Tulsa World posts full city streets plan

[blindnil]

The paper this morning posted the full city streets plan this morning with an overview story. What I found most interesting was the map attached to the story that shows all of the arterials and nonarterials that would be worked on during the program.
A bit of light Sunday reading anyone?

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=20080615_16_A1_spancl953970

[Rico]

"Yes we come from the land of plenty"...

[}:)]

[inteller]

widening 91st from Mingo to Memorial?  Welcome to 2002....That should have been done a LONG time ago.  

I notice that the widening projects are along parts that have had a partial widening....talk about the low hanging fruit.  And STILL no widening for 81st from mingo to memorial.

FAIL.

[Renaissance]

No rail on the agenda.  Annoying.  Should have been part of the widening bargain.

[Wilbur]

A ridiculously large plan.  Looking at my own neighborhood, it has every single street scheduled to be redone, which absolutely does NOT need to be done.

Some streets on the list just got resurfaced (within the last year), now they're going to do it again?

BIG FAT WASTE!

[blindnil]

Keep in mind ... this is a 12 year plan. Do you want to go a dozen years without some attention to your streets. As the story says, not all streets will receive the same level of repair ... some cracks sealed, some overlays, some reconstruction. I have to say, I'm pretty surprised at how quiet everyone's been about the plan. Not much reaction yet.

[sgrizzle]

twelve year plan that starts in 2 years. If they were done last year, they likely might need it again in 15 years.

[CoffeeBean]

This is insane.  The roads are not that bad;  not compared to other needs.  We've neglected river development far longer than the roads.  Education?  Is a laughing-stock.  

If the plan was a measured response based on need, I would understand, but this doesn't look like need.  I drive many of the roads identified, and they don't need improvement.  

I also recognize that in 15 years, these particular roads might need work, but that's true regardless of the road.  That tells me this allocation is permanent.  As such, I have serious reservations about the plan when the City has more pressing needs than road improvement for 2020.  

Put some money in our schools for God's sake.    

[Hoss]

quote:Originally posted by CoffeeBean

This is insane.  The roads are not that bad;  not compared to other needs.  We've neglected river development far longer than the roads.  Education?  Is a laughing-stock.  

If the plan was a measured response based on need, I would understand, but this doesn't look like need.  I drive many of the roads identified, and they don't need improvement.  

I also recognize that in 15 years, these particular roads might need work, but that's true regardless of the road.  That tells me this allocation is permanent.  As such, I have serious reservations about the plan when the City has more pressing needs than road improvement for 2020.  

Put some money in our schools for God's sake.    

River development without road development is S-T-U-P-I-D.

I drive enough to know that this city's roads are horrible.  Hell, the state's roads are horrible for that matter.  I just bought a new vehicle and I cringe every time I come up on a pothole that is unavoidable, which is at least two within every roadmile I drive.  Sometimes even those roadmiles on the expressways are the same.

But there is no way in hell I'll be voting for a property tax increase to fund this.  The city reps said we couldn't do river development without a tax.  Guess what?  They found a way.

They need to start being more pushy in DC; hell even in the hellhole down the Turner.  The city got us in this mess, they shouldn't have the citizens shoulder the brunt of what their mismanagement has caused.

[AVERAGE JOE]

quote:Originally posted by CoffeeBean

This is insane.  The roads are not that bad;  not compared to other needs.  We've neglected river development far longer than the roads.  Education?  Is a laughing-stock.  

If the plan was a measured response based on need, I would understand, but this doesn't look like need.  I drive many of the roads identified, and they don't need improvement.  

I also recognize that in 15 years, these particular roads might need work, but that's true regardless of the road.  That tells me this allocation is permanent.  As such, I have serious reservations about the plan when the City has more pressing needs than road improvement for 2020.  

Put some money in our schools for God's sake.    

Do the River First! No wait... Fix the Streets First!! No, scratch that... Fund our Schools First!!

Something has to go first.

[Wilbur]

quote:Originally posted by blindnil

Keep in mind ... this is a 12 year plan. Do you want to go a dozen years without some attention to your streets. As the story says, not all streets will receive the same level of repair ... some cracks sealed, some overlays, some reconstruction. I have to say, I'm pretty surprised at how quiet everyone's been about the plan. Not much reaction yet.

While an excellent point, the streets in my neighborhood are 25+ years old and don't get near the traffic an arterial street does.  And, streets are made to last much longer then 12 years.

[Townsend]

quote:Originally posted by Wilbur

quote:Originally posted by blindnil

Keep in mind ... this is a 12 year plan. Do you want to go a dozen years without some attention to your streets. As the story says, not all streets will receive the same level of repair ... some cracks sealed, some overlays, some reconstruction. I have to say, I'm pretty surprised at how quiet everyone's been about the plan. Not much reaction yet.

While an excellent point, the streets in my neighborhood are 25+ years old and don't get near the traffic an arterial street does.  And, streets are made to last much longer then 12 years.

Not when they overlay with a minimal depth of asphalt.  I'm really hoping there will be use of concrete in many of the repairs.  The 4" asphalt "fix" is lacking.

[TulsaSooner]

quote:Originally posted by Hoss

quote:Originally posted by CoffeeBean

This is insane.  The roads are not that bad;  not compared to other needs.  We've neglected river development far longer than the roads.  Education?  Is a laughing-stock.  

If the plan was a measured response based on need, I would understand, but this doesn't look like need.  I drive many of the roads identified, and they don't need improvement.  

I also recognize that in 15 years, these particular roads might need work, but that's true regardless of the road.  That tells me this allocation is permanent.  As such, I have serious reservations about the plan when the City has more pressing needs than road improvement for 2020.  

Put some money in our schools for God's sake.    

River development without road development is S-T-U-P-I-D.

I drive enough to know that this city's roads are horrible.  Hell, the state's roads are horrible for that matter.  I just bought a new vehicle and I cringe every time I come up on a pothole that is unavoidable, which is at least two within every roadmile I drive.  Sometimes even those roadmiles on the expressways are the same.

But there is no way in hell I'll be voting for a property tax increase to fund this.  The city reps said we couldn't do river development without a tax.  Guess what?  They found a way.

They need to start being more pushy in DC; hell even in the hellhole down the Turner.  The city got us in this mess, they shouldn't have the citizens shoulder the brunt of what their mismanagement has caused.

Pure ignorance.

First off, the city doesn't fund "education".  I guess you probably drummed up tons of support and voted Yes for the TCC bond issue, right?

[CoffeeBean]

I don't know what roads some of you drive, but the only road that makes me "cringe" is that part of peoria with the brick coming up.  

Nor do I understand the attempt to draw a causal relationship between roads and river development, e.g., "river development without road development is s-t-u-p-i-d."  One has nothing to do with the other outside of competing for dollars.  

Maybe I'm too dense, but I don't think the roads will simply vanish with river development.  Quite the opposite actually.  

And I have never - ever - never heard of, or met a single person anywhere, who made any decision about travel or recreation based upon the quality of roads.  (ok, maybe in some third world country during monsoon season, but still . . .).

Has anyone here actually sat down and written off a destination due to the roads?  Is there a database somewhere to check the road quality before i book my next vacation?  I would hate to arrive in Chicago only to realize that the roads have *gasp* potholes.  Oh the humanity!!  

I just find the preoccupation with roads absolutely baffling.

[Wilbur]

quote:Originally posted by CoffeeBean

I don't know what roads some of you drive, but the only road that makes me "cringe" is that part of peoria with the brick coming up.  

Nor do I understand the attempt to draw a causal relationship between roads and river development, e.g., "river development without road development is s-t-u-p-i-d."  One has nothing to do with the other outside of competing for dollars.  

Maybe I'm too dense, but I don't think the roads will simply vanish with river development.  Quite the opposite actually.  

And I have never - ever - never heard of, or met a single person anywhere, who made any decision about travel or recreation based upon the quality of roads.  (ok, maybe in some third world country during monsoon season, but still . . .).

Has anyone here actually sat down and written off a destination due to the roads?  Is there a database somewhere to check the road quality before i book my next vacation?  I would hate to arrive in Chicago only to realize that the roads have *gasp* potholes.  Oh the humanity!!  

I just find the preoccupation with roads absolutely baffling.

AMEN!

If this is Tulsa's most serious problem, then Tulsa has no problems.