Greetings from Tram-sterdam

Just got back from a 4-day weekend in Amsterdam, which was absolutely amazing. What an incredible city. What an incredible test tube for urbanism. It's hard not to be interested in the trams from an American standpoint at this point in time, with so many cities wanting to adopt modern streetcar, and it's so easy to be quickly overwhelmed by the size and scope of some of these European transit systems. Amsterdam's trams..just wow. Unfortunately my camera died on my second day, but here's one photo:

Keep in mind, that Amsterdam is possibly one of the world's most famous cities for transit, but it's not the trams that earned it that reputation: it's bicycles. The city is the most bicycle-friendly place in the world, and it goes without saying you haven't experiences Amsterdam until you've spent an entire day on bike.

The tram system actually reminds me of a significantly enhanced version of the Toronto streetcar, with an intense network of mostly linear tram lines:

[Might have to open the pic in a new window to get to see it] So it's amazing that a city of about 800,000 people has all of these tram lines (granted at any given time tourists clearly outnumber locals). It's also amazing that it supports this in addition to a highly-developed underground metro system, commuter trains to other close-in regional cities, elevated rail similar to Chicago (they call theirs "the tube"), the bicycle-centric focus, and even the canals and River Amstel serve a transit function. It's truly a transit city. Not to mention so many areas in the Centre Ring are pedestrian-only.

I think perhaps all of these modes of transit have grown up around each other. At first it might appear to be a lot of competition for ridership--are the Dutch really that "on the move"? But then you realize, the simple fact is that having a car in Amsterdam is a nightmare! I saw it first-hand several times in the Centre Ring, and never more than when I saw a taxi trying to squeeze in with the bicycles and pedestrians through a crowded bridge a block from a busy weekend market in De Jordaan. Cars in Amsterdam simply go against the laws of physics.

Now obviously, this is not the case in any American city except perhaps NYC, and even NYC is packed full of too many cars. But the point still stands: there is no competition for ridership in a true transit-centered environment, as long as the different modes of transit each serve a real purpose. If Amsterdam was not the bicycle haven that it is, would the tram system be as well-used? Probably not. Would the commuter trains or even the inter-city trains to Den Haag and Utrecht be as heavily-utilized? Probably not.

Lesson that OKC can take from Amsterdam: In order for big-time streetcar utilization to work successfully, grow as many different complementary modes at once. This is why Project 180 coinciding with the streetcar timeline is actually an enormous opportunity, not a duplication of efforts. The city needs to do a lot to expand basic walkability and human access, including a real bicycle strategy that doesn't just involve the system of scenic park trails. That's not really what we need...

I see no reason OKC couldn't use a system of bicycle roads. Bicycle-only intersections, even bicycle round-abouts. Special bicycle lights at each intersection, some busier intersections even with dedicated bicycle left-turn lanes. Or at the very least, sidewalks on every street, that are actually usable. That would be a good start, even if it's just in the inner city! Perhaps I'm getting ahead of myself here and forgetting just how many 100s of years OKC is behind other cities in terms of basic sidewalk infrastructure. It is beyond embarrassing.

One great phrase you will never hear in OKC: Lekker fietstocht!

A true neighborhood asset in J. Park

Dear OKC Parks & Recreation,

I cannot rave enough about the tennis courts in Goodholm Park, they are a true neighborhood asset. There is nothing like decent neighborhood tennis courts to bring people out of their houses. Actually, I can't rave enough about all of Goodholm Park in general. It is one of the city's best parks. It is urban, surrounded by a dense neighborhood, it has a very well-defined (and somewhat irregular and interesting) space. The orientation of the neighborhood all around it is perfect (cute bungalows across the street to the west and north, great rowhouses across Robinson to the east). It has a great walking trail that goes all along the perimeter, you always see people jogging or taking a stroll. Great playground that is always well-used. The field also gets well-used by people walking dogs. It's just a great space, an example of what we don't have enough of.

The name is a little confusing. When you say Goodholm Park in the Jefferson Park neighborhood most people are kind of lost, so perhaps it should just be Jefferson Park, which would make sense to me. But if the city should take any action, IT SHOULD BE TO CREATE MORE SPACES LIKE THIS!!!!!!! There are too many underutilized and neglected parks just like this. Restoring those, putting in nice things like the well-maintained tennis courts, playground, and walking trail..would not only be a boon to the community, but it would inject these neighborhoods with life and vitality. I assure you that the condition of Goodholm Park has a lot to do with the boom in renovations the J. Park area has seen.

Lastly, tennis courts. Tennis courts in OKC are absolutely pathetic, and I say this as someone who really enjoys playing tennis. I took the above picture last week when we had a period of really amazing weather. Sometimes we get that in the winter, and when it happens, it really draws the people out of their houses. You'll notice there are a lot of individual courts here, all of which are being used. Actually Goodholm Park has the best backboards in the entire city in my opinion, which is important because you don't always have someone you can play with, and you can occasionally meet new people if you share the backboards, which I always end up doing.

Every time I visit these tennis courts, I find myself overwhelmed with a sense of community. The J. Park kids actually seem to have a hierarchy that's developed around the tennis courts, and I've observed that they have a system where grown-ups go there and teach the kids how to play tennis. The residents around there take care of the courts and keep skateboarders off of them. Actually I've never seen a skateboard on those courts, ever. Nothing against skateboarders, in fact, I think the city should add another skatepark since the one on South Robinson was a hit.

The reality is that OKC is the fattest city in America. Fattest, not phattest. It's been that way 3 out of the last 4 years, actually. The city has all these nifty PR campaigns to encourage people to lose weight, and there's even a City of OKC official diet program. Sponsored by Taco Bell.

Obviously we aren't serious about having a healthy city, because there is no other ostensible conclusion. We don't invest in parks. Most of OKC's parks are pretty pathetic. If they do have tennis courts, which is an extreme rarity, they are likely crumbling and then if they have backboards, another rarity, they're probably rotting wooden pieces of crap. Furthermore, we don't have sidewalks. We still aren't adding sidewalks, and don't even tell me about $10M in Maps3 for sidewalks, that's a joke. Walkability in OKC is a laughing stock. I see people get ran over all the time in the denser parts of S. OKC. I even myself come close to running people over, and I feel really guilty about that, but here's the reality: There's NO PLACE for people in OKC. Streetcar will help revolutionize the pedestrian experience downtown, and that's great, but I am not talking about downtown..I'm talking about the other 90% of our city.

Sidewalks. Neighborhood parks. Tennis courts. Skateparks. Trees. Walking trails. Not phony PR campaign diets sponsored by Taco Bell that the city needs to just terminate (before doing more damage by deluding people into thinking fast food is a "diet"). This is quality of life I'm talking about. QoL is NOT just how long you have to sit in traffic, how easy it is for you to get symphony tickets, or how attractive your community is. There are things in your environment that will directly affect your physical health, period. This city's residents are the most morbidly obese in the nation, so what does that tell you about QoL?

Furthermore, why do people even live in OKC? Oklahoma City city limits that is. In most cases, the reason someone might live in Dallas rather than Lewisville is directly because of QoL. Access to amenities, schools, jobs, and healthy lifestyle choices. Dallas is obviously tops in the Metroplex for that because it is the central city. Quality of life is the business of central cities. If you live in Gallatin, TN, you're not going to have tennis courts nearby more than likely, because you made the decision to live in a white bread cookie cutter suburb of Nashville. If you lived closer in, you'd probably have every QoL amenity you could think of, including tennis courts within walking distance. This is what we've come to expect in every central city of America.

So what is the difference between living in OKC proper and Moore or Yukon? As it is there is none whatsoever, aside from distance to downtown, and if that were vital, Del City would be a top-tier suburb.

Planning lessons from a blizzard..

Interesting video. The basic concept is that whenever there is a blizzard, even in places that are used to snow such as New York and Minnesota, the roads shut down. As we've seen in OKC, no major city really has the resources to instantly plow and sand every single street, even the major ones. I have relatives to the north of Omaha who have told me their streets haven't been plowed because there is too much snow and plow trucks have gotten damaged trying to get around, with their plow down. There's not a solution for clearing roads after a blizzard, but people still have that natural desire to want to get out of the house, even when weather's bad. In OKC it seems very restrictive when the TV stations are in DEFCON 1 mode and telling people not to leave their houses for days at a time, because there is NO other way to get around in OKC besides cars.

In NYC, which is actually a very walkable city when you remove the throngs of cars from the roads, the roads become littered with pedestrians getting around with more space. There is almost a peace of mind in NYC, as shown in the video, when cars are taken off the streets for the most part. Tons of people are playing out in the streets, families are safely getting some R&R outdoors, and life is great in the Five Boroughs. Pedestrians just naturally fill in the space that cars aren't taking up.

The video also brings up what a ridiculous amount of space is given to cars, even in the middle of cities. Not talking about Memorial Road, this is talking about streets like Park Avenue or Sheridan surrounded by dense environments. Do lanes really need to be "extra-wide" everywhere you go? No doubt that making all city streets accessible to large utility trucks and other trucks has compromised the environment for everything that's not a large truck. When it snows you can clearly see how wide the paths of cars are--and it's not that wide. The tracks that cars have formed from driving over the snow take up, what, half the width of the lane?

Anyone who's familiar with Tulsa knows how skinny roads are in that city. And yeah, you do kind of have to slow down in Tulsa when you're driving an SUV and the lanes are skinny, and there are pedestrians on the side, and for some reason everyone in a city known for skinny roads drives these Hummers and Land Rovers like a bat out of hell. So while you do have to slow down and drive more carefully, it is a better environment for pedestrians. So think -- do lanes really need to be as wide as they are? Do intersections need to be as wide as they are?

The wider the intersection, the harder it is to cross. A viable option that some cities have done is narrow the intersection, which psychologically affects drivers to drive slower, and extend the sidewalk. In OKC we call those "bump-outs" but I think in the video he just calls them sidewalk extensions, which is basically what they are. Think of crossing an intersection like jumping over a cliff (or imagine the street as being made of hot lava), and the bump-outs shorten the distance of lava you have to "jump" over. The shorter the pedestrian has to cross the intersection, the safer it is. Also another added benefit of bump-outs is that they help clearly define the space designated for pedestrian crossing much better than paint lines can. Damn jaywalkers!!

Just some interesting thoughts..