OKC's Outdated Inferiority Complex

[PennyQuilts]

PQ, I don't think anyone is proposing that the bus system be shunned or abandoned. If there are things that could be improved it should certainly be pointed out though. A viable bus system is very important to mass transit in OKC in conjunction with other systems being planned or hoped for. When our bus system was planned it was never subjected to the same scrutiny as the street car system. It developed (if that is the word for it) over many years with many different plans for the most effecient or cost effective operation. Obviously it is not a perfect system and attention for improvements is merited.

Glad to read that but my questions include why isn't this a popular cause; whether the poor bus system justifies not using it when they can; and why we could expect a different system would be run better? And the elephant in the room is wondering if the new systems are no better run, would the advocates avoid them, as well? Because if advocates of public trans are no more willing to endure the inconvenience than that, how could we possible expect someone who would rather take his car, anyway, to be convinced there are benefits? At this point, history suggests a new system would be just as ignored. And history would also suggest that OKC doesn't know how to run a public trans system that attracts riders. And history suggests that if we end up with a cruddy system, even the advocates will shun it. Other cities can do it but that isn't our history - it is theirs.

[PennyQuilts]

Jumping into this conversation late but I just wanted to say here here! I have been taking the bus to work now every day and I live at 50th & Lincoln and am working downtown. I can honestly say, I am very close to selling my car and going car-free. For all the flaws our transit system has ( and I could list many), it does work and it works pretty well. For me, it just took learning the routes and the schedules. I am even getting good at timing transfers so I can still hit my favorite restaurants or coffee shops. Again, not perfect, but worth a try for those who want to see it improved.

For what it's worth, I am going to start blogging about ideas I have about our system as they come to me so I welcome yours and hopefully we can kick off a meaningful discussion that can lead to changes.

I think that is terrific. See, this is what struck me. Seems to me the bus system isn't nearly as crappy as so many paint it to be. I used to could go from far west OKC to downtown, the classen area, OCU, up north (but I am not sure how far because I didn't use it to got to far, then). The buses, frankly, weren't all that bad. They were darn near empty and certainly as clean as anything else at the time. When I lived near Western they ran regularly in that area. I don't recall any crime reports in the news of bad behavior on buses. I am perplexed that people don't use them and don't advocate for using them.

[PennyQuilts]

In the times I used the system to/from Norman and inside OKC, I've had no complaints other than no availability in the evening hours. If you went car-free, what do you do about after 6? Cab and friends?

Like I said, it if doesn't have routes that work, that isn't an option. I was only discussing those times when it is an option. I get the feeling that many people who are in favor of mass trans have completely written off the bus system to the point where it isn't even on their radar as an option.

[PennyQuilts]

I don't know that the "advocates" are not riding the buses. I just know my experience with them hasn't been negative. It has certainly been a net positive.

As has mine. They are never going to be as convenient as a personal car (so long as parking is available) but there are many, many benefits that go with mass trans whether it is a bus, a street car or light rail. Reading the paper or a book is a big one. My kids live in NYC and they've adopted what you are planning in that they rent a car for road trips. They take a cab to bring home groceries (or walk for smaller trips). They tend to take cabs more than I would expect, given the mass transit system but the walking between stops is good for them and they take the bus for crosstown, depending on where they need to be and how fast they need to get there.

[jmarkross]

It is wise to break out into a dead run when you hear anyone use the hopeless and meaningless phase--INFERIORITY COMPLEX. At best--it is a relic of the 50's...

[ljbab728]

Glad to read that but my questions include why isn't this a popular cause; whether the poor bus system justifies not using it when they can; and why we could expect a different system would be run better? And the elephant in the room is wondering if the new systems are no better run, would the advocates avoid them, as well? Because if advocates of public trans are no more willing to endure the inconvenience than that, how could we possible expect someone who would rather take his car, anyway, to be convinced there are benefits? At this point, history suggests a new system would be just as ignored. And history would also suggest that OKC doesn't know how to run a public trans system that attracts riders. And history suggests that if we end up with a cruddy system, even the advocates will shun it. Other cities can do it but that isn't our history - it is theirs.

PQ, there are many things that were done poorly in our history (urban renewal anyone?). I'm thinking that is was good thing that we didn't say because all of those bad things happened there was no way our city could do better and just forget about it.

[PennyQuilts]

PQ, there are many things that were done poorly in our history (urban renewal anyone?). I'm thinking that is was good thing that we didn't say because all of those bad things happened there was no way our city could do better and just forget about it.

Yes, but we could do something about our bus service, now, if it were a priority. The ones who want something more interesting and cool don't seem to show much interest in improving what we have. We are choosing to perpetuate a history of having a poorly run system even as some clamor for a system that will no doubt be just as useless in the outskirts of the city. If it were really about public trans that was useful, as opposed to cool, they'd beef up and use the one we have in place. Seems to me. What it looks like to me is that the bus system is being ignored because it is perceived to be for filthy, poor people. Money and energy is not being poured into that system because, frankly, the ones who are interested aren't worried about them. Most of the ones pushing for a streetcar system aren't about to use the bus system if what I see on this board is any indication. But a new system that won't help poor folks but WILL be attractive to some (hopefully), has lots of advocates. Where I am coming from is that public transportation that is publically funded should be for everyone. The dirty bus system is written off while attention is given to a new, shiny, expensive system that will only be useful in certain trendy areas or to serve certain trendy areas. We saw a photo, above, that showed how crappy the bus system is in parts of the city. Adding in streetcars won't help them and for some reason, this doesn't seem to bother anyone. Smells of the spoils of elitism and power, to me. But what else is new?

[ljbab728]

Yes, but we could do something about our bus service, now, if it were a priority. The ones who want something more interesting and cool don't seem to show much interest in improving what we have. We are choosing to perpetuate a history of having a poorly run system even as some clamor for a system that will no doubt be just as useless in the outskirts of the city. If it were really about public trans that was useful, as opposed to cool, they'd beef up and use the one we have in place. Seems to me. What it looks like to me is that the bus system is being ignored because it is perceived to be for filthy, poor people. Money and energy is not being poured into that system because, frankly, the ones who are interested aren't worried about them. Most of the ones pushing for a streetcar system aren't about to use the bus system if what I see on this board is any indication. But a new system that won't help poor folks but WILL be attractive to some (hopefully), has lots of advocates. Where I am coming from is that public transportation that is publically funded should be for everyone. The dirty bus system is written off while attention is given to a new, shiny, expensive system that will only be useful in certain trendy areas or to serve certain trendy areas. We saw a photo, above, that showed how crappy the bus system is in parts of the city. Adding in streetcars won't help them and for some reason, this doesn't seem to bother anyone. Smells of the spoils of elitism and power, to me. But what else is new?

PQ, of course improvements could be made to the bus system. That's what posters here are suggesting. But to think that it should happen at the expense of the "elite" streetcar system is not reasonable. We should be able to have both and eventually a light rail system that would all be compatible. It really doesn't appear on the surface at least that improving the bus system should require huge amounts of money, it just needs a little better planning in some aspects.

This is a quote from Urban Pioneer (Jeff) about the streetcar system. A few of these ideas could be incorporated into the bus system.

"When I said World Class, I meant it. I am sure that the Mayor meant it too. For clarity as to what I meant by it, I meant and said often that World Class means for me that we will take everything that has been learned by the three other cities that have put these system in the US, and build upon their experiences.

I proposed, and continue to propose the most technologically advanced and fully intuitive American system design ever constructed. Lets take the experiences of other cities, investigate new technologies that have come about since those systems were installed, mesh all of that with an intuitive design for the ultimate pleasurable experience for a first time or regular user of the system.

Here's just 10 examples:

1. Complete traffic signal prioritization for the streetcar
2. Telephone GPS applications for identifying car locations
3. LED (Light Emitting Diode) color coding of approaching cars
4. Intuitive and coordinated streetcar system signage, stops, and branding
5. Vandal resistant, real-time flat television panel system maps at stops
6. Wireless power capability (Electromagnetic, Lithium Ion Battery, CNG) exploration
7. Electronic payment methods
8. Monthly or Yearly Transit Cards for Prioritized Regular Users
9. OKC Ambassadors onboard to help visitors
10. Minimal sharp turns to maintain, speed, efficiency, and comfort."

[Spartan]

I just don't think penny understands transit issues and I don't care to have a transit discussion in a thread about an inferiority complex with someone who has an inferiority complex, or at best, is more interested in rationalizing failure than in embracing ways to eliminate failures and continue the incredible progress OKC has been making civically. We have a local brand of civic improvements and that usually involves, for the people who are actually a part of the process, embracing innovative solutions. What penny says about streetcar won't change anything, just because one person who insists on being in the dark doesn't understand streetcar, doesn't mean that's a consensus for depriving OKC of this urban amenity that voters resoundingly supported already. End of story.

[PennyQuilts]

I think that, essentially, writing off the bus system as indicative of a failed system that is reflection of OKC's inadequate policies is a very good example of Oklahoma's inferiority complex. It is as if its past (and present) is inferior and embarassing and some want to wipe the slate clean.

The personal insults by Spartan (who left town, BTW for bigger and better things), notwithstanding, I speak as someone with legitimate concerns. I fail to see where my opinion and observations on the subject are either uninformed or illustrative of a lack of understanding of public transportation or civic issues. Having lived many years using the metro system in Washington, DC, and currently making regular trips to NYC and using their public transportation, I am quite familiar with public transportation, probably more so than the majority of Oklahoma City residents. Spartan's basic premise is that because I believe we should use, improve and encourage use of our current system, that I am uninformed or stupid. I am merely pointing out that our bus system should be utilized by the ones who are pro public transit to the extent it is reasonably convenient. I also point out that it would be in the best interests of our city (Spartan's former city), to encourage people to use public transportation even if it is just the dirty old buses used by the poor. Spartan clearly fancies himself an academic and enlightened individual and if that is so, I can't imagine why he would find fault with what I am saying.

[ljbab728]

I think that, essentially, writing off the bus system as indicative of a failed system that is reflection of OKC's inadequate policies is a very good example of Oklahoma's inferiority complex. It is as if its past (and present) is inferior and embarassing and some want to wipe the slate clean.

The personal insults by Spartan (who left town, BTW for bigger and better things), notwithstanding, I speak as someone with legitimate concerns. I fail to see where my opinion and observations on the subject are either uninformed or illustrative of a lack of understanding of public transportation or civic issues. Having lived many years using the metro system in Washington, DC, and currently making regular trips to NYC and using their public transportation, I am quite familiar with public transportation, probably more so than the majority of Oklahoma City residents. Spartan's basic premise is that because I believe we should use, improve and encourage use of our current system, that I am uninformed or stupid. I am merely pointing out that our bus system should be utilized by the ones who are pro public transit to the extent it is reasonably convenient. I also point out that it would be in the best interests of our city (Spartan's former city), to encourage people to use public transportation even if it is just the dirty old buses used by the poor. Spartan clearly fancies himself an academic and enlightened individual and if that is so, I can't imagine why he would find fault with what I am saying.

PQ, you make a lot of good points but I think you mistook the posts by those who criticized the bus system to mean that they thought it should be ignored or written off. Nothing could be further from my mind when making constructive criticism.

[Larry OKC]

I think part of the "problem" PQ sees is that the only form of Mass Trans that is addressed with this round of MAPS is Streetcars. The City's MAPS 3 Survey site lumped all of Mass Transit suggestions together and it was the overwhelming suggestion by far than any other. I have never seen any public breakdown that showed which parts of Mass Trans had the most support, so we just have to presume that Streetcars were the highest since that is what was chosen to be included in MAPS 3. Now I know there were reasons why we didn't get the comprehensive Mass Transit often mentioned by the Mayor and they have decided to piecemeal it in smaller chunks (that voters would be more likely to approve). But in the mean time, the perception (true or not) is that our current system (buses) are getting the shaft. Then there is the valid question, are the same people that are responsible for the failures of the existing system (buses, trolleys and river cruises) going to be in charge/running the Streetcars. What are they going to be doing differently so that Streetcars will be successful and not just a repeat of failures?

[ljbab728]

I think part of the "problem" PQ sees is that the only form of Mass Trans that is addressed with this round of MAPS is Streetcars. The City's MAPS 3 Survey site lumped all of Mass Transit suggestions together and it was the overwhelming suggestion by far than any other. I have never seen any public breakdown that showed which parts of Mass Trans had the most support, so we just have to presume that Streetcars were the highest since that is what was chosen to be included in MAPS 3. Now I know there were reasons why we didn't get the comprehensive Mass Transit often mentioned by the Mayor and they have decided to piecemeal it in smaller chunks (that voters would be more likely to approve). But in the mean time, the perception (true or not) is that our current system (buses) are getting the shaft. Then there is the valid question, are the same people that are responsible for the failures of the existing system (buses, trolleys and river cruises) going to be in charge/running the Streetcars. What are they going to be doing differently so that Streetcars will be successful and not just a repeat of failures?

Larry, did you read the proposals I posted earlier about the streetcar system. That certainly sounds like they are thinking proactively to make it successful and not leaving it to fail like past transit systems.

[Larry OKC]

Sorry, may have missed them...which posts?

[PennyQuilts]

PQ, you make a lot of good points but I think you mistook the posts by those who criticized the bus system to mean that they thought it should be ignored or written off. Nothing could be further from my mind when making constructive criticism.

I think that is so by many posters but there were some of the most vocal who talked about crime and the like on the buses and made no bones that they don't use them. My posts were of if the shoe fits variety. And I do have my doubts that a "new" system will be run better if the ones in charge are content to let the bus system be simply endured as the province of the poor.

[ljbab728]

Sorry, may have missed them...which posts?

Post number 62.

[ljbab728]

I think that is so by many posters but there were some of the most vocal who talked about crime and the like on the buses and made no bones that they don't use them. My posts were of if the shoe fits variety. And I do have my doubts that a "new" system will be run better if the ones in charge are content to let the bus system be simply endured as the province of the poor.

And I see no evidence that the powers that be are willing to let that happen at this point. Neither of us has a crystal ball but I'm hoping that I'm closer to right than you are.

[betts]

I'm not sure who here is suggesting that buses be the province of the poor. In fact, after the streetcar, MTP's second stated goal is improvement of the bus system. Transit should be intermodal to work effectively. There is no way that streetcars, light or heavy rail could ever satisfy all transit needs of a populace that is less dependent on the automobile. However, again, to work effectively as a transit alternative for people who don't absolutely have to use it, there are a few things missing: covered stops (there are a few, but they are few and far between), visible signage with route map and schedule, GPS applications (they have these in Chicago for their city buses), a clear route that is easily usable by the average person (here's their system map - http://www.gometro.org/system-map). I think it's rather simplistic to assume that a significant portion of the population will use buses to travel to be green or to prove that one can live without a car, when it's not simple, comfortable or convenient to do so.

The question is, how do we accomplish those goals? Where is the money for covered stops and good signage? Who could be asked to create a system route that is more functional for the average rider? How do we get people out of their cars and using the bus? Gas prices might be one impetus, but people are not going to stand on the street, unprotected in all weather, without a clear idea of when they can expect a bus unless those prices are through the roof. One of the things I found appealing about the streetcar, is that it is a more popular form of transit, but one that if successful, may help change the minds of our car-oriented society towards mass transit.

[Larry OKC]

Post number 62.

Gotchya.

If that all comes into being, then yes. That then begs the question, why haven't they done these things with the Buses, Spirit Trolleys or River Cruises? Which I think gets back to what PQ was saying.

Betts, do you really believe that those that ride the Streetcar are suddenly going to say, "Hey this is really cool...where is the bus?" Or are they going to still shun the bus for the very reasons you gave?

[Spartan]

But the point is that right now none of those people are going to ride any kind of transit OKC can currently offer, anyway. And I'm a bit skeptical of what sid says about the buses working for him, but I will have to try it out when I get a chance here soon. I have heard first hand accounts from others who take experimental rides and they were pretty bad. I have looked into using the buses around town before but the routes and schedules are pretty deplorable.

Sorry I don't have time for a longer post...

[PennyQuilts]

Why in the world would Sid make that up? This is indicative of the attitude that troubles me. Not only do some people perpeturate the bad reputation of the bus system even when they, personally, don't use it, they don't use it because they believe what they believe instead of taking seriously the comments of people who use it. I don't doubt that depending on the day and place that some routes are better than others. But all but calling Sid a liar when he says the system works for him suggests a mindset that is closed. Moreover, it fosters an attitude towards bus service in OKC that is negative and counterproductive. I should think that if someone is actually pro bus service and understands that it is an essential element of an overall comprehensive public transit system would be happy to hear that. And BTW, to make it clear, I am not opposed to streetcars - I just think that people who want to use public transit should be encouraged to use what we have. As long as it is ignored/not utilized, it is far less likely to be improved. It will just continue to plod along because no one has a dog in the fight on that issue.

[Spartan]

Penny, discussing with you has very little merit. I didn't suggest that Sid made that up. Give me a freaking break...I know him to be someone who will happily walk a few miles here and there, and I'm just thinking quickly in terms of what is actually practical to build a city around--unfortunately the other 559,999 people in OKC aren't usually such happy campers. Eternal optimism is awesome but it doesn't prevent problems that others might see.

...and yeah ok, you're not opposed to streetcars. Then why keep padding your post count? And you keep making bizarre statements like "I'm just sorry the transit advocates don't use our buses" I'm just sorry that our uber conservative advocates don't uber conserve their post count...

[PennyQuilts]

And I'm a bit skeptical of what sid says about the buses working for him, but I will have to try it out when I get a chance here soon.

Penny, discussing with you has very little merit. I didn't suggest that Sid made that up. Give me a freaking break...I know him to be someone who will happily walk a few miles here and there, and I'm just thinking quickly in terms of what is actually practical to build a city around--unfortunately the other 559,999 people in OKC aren't usually such happy campers. Eternal optimism is awesome but it doesn't prevent problems that others might see.

...and yeah ok, you're not opposed to streetcars. Then why keep padding your post count? And you keep making bizarre statements like "I'm just sorry the transit advocates don't use our buses" I'm just sorry that our uber conservative advocates don't uber conserve their post count...

Actually, you specifically said you were skeptical of his report. Why? As for the eternal optimism, in just about every post, I stated that some routes won't work. I've said don't take them if they are actually not useful. And I've also said that skipping the bus routes because they are inconvenient is just the same old arguments people made to avoid mass trans altogether. Of COURSE they are inconvenient, when compared to personal vehicles. And buses in any successful system are often not the first choice - but they are essential in a big scheme if workable public trans is actually the goal. And one of my points has been that when people simply skip using the buses because they are crappy (notwithstanding reports that, for some, they work), they contribute to the "inferiority complex about OKC that this thread is about. To dismiss Sid's report (which you did, no matter how you deny it), you illustrate and model a closed mindset that so many people have about OKC. It is almost as if you want to believe it.

This thread is about OKC's inferiority complex. I have spoken up about using the bus system. And let me repeat, I really am sorry that people don't use the buses if they want Oklahoma City to progress.

As for the political commentary about uber conservative, blah, blah, that doesn't make a bit of sense. I am advocating people using mass transit. I use it, myself, when it makes sense. I'd like to see OKC improve the bus system and I believe the best way to get that done is for people with influence, credibility, to actually use the buses. It is easy to ignore the system until people with clout speak up and say, hey, I want to use it but it specifically isn't meeting my needs in thus and such a way. Ignoring the system as too inconvenient takes advocates out of the game. And the attitude that OKC can't run a decent bus system when other cities can is part of our problem. You buy it, I don't.

[betts]

I think the reverse. All of us posting in this thread can make a vow to ride the bus and it won't change anything. There aren't enough of us. And if we suddently get a significant number of people riding the bus, the people who run the system are going to pat themselves on the back because it's their system that has stimulated ridership. How does that improve the system?

How many people, as I asked before, are going to make a commitment to ride the bus because it's the right thing to do? And stand outside in the heat, rain or snow to do it, waiting for buses that frequently don't arrive on time, to ride the bus downtown to catch another bus that's going where you want to go? I think, to get people to use mass transit you first have to improve the system so that people can reasonably expect to get where they want to go via a logical route, on buses that arrive on time and which have stops that are protected from the weather.

Somehow, and that's what I've got to figure out, we've got to put pressure on the city and COTPA to build shelters, put up signage, install GPS trackers for phones and run buses reliably on routes that make sense.

My point about the streetcar is that if you get people accustomed to using mass transit who haven't used it before, and it's logical, convenient and reliable, you open their eyes to the possibility of more extensive use of mass transit. A great streetcar system has the potential to promote use of other types of mass transit and perhaps put political pressure on the city to improve our other modes.

[PennyQuilts]

This thread is about the city's inferiority complex and that was what I was focusing on. Some people simply have written off our current bus system and will tell anyone who will listen that it is crappy - even though other cities manage to have a good system. That was the point of the bus system discussion, as far as I am concerned.

Betts, you seem to fall into the category of people who think the bus system is so crappy it isn't worth using. As near as I can tell, it is a chicken and egg argument when it comes to how to fix it. You seem to be saying we need to fix the bus system, first, so people will ride it. I take the position that people should actually give it a significant try before they write it off. And I also think that so long as the ones holding the purse strings see the system being ignored, they aren't going to be particularly motivated to pour more money into it or fight to improve it.

Reading between the lines, it sounds like you are almost boycotting the bus system, apparently for fear that if it is actually used, as is, they won't improve it. I take the position that this isn't a danger. In fact, I suspect that as long as the bus system is ignored, there is absolutely no reason for the city to take it seriously, either. I believe the only thing that will turn it around will be if they believe that it is important enough on a practical level to be able to twist arms to get funding.

And I am not talking about everyone here committing to using the bus system - I agree with you that isn't a tactic that will change anything. But it might change people's attitudes when they talk about it. There might be more Sids out there telling people that they had a good experience than people saying don't bother. There might be more likelihood that people on the fence might try it. And there might be more people who aren't big on public transportation willing to at least concede that a lot of people are willing to give up the convenience of personal cars even if they won't use ir or won't directly benefit from it.