Tulsa World posts full city streets plan

[RecycleMichael]

I agree with you last two, but still support the effort to find money to fix the roads.

Road money is a good investment of public dollars. The materials are usually all local, the work crews all from around here, even the design and final painting work is done by local crews. These are fine-paying jobs for people willing to work hard and that money is churned right back into the local economy over and over.

I think the worst roads I drive on each day are on the state and interstate highways.

[cannon_fodder]

The preoccupation with roads is not baffling to me.

I look at them like I do my trash service.  It is something I shouldn't have to worry about.  A community is expected to provide and maintain the service, citizens use it and don't have to think any more about it.  When all goes well, it is a non-issue.  But when they fail, then it's a serious problem.

It has cost me hundreds of dollars in repairs for starters.

On top of that, perception is everything.  Just driving from the airport to their hotel a visitor to Tulsa already gets the feel that the city is run down.  Smooth roads give the perception of a well maintained and well run city.  Crappy roads give people something negative to concentrate on.

Driving around town I see medians crumbling and full of gravel.  Bridges that are rusted, cracked, and very frequently with bits of rusted iron sticking out here and there from the   concrete.  Holes in streets that cause you to swerve.  Intersections so bad you have to slow down to safely pass.  And highways that are simply crumbling in places.

Street maintenance is a basic city service.  Most streets in Tulsa have been neglected for far too long and it is painfully obvious.  That hurts the image of our city and irritates our residents.  So there is a cost to having crappy streets... perhaps it won't deter someone from coming, but it can dampin' their image of Tulsa when they leave.
- - -

Tulsa has more road miles per capita than nearly any other city.  The road in front of Inteller's house is busy from 7am to 9 and from 4pm to 6.  Add a turning lane to alleviate those times and the problem (and whining) goes away while not doubling the road miles.  Then again, I drive places other than just on my road... so I'm not sure why the plan is a failure if it doesn't fix YOUR road.

[Gold]

This city just didn't think long term (with roads) after some point around 1980.  We expanded south so quickly that we never stopped to think about the possibilities of rising gas prices and the huge drain all the required roads would be on the local budget.

At the same time, I don't think a lot of people are willing to make the relative short term sacrifice for roads.  Downtown, Brookside, and Utica have construction and people are pissed about that.  What happens when we do that all over the city?

[swake]

This is a big plan and not being a resident of Tulsa I'm not going to come out and say that someone should or should not vote for this measure. I would personally support it if I lived in Tulsa but I can understand if someone else does not. It's a massive and seems like a good plan but it's almost overkill in addressing an issue that is only 50% reality and 50% perception.

I do however agree that Tulsan's perception of the quality of the roads in the city is much worse than reality because of a lack of understanding who is responsible for maintenance of which roadway.  Our highways and the related ramps and approach roads are in such bad shape that it creates a very real and understandable perception in the public that the city is not doing it's job when the real failure is (again) with the state. If I lived in Tulsa I would demand that Tulsa does a better job on getting a decent return on our state and federal road taxes.

There certainly are city streets that need a lot of work, and the actual city streets have gotten worse over the last decade but a big part of the perception of the condition of the streets (and city overall) is more related to a lack of any even basic maintenance. Potholes are poorly repaired, grass is not mowed as regularly as it should be and when it is the job is done poorly. Streetlights are allowed to burn out without repair, signs aren't fixed in a timely manner when damaged. None of this has much to do with actual street condition (even pot holes will happen at times on good streets) but it has a lot to do with how the city looks and how the residents perceive the condition of the streets. I like that this plan addresses these constant needs along with new pavement. I also like that it addresses sealing and crack repair as preventative maintenance seems to have been completely forgotten recently.

I too would like to see some rail in the plan, but passing money for rail right now is stupid when the state is unlikely to come up with anything like the needed matching state and federal dollars. Dedicating dollars now in this plan is just a recipe for Bates and company to scream in a few years that they were promised local rail and "we already paid for it" when the state ODOT fails to fund any matching dollars.  There is money for more busses in the plan and that is really all that is realistic for mass transit at this time in Tulsa. For urban rail to work in Tulsa (or Oklahoma City) the cities and the state are going to have to come up with a cooperative funding plan that is larger in scope (even if the dollars are less) than this plan and there's going to have to be a change in culture at ODOT.

Tulsa needs to try to fix the streets, this plan does that. Tulsa needs to work on it's appearance, this plan address that too. It grabs revenue streams back from the county, that's very good. It refocuses Tulsa's street spending back into the core of the city where most of the people live. It's a good plan overall. It doesn't add huge amounts of new taxes and I would vote for it. I would like to see some increase lobbying to go with this plan at the state level to fix our highways. Tulsa used to be "America's most beautiful city", this plan might just go a long way to getting us back to that.

[unknown]

Chart 4. Urban areas (population one million or more) with highest share of major roads and
highways with pavements providing an unacceptable ride quality

URBAN AREA PERCENTAGE UNACCEPTABLE:

Los Angeles 66
San Jose 65
San Francisco-Oakland 61
San Diego 60
New Orleans 56
Boston 54
Sacramento 50
Riverside-San Bernardino 42
Tulsa 41
Philadelphia 40

Chart 5. Urban Areas (population of one million or more) with highest annual additional vehicle
operating cost per motorists as result of driving on roads with unacceptable ride quality

URBAN AREA ADDITIONAL VEHICLE OPERATING COSTS
PER DRIVER:

Los Angeles $705
San Jose $704
San Francisco-Oakland $681
San Diego $674
Sacramento $622
New Orleans $621
Tulsa $610
Oklahoma City $586
Riverside-San Bernardino $571
Albuquerque $551

http://www.rebuildca.org/pdfs/BumpyRoadsStudy042804.pdf

I found this study to be quite interesting.

[unknown]

Chart 4. Urban areas (population one million or more) with highest share of major roads and
highways with pavements providing an unacceptable ride quality

URBAN AREA PERCENTAGE UNACCEPTABLE:

Los Angeles 66
San Jose 65
San Francisco-Oakland 61
San Diego 60
New Orleans 56
Boston 54
Sacramento 50
Riverside-San Bernardino 42
Tulsa 41
Philadelphia 40

Chart 5. Urban Areas (population of one million or more) with highest annual additional vehicle
operating cost per motorists as result of driving on roads with unacceptable ride quality

URBAN AREA ADDITIONAL VEHICLE OPERATING COSTS
PER DRIVER:

Los Angeles $705
San Jose $704
San Francisco-Oakland $681
San Diego $674
Sacramento $622
New Orleans $621
Tulsa $610
Oklahoma City $586
Riverside-San Bernardino $571
Albuquerque $551

http://www.rebuildca.org/pdfs/BumpyRoadsStudy042804.pdf

I found this study to be quite interesting.

[jackbristow]

quote:Originally posted by 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!

Since it seems you didn't read the article in the paper I'll post the part for you that explains why this is.  Maybe you did read it, but just forgot or missed it, but either way here you go.

""We're going to be working on the worst roads, but we're also going to be working on the good roads to make sure they don't fall into disrepair," said Paul Zachary, Public Works Department deputy director of engineering. "It's a balanced approach."

Not all streets will receive the same level of work, he cautioned. Some will have cracks sealed, some will have overlays, some will be reconstructed. "

Sounds like they are trying to be a little proactive here like we are always complaining that they should have done a long time ago and weren't.  These people are trying to fix the problems left to them by prior administrations/generations.  When they are proactive, we call it waste, when they address needs as they appear, we call them slow and wish they would be proactive.  

Give me a break man.  This is a good thing.  Stop complaining!  My 2 year old whines less.

[Townsend]

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectID=11&articleID=20080617_1__Deepl83710


Street vote to be put off to November


By World Staff
6/17/2008  1:44 PM


Deeply divided over the issue of street widening, Mayor Kathy Taylor and the City Council have agreed to put the brakes on a 12-year, $2 billion streets tax proposal until the Nov. 4 general election.

Councilors had been working toward an Aug. 26 ballot initiative. To do that, they would have had to call for the election no later than June 26 — 60 days in advance.

But all sides agreed that the widening issue needs more study.

The decision came after Councilor Bill Martinson, who has opposed having widening in the package, picked apart the list of five widening projects that are included in the plan.

All are corridor widening projects in south Tulsa. Martinson said other widening projects should be given consideration based on other critieria.

[waterboy]

Are bridges along the BA the city, county or state responsibility? How would one know? I just drove under the overpasses at 14th & Lewis and was surprised to see how much of it is falling into the streets. It has deteriorated very quickly since January. Looks pretty dangerous.

[Rico]

^
Sounds to me... like they are forming a City of Tulsa Streets Department.

Which I think may be a good thing.

I do not like them guaranteeing the funding of this street department with a locked in tax.

This would give the City no incentive to strive to balance their needs with the funds received as revenue.

Fund this project for 4 years or so and see if the "General Fund" increases to a point that the City can chip in some of the revenue that is already being made and decrease some of the tax earmarked for this project.

You fund this measure... then everything that they let go to hell in a hand basket becomes another package to be placed before the voters.They need to demonstrate some discipline,
target priorities.... Do what they get paid for..etc.

They don't need to bring a project that is all inclusive.....
They need to bring a project that will address the needs for the next four years or so with an option....Needs will change in the next four years... Hell the automobile may not even be a mode of transportation in twenty years.

[PonderInc]

I am among those who think that Tulsa needs to invest in more than just concrete and asphalt.  When people and corporations are looking at relocating, I'm pretty sure that "Oooh, what nice smooth asphalt they have..." doesn't enter into the equation.

Is the city beautiful?  Are there a variety of entertainment and cultural options?  Does the city have reliable public transit?  Are there interesting and cool things to do? Is it a healthy place to live (ie: clean air and water, opportunities to participate in healthy, active lifestyle...) Will I meet interesting, smart, fun people there?  All of these are much more important to a city than smooth roads.

Having said that, I also believe that we have failed to take care of our existing infrastructure.  The statistic I remember is that we currently spend half as much money as we did in the 1980's, but have twice as many roads to maintain.

For those people who are crying about an increase in taxes... I hope you will balance the additional $10/year for a $100,000 home vs. the amount you spend getting your wheels realigned every year.  Or new shocks.  Or bushings, ball joints, brake jobs...

My only concern is that if so much public investment is wrapped up in just street repair, what is our tolerance for additional public investment in the future?  While this package won't raise the sales tax (it will just replace existing taxes as they expire), how will we fund truly important projects that will act as catalysts for economic prosperity in the future?

If we give the "do the streets first" people their streets, will there be anything left for the future?

[Hoss]

quote:Originally posted by 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?

That would be a big fat 'no'.

What part of my post did you derive that from?  I was one of the most vehement NO voters on the TCC issue.  Let TCC fund their own.  We've towed the line for them for too long now.

[TulsaSooner]

Actually, I was responding to Coffee Bean's nonsense....sorry.

[B)]

[Wilbur]

quote:Originally posted by jackbristow

quote:Originally posted by 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!

Since it seems you didn't read the article in the paper I'll post the part for you that explains why this is.  Maybe you did read it, but just forgot or missed it, but either way here you go.

""We're going to be working on the worst roads, but we're also going to be working on the good roads to make sure they don't fall into disrepair," said Paul Zachary, Public Works Department deputy director of engineering. "It's a balanced approach."

Not all streets will receive the same level of work, he cautioned. Some will have cracks sealed, some will have overlays, some will be reconstructed. "

Sounds like they are trying to be a little proactive here like we are always complaining that they should have done a long time ago and weren't.  These people are trying to fix the problems left to them by prior administrations/generations.  When they are proactive, we call it waste, when they address needs as they appear, we call them slow and wish they would be proactive.  

Give me a break man.  This is a good thing.  Stop complaining!  My 2 year old whines less.

It's too bad that people who don't agree with you are considered whiners.  I suppose everyone who agrees with you is progressive?

Two billion dollars to spend on roads is nothing to sneeze at.  The roads we already re-do, most don't need.  Ask any of the road crew people.  It's called city councilors doing favors for friends.  We've got worse problems.

[FOTD]

Two Beellion seems miniscule in perspective to the entire project list.

I tend to side with Martinson.

If only they'd curb Harvard from I44 to 61st and put in storm drains .....