The Tulsa Forum by TulsaNow

A Plan For Fixing Tulsa's Streets

Tulsa voters could soon cast their ballots to improve city streets.  News On anchor Jennifer Loren reports Mayor Kathy Taylor and city councilors hope they've come up with a plan voters will like to fix Tulsa's streets without raising taxes.

Tulsa residents have made it clear: it's past time to fix the streets.  Tulsa's mayor agrees.

"If we do not get our streets back in the right pavement condition index, it's going to continue to build a mountain of expense that will be even more expensive every year as they further deteriorate and the quality will simply not be acceptable," said Tulsa Mayor Kathy Taylor.

That's why the mayor and Tulsa City Councilors hope to do something about the bad roads now.  They're working on a proposal to fix Tulsa's streets.  It would go on a July ballot, ultimately leaving it up to voters.  And, the mayor thinks voters will embrace the plan.

"We will not increase the sales tax. We just all have agreed that that is too burdensome on our citizens, that what we need to do is redeploy the sales tax that we currently have and use for street maintenance," said Tulsa Mayor Kathy Taylor.

At this point, the proposal would extend the current third penny sales tax and the city's general obligation bond when they expire.  But, some voters aren't buying it.

"I believe we're over-taxed now. The money is somewhere and they need to pull it out of the reserves and spend it where it belongs," said voter LeMon Banks.

Other voters don't care where the money comes from, including their own pockets, as long as potholes go away.

"I'd vote yes. Cause they need the money and we need better roads. So why not vote and get better roads?" said voter Ricky Arthur.

City leaders hope the sooner the proposal gets to voters, the sooner the roads will be repaired.

The city council will hear public comments on the subject at their weekly meetings.  Meanwhile, town hall meetings will be held in each district, answering any questions voters have about the proposal.

Question: Why are they making a permanent Ordinance for a Temporary Tax?

(http://img508.imageshack.us/img508/619/tulsa43g20080515fj6.jpg)

and, why are they authorizing an election when the first public hearing has yet to be held?

(http://img174.imageshack.us/img174/8306/tulsacounciljuly29electul6.jpg)

Source:

http://www.cityoftulsa.org/Agendas/agendax.asp?FN=0007CF6F&num=4

and, http://www.cityoftulsa.org/Agendas/agendax.asp?FN=0007CF6F&num=5

Also, note the addition of the second item for $62 Million, making the total near $700 Million.

OK, I've read that.  Now, where can we find information that truly tells us what the plan is?  Where do we get the proposal in plain English with all the details?  

Does this mean that they are reallocating all the 3rd Penny Sales tax funds that we already voted on?  Will that affect the non-street projects that have yet to be funded?  

I understand the desire to increase the amount that goes to Tulsa's infrastructure, as temporary county taxes expire. It sounds good.  Is it wise?

Now: what happened to the "Complete the Streets" recommendations?  Where does transit fit into the Council plan for fixing the streets?  If the problem is ever-increasing vehicle miles travelled (and ever-increasing lane miles to be maintained), how do they propose to reduce those needs/costs?  Where do they specifically promote alternative mobility options such as transit, cycling and pedestrians?  (Tulsa ranks at the bottom of cities our size when it comes to investing in public transit...and it shows!)  Where do they talk about the impact of urban design on alleviating transportation problems?

What impact does this proposal have on the Comprehensive Plan?  What if the decisions that we (as a community) make regarding Tulsa's future transportation needs, include MORE than just fixing holes in the asphalt year after year after year?  What if gas goes to $5 a gallon, and the citizens demand real/workable transit options...can this money be allocated for THAT?

Anybody have any answers?

I think it's just an added 1.7667% to the existing Sales Tax, making it 10.18%, then waiting to 2011 for the 4-to-Fix to expire, 2012 for the Third Penny to expire (sure), and then 2017 for V2025 to exire, getting us back to the current Sales Tax Rate of 8.517%.

Plus, a 3.3 Mill increase in your Ad Valorem tax to fund road reconstruction projects at $6.2 million/year indefinitely, but grows with the value of Tulsa property.

So, it's sort of a 'get the money first' plan, then they'll decide how to spend it.

They said they would put up a project list soon. But, if you're looking for light rail, you might need to go to the Long Range Planning meetings and hope they bring it up.

The sales tax hikes don't take effect until 2012 and 2017 respectively.

Thanks sgrizzle. I kinda thought what wrinkle was saying was wrong from what I had heard, but I hadn't read enough to refute it.

So, this is no additional sales tax?

No additional sales tax.

Makes it hard for the county to raise more funds for $2M parking lots.

Raises property tax, but only a small amount to OKC levels.

Requires South Tulsa sprawlers to pay more if they want their streets widened.

Will end the "low bid" and crappy contractor issues by making street rework and repair done by the same people, the City of Tulsa's new "streets" department.

By replacing every upcoming expiring tax, it puts the "lets extend the tax to build an island" people at bay for years.

quote:

---

Originally posted by sgrizzle

The sales tax hikes don't take effect until 2012 and 2017 respectively.

---

I'll need to ask your source.
Think I've read everything put out so far and no one's stated that to be the case, or even explicitly what I concluded either. Though today's World did mention a 1.76% tax 'extension', whatever that means.

It's all in the wording of the proposed Proposition, which hasn't been written yet.

I'm getting more bothered by the Ad Valorem issue.

It's 'just' 3.3 mills for everyone in Tulsa, which if the 'District Plan' is adopted, pays only half the cost of any road reconstructions.

The other half would be by 'special assessment' to only those property owners in the District.

So, basically, one ninth of the area/citizens would need to pick up the equivalent of 3.3 mills over the entire city. In round numbers, that would represent something in the range of 25-30 mills if we speak of the total funding level.

If one district receives 30% of the road reconstruction projects (District 9 has almost half of those currently on the list), a property owner could expect their Ad Valorem to increase by an additional 10 mills or more, or 13.3 total.

That starts to sound real expensive.

The plan is to NOT add on those taxes until the current ones expire, thus not adding to the sales tax rate.

quote:

---

Originally posted by blindnil

The plan is to NOT add on those taxes until the current ones expire, thus not adding to the sales tax rate.

---

I'd be considerably more convinced if an official made some public statement of that sort. To my knowledge, that hasn't yet happened.

But, if so, wouldn't we also then be extending temp taxes out twenty years, and most not starting until at least after one more Mayor/Council election?

Did we not learn anything about long term issues established by short term officials (i.e., 40-year water contracts, 6-year 3rd Penny)?

wrinkle...

Why are you saying that it will raise sales taxes to over ten cents, then admitting that the language is not clear? Now you are saying outrageous stuff like 30 mills?

Is this some sort of early scare tactic dis-information strategy?

You have been writing post after post finding fault with the street package and now it turns to be stuff you just made up or assumed?

Remind me to not believe you until one thing you say is proven true.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wrinkle

quote:

---

Originally posted by blindnil

The plan is to NOT add on those taxes until the current ones expire, thus not adding to the sales tax rate.

---

I'd be considerably more convinced if an official made some public statement of that sort. To my knowledge, that hasn't yet happened.

But, if so, wouldn't we also then be extending temp taxes out twenty years, and most not starting until at least after one more Mayor/Council election?

Did we not learn anything about long term issues established by short term officials (i.e., 40-year water contracts, 6-year 3rd Penny)?

---

The sales tax takes effect in 2011,2012, and 2017 but I believe the property tax takes effect in 2009 or 2010. Construction wouldn't start until 2010 or 2011 but it takes a few years to plan all this out.

quote:

---

Originally posted by RecycleMichael

wrinkle...

Why are you saying that it will raise sales taxes to over ten cents, then admitting that the language is not clear? Now you are saying outrageous stuff like 30 mills?

Is this some sort of early scare tactic dis-information strategy?

You have been writing post after post finding fault with the street package and now it turns to be stuff you just made up or assumed?

Remind me to not believe you until one thing you say is proven true.

---

This is a forum, as I understand it.

The plan is void of detail and left for us to speculate as to what's being said. The 10-Cent plus Sales Tax was based solely on the actual statements made. It fits. Someone here suggesting it otherwise needs to put the language down as to how that lays out, because I flat don't see it working at all that way, and don't see wording of a proposition which makes that practical.

Either it'll be too expensive from a bonding standpoint, will take at least two more years to begin work or will not solve the immediate problem of bumps and dents in the roads (i.e., resurfacing rather than reconstructions).

So, come to your own conclusions.

Here's a little game for you:

You have $62 million and need another $62 million.

You can use only 1/9th of the population to produce the extra $62 million.

How do you see that working out?

If 3.3 mills by 9/9ths produces the correct amount, then 1/9th doing the same is 29.7 mills.

Scare tactics???

Disinformation???

I do believe it's called 'analysis'.
It was put out as not only a possible resolution as to what was presented, it is quite probable.

If someone says it doesn't kick in until 2011, 2012 and 2017, then just how is that worded in the proposition and on the ballot, in one proposition? And, how does that pay out?

I'm open to suggestions.

Going a step further, how does a tax which doesn't begin for three or four years solve today's problems?

We'll get a bond, you say?

So, we add the cost of unusally long term bonding to taxpayers, making it that much more expensive? Actually, just getting much less for each $1.00.

The tax which would start next year, Ad Valorem, won't resurface any roads, it's dedicated to capital projects of road reconstructions.

Somebody needs to provide more detail before any of this can really be evaluated at all.

But, what I've stated in my postings are the only logical scenarios which tie all the ends, as I see it. And, that's only if you agree with the political aspects of what's presented.

Tell me how you see it happening.

Believe what you want.

RM, in the future it may benefit your sensitivities if you assume I have no inside tract. I don't. Only what the public is given.

can I vote to deannex and annex with bixby?  Looks like the city just declared war on the county.

quote:

---

Originally posted by inteller

can I vote to deannex and annex with bixby?  Looks like the city just declared war on the county.

---

Look at it this way. If this thing passes you can have this situation:

1. Some bullseye retailer wants to locate by your house.
2. The retailer would exit out onto 101st which can't support the traffic counts without widening.
3. A Vote is put to your neighborhood on whether to be widened.
4. Residents vote down the widening, the retailer can't build.

Thanks for answering, wrinkle.

I understand your analysis, but don't believe for a second that anyone will be asked to pay an additional 30 mills in property tax for this proposition or that Tulsa shoppers will suddenly pay ten and a half cents in sales tax.

Making those statements seems inflammatory to me. When they appear in this forum, some will mistakenly assume they are true when in reality, they are most very likely not.

Yes, getting a bond today and paying it back tomorrow is not the most efficient way, but I think the people putting this funding package know well that there is no perfect way to fund it. It will take us years to pay for this work, but it took us years for it to get this bad.

quote:

---

Originally posted by RecycleMichael

Thanks for answering, wrinkle.

I understand your analysis, but don't believe for a second that anyone will be asked to pay an additional 30 mills in property tax for this proposition or that Tulsa shoppers will suddenly pay ten and a half cents in sales tax.

Making those statements seems inflammatory to me. When they appear in this forum, some will mistakenly assume they are true when in reality, they are most very likely not.

Yes, getting a bond today and paying it back tomorrow is not the most efficient way, but I think the people putting this funding package know well that there is no perfect way to fund it. It will take us years to pay for this work, but it took us years for it to get this bad.

---

Not any ONE paying 30 mills. Did I say that?

Depending on the percentage of the total package built in your district, you'll pay the prorated share of 30 mills to do so in the form of a Special Assessment.

So, IF your district has 50% of the projects, you'll be "specially" assessed an additional 15 mills.

All in addition to the 3.3 mills being presented for everyone.

Again, I'll ask. What is the immediate problem?

Is it not road repair (i.e., resurfacing), not reconstruction?

Do you suppose in the 3rd Penny's $300 million or so they could find some road reconstruction funding? They're doing it now. When it renews, could not the same be done then?

If these suppositions are not accurate, then a forum would be the place for someone to show how it's not.

If you don't like the questions, then I'd have to say it's your problem.

Only Scriz has stated something otherwise with no supporting information as to how that actually works.

If you have something which helps clarify, please put it out.

quote:

---

Originally posted by sgrizzle

quote:

---

Originally posted by inteller

can I vote to deannex and annex with bixby?  Looks like the city just declared war on the county.

---

Look at it this way. If this thing passes you can have this situation:

1. Some bullseye retailer wants to locate by your house.
2. The retailer would exit out onto 101st which can't support the traffic counts without widening.
3. A Vote is put to your neighborhood on whether to be widened.
4. Residents vote down the widening, the retailer can't build.

---

I'm guessing again here (for the record). But, I would assume no voting would occur. The city would want to decide which projects get built and for what reasons and just bill the district their half. It'll be covered in a broad why in the original resolution which authorizes it in advance.

On the other hand, it's not so much the district which benefits as the business which causes all the traffic. Why shouldn't the business contribute, to a larger degree, to the road which gets their customers to them?

Hadn't seen that one suggested yet.

From today's Tulsa World (http://"http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=20080521_16_A13_spancl247977")

quote:

---

Expected to be included are early renewals of the city's general- obligation bond and third-penny sales-tax programs that would take effect when they expire, capturing Tulsa County's Four to Fix the County and Vision 2025 sales-tax shares when those programs expire and raising the city's property tax levy by about 3.3 mills.

---

No question the Tulsa roads are the pits. Tulsa also needs to fix up the cities jogging trails. The rebuilding of the RiverSide jogging trail is long over due, but it would be nice if the city can build a network of jogging trails like the city of Omaha and other cities have. Tulsa has their work cut out for them- Peoria & Lewis are two streets that are too narrow and full of holes. The traffic lights need work also- they are not correct, they seem  too long red  and back up traffic, and side streets have too long a green. Peoria has a long light at 56th with no cross traffic on 56th while traffic backs up on Peoria.[:)]

quote:

---

Originally posted by TURobY

From today's Tulsa World (http://"http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=20080521_16_A13_spancl247977")

quote:

---

Expected to be included are early renewals of the city's general- obligation bond and third-penny sales-tax programs that would take effect when they expire, capturing Tulsa County's Four to Fix the County and Vision 2025 sales-tax shares when those programs expire and raising the city's property tax levy by about 3.3 mills.

---

---

Still little detail.

Can someone define how an 'early renewal' of an existing bond tax works?

Does the current issue get retracted and a new one replace it, providing an expanded projects list and a 10 year longer term?

Does the existing one run its' course, with a new issue immediately following for 10 years?

Is it even possible to merge them? I'd think that would be difficult since the bonding is all tied to that revenue at this point.

Seems it would be more of a refinancing rather than increasing the existing measure. IOW, a new bond would seem to have to first pay off the existing bonds, at full maturity value. Aren't we then effectively borrowing the same money twice? That is, paying full interest twice? Bond holders don't like to prorate their holdings.

Same for the GO Bond issue.

Since the current 3rd Penny issue doesn't end until 2012, two years after the current mayors' term, adding 10 years would put any new access to this out past three additional mayors' terms. Unless, of course, they also do what is apparently being proposed here.

"Capturing" 4-to-Fix funds is abstract as well. It doesn't 'replace' them. The City issue would have nothing to do with the County's issue, except to match it in amount. Whether or not the County issue expires or renews is a completely seperate issue, determined by voters if presented the option. Of course, if the City subplants its issue, it will be more difficult for the County to renew since at that time it will become an added tax, not "no tax increase".

Excerpt from Tulsa Title 43-F - 2006 3rd Penny Ordinance
=================================================
SECTION 103. PROCEDURE TO AMEND OR REPEAL THIS CHAPTER

A. Mandatory Duty of Secretary of Council. The City of Tulsa, having made a solemn pledge to the citizens of Tulsa regarding the xpenditures of the revenue from the extended sales tax, and having enacted this chapter to establish the official City policy with regard to such revenue, hereby pledges that this chapter shall remain in force during the entire period of collection and expenditure of the revenues generated by the extended sales tax for the projects and purposes herein enumerated.

Any attempt to amend or repeal this chapter can lawfully occur only by placing such proposal on the official agenda of the City Council which agenda is prepared by the office of the Secretary of the Council ("Secretary").

In the event a request is ever made by any party to place the issue of the amendment or repeal of this chapter on any agenda of the City Council, the Secretary is hereby specifically prohibited from placing such issue on any such agenda until full compliance with the following requirements have been made.

1. The Secretary shall forthwith (within twenty-four [24] hours) notify all major newspapers, all television stations and all radio stations then located within the City of Tulsa of the request for amendment or repeal of this chapter.

2. The Secretary shall forthwith notify the general public of such request by a press conference officially called by the Secretary and held at the City Hall, to which all of the above-named newspapers, radio and television stations shall be invited.

3. The Secretary shall forthwith cause a public notice to be given in the Tulsa Daily World, and The Oklahoma Eagle, specifically setting forth fully the nature, purpose and extent of the request and the date the matter will first be placed on the agenda for public hearing before the City Council, which date shall be a date more than fifteen (15)days from the date of first publication of such notice. The notice shall be published once a week for two (2) consecutive weeks.

4. The Secretary shall, upon performance of all of the above acts, execute and deliver to the Council of the City of Tulsa written certification as to the time and manner of the performance of the foregoing duties herein assigned, which certification shall be filed as a part of the permanent records of the City in the office of the City Clerk, and shall be available for inspection or copying at all reasonable times.

B. Procedure Before Council. No official action shall be taken by the Council of the City of Tulsa upon any request to amend or repeal this chapter until the following acts and procedures have been complied with:

1. The Council shall have examined the written certification of the Secretary concerning the acts required to be performed by Subsection 103.A above, and shall have satisfied itself that all such acts have been duly and timely performed; and

2. The Council shall have held at least two (2) public hearings on the proposal (one of which shall be held at night), which hearings shall be at least seven (7) days apart, and the first of which shall have been more than fifteen (15) days from the date of first publication of the notice given by the Secretary setting forth the nature of the request to amend or repeal this chapter as above provided."

======== END OF EXCERPT

As such, it would seem getting a change to existing bond issues would be impossible before the May 29th date required to call a July 29th election since the above provisions haven't played out, and cannot at this point.

The below chart shows outstanding Bond obligations for the City of Tulsa which expire or mature in the next 10 years:


(http://img233.imageshack.us/img233/8241/tulsabondsoutstandingss0.jpg)

One $16.5M LAF Bond matures late in 2008, two for $49.136M & $17.5M matures in late 2009, and one for $17.0M matures in late 2010.

That's a total of about $100M of bonding capability which will free up in the next two years.

'Extending' or 'Replacing' these would require the same process defined above in my prior posting.

New issues would be subject to different rules.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wrinkle

The below chart shows all outstanding Bond obligations for the City of Tulsa:


(http://img233.imageshack.us/img233/8241/tulsabondsoutstandingss0.jpg)

One $16.5M LAF Bond matures late in 2008, two for $49.136M & $17.5M matures in late 2009, and one for $17.0M matures in late 2010.

That's a total of about $100M of bonding capability which will free up in the next two years.

'Extending' or 'Replacing' these would require the same process defined above in my prior posting.

New issues would be subject to different rules.

---

Am I correct in noting that new bonds would likely have a more favorable interest than those maturing next year?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Floyd


Am I correct in noting that new bonds would likely have a more favorable interest than those maturing next year?

---

Yeah, I'd hope so. Appears bonding back then was as much of an 'art' as it is today.

Note most of them have 15-25 year terms, too.

I've since noticed that the above list is not current either. There's been a 2005 GO Bond since which doesn't show up. Don't know the particulars now.

quote:

---

Originally posted by sauerkraut

No question the Tulsa roads are the pits. Tulsa also needs to fix up the cities jogging trails. The rebuilding of the RiverSide jogging trail is long over due, but it would be nice if the city can build a network of jogging trails like the city of Omaha and other cities have. Tulsa has their work cut out for them- Peoria & Lewis are two streets that are too narrow and full of holes. The traffic lights need work also- they are not correct, they seem  too long red  and back up traffic, and side streets have too long a green. Peoria has a long light at 56th with no cross traffic on 56th while traffic backs up on Peoria.[:)]

---

Yes thats true.  When I moved up here from the OKC area in 2005 the roads were noticably worse.  As you said some of them are too narrow and full of holes, others are just flat full of holes or have major issues at expansion joints.  Few of the lights are actually timed properly.  The city is behind the times.  But they've had two bad mayors in a row :(

But voting down the river tax was a step in the right direction it sent a message that you can't milk us for money for your reckless abandonment with our money.  So hopefully the tulsa government will get their **** together.  I'm a big OKC guy but I live in Tulsa, I'd love to see Tulsa have a resurgence.  When I was a kid (80s and early 90s) Tulsa was the nicer town.  Not the case anymore...but I'm optimistic that at the very least the tulsa suburbs will help bolster the metro as a whole.

Missed the Sewer Bonds in prior charts:

(http://img98.imageshack.us/img98/9155/tulsabondsoutstandingln9.jpg)

quote:

---

Originally posted by OUGrad05
When I moved up here from the OKC area in 2005 the roads were noticably worse.  As you said some of them are too narrow and full of holes, others are just flat full of holes or have major issues at expansion joints.

---

Tulsa is worse? Hardly.

I would agree our highways are worse, but those are the responsibility of the state, and even with the condition the highways are in Tulsa’s roads are rated better than Oklahoma City’s. Tulsa’s road system has a rating of a “D”, but Oklahoma City actually has an overall “F” and are rated as the 10th worst road in the entire nation.

We are bad, but they are even worse.

quote:

---

Originally posted by OUGrad05

quote:

---

Originally posted by sauerkraut

No question the Tulsa roads are the pits. Tulsa also needs to fix up the cities jogging trails. The rebuilding of the RiverSide jogging trail is long over due, but it would be nice if the city can build a network of jogging trails like the city of Omaha and other cities have. Tulsa has their work cut out for them- Peoria & Lewis are two streets that are too narrow and full of holes. The traffic lights need work also- they are not correct, they seem  too long red  and back up traffic, and side streets have too long a green. Peoria has a long light at 56th with no cross traffic on 56th while traffic backs up on Peoria.[:)]

---

Yes thats true.  When I moved up here from the OKC area in 2005 the roads were noticably worse.  As you said some of them are too narrow and full of holes, others are just flat full of holes or have major issues at expansion joints.  Few of the lights are actually timed properly.  The city is behind the times.  But they've had two bad mayors in a row :(

But voting down the river tax was a step in the right direction it sent a message that you can't milk us for money for your reckless abandonment with our money.  So hopefully the tulsa government will get their **** together.  I'm a big OKC guy but I live in Tulsa, I'd love to see Tulsa have a resurgence.  When I was a kid (80s and early 90s) Tulsa was the nicer town.  Not the case anymore...but I'm optimistic that at the very least the tulsa suburbs will help bolster the metro as a whole.

---

I understand OKC is building a big system of jogging/bike trails, and from what I hear they plan to connect the 10 mile loop trail around Lake Hefner to Lake Overhouser thru the Bluff Creek and extend out more jog/bike trails, I wish Tulsa would build more new jogging trails once they get the RiverSide Trail all fixed up. As for me one of my favorite cities is Fort Worth, Texas the mild warm climate and sunney weather is what I like, Fort Woth has some outstanding jogging trails, I first ook up the sport of running when I lived in Fort Worth... It's a heck of nice city to live in.[:)]

quote:

---

Originally posted by swake

quote:

---

Originally posted by OUGrad05
When I moved up here from the OKC area in 2005 the roads were noticably worse.  As you said some of them are too narrow and full of holes, others are just flat full of holes or have major issues at expansion joints.

---

Tulsa is worse? Hardly.

I would agree our highways are worse, but those are the responsibility of the state, and even with the condition the highways are in Tulsa’s roads are rated better than Oklahoma City’s. Tulsa’s road system has a rating of a “D”, but Oklahoma City actually has an overall “F” and are rated as the 10th worst road in the entire nation.

We are bad, but they are even worse.

---

Umm no, OKC's ratings are dragged down by one primary culprit, the I40 crosstown.  There's a couple of other raods in OKC that are just atrocious (Like I44 by bell isle)but the overall state of the roads is better in OKC than it is in Tulsa.

Both cities have highways that are in fairly bad disrepair.  I 40 crosstown and the bell isle expressway are in pretty bad shape in OKC, but broadway and I35 are in pretty good shape.  As is the new 169 in Tulsa.

quote:

---

Originally posted by OUGrad05

quote:

---

Originally posted by swake

quote:

---

Originally posted by OUGrad05
When I moved up here from the OKC area in 2005 the roads were noticably worse.  As you said some of them are too narrow and full of holes, others are just flat full of holes or have major issues at expansion joints.

---

Tulsa is worse? Hardly.

I would agree our highways are worse, but those are the responsibility of the state, and even with the condition the highways are in Tulsa’s roads are rated better than Oklahoma City’s. Tulsa’s road system has a rating of a “D”, but Oklahoma City actually has an overall “F” and are rated as the 10th worst road in the entire nation.

We are bad, but they are even worse.

---

Umm no, OKC's ratings are dragged down by one primary culprit, the I40 crosstown.  There's a couple of other raods in OKC that are just atrocious (Like I44 by bell isle)but the overall state of the roads is better in OKC than it is in Tulsa.

Both cities have highways that are in fairly bad disrepair.  I 40 crosstown and the bell isle expressway are in pretty bad shape in OKC, but broadway and I35 are in pretty good shape.  As is the new 169 in Tulsa.

---

Careful, you're going to get in an argument with somebody who might know the issue better than anyone on here and is used to correcting misconceptions.  Be wary.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Floyd

quote:

---

Originally posted by OUGrad05

quote:

---

Originally posted by swake

quote:

---

Originally posted by OUGrad05
When I moved up here from the OKC area in 2005 the roads were noticably worse.  As you said some of them are too narrow and full of holes, others are just flat full of holes or have major issues at expansion joints.

---

Tulsa is worse? Hardly.

I would agree our highways are worse, but those are the responsibility of the state, and even with the condition the highways are in Tulsa’s roads are rated better than Oklahoma City’s. Tulsa’s road system has a rating of a “D”, but Oklahoma City actually has an overall “F” and are rated as the 10th worst road in the entire nation.

We are bad, but they are even worse.

---

Umm no, OKC's ratings are dragged down by one primary culprit, the I40 crosstown.  There's a couple of other raods in OKC that are just atrocious (Like I44 by bell isle)but the overall state of the roads is better in OKC than it is in Tulsa.

Both cities have highways that are in fairly bad disrepair.  I 40 crosstown and the bell isle expressway are in pretty bad shape in OKC, but broadway and I35 are in pretty good shape.  As is the new 169 in Tulsa.

---

Careful, you're going to get in an argument with somebody who might know the issue better than anyone on here and is used to correcting misconceptions.  Be wary.

---

I'm confused dude...I'm not really trying to start an argument or fight, just stating what seems to be fairly obvious to someone who's spent a lot of time in both cities.  One of my best friends has an opposite scenario as me.  He grew up in tulsa (I in okc) got his job in OKC (mine in tulsa) and after moving to OKC he agreed the roads were better.  

Quite frankly I was a bit surprised because my brother dated a girl from Tulsa for awhile and talked about how great it was.  So I was pretty excited to get moved up here, but after I got up here I realized the city of Tulsa seems to be dealing with the problems OKC was facing in the 80s/early 90s.  

Although Tulsa does still have a cosmopolitan feel to it, OKC doesn't have that.  OKC has an urban sprawl feel to it, which can be a problem.  I'm hoping that Tulsa will come up with some good ideas for 2025 and that the people of tulsa will get some decent mayoral choices next time around.  Lafortune and Taylor, at least in my opinion are nothing more than corrupt power grabbing politicians.  

Having said that, city management seems to be doing some things like traffic light timing that can greatly aid in decreased personel demands and keep things moving smoothly from a citizens standpoing.  As I said earlier (or maybe in another thread) I think Tulsa is about to turn a major corner for the better.  Voting down that river tax sent a signal to the politicians that enough is enough.

Haha, I didn't say you were trying to start an argument.  But there are some misconceptions out there about Tulsa's roads versus OKC's, and the health of the Crosstown versus, say, the I-244 bridge over the Arkansas, that simply don't stand up to scrutiny.  It just depends where you're driving on a daily basis.  

All that said, I've seen a noticeable falloff in the last five years in the quality of Tulsa's core road maintainence.  I have a feeling this is because of widening projects at the edges.  But when you cumulatively grade all road surfaces in each city, OKC needs just as much road maintainence as Tulsa.  

quote:

---

Originally posted by Floyd

Haha, I didn't say you were trying to start an argument.  But there are some misconceptions out there about Tulsa's roads versus OKC's, and the health of the Crosstown versus, say, the I-244 bridge over the Arkansas, that simply don't stand up to scrutiny.  It just depends where you're driving on a daily basis.  

All that said, I've seen a noticeable falloff in the last five years in the quality of Tulsa's core road maintainence.  I have a feeling this is because of widening projects at the edges.  But when you cumulatively grade all road surfaces in each city, OKC needs just as much road maintainence as Tulsa.  

---

Well now that makes sense.  My assessment of the situation is that where OKC's are bad they are for the most part, downright ****ty.  In tulsa they seem to have a lot of areas that are bad or simply noisy/bumpy and cranked but aren't going to swallow up your car...hope I made sense there.

TULSA needs to do SOMETHING about the roads.  If you get all worry warty about the minute intricate details like wrinkles over here, nothing will ever get done because you are always finding some reason to not do anything.  

No plan is perfect, but it would be wise to look at the merits of the proposal and the benefits as well as the costs.  In this case, they are proposing a program that will leave taxes pretty much the same as they are now and still brings up roughly $700MILLION for the roads.  THAT IS A NO-BRAINER!  FREAKING GET IT DONE!

quote:

---

Originally posted by jackbristow

TULSA needs to do SOMETHING about the roads.  If you get all worry warty about the minute intricate details like wrinkles over here, nothing will ever get done because you are always finding some reason to not do anything.  

No plan is perfect, but it would be wise to look at the merits of the proposal and the benefits as well as the costs.  In this case, they are proposing a program that will leave taxes pretty much the same as they are now and still brings up roughly $700MILLION for the roads.  THAT IS A NO-BRAINER!  FREAKING GET IT DONE!

---

The Devil is in the details, Mr. Bristow.

They can easily make or break a deal. If you're suggessting Tulsans should just blindly do whatever, then that's the thing which has got us into the problem we have now.

I do have a problem which appears to have 'solutions' which directly affect the next four Mayoral terms.

These need serious evaluation and consideration. Implementation of such should be wisely scrutinized and a proper resolution achieved. Not a hurry-up, rushed to pass, compounded manipulation of our future without any thought.

To date, no one has shown us how this plan is to work. I've suggested there's serious issues, if it actually works at all.

But, the emphasis seems to be being placed on an Ad Valorem component which does nothing to pave roads and seems to place a pretty heavy weight on certain groups.

Where are the options?

There is room for more than one or two items on a ballot. Alternate plans should be addressed.

There was once a push for the State to provide municipalities a half-cent rebate to improve/repair roads. What happened to that discussion? Did it get traded for a dam, for Jenks and/or Sand Springs, no less?

If you want to call it hand-wringing, I'd call it short-sighted on your part.

A more simple approach was proposed by James Hewgely, which is mostly being ignored at this point. It still seems to me to be the most practical solution and has little long-term effect other than to repave roads.

Wasn't that the thing we needed?

One important aspect of Mr. Hewgley's plan which should be pointed out now is it paves roads beginning in 2008 and for 10 years thereafter. The current plan, as I currently understand it, would not begin to repave until 2011, unless we pay interest for three years in advance for a bond.

Also, Mr. Hewgley's plan does not prempt the proposed plan at all. Both could happen just as proposed in parallel to Hewgley's plan, though the need for the huge new deal would deminish greatly.

Even Mr. Hewgley's plan increases taxes by $100 million.

A $100 million of repaving would go a long way to solving the current problem, well past the current mayoral term.

I think the streets proposal makes a lot of sense...as far as fixing streets goes.  I certainly support separating out the widening projects from the road repair and maintenance.  (If you can't pay your current mortgage, would you want to build an addition onto your house?)

Now the test will be to see if Tulsans truly want to "fix the streets first" or if they just want to whine and say NO to any and all investments in our community. (What will be their next excuse?)

If Tulsa wants to be anything greater than a stagnating backwater, we've got to get beyond the "just say no" people.  Indeed, we've got to get beyond just worrying about streets.

If we want to live up to our potential, Tulsans have got to invest in Tulsa.  We can't expect a couple generous philanthopists to save our butts time after time...while we sit idly by bitc_ing about what's wrong with this or that.

Personally, I don't think the streets are our biggest concern.  I've traveled to many great cities with far worse street problems than Tulsa...and who cares?  I don't pick my destinations by analyzing street repair data.  I can't tell you which cities have A or D streets.  I don't care.  I look for arts, culture, nightlife, architecture, history, parks, natural beauty, availability of transit, and--most importantly--the attitude of the residents that make a city great.

So...potholes?  Sure.  Fix 'em.  That's great.  But we have to move forward with more important investments in things that will be economic and cultural generators for the city of Tulsa.  That's going to be our true test: do we care about more than asphalt?  Are we willing to invest in the things that will really make Tulsa great? (Not just a smooth place to drive a car around.)