Tulsa Street Tax: Why Bother?

[1099paralegal]

quote:Originally posted by TheArtist
Relying on a false premise, will only get you false results. I dont buy it,,, why should anyone else? You may fool a few people at first, "High oil prices! the sky is falling!Forget the roads, We need mass transit!" but its not a truly convincing or reliable strategy for getting what you want.

WE'RE DOOMED.  THE END IS NEAR!

[Oil Capital]

quote:Originally posted by sauerkraut

Oil at $200.00+ a barrel from what I hear will transform pump prices to $12.00 a gallon not $7.00 or so. At least that's the talk in the media- [B)]

Why would a roughly 50-60% jump in crude oil prices lead to a 300% + jump in gasoline prices at the pump?

[PonderInc]

I'm not so sure that oil prices are going to level off any day soon.  

I think it's interesting that we failed to learn the lessons from the 70's about the need to continue conservation and researching alternative energy.  Meanwhile, we cling to the "lesson" we want to believe from the 70's energy crisis: that market forces will bring the price of oil "back down to normal."

I actually don't think it's going to work that way this time around.  The world is vastly different than it was back then.

OPEC doesn't control the oil market like it used to.  And the US, while still the major consumer of oil in the world (70% of which we use for transportation, by the way), is not the only fish in the sea.  While our oil consumption has risen by 25% since 1975, China's has risen by 400%, with no end in sight. (Sure, it's a fraction of our oil consumption, but you just have to imagine what China will be like in another 10 years if the trend continues.)

There's also lot of volitility/political uncertainty in all the screwy oil exporting states that we rely so heavily upon.  

And then a funny thing happened in Iraq....

Too bad we didn't take the trillions of dollars we're wasting in Iraq, and invest it in alternative energy and viable rapid transit.  Too bad we continue to fail to understand the high costs of sprawl.  Too bad we've been offering tax breaks for businesses to buy trucks and SUVs, instead of small, fuel efficient cars.  Too bad the "conservatives" seem to have forgotten the meaning of the word...

Oops...off on a tangent.  But you get the idea.

[1099paralegal]

Gotta LOVE this:

Councilor Bill Christiansen said Tuesday he won't support a streets package that does not devote a significant amount to widening projects.

"This is just as important to my south Tulsa district as street rehabilitation is in other areas of the city," he said. "There's got to be a compromise, otherwise I see my constituents being disenfranchised by this."

KILL it, Bill![][]

[cannon_fodder]

At most - add 3rd lanes (turning) to those streets.  

The streets in South Tulsa are not the same as streets in midtown.  Nearly everything has it's back to the main road, but for several strip malls near intersections which could be serviced by 4-lane.  Otherwise, the only turning that goes on is to get into a subdivision; which could be serviced fine with a 3rd lane for the "rush" hour.

The last thing Tulsa needs is more road-miles to maintain.

[TUalum0982]

quote:Originally posted by Red Arrow

If a person drives 15,000 mi/yr, the difference between 20 mpg and 40 mpg is 375 gal/yr. At $7.00/gallon, that is $2625/yr.  That won't buy much of a car. If you can, buy a car with better gas mileage because it is the right thing to do. Don't exepect it to pay for itself with better gas mileage unless you drive a LOT of miles per year.

interesting article on cnn.com yesterday.  And I quote...

"The FHWA's "Traffic Volume Trends" report, produced monthly since 1942, shows that estimated vehicle miles traveled (VMT) on all U.S. public roads for March 2008 fell 4.3 percent as compared with March 2007 travel. This is the first time estimated March travel on public roads fell since 1979. At 11 billion miles less in March 2008 than in the previous March, this is the sharpest yearly drop for any month in FHWA history. "

Thats alot of miles!

[RecycleMichael]

I read the same story. Keep it up and we won't need to widen any roads in south Tulsa.

[Wrinkle]

Still have to pay the water/sewer/trash bill which are rising to offset 3rd Penny losses expected from road repairs/improvements.

TMUA has gone berserk.

[RecycleMichael]

quote:Originally posted by Wrinkle


Still have to pay the water/sewer/trash bill which are rising to offset 3rd Penny losses expected from road repairs/improvements.

TMUA has gone berserk.

Correction. The trash rates are not going up.

[sgrizzle]

quote:Originally posted by 1099paralegal

Gotta LOVE this:

Councilor Bill Christiansen said Tuesday he won't support a streets package that does not devote a significant amount to widening projects.

"This is just as important to my south Tulsa district as street rehabilitation is in other areas of the city," he said. "There's got to be a compromise, otherwise I see my constituents being disenfranchised by this."

KILL it, Bill![][]

I AM one of his constituents and I offer him this advice on the subject.


Buy a vowel, Bill.

[MichaelBates]

quote:Originally posted by waterboy

That is very insightful. It is the numerous entrance/exits to the old neighborhoods that keeps traffic dissipated. It was the "cut through" streets they were trying to eliminate with the limited access neighborhoods out south. It backfired and causes bottlenecks that like you point out, results eventually in traffic signals.

Yes, and the more through streets, the less traffic burden any one residential street has to carry. Focusing an entire subdivision's traffic onto a "residential collector" creates the kind of traffic that leads to requests for speedramps, extra stop signs, and traffic lights. In midtown, I can plan my route out of a residential area so that I don't have to make a left-hand turn onto an arterial. You don't have that option in most of south Tulsa.

YoungTulsan's post is indeed insightful. Twenty years ago, I wrote Mayor Crawford urging mid-mile streets to be built in all newly developed areas. At some point, we may have to build those streets, even if it means  clearing a path through existing development. (Hey, they did it to midtown in the '70s.)

Building a through street between Memorial and Garnett to the north of Woodland Hills, Sam's, Best Buy, Target, and Kohl's would do more to relieve traffic on 71st St. than adding lanes to 71st would. Requiring adjacent parking lots to be connected would help, too.

[sgrizzle]

quote:Originally posted by MichaelBates

quote:Originally posted by waterboy

That is very insightful. It is the numerous entrance/exits to the old neighborhoods that keeps traffic dissipated. It was the "cut through" streets they were trying to eliminate with the limited access neighborhoods out south. It backfired and causes bottlenecks that like you point out, results eventually in traffic signals.

Yes, and the more through streets, the less traffic burden any one residential street has to carry. Focusing an entire subdivision's traffic onto a "residential collector" creates the kind of traffic that leads to requests for speedramps, extra stop signs, and traffic lights. In midtown, I can plan my route out of a residential area so that I don't have to make a left-hand turn onto an arterial. You don't have that option in most of south Tulsa.

YoungTulsan's post is indeed insightful. Twenty years ago, I wrote Mayor Crawford urging mid-mile streets to be built in all newly developed areas. At some point, we may have to build those streets, even if it means  clearing a path through existing development. (Hey, they did it to midtown in the '70s.)

Building a through street between Memorial and Garnett to the north of Woodland Hills, Sam's, Best Buy, Target, and Kohl's would do more to relieve traffic on 71st St. than adding lanes to 71st would. Requiring adjacent parking lots to be connected would help, too.

Seems like you've been pushing for 66th for what, like 5 years now?

[Breadburner]

quote:Originally posted by 1099paralegal

Gotta LOVE this:

Councilor Bill Christiansen said Tuesday he won't support a streets package that does not devote a significant amount to widening projects.

"This is just as important to my south Tulsa district as street rehabilitation is in other areas of the city," he said. "There's got to be a compromise, otherwise I see my constituents being disenfranchised by this."

KILL it, Bill![][]

[TheArtist]

I do not think street widening should be considered right now at all. Especially with the comprehensive plan being worked on. The idea Bates has about a through street behind the mall is a great idea and imo there should be other half mile streets as well.

Now is the time to be considering this idea as part of the new comprehensive plan. If Christiansen had said something to the effect that we need the funds for South Tulsa to build half mile streets,,, I think he would get more mid-town support. How the South Towners would react I dont know.

[Wrinkle]

quote:Originally posted by RecycleMichael

quote:Originally posted by Wrinkle


Still have to pay the water/sewer/trash bill which are rising to offset 3rd Penny losses expected from road repairs/improvements.

TMUA has gone berserk.

Correction. The trash rates are not going up.

Right. Trash rates remain at twice the rate they should be even though we've paid off an incinerator mortgage on a plant we don't own.

Remember, it was TARE from whom the funds to clean up after the ice storm. $11 million in cash laying around from proceeds not being paid on an incinerator mortgage. That was September-December near-quarter, so a year is like $40M.

That alone would go a long way to solving our streets problem.

What is it TARE does again?