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

[RecycleMichael]

I see the city council has this question on the agenda for tonight. They also are going to discuss putting both on the ballot at the same time.

What do TulsaNow posters think?

I think the "both" alternative is a bad idea. I can't imagine the confusion. I know I am easily confused, but this just seems impossible to get people to make an informed decision. If I don't understand it, I am against it.

I could argue for both of the two plans. I have heard from lots of people on the topic and listened to both sides from a lot of different angles. I have also read what the police union said to the media about their survey (translated...if you commit to the 12 year plan you might not be able to give us the 12 pay raises our union will demand).

The big one (12 year) just makes sense. If you are going to do something, do it right. I don't think the roads are bad enough to warrant this, but I must be in the minority because everybody else sure does. Bill Martinson heard what the people were saying, went out a figured how much of a problem there was, then figured out a way to pay for it. That is exactly what I want my representative to do. Thank you.

The five year financing plan seems passable by the voters however and I am not sure the 12 year financing plan is. I have heard from lots of people who don't think now is the time to commit that much and point out that the world could be way different in 12 years. Why would you lock in this plan knowing that the cost of materials, the traffic counts to justify the improvements, and the potential for different priorities could be so different in 12 years?

I want something done. I want something passed. I am not sure the twelve year plan can pass. I think the five year plan moves us forward. Yes, not as far as doing it right would move us forward, but at least the right direction.

You don't drown by falling into water, you drown by staying there. If we don't get a vote passed...it says as a community we are giving up on our roads and sinking.

[PonderInc]

I agree that the 12-year plan makes sense...especially the point about hiring in-house road crews to stay on top of maintenance.  But I also agree with those who worry about "locking in" for 12 years with no money left over for other projects.  (I'm one of the people who think we need to invest in more than just asphalt to "fix the streets.")

The Mayor's plan is a compromise that gets us to the same level of improvement in 5 years as the 12 year plan.  (Minus, presumably, the in-house crew for maintenance.) We can always "re-up" if we like the deal.  I can live with that.

Putting both options on the ballot seems sort of goofy to me.  Sounds like the council needs to step up and make a decision...do that "representative government" thing they're tasked with doing.  

I personally doubt there's any way the $2 billion option would pass.  People on the streets will think: "That seems like an awfully big number..."  Others will think: "For $2 billion, I want transit and a purple helecopter to go with that asphalt..."

[MDepr2007]

Hmmm... Admiral is being redone now, so is 11th , Garnett from I-244 to 11th will be soon and I-244 is getting a new layer... I think I'm good for awhile [}:)]

[jne]

quote:Originally posted by PonderInc

I agree that the 12-year plan makes sense...especially the point about hiring in-house road crews to stay on top of maintenance.  But I also agree with those who worry about "locking in" for 12 years with no money left over for other projects.  (I'm one of the people who think we need to invest in more than just asphalt to "fix the streets.")

The Mayor's plan is a compromise that gets us to the same level of improvement in 5 years as the 12 year plan.  (Minus, presumably, the in-house crew for maintenance.) We can always "re-up" if we like the deal.  I can live with that.

Putting both options on the ballot seems sort of goofy to me.  Sounds like the council needs to step up and make a decision...do that "representative government" thing they're tasked with doing.  

I personally doubt there's any way the $2 billion option would pass.  People on the streets will think: "That seems like an awfully big number..."  Others will think: "For $2 billion, I want transit and a purple helecopter to go with that asphalt..."

I think the 5 year plan can pass and I tend to think that with a 5 year plan, we are less likely to get ripped off.

[FOTD]

quote:Originally posted by jne

quote:Originally posted by PonderInc

I agree that the 12-year plan makes sense...especially the point about hiring in-house road crews to stay on top of maintenance.  But I also agree with those who worry about "locking in" for 12 years with no money left over for other projects.  (I'm one of the people who think we need to invest in more than just asphalt to "fix the streets.")

The Mayor's plan is a compromise that gets us to the same level of improvement in 5 years as the 12 year plan.  (Minus, presumably, the in-house crew for maintenance.) We can always "re-up" if we like the deal.  I can live with that.

Putting both options on the ballot seems sort of goofy to me.  Sounds like the council needs to step up and make a decision...do that "representative government" thing they're tasked with doing.  

I personally doubt there's any way the $2 billion option would pass.  People on the streets will think: "That seems like an awfully big number..."  Others will think: "For $2 billion, I want transit and a purple helecopter to go with that asphalt..."

I think the 5 year plan can pass and I tend to think that with a 5 year plan, we are less likely to get ripped off.

Same here!

[cks511]

Let's see....Union to 71st is good, South Yale is good...okay I can get to work if I must drive an auto.  All I need fixed is the bike route from Peoria to Lewis.  Or I can always catch the bus at my corner.  Sorry, don't need either plan. No problems.

But thanks anyway.

[OkieDiva]

I think most folks would agree that Tulsa's streets are in a terrible state of disrepair. The five-year plan wouldn't do much to change that... the streets wouldn't get worse, but wouldn't get noticeably better either. That's not an acceptable option. The 12-year plan is a FIX. The five-year plan is purgatory.

Perhaps if voters reject the true fix now, they'll embrace it in a year... after another year of potholes. I think the five-year plan is one of the worst things we can do. Voters and elected officials will wash their hands of the issue and fail to pay mind/commit funding to a true fix for a long time to come.

[Double A]

I hope they both make it to the ballot. I like the fact there's money in it(12 year plan) for mowing, graffiti abatement, and street maintenance. I'd vote yes on both.

[waterboy]

Frankly, I don't trust the city to do it right. Twelve years is too long and $2 billion is too much. I expect cars to get lighter, traffic counts to drop and density of population to increase. Our population is not growing much but we're expanding physically. Asphalt will get more expensive. Concrete as well.

The only chance we have is to pass a manageable figure for short periods, reassess, and pass more if necessary.

Now, fundamentally change the way we finance growth in the suburbs by assessing each new sprawl proposal a realistic fee for providing roads and services to them and I'll change my vote to a long term fix. Or show the local donors how they can control the city and let them volunteer to provide new roads.

[grahambino]

5 year plan?
5 YEAR PLAN?!
it all makes perfect sense now.

[BierGarten]

Frankly, if either one actually passes I will be pleased.  

While it is true that the smaller package doesn't "fix" our streets, it essentially does the same thing the larger package would do in its first five years.

I would prefer the larger package just so we won't have to do this over and over again.  And I don't buy the argument that passing the larger package would restrict essential resources that may need to go to other essential government functions.  Streets are an essential government function!  If other essential functions need additional funding over the 12 year span then we need to fund those as well.

[Gaspar]

The 5 year plan is far more sensible than the 12 year.  Priorities change, and street plans are driven by the ebb and flow of development, not by some static plan.

To quote my favorite Python line "Power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony."

Ridiculous, but there is a lesson there!  

In 12 years we should all have jet-packs or ride the hydrogen buses, right?

[Tulsaworld.cc]

Watch it live ( 14 or so second buffering)on the internet:

http://www.ustream.tv/channel/tgov-

[Conan71]

Five year plan is where it's at.  We need to accept the fact that streets are "consumable".

Thanks for the link tulsaworld.cc!

Can anyone tell me what the attraction was to voters for Bynum or Gomez?  Talk about empty suits.

[waterboy]

Council just voted for the 12 yr. plan. I think they are way too optimistic. Eagleton quoted nearly 73% of polled liked one plan or the other. The key word is "or". Not sure those who support a 5 year will now support a 12 year just because that's all being offered.