$451M Streets plan on Nov. 4th General Ballot

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by TheTed

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

quote:Originally posted by TheTed

I'm really torn on this. With any kind of nod to improving transit I would've been on board.

But it's really, really difficult for me to get behind a plan that just assures we'll continue to fall farther behind other cities when it comes to non-car alternatives.

Not a personal attack, I've heard this said several times now.  I do understand your viewpoint and others with similar ones, but that's kind of like saying:

"Drilling for more oil won't solve all our problems...so we shouldn't do any new drilling"

So we do nothing about it at all and fall further behind in every aspect, including further deteriorating asphalt and concrete streets.

This is what I'm hoping for is that the five year plan turns into a phased improvement program.  First five years stabilizes the road problem, next five or seven, takes care of widening and other mass trans improvements.

We have to start somewhere, we can't keep ignoring this problem. Streets are one essential service we expect out of local government.  Doing nothing about the problem is excusing the municipality of one of it's core services.

I agree that we need to do something and that's why I'm torn. I'll probably end up voting for it.

But it's ridiculous to me that we have an "Energy Crisis" and nobody wants to do anything but wait for somebody to invent some way for us to keep living our current lifestyles, driving everywhere we go, but only in electric cars.

This isn't gonna be magically fixed by some invention. We're gonna have to make drastic lifestyle changes. The sooner we accept that the sooner we can start to solve the problem.

It's a crappy quandry every morning thinking:

"Do I take the truck today and bounce through the holes or ride the motorcycle and try to dodge the holes? " []

There are so many competing interests in our transportation needs that make cohesiveness difficult.  Some are profit-motivated and some are pure altruism.  I am optimistic some of our travel infrastructure issues will become better prioritized and organized with the comp plan update.

Our biggest struggle seems to be figuring out what the priorities are in the first place.  The bicyclists want more rider-friendly streets (I'm a bicyclist as well).  People who like light rail think it should be a priority, etc.  I guess since Tulsa has been devoid of mass transit other than the bus for so long, it's hard for me to think of another first priority other than better roads.  

I ride my bicycle entirely for fitness reasons and keep it adjacent to Riverparks, so I really don't have any complaints about where to ride my bike.  I stick to the trail system, so I'm somewhat blissfully ignorant on the share the road issue.

I'm slowly becoming more of an advocate of inner-city rail or other forms of mass-transit.  Looking around at all the new motor scooters running around town, there is definitely a demand for lower cost per trip transportation.  

I've definitely ridden my motorcycle as often as practical this summer since it gets about 2.75 x the mileage my truck gets.  If there were convenient masstrans options from my home to work, I might make use of them on days I know I don't need to get out during work hours.

[Friendly Bear]

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

quote:Originally posted by TheTed

I'm really torn on this. With any kind of nod to improving transit I would've been on board.

But it's really, really difficult for me to get behind a plan that just assures we'll continue to fall farther behind other cities when it comes to non-car alternatives.

Not a personal attack, I've heard this said several times now.  I do understand your viewpoint and others with similar ones, but that's kind of like saying:

"Drilling for more oil won't solve all our problems...so we shouldn't do any new drilling"

So we do nothing about it at all and fall further behind in every aspect, including further deteriorating asphalt and concrete streets.

This is what I'm hoping for is that the five year plan turns into a phased improvement program.  First five years stabilizes the road problem, next five or seven, takes care of widening and other mass trans improvements.

We have to start somewhere, we can't keep ignoring this problem. Streets are one essential service we expect out of local government.  Doing nothing about the problem is excusing the municipality of one of it's core services.

If you vote YES, are you rewarding the incompetent mismanagement of the Publik Werkes Department?

Same bunch has been there for a long, long time.

They drove us into the ditch.

And, we're supposed to let them keep driving our streets department??

They were the knuckleheads who implemented the Re-Build philosophy of letting arterial and neighborhood streets fall into terrible disrepair, as a legal PRETEXT to then use Third Penny Sales Tax dollars instead of Operating Budget dollars to totally re-build them.

As a result, the city quit maintaining the streets using Operating Budget dollars, and the streets deteriorated much faster than they could Re-build them.

Now, they are a shambles.

Smart businessmen don't reward incompetence.

Retire or Fire the leadership at Public Werkes.

Find some competent replacements.  

There are plenty of Civil Engineers in America that have road building/road maintenance experience.

They'll love living here in Tulsa.  Maybe they already are.....

[inteller]

quote:Originally posted by Friendly Bear

quote:Originally posted by RecycleMichael

Friendly bear is just making up facts again. There was not a story about two commissioners being against the road tax.

The story quoted Smaligo saying, "Right now, I just don't think I'm ready to lend support to this tax initiative," he said.

County Commission Chairman Fred Perry declined to comment on the issue Friday.

The Comissioner Miller quote was for the proposal. "The mayor's package is the best of all worlds, and I personally will vote for it," she said.

Stop making up facts friendly bear. Better yet, go away.

Nice attempt at a half-truth.  Did you learn that technique working for the Lorton's World?

SATURDAY's article stated, and I quote:

"County Commission Chairman Fred Perry declined to comment on the issue Friday.

However, Perry has said that he understands and supports the city's efforts to fix its roads but has insisted that the county has needs of its own, including a new Juvenile Bureau facility."

Hardly sounds like he supports the City of Tulsa grabbing the expiring COUNTY Sales Tax...

Here's the entire article from Saturday:

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=20080907_16_A5_Aesnon490810

well, but the county can try to re up the tax...it is just that, it will probably fail.

I'm currently in the FU county mode.  IMO, I think TUlsa should go after every expiring county tax.  There is very little left in Tulsa county that isn't incorporated.  Let the other cities grab the expiring taxes as well.  The county needs to finish widening the few remaining roads that border municipalities and then fix the few remaining rural bridges around town.  hopefully the county government will be absorbed into the city like it was in Jacksonville, FL.

[OUGrad05]

Since when has Denver become Tulsa?  Denver's light rail has been a disaster until gas hit 3.50 a gllon and really 4 bucks a gallon now its getting passengers.  Denver and Tulsa are not even close to being the same cities or metro areas....I can't believe I even have to say that.