New street package at $451 million

[Double A]

quote:Originally posted by MDepr2007



When is Tulsa Now going to post the video of the PlaniTulsa meeting?

Great question.

[TheArtist]

quote:Originally posted by Red Arrow

quote:Originally posted by NoNewTulsaTax

With $6+ gas garaging most motor vehicles by the time the geniuses "fix" the streets, WHY BOTHER?

Until there is a viable transit alternative, most people will have no choice but to pay the gas bill and keep driving. Carpooling may help some but for many commuters a single person in a car is the only way to work.

Oh no, they will just trade in their hummers and big suv's for smaler suv's that get twice the gas mileage lol. Which isnt hard to do considering how poor a gas mileage those big suv's get. Plus 6dollar gas is nothing for most of those people anyway. Its the poor that get hurt the most, not the suburban suv drivers.



I really hope there is some funds for the starter line downtown. The bridges part perhaps? I would really like to see that happen, and soon. Its the most expensive chunk and the one that has to be done first anyway in order to start considering rail transportation to other areas.

I am actually kind of shocked that there isnt even the slightest mention of rail in this package? You would think that with the gas price situation "though prices will go down" that people wouldnt mind paying for at least a small step being taken in that direction?

Not talking about doing a lot, just that starter line, heck even not the full amount to fund it. But we should be at least making some tiny progress towards the future use of rail. I cant see that most people would disagree with a small, forward thinking, step like that at all.

[Friendly Bear]

quote:Originally posted by RecycleMichael

Here is the link to the Tulsa World story...

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=20080731_11_hr628386

5-year, $451 million streets package proposed for Tulsa
By BRIAN BARBER, World Staff Writer

Mayor Kathy Taylor is proposing a five-year, $451.6 million streets package due to concerns that voters won't accept the $2 billion plan on the table, the Tulsa World has learned.

"My real goal is to get a package that will pass," Taylor told the World on Thursday morning. "We need a plan that has broad council consensus and respects the fact that right now people in the city are having a hard time."

Taylor cited rising gas, utility and grocery prices as financial hurdles for people who are reluctant to approve a larger initiative. The mayor's plan is now the third that's been proposed.

Councilor Bill Martinson has championed the 12-year, $2 billion plan, while Councilor Bill Christiansen has proposed a $270 million package. "It's like papa bear, momma bear and baby bear," she said. "There's many different ways to approach this."

Taylor's plan, which would run from 2010 to 2014, focuses on transportation infrastructure only, including arterial and residential streets, bridges, sidewalks, trails and railroad crossings.

It would be funded by extending the third-penny program an additional two years, capturing the city's share of Tulsa County's Four to Fix when it expires and renewing the general obligation bond program. The plan would only slightly improve the city's average Pavement Condition Index scores. For the arterial streets, it would rise from 60 to 61 and for residential streets it would go up from 58 to 60. Without additional funding, the arterial score is expected to drop to 53 and the residential score would decrease to 54.

The plan does not include the $281 million from the $2 billion package to maintain city buildings, upgrade technology and buy buses and fire apparatus. It also omits the $390 million from the larger plan that would add about 100 city workers to form and in-house streets crew. Both of those categories have caused some outcry at recent town hall meetings.

Taylor said it is ultimately the council's decision on which package to send to the voters and that she will support the one that has the most support. Councilors are working on a schedule to have a final streets package ready by Aug. 7, a public hearing Aug. 14 and a council vote Aug. 21 to put it on the Nov. 4 general election.

Clever girl....

Notice how HRH Kathy Taylor's proposed street improvement program does NOT start until 2010....

Which coincides with when her term as Mayor expires, and her run for Governor of Oklahoma begins.

Smart.  We get to pick up the pieces as she gets to Move Up.

Come to think of it, I'll probably vote FOR HER for Governor.

Why you ask?

Then, we won't have to endure her as Tulsa Mayor any longer.

[]

[booWorld]

quote:Originally posted by TheArtist

I really hope there is some funds for the starter line downtown. The bridges part perhaps? I would really like to see that happen, and soon. Its the most expensive chunk and the one that has to be done first anyway in order to start considering rail transportation to other areas.

I am actually kind of shocked that there isnt even the slightest mention of rail in this package? You would think that with the gas price situation "though prices will go down" that people wouldnt mind paying for at least a small step being taken in that direction?

Not talking about doing a lot, just that starter line, heck even not the full amount to fund it. But we should be at least making some tiny progress towards the future use of rail. I cant see that most people would disagree with a small, forward thinking, step like that at all.

I will vote against any measure that has any funding for a starter rail line.

First, any public funding for rail service ought to be on a separate ballot issue.

Second, the downtown starter rail ought to be funded by the developers themselves and by user fees.

Third, I want to see comprehensive integrated planning at INCOG amongst various departments before I'll be willing to vote for a rail system.  I have property within 1400 feet of Tulsa's original townsite which was re-zoned against my wishes to a maximum of 2.66 dwelling units per acre by right.  This is not an acceptable urban density because it makes public transit non-sustainable.  The property to the north of mine was re-zoned to a maximum of 5.81 dwelling units per acre by right.  A small parcel 60 feet to the south of my property is now spot zoned at a maximum of 31.11 dwelling units per acre by right.  That's a more viable density for sustaining mass transit and public infrastructure, but it's a small spot zone district.  Most of the neighborhood was re-zoned to extremely low residential densities less than 6 dwelling units per acre.  We need to restore higher density zoning to areas near major public transportation corridors as set forth in the Comprehensive Plan, such as my neighborhood.  That would allow more people to live close to bus stops and to train stations.

[booWorld]

quote:Originally posted by YoungTulsan

quote:Originally posted by NoNewTulsaTax

With $6+ gas garaging most motor vehicles by the time the geniuses "fix" the streets, WHY BOTHER?

From what I've observed the last few years, even $6 gas won't get most people off the streets.  People will sooner sell their organs than their cars.

Personally, I agree with that because I drive so few miles.  Gas prices could rise to $16 per gallon, and I doubt if I'd change my driving habits very much.  I'm able to walk most places I need to go on a daily basis, and I spend very little money on gasoline.

[Wrinkle]

We need street work prior to sometime in 2010, as the Mayor's plan states. And, besides that, the total dollars and the additional year extension of the 3rd penny, it's identical to Christianson's original proposal.

I'm for less money, a shorter term and a quicker start. So, Christianson's plan (The "Hewgley Plan" originally with added Ad Valorem Taxes) comes closest to best. But, I'd be more pleased if the Ad Valorem was removed altogether and they kicked off road repair right away with Hewgely's $170 million package instead.

It gets us going and allows renewal by whomever is mayor next term.

Good thing there's plenty of room on the ballot for all these options to be presented and voted upon.

I'm voting NO if given only one option.

[RecycleMichael]

The plan that Christiansen supported (plan two) is now dead. Christiansen hinself said that he now supports the Mayor's plan.

The two plans now being discussed are the 12 year plan that Martinson came up with (who many councilors want) or the 5 year plan that the Mayor has proposed.

12 years or 5 years...

I preferred the 12 year plan because it is the only one that really gets the job done. But I worry that it can't pass with the economy in the shape it is in. That is why I think the 5 year plan makes more sense, today.

[Wrinkle]

The 12-year plan is more dead than Christiansen's.

Hewgley's, otoh, has not been represented. Well, if you add $120 Million in Ad Valorem, it IS Christiansen's plan.

There seems to be an obsession with adding Ad Valorem when it isn't necessary at all.

[Friendly Bear]

quote:Originally posted by RecycleMichael

The plan that Christiansen supported (plan two) is now dead. Christiansen hinself said that he now supports the Mayor's plan.

The two plans now being discussed are the 12 year plan that Martinson came up with (who many councilors want) or the 5 year plan that the Mayor has proposed.

12 years or 5 years...

I preferred the 12 year plan because it is the only one that really gets the job done. But I worry that it can't pass with the economy in the shape it is in. That is why I think the 5 year plan makes more sense, today.

Giving the Two Bozo's, Hardt and Zachary, $1.8 billion in MORE tax money to waste after their incompetent management of the Publik Werkes Department is dumber than dumb.

The word idiotic comes to mind regarding such folly.

[Wrinkle]

quote:Originally posted by Friendly Bear

quote:Originally posted by RecycleMichael

The plan that Christiansen supported (plan two) is now dead. Christiansen hinself said that he now supports the Mayor's plan.

The two plans now being discussed are the 12 year plan that Martinson came up with (who many councilors want) or the 5 year plan that the Mayor has proposed.

12 years or 5 years...

I preferred the 12 year plan because it is the only one that really gets the job done. But I worry that it can't pass with the economy in the shape it is in. That is why I think the 5 year plan makes more sense, today.

Giving the Two Bozo's, Hardt and Zachary, $1.8 billion in MORE tax money to waste after their incompetent management of the Publik Werkes Department is dumber than dumb.

The word idiotic comes to mind regarding such folly.

Yeah, we've not heard one comment regarding our concerns of process, specs and personnel. It'd be especially important to remove the requirement to use only local contractors and open bidding up to any qualified contractor.

Doesn't do much good to pour more money into a broken process.

[Friendly Bear]

quote:Originally posted by Wrinkle

quote:Originally posted by Friendly Bear

quote:Originally posted by RecycleMichael

The plan that Christiansen supported (plan two) is now dead. Christiansen hinself said that he now supports the Mayor's plan.

The two plans now being discussed are the 12 year plan that Martinson came up with (who many councilors want) or the 5 year plan that the Mayor has proposed.

12 years or 5 years...

I preferred the 12 year plan because it is the only one that really gets the job done. But I worry that it can't pass with the economy in the shape it is in. That is why I think the 5 year plan makes more sense, today.

Giving the Two Bozo's, Hardt and Zachary, $1.8 billion in MORE tax money to waste after their incompetent management of the Publik Werkes Department is dumber than dumb.

The word idiotic comes to mind regarding such folly.

Yeah, we've not heard one comment regarding our concerns of process, specs and personnel. It'd be especially important to remove the requirement to use only local contractors and open bidding up to any qualified contractor.

Doesn't do much good to pour more money into a broken process.

Favoring local contractors potentially drives up the costs enormously.  

Large, out-of-state road construction companies have much better economies-of-scale than the smaller, local companies.

The city also tends to structure its road bid-lettings into very SMALL packages, discouraging large out-of-area road construction companies from even wasting their time on individual $1-3 million bid jobs.  

It's intentional.  

Same thing the city and county do when they sole source bond underwriting to a certain favored local bank......BOK (Bank of Kaiser).

Or, same thing as when they sole source to one of two favored local construction companies:  Manhattan and Flintco.

It's another example of what I call:

The TULSA PREMIUM.

Of course, these local companies freely contribute a small percentage back to help pass the various local Tax promotion and tax renewal campaigns, (Vision 2025, the Kaiser River Tax, Tulsa G.O. Bond issues, School Bond elections, Third Penny Sales Tax, 4-to-Fix-the-County, etc.).

Re-cycling our tax dollars into their profits, and then coming right back at us to grab MORE TAXES.

Ain't Free Enterprise great!

[]

[PonderInc]

quote:Originally posted by Double A

quote:Originally posted by MDepr2007



When is Tulsa Now going to post the video of the PlaniTulsa meeting?

Great question.

We're off topic, here, but that was TGov filming, not TulsaNow.  They said it would run this summer.  I'm not sure when.  Check your local cable provider for listings.  Next time, we'll make sure we have our own video crew, so we can get it out to the public immediately.

<\tangent>

[PonderInc]

I feel relieved to have a different option than spending $2 billion on street repair for the next 12 years.  (Although I like the idea of funding an in-house crew to stay on top of street maintenance.)  

I worry about dedicating that much money to a single issue for that many years.  I'd rather not invest all our money in asphalt, when there are surely better public investments to make...especially those that would actually promote economic development, improve transit options, or enhance quality of life.

One thing that I think is interesting about the recent PLANiTULSA surveys of Tulsa is that everyone talked about "fixing the streets" (something like 84% of the people surveyed mentioned this), but very few people said that fixing the streets was the single, most important priority "to make the future of Tulsa the best it can be."

[Wrinkle]

quote:Originally posted by PonderInc

I feel relieved to have a different option than spending $2 billion on street repair for the next 12 years.  (Although I like the idea of funding an in-house crew to stay on top of street maintenance.)  

I worry about dedicating that much money to a single issue for that many years.  I'd rather not invest all our money in asphalt, when there are surely better public investments to make...especially those that would actually promote economic development, improve transit options, or enhance quality of life.

One thing that I think is interesting about the recent PLANiTULSA surveys of Tulsa is that everyone talked about "fixing the streets" (something like 84% of the people surveyed mentioned this), but very few people said that fixing the streets was the single, most important priority "to make the future of Tulsa the best it can be."

Nobody thinks of good streets as important due to it being supposedly a background basic function of local government. Ya know, pick up the trash, fix the streets...basic city stuff.

Kind of like breathing...we all take air for granted, until some refinery or trash incinerator messes it up and forces us to make an issue of it.

This one, however, has been a calculated discomfort placed upon citizens by those ostensibly looking out for our interests, all while now squeezing as much out of it as possible.

I'm not as po'd about roads as I am the way this, and many other things, has been handled and the way they treat those whom their jobs are to serve.

Local politicians view them mostly as obsticles in the way.

[carltonplace]

quote:Originally posted by PonderInc

I feel relieved to have a different option than spending $2 billion on street repair for the next 12 years.  (Although I like the idea of funding an in-house crew to stay on top of street maintenance.)  

I worry about dedicating that much money to a single issue for that many years.  I'd rather not invest all our money in asphalt, when there are surely better public investments to make...especially those that would actually promote economic development, improve transit options, or enhance quality of life.

One thing that I think is interesting about the recent PLANiTULSA surveys of Tulsa is that everyone talked about "fixing the streets" (something like 84% of the people surveyed mentioned this), but very few people said that fixing the streets was the single, most important priority "to make the future of Tulsa the best it can be."

I'm with you. Martinson's plan is too holistic and it keeps all of our attention focused on streets for too long.

Tulsans are a funny schizophrenic bunch. When asked to fix the county we said: "do the river", when asked about the river we said: "fix the streets", now here come the street proposals and we're all: "I'm against it".

Unfortunately over the past 12 years we focused more on street widening projects with our 3rd penny capital improvements plans and not enough on street maintenance (2nd penny does not produce enough for street maintenance, plus police, fire, ambulance, salaries, parks, mowing, etc).

What I'd like to see is a scaled inventory of the worst streets (need total rehabilitation), the bad streets (need resurfaced), ok streets (seal the cracks and patch please) and the fine streets.