Embark (OKC Metro Bus Service)

[shane453]

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.

[Snowman]

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.

[Just the facts]

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/2011/03/0...t-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

[betts]

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.

[Just the facts]

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.

[zrfdude]

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.

[Spartan]

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.

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

[shane453]

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.

[Just the facts]

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.

[Spartan]

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...

[Just the facts]

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?

[Spartan]

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.

[Just the facts]

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.

[Larry OKC]

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.

[Spartan]

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?

[rcjunkie]

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.

[Just the facts]

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.

[Just the facts]

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.

[soonerguru]

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.

[Just the facts]

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.

[RadicalModerate]

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) . . .

[shane453]

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.

[Just the facts]

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.

[Just the facts]

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?

[RadicalModerate]

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