Which plan for streets...5 years or 12 years?

[OurTulsa]

Remind me please.  Did either of the packages contain elements related to alternative modes or reducing demand?  Or were they both pointed at fixing the already grossly unsustainable network of inflated roads and potentially adding to the network we can't keep up with in the first place?

Without serious consideration toward establishing better streets containing good sidewalks, trees, crosswalks, bikelanes and/or working towards better land use policies that encourage infill (using the infrastructure we've already got) and alternative and far more sustainable modes of transportation, there's no way I'll piss away 12 years to maintaining the status quo.  I'd much rather commit to a shorter term fixing some of the worst roads all the while continuing our Comp Plan discussion which will hopefully lead to a new direction (at least for some part of the City) for our infrastructure investments.

[MakunBacon]

Has anyone bothered to look at the earmarks of what they're calling the 12 year "streets" plan? Or have you noticed the rebate giving to sr. citizens and low income tulsans if it passes?

I agree the streets need attention. But with such a major expenditure I want to see a 100% street focused agenda with no vote buying aspect. Time to quit playing Tulsan's as dumb and dumber.

[CoffeeBean]

Epic Fail, . . . your table is ready . . .

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by MakunBacon

Has anyone bothered to look at the earmarks of what they're calling the 12 year "streets" plan? Or have you noticed the rebate giving to sr. citizens and low income tulsans if it passes?

I agree the streets need attention. But with such a major expenditure I want to see a 100% street focused agenda with no vote buying aspect. Time to quit playing Tulsan's as dumb and dumber.

Heh, they are starting to pull a River Tax/V-2025 bribe.  How long till they announce $5mm in park improvements or ED inititatives in north Tulsa attached to this?

Anyone? Bueler? Anyone? Bueler?