even more miles of water lines, police and fire protection, and thousand of street lights that cost millions to turn on every night.


BTW: I have a car. Sometimes I just choose to be "environmentally sensitive".

Then move to the urban core and be 'enviornmentally sensitive' all the time. If you still have to drive to work then start taking the bus to dinner or the movies. The bus isn't just for going to work.

But at the same time, you completely isolate people from being able to use anything outside of that zone. Why can't someone who can't afford a car, not be able to go to a mall, the airport, get a job at Tinker, go to Earlywine park for a gathering with friends, go to White Water Bay on a hot day. Or let's turn the table, let's say there are some out of town people at a hotel on Meridian Ave. They want to go to the Outlet Mall today and possibly go to White Water Bay. Looks like they'll be forced to rent a car, right?

We tried providing service to less dense areas - it cost too much and doesn't work. If the outlet mall wants to run a private shuttle bus to a hub they could. The same with hotels on Meridian. We already gave them the Spirit trolley and it failed in every conceivable way. As for the airport - the Airport Trust could run a bus continously to the SW Hub.

Elitist? There is more affordable housing in OKC urban core than any other section of the City.
Only temporarily. In a couple of years the second harvest of MAPs will begin to be reaped.

How much more urban sprawl do we need?
We don't need any more urban sprawl. But the urban sprawl already sprawled needs to be maintained in terms of services provided by the City that approved the sprawl in the first place.

And your point is?
Make the buses look like limos and I will concede this point.

No. They get 4 lane freeways, 6 lane streets, miles of sewer lines, even more miles of water lines, police and fire protection, and thousand of street lights that cost millions to turn on every night.
"They" . . .? Is there some sort of secret de-annexation scheme in the works?

Then move to the urban core and be 'enviornmentally sensitive' all the time. If you still have to drive to work then start taking the bus to dinner or the movies. The bus isn't just for going to work.
Yes, but the carbon footprint created by driving 20 miles instead of 3 miles to work (to pay for the movies, dinners and even Netflix streaming video) doesn't seem to be factored into your environmentally friendly equation . . . It is sort of like The Ethanol of Mass Transit.

So if I am unable to afford a car, I am 100% confined to the urban zone. With no chance of getting a job outside of that zone, I would probably be stuck in the same zone. It's also not the airport's responsibility to provide public transportation. They already provide a ton of benefits for the community, and shouldn't be expected to provide even more, when it's the city's responsibility of doing that.

You're system is flawed more than our current one.

My plan is pretty simple - server a small area really well instead of a large area poorly. The resources to provide even a substandard system to 500 sq miles just isn't available. If you don't have a car being confined to the urban zone is a lot better than being confined to how far your feet can take you.

My plan is pretty simple - server a small area really well instead of a large area poorly. The resources to provide even a substandard system to 500 sq miles just isn't available. If you don't have a car being confined to the urban zone is a lot better than being confined to how far your feet can take you.

Yes, Pretty Simple: "Server a small area" . . . and sever the rest.
Just out of curiosity, how often do you actually ride the bus yourself?
(At least beyond the force field defining the Urban Core.)

No matter how you slice it, "poorly" is better than "nothing at all" . . .

My plan is pretty simple - server a small area really well instead of a large area poorly. The resources to provide even a substandard system to 500 sq miles just isn't available. If you don't have a car being confined to the urban zone is a lot better than being confined to how far your feet can take you.

Your plan sounds suspiciously like a utopian plan that can only be sold by a totalitarian dictator within a socialistic framework. "Eat your peas!!"

Don't you think it's hard to draw up stuff like this when you don't even experience the patterns of life in this city on a daily basis? (Assuming JTF is Kerry based on everything he has ever posted) When you are in this city watching the bus system work every day, you realize how complex it is to begin making changes- and you realize that cutting service to an area means that people whose lives are already really difficult may lose their only form of transportation (and subsequently their jobs).

The idea of a "frequent zone" in the core (S 44th to N 50th or so) would really help OKC's bus ridership, but by not serving other areas at all you're really missing significant groups who need transit daily, did not "choose" to live in the sprawl, and certainly cannot afford to move. We will need to continue providing access to northern parts of the city which have quite dense residential populations and important destinations and employers like Quail Springs, Mercy, and call centers. Western and eastern destinations (W Reno industrial areas, Mid-Del in the east) are also important areas for people with lower incomes who are likely to ride transit.

I have been studying transit closely this summer and seeking alternative ideas about the bus system, but unless we increase the budget they are probably doing the best they can with what they've got. They need twice as much money as they've got. $20 million more in the budget. Sure, the routes need to be majorly reevaluated, but there's not much point in doing that if we can't implement something dramatically better, which in my opinion would be a frequent grid along select streets in the core (10 to 15-minute wait times) and extended routes (with longer wait times) along arterials toward important areas of Memorial, Council, and S 89th.

A great start without changing a single route would be to offer system maps in print format for free. I went to the transit center to get one the other day, and they charge $1. Shows how underfunded they are.

Shane: I completely agree with everything you said in your post, with one exception:

Don't you think it's hard to draw up stuff like this when you don't even experience the patterns of life in this city on a daily basis?

Actually, it's EASY to draw up stuff like this . . . What's "hard" is to visualize and execute an effective, efficient, workable plan that actually serves the needs of everyone directly involved. The drawing up part is child's play. Obviously. Look at the "overwhelming support" for the drawing-up part already expressed right here on this thread.

The main thing to remember is that our opinions mean absolutely nothing in the long run.
Those are not the words of a pessimist. They are the words of a pragmatic observationalist.

Just for fun then, how would you improve OKCs bus systems given the limited resources available?

this works fairly well
but for the buses circling
The Mall on the south

(5/7/5) =)

http://www.gometro.org/system-map

Hour waiting for bus
Few passengers on the route
Find a better way

thirty minutes max
on Route Five in the daytime
six AM south full load

(I once had to ride the pre-dawn, southbound. bus downtown for Jury Duty. Prior to that, I had no idea how many people depend, daily, on that service. No idea whatsoever.)

But at the same time, you completely isolate people from being able to use anything outside of that zone. Why can't someone who can't afford a car, not be able to go to a mall, the airport, get a job at Tinker, go to Earlywine park for a gathering with friends, go to White Water Bay on a hot day. Or let's turn the table, let's say there are some out of town people at a hotel on Meridian Ave. They want to go to the Outlet Mall today and possibly go to White Water Bay. Looks like they'll be forced to rent a car, right?

Perhaps if you want to develop an outlet mall, one of your considerations ought to be access to public transit from places where out-of-towners stay. Sometimes there is a price to pay for contributing to urban sprawl.

Debate in Haiku
is more fun than it used to
You drive to route five?

So if I am unable to afford a car, I am 100% confined to the urban zone. With no chance of getting a job outside of that zone, I would probably be stuck in the same zone. It's also not the airport's responsibility to provide public transportation. They already provide a ton of benefits for the community, and shouldn't be expected to provide even more, when it's the city's responsibility of doing that.

You're system is flawed more than our current one.

The thing though is that we don't provide usable service anywhere in the metro. It makes far more sense to draw a line around an area and say that we will provide Class A service to this small area, and no service beyond. That does far more practical good than the current system, so I don't see how it is more flawed. I do believe that we need to stop providing equal services to all areas regardless of how far they are from the center. This is actually not a bad way of doing things.

I also agree with Shane about Kerry's maps, and I almost just want to pretend those don't even exist there. Obviously whoever made those maps, whether or not that's Kerry, has no understanding of OKC and how one region flows into another.

Those maps were just examples of how ring hubs would provide express service via a loop route and express service to a downtown central bub. That is by no means all of the bus routes. Lets take the Capitol Hill Hub as an example. Local Capitol Hill neighborhoods would be served by 4 local routes. These would be smaller 15 passenger buses running localized routes on a frequent basis (probably every 15 to 20 minutes). They would provide neighborhood service to residential areas and Capitol Hill business areas. They would meet every 20 minutes at a Capitol Hill hub. This would allow riders to transfer to one of the other 3 local routes within the Capitol Hill domain. Every 30 minutes there would be clockwise and counter clockwise express bus and an express to downtown.

So lets say you live at SW27 and Western and you want to go to Lincoln and NE50th. You get on the 'Capitol Hill A' bus at SW27 & Western (it comes by every 15 minutes). It takes you to the Capitol Hill Hub. From there you get on the Purple Line going counter-clockwise. You get off at the next stop which is the Capitol Hub and board the 'Capitol Hill B' Bus which takes you to Lincoln & NE50th. Once at your destination the B bus will be by every 15 to 20 minutes to take you back home (this time catching the clockwise purple line). In my plan you can make that trip in 45 minutes by bus.

Picture it like airport hubs. If you want to go from Wyndover, NV to Morgantown, WV you get on a Delta plane in Wyndover and fly to SLC. From SLC you board a mainline aircraft to ATL. From ATL you get on a smaller plane to Morgantown. You don't stop 50 times between Wyndover and Morgantown all on the same plane.

Kerry, this isn't an airline. This is community transit. There is a big difference here.

Kerry, this isn't an airline. This is community transit. There is a big difference here.

Airline have gotten pretty efficient at moving people between destinations. What would be your alternative design?

Hubs work for long distance travel.

I am in favor of the inner core having the bulk of the transit options, at this point. But I think service should be included to destinations outside of that core. And you could provide all of those from the central hub while maintaining a grid-based service in the core. That way you can still provide service to the attractions and quality of life areas, while also maintaining good service in the inner core. I'm not talking about full service. Direct service to that destination from the core.

In short, you could get from a given point inside the core, to a given attraction in 2 stops. Take one bus to a connection point if the particular bus you get on does not go to the hub. Get on bus to hub. Get on a bus with direct service to the specific destination. You could even include multiple destinations in one run.

If a business or group of businesses wanted to offer transportation directly to them I wouldn't have a problem with that. While that might work for retail places, employers are probably not going to be as accommodating.

Employers probably won't. But having bus service to large retail centers, and large employment areas should be key. Not talking about bus service to every strip mall. The outlet mall will have over 3 million visitors annually and 1,000 employees. The airport has 3 1/2 million travelers each year, and the terminal building employs around 600. The MMAC at the airport has a TON of employees and short term employees. Tinker AFB is a huge employment center. Penn Square Mall has a ton of visitors, and is nearby the huge employment center named the Chesapeake Empire. You could hit the CHK campus, Classen Curve, and PSM on the same bus with 3 stops at the end of the line. Frontier City could see weekend only service, on a direct bus a few times per day at most. No stops in between. The hotels on Meridian could be served on the same bus that goes to the Airport. White Water Bay could be included on that line or the one that could go to the Outlet Mall.

Memorial Rd. could see a bus line that just rotates around that entire area. With a feeder bus that goes into downtown a few times per day at most. By only providing a few stops on each of those spoke routes (mainly near the end of the line), you could use the interstate system most of the way, saving time.

You don't have to provide 15 minute shuttle service to those destinations. But at least provide the option to support those attractions to those living inside the core, that are 100% reliant on that service.

Airline have gotten pretty efficient at moving people between destinations. What would be your alternative design?

Grid system. And moving people around like airlines do doesn't offer the best solution for moving people up and down Walker. Give me a break..

The airlines and local transit options do not operate on the same wavelength. That's about all I need to say in that regard.

Yeah, it's just another preposterous idea from Kerry lately..lol

Okay - let's look at the grid system. What are your N/S and E/W routes? Also, keep in mind that the desire is to replace short car trips with mass transit.

If you want to catch fish, you have to go where the fish are.

http://www.bikeleague.org/resources/why/environment.php


According to the Nationwide Personal Transportation Survey, 25 percent of all trips are made within a mile of the home, 40 percent of all trips are within two miles of the home, and 50 percent of the working population commutes five miles or less to work. Yet more than 82 percent of trips five miles or less are made by personal motor vehicle.

60 percent of the pollution created by automobile emissions happens in the first few minutes of operation, before pollution control devices can work effectively. Since "cold starts" create high levels of emissions, shorter car trips are more polluting on a per-mile basis than longer trips.

Debate in Haiku
is more fun than it used to
You drive to route five?

two hundred strides lead
to convergence of my path
with city bus route

(That would be a "no")

your destinations
it would seem to me must be
two hundred strides too

I think one of the problems is that when looking at bus routes to many people focus on the trip to work. That is fine for a commuter type system like OKC currently has. I am more interested in creating a system that replaces the automobile by giving people an option to not only get to work, but to get to the bank, the drug store, or a friend’s house 12 blocks away.

As I posted above, a significant percentage of automobile trips are less than 2 miles. That is why I want to connect residential neighborhoods with their local retail/business districts. I am interested to hear which streets would be served on a grid system. My hubs would also serve as an anchor for small scale localized TOD. Even if the routes change, the hub is permanent.

This is just an example of what the routes could look like. These are the 4 local circulators in Capitol Hill. Each local route is between 4 and 5 miles round trip which means a small 15 passenger bus could make the trip 4X per hour. That would provide continuous 15 minute service from every point along the route. All routes would converge at a hub in Capitol Hill where passengers could transfer to other local routes within the Capitol Hill domain or enter the larger system via an express bus to another hub. Throw a bike rack on the back for 4 or 5 bikes and if you lived in this area your could live car free for most of the year if you wanted to.

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

The problem with hubs though, is unless you have the traffic flow to do a rolling hub, you must use a hub that has banks. A rolling hub would be comparable to DFW or Atlanta. You have so much volume, you aren't dependent on a bank of airplanes full of people all arriving within an hour of each other, and then passengers connecting, then all of the planes going out within an hour. Most hubs use banks, because there is not enough people to support a rolling hub. The problem with a banked hub is, you only have so many banks you can use for feeds. And the banks are spaced out. You miss a bank, and you will wait a while for the next bank.

So, if you want frequent service, you will need rolling hubs. But the ridership is not there to support that. The banked hub is the only way it will work, but you will see less frequent service.

Service between hubs would be every 30 minutes. So sticking with Capitol Hill; every 30 minutes buses would depart for downtown, the SE Hub, and the Capitol Hub. About 25 minutes later buses from those hubs will arrive. During that time the local hub would be served by 4 local circulators 4X each (16 local arrivals every hour). My system is more like 7 seperate bus systems with integration points that allow transfers between the systems. If the blue route in the NE Hub domain changes there is no impact in the rest of the system. It would restore the neighborhood concept to OKC.

For those that are savvy enough my system also provides short-cuts. Just picture the same 4 color routes around the SE Hub. A rider could go to the Capitol Hill Hub and catch the blue line. He could get off at High and SE Grand, walk a short distance and catch the green route for the SE Hub. Since these buses run every 15 minutes he would have a minimal wait time. If they want to go to the NW Hub they could connect via the Central Hub and save 30 minutes vs taking the circle route.

You are assuming there is enough demand to run that frequent of service. Also, where do those passengers go when they get to their hub? If there is not enough demand to keep the hub rolling, they will arrive, wait for an hour or more before getting on the next bus.

The whole purpose of my system is to generate demand by making the system community-centric and offering a viable alternative to $4 gasoline. Not every passenger will be going to the hub. Some will being dropping their car off at the local repair shop and riding it home or back to work instead of sitting the waiting room for 2 hours. Other people will use it to go to lunch. Even at the maximum wait time you would still have 30 minutes to eat lunch. The day FedEx first flew they carried one package, but reliable, on-time, and fast service eventually won out over skeptism.

Okay - let's look at the grid system. What are your N/S and E/W routes? Also, keep in mind that the desire is to replace short car trips with mass transit.

If you want to catch fish, you have to go where the fish are.

http://www.bikeleague.org/resources/why/environment.php

Ok, well this is fairly easy...

Meridian, Portland, May, Villa/Agnew, Penn, Blackwelder, Western, Walker, Lincoln, MLK. 59th, 44th, Grand Blvd, 29th, 15th, 10th, 16th, 23rd, 30th, 36th, 50th, NW Expressway.

This is a lot easier than you're making it...

Here is the difference between the airline hub system and buses.

You have one destination and one hub. You have one ship for each destination, or leg, as it is leaving or coming to a hub.

On paper, you could get a rolling hub to work for transit. You would just need a ton of buses and not have ANY stops between the bus stop and the hub. Assuming a 20 minute maximum drive to/from downtown, and a 30 minute connection maximum, and a 10 minute connection minimum, also assuming you have about double the capacity or more of the bus hub, you could provide service from any point in the service area to any other given point in an hour and 10 minutes. Which isn't THAT bad at all.

The problem. We don't have that many buses. On paper hubs work great for moving anything. In reality they are only good if you have the resources to funnel enough traffic through it to make it "roll". The hub system does not, and will not work for local transit (sans unlimited resources), unless it is regional distances (I.E. Edmond, Midwest City, Yukon, Moore/Norman).

Here is the difference between the airline hub system and buses.

You have one destination and one hub. You have one ship for each destination, or leg, as it is leaving or coming to a hub.

On paper, you could get a rolling hub to work for transit. You would just need a ton of buses and not have ANY stops between the bus stop and the hub. Assuming a 20 minute maximum drive to/from downtown, and a 30 minute connection maximum, and a 10 minute connection minimum, also assuming you have about double the capacity or more of the bus hub, you could provide service from any point in the service area to any other given point in an hour and 10 minutes. Which isn't THAT bad at all.

The problem. We don't have that many buses. On paper hubs work great for moving anything. In reality they are only good if you have the resources to funnel enough traffic through it to make it "roll". The hub system does not, and will not work for local transit (sans unlimited resources), unless it is regional distances (I.E. Edmond, Midwest City, Yukon, Moore/Norman).

With a grid system, I think if you can maintain at least 15 minute intervals which 10-5 minute would normally be considered more ideal, you can manage cross-town transfers much more efficiently than an hour and a half.

With a grid system, I think if you can maintain at least 15 minute intervals which 10-5 minute would normally be considered more ideal, you can manage cross-town transfers much more efficiently than an hour and a half.

The grid system is about the only way to go when it comes to our situation. IMHO.

Someone (I would as I like doing stuff like this, but I'm slammed -- busy, not drunk) should do some number crunching and see how many buses it would take to run the system one cycle on a 15-20 minute interval.

For example Penn starting at I-240 flowing all the way north to I-44, turning around and coming back to I-240 would be one cycle. And how many buses would have to be in motion on a 15-20 minute interval until the first bus got back to I-240. Do that for the grid. Would be interesting to see.

Well I just listed 22 different routes. Some of them are just 5 miles long or less (like MLK), some of them are like 10 miles long (like May, Penn, Western, etc). But, on average, that would be 7 miles or so. Then if there is a bus placed every 5 miles that would be around 10-15 minutes usually. So 22 x 7 / 5 = 31

Some other buses would have to be dedicated to run just a few other priority routes outside the transit service area, such as NW Expressway or I-240.

The grid system is about the only way to go when it comes to our situation. IMHO.

Someone (I would as I like doing stuff like this, but I'm slammed -- busy, not drunk) should do some number crunching and see how many buses it would take to run the system one cycle on a 15-20 minute interval.

For example Penn starting at I-240 flowing all the way north to I-44, turning around and coming back to I-240 would be one cycle. And how many buses would have to be in motion on a 15-20 minute interval until the first bus got back to I-240. Do that for the grid. Would be interesting to see.

Penn, I-44 to I-240, every 15 mintues would take 5 buses to maintain a 15--20 time frame.

Thanks RCJunkie. Penn might be 10 miles long but it is a 20 mile route round trip. Linear routes also have an inherent scheduling problem as you move towards the ends of the line.

If bus counts and capacity are the issue I could eliminate the circular route and have all community based hubs connect at the central hub instead. This would increase load rates and reduce the number of buses necessary.

The problem with the grid system is that it will require nearly everyone to have to change buses at least one time (unless they just want to go further down the road they are already on). That would create about 70 transfer points where people would have to wait out in the elements or 70 transfer shelters would have to be created. My local neighborhood routes saturate residential areas with nearly all homes in the Urban Core being less than 4 blocks from a bus route. The grid routes are a mile apart.

By eliminating the ring route my system could be run with 15 minutes neighborhood service and 30 minute hub to hub service using 32 15-passenger buses and 14 50-passenger buses. That is a total of 46 buses which is less than half of what we currently use (Metro transit currently has 99 buses). My 15 passenger buses cost less than half what the current buses cost. Even if I left the ring route in it only adds 14 more buses to my system which is still far fewer than what we already have.

I had a very interesting conversation today with someone whom most people would assume would NEVER consider riding a bus. She's a person who grew up wealthy and whom I would never have thought about discussing mass transit with. So, this morning over coffee she said, "Have you ever looked at the bus routes? They're like a big pile of spaghetti. It's not easy to get anywhere. And, why don't we have signs that show the routes and times of the buses?" Turns out she and a group of businessmen were thinking it might be nice to take a bus from Nichols Hills to downtown. They actually googled the route and were overwhelmed by the complexity. The take away message is that we actually don't know precisely who might consider taking the bus. We've all assumed that people who are accustomed to driving and who can afford to drive any car they want want to drive. Maybe we've made assumptions that aren't entirely true. But, we have to have a sytem that is logical and easy to use.

But, she also expressed the desire that the bus system be on a grid, as do I. The simpler transportation routes are to understand, the more likely people are to use them, I believe.

What Betts is saying is exactly the sense I get about OKC's relationship with transit. We would consider using transit if we could figure out how to use the buses. By adopting gridded routes, we are actually mimicking the way that we would walk or drive in the grid system (in an L-shape). The bus service becomes as much a part of the street as the lane striping, and people would come to know exactly which streets have buses and where the buses are going. The grid system is also likely to connect people to nearby commercial centers, because the intersections of arterials are where concentrations of businesses are. As for transferring, I could avoid having to transfer in the grid system by sticking to my own arterial- This may mean that I go for a Homeland that is 5 miles away (but on the same arterial) versus a Homeland that is just two miles away (but on another arterial). Any other destination could be reached with a single transfer. It would be impossible to be more than a 1/2 mile (10-minute) walk from a bus route if the square-mile arterials are routes. In fact, everyone would be within a 1/2 mile walk of TWO routes in a square mile bus grid.

Kerry, there are a lot of complicated, sometimes silly reasons (federal regulations, ADA, etc) why we can't use the smaller passenger-count buses.

Kerry, there are a lot of complicated, sometimes silly reasons (federal regulations, ADA, etc) why we can't use the smaller passenger-count buses.

Lots of cities use smaller capacity buses now. They are every bit as safe and ADA compliant as the larger buses. If they weren't, they wouldn't be selling them because no one would be buying them.

Here is a 22 seat version:
http://i01.i.aliimg.com/photo/v0/206306731/18_22_seater_Coaster_Bus_School_Shuttle.jpg

Does anyone know of any cities that are currently using a grid system? I heard Denver mentioned in the past so I took a look at their routes. They are all over the place as well.

Here are two examples of their routes.

http://www.rtd-denver.com/routemaps/112/r0_1.gif

http://www.rtd-denver.com/routemaps/112/r0_2.gif

Does anyone know of any cities that are currently using a grid system?


Chicago, Portland, Austin, LA, San Francisco are pretty good examples. We are one of the only cities in which a nearly perfect grid would be possible- Tulsa too. Many cities have grids that are squeezed into their less-than-grid network. To me, whenever you have a road that stays a major arterial for 10 miles with densities of 4,000+ psm, it is asking to just have transit sent straight up and down it, and people will always know "That road has a bus. I can get anywhere on that road by just getting on a bus headed in the right direction"

Also the grid would probably need to be "broken" everywhere between Western and Lincoln, 10th to Reno so that the routes would deviate to the downtown transit center, then return to their arterials.

I had a very interesting conversation today with someone whom most people would assume would NEVER consider riding a bus. She's a person who grew up wealthy and whom I would never have thought about discussing mass transit with. So, this morning over coffee she said, "Have you ever looked at the bus routes? They're like a big pile of spaghetti. It's not easy to get anywhere. And, why don't we have signs that show the routes and times of the buses?" Turns out she and a group of businessmen were thinking it might be nice to take a bus from Nichols Hills to downtown. They actually googled the route and were overwhelmed by the complexity. The take away message is that we actually don't know precisely who might consider taking the bus. We've all assumed that people who are accustomed to driving and who can afford to drive any car they want want to drive. Maybe we've made assumptions that aren't entirely true. But, we have to have a sytem that is logical and easy to use.

But, she also expressed the desire that the bus system be on a grid, as do I. The simpler transportation routes are to understand, the more likely people are to use them, I believe.

I could certainly see people from mid to large business who are going in a group to places taking the bus, especially more for lunches/entertainment vs a time sensitive meeting. Everyone gets to be in the conversation, no one has to drive/volunteer their care they did not plan to take people in and you can more often fit in one vehicle.

Chicago, Portland, Austin, LA, San Francisco are pretty good examples.

Why do you think these cities have grid based bus routes? I think if you go look at their route maps you will see that they don't use a grid system. Chicago is about as close as any of them come but they are still all over the map with their routes. I only saw a few routes in Chicago that went straight for more than a few miles, the rest had lots of turns in each route. As for the other cities, forget about it, they have more turns than the current OKC routes have.

On edit - I did find this about the use of a grid based system in LA.

http://wilshirevermont.com/2011/03/02/la-metros-ineffecient-fare-system/


Currently, fares for a single ride are among the lowest in the nation, at $1.50. San Francisco’s fare is $2.00, and New York’s is $2.25. The key difference between the fare systems of these cities is the basic condition of your fare purchase: in San Francisco, your two dollars allows you access to any part of SF Muni’s system for an entire two hours. In LA, your fare is entry to one single vehicle. Even if you only have to go one or two miles, then transfer, your fare becomes 3.00.

The reasoning behind this practice was widespread fraud of transfers. This concern, however, makes casual riders of Metro extremely discouraged from riding. A day pass is available for $6.00 (the equivalent of entering four vehicles), but in order to purchase one on the bus, you must have Metro’s delay plagued, and limited-use TAP card. Metro’s grid-based bus system in Central Los Angeles and the San Fernando Valley adds insult to injury by requiring transfers to go pretty much anywhere.

....

From the reader comments

I also agree with both of your comments. LA metro system is the worst ever. For example,
according to “trip planner” my 5 mile bus trip tomorrow will require I ride 3 buses and will take 1 1/2 hours; one way trip cost $4.50, RT fare = $9.00. It’s a failed and useless system.
L.A. really sucks

When I lived in Denver my bus went down Downing all the way to the hospital where I worked. I remember the system being pretty much a grid except for downtown. And we never used the bus downtown because it was easier and faster to walk.

Even if other cities don't use a grid doesn't mean it's not a good idea. Simplicity and logic increase use of anything.

When I lived in Denver my bus went down Downing all the way to the hospital where I worked. I remember the system being pretty much a grid except for downtown. And we never used the bus downtown because it was easier and faster to walk.

Even if other cities don't use a grid doesn't mean it's not a good idea. Simplicity and logic increase use of anything.

That is about as close as Denver gets to bus route that runs on one road and it had to use 3 insets to show where it goes. Now granted, just because no one else is doing it doesn't mean it is not a great idea. My concern is that people are trying to identify examples of grid based systems to show that it works when their examples aren't using a grid based system.

BTW - Denver has an insane amount of buses.

http://www.rtd-denver.com/routemaps/112/r0_12.gif

Chicago, Portland, Austin, LA, San Francisco are pretty good examples. We are one of the only cities in which a nearly perfect grid would be possible- Tulsa too. Many cities have grids that are squeezed into their less-than-grid network. To me, whenever you have a road that stays a major arterial for 10 miles with densities of 4,000+ psm, it is asking to just have transit sent straight up and down it, and people will always know "That road has a bus. I can get anywhere on that road by just getting on a bus headed in the right direction"

Also the grid would probably need to be "broken" everywhere between Western and Lincoln, 10th to Reno so that the routes would deviate to the downtown transit center, then return to their arterials.

Why do you describe Austin as a grid system? Having used it for a year and a half that wouldn't be the first way I'd describe it.

Does anyone know of any cities that are currently using a grid system? I heard Denver mentioned in the past so I took a look at their routes. They are all over the place as well.

Here are two examples of their routes.

http://www.rtd-denver.com/routemaps/112/r0_1.gif

http://www.rtd-denver.com/routemaps/112/r0_2.gif

It doesn't matter. Then maybe we can be a pioneer with our grid system bus routes. That would be great.

Like I said, there are no perfect grid buses. Chicago is the best example, and it has a lot of routes that go perfectly straight for a lot more than a few miles. The systems I listed have large portions which function as examples of how the grid system works. Primarily sticking to one street as long as possible/logical and allowing multiple transfer points throughout the system to avoid having to travel to out-of-the-way hubs. When you go look at those system maps you may see squiggly lines but that's because most cities don't have a series of perfectly spaced, perfectly straight arterials. Also because deviations from the grid are natural and necessary when major institutions/destinations are slightly off the grid.

It doesn't matter. Then maybe we can be a pioneer with our grid system bus routes. That would be great.

That's fine. I have nothing against trying something new.

That's fine. I have nothing against trying something new.

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...