|
|
 |
|
 |
Member since: December 22, 2012
|
|
|
|
Thank you for putting the transit system on the table. It needs a lot of work if we're to truly develop as a city.
Widening the roads is unnecessary. More buses per route is the solution.
Having spent the last several years relying heavily on Tulsa Transit, my impression is that an additional two buses per route, (not just the 105), would help immensely.
If you take a trip which requires one bus, plan for a minimum of 30 minutes transit time, including time waiting at the stop.
If your trip requires two buses, a minimum of 2 hours (each way) should be planned for, including time waiting at stops.
The reason for this is that most buses come along once every forty minutes to an hour. Get that down to once every ten to twelve minutes and ridership will increase.
But this isn't the way TT works. An example: the 471 is the 71st street bus. It used to come along about every 50 minutes. As a result it wasn't particularly useful so folks found other ways to get around. The schedule was changed. The 471 came by once every 70 to 90 minutes - "because of low ridership" according to the TT signage at the time.
This is the same thing as opening a store for only one hour a day, at 7am, say, and then when the customers don't show up the owner makes a decision to only be open for fifteen minutes at 7am. Pretty bad planning, there. Almost as if they want the service to have to go away.
Additional buses need to be placed on each route. An up-front investment, yes, but one which would pay off in increased ridership. Until that happens I am skeptical of the seriousness of Tulsa's attempts to change things.
|
|
|
Report this comment |
|
|
|
|
|
"Both sides need to respect that sometimes the other can feel attacked. When it became known that the name of the Christmas parade was changed to the holiday parade, some Christians felt attacked. First Amendment issues aside, it is how some believers felt, and it would be wrong to call their feelings invalid."
Feeling attacked is not the same thing as actually being attacked.
If there had been a parade where images of Christian religion were deliberately defaced and mutilated, where the Christian community as a whole were lambasted with a sarcastic shower of scorn, then yes: that's an attack.
Taking the parade and opening it to everyone in the area as opposed to merely the Christian population is obviously not an attack. It complies perfectly with the Christian admonition to love one's neighbor.
Which is really what this is about. The creators of the second parade, the "Christmas" one, shout loud and clear that they do not love their neighbor. That they want to be exclusive. That they want anyone who doesn't agree with them about their religious opinions to be excluded from community events.
When a person deliberately chooses to "feel" put upon with no good reason, I do not have to respect that. It's fake. It's manipulative. It's insincere. It's unkind and it's selfish. Those feelings are totally and completely invalid.
|
|
|
Report this comment |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
