Tulsa: Fixing the Streets VOTE in July

[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.

[Renaissance]

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.

[OUGrad05]

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.

[Renaissance]

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.  

[OUGrad05]

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.

[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!

[Wrinkle]

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?

[Wrinkle]

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.

[PonderInc]

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.)