Follow-up on Streets meeting

[RecycleMichael]

I saw at least twelve regular posters of TulsaNow at this meeting and I wanted to post my thoughts to share.

It started on time, with a great crowd. I counted 151 people including the committee members and media. All four TV stations, KRMG and the TulsaWorld all were there. Mayor Taylor, Six city councilors and three state representatives showed up as well as the top folks at INCOG, the city planning and city engineering departments.

Interestingly, the three city councilors who opposed the river imoprovements tax did not attend (Eagleton, Henderson and Turner). I hope that is not a sign that they have problems with the public input process.

The speakers were interesting. Lots of retirees, neighborhood activists and engineers spoke and when folks identifed their neighborhoods there was at least on speaker from every part of town. Many cyclists made great points (excluding Paul Tay) and they made a very good impression on the chairs.

The star was clearly TulsaNow President Sarah Kobos. Many of the speakers who followed mentioned her comments and agreed with her. She spoke about thinking outside the car, planning for trains, pedestrians and bicyclists. Another speaker talked about a commuter tax to raise funds. Yet another talked about holding contractors responsible for inferior work.

I thought it was a good public meeting. Lots of different people spoke and lots of important people listened. That is how they all should be.

[Rico]

I saw a small portion of Martinson's collection of funding ideas...

The fact that he thinks a "City Income Tax" would cause a "tax revolt".....however... tacking an additional tax on to $90. a barrel oil would not.... is kinda funny.

Tulsa has always been excellent at the planning stage...

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by Rico

I saw a small portion of Martinson's collection of funding ideas...

The fact that he thinks a "City Income Tax" would cause a "tax revolt".....however... tacking an additional tax on to $90. a barrel oil would not.... is kinda funny.

Tulsa has always been excellent at the planning stage...

It's purely psychological.

People don't tend to add up fuel taxes in their head like they do with sales tax nor an income tax.  When your reciept comes out of the pump, it shows the gallons pumped and total price- no tax break-out.

When you buy something over the counter at QT or the mall, it itemizes your taxes, so it's obvious.

[spoonbill]

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

quote:Originally posted by Rico

I saw a small portion of Martinson's collection of funding ideas...

The fact that he thinks a "City Income Tax" would cause a "tax revolt".....however... tacking an additional tax on to $90. a barrel oil would not.... is kinda funny.

Tulsa has always been excellent at the planning stage...

It's purely psychological.

People don't tend to add up fuel taxes in their head like they do with sales tax nor an income tax.  When your reciept comes out of the pump, it shows the gallons pumped and total price- no tax break-out.

When you buy something over the counter at QT or the mall, it itemizes your taxes, so it's obvious.

Taxing fuel is also a very specific use tax that only affects the people using the public service identified (roads).  I would classify this as a fair tax, and could support it.  However the city would need to satisfy my desire to see changes in their contracting process.

I participate in city contracting to some extent, and they way it is set up (their RFQ, RFP system) excludes many reputable contractors, and invites others to cut corners and do poor work.

In most cases the people preparing the RFQs have no idea how the work should be done, and therefore do not add the proper details necessary for a quality job.  

They should hire an outside consultant to write or evaluate RFQS.  This should be relatively inexpensive.  Six to twelve hours of work at $120 an hour could save millions, and the city would get a set of specifications that they could use for other projects.

[Rico]

quote:Originally posted by spoonbill

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

quote:Originally posted by Rico

I saw a small portion of Martinson's collection of funding ideas...

The fact that he thinks a "City Income Tax" would cause a "tax revolt".....however... tacking an additional tax on to $90. a barrel oil would not.... is kinda funny.

Tulsa has always been excellent at the planning stage...

It's purely psychological.

People don't tend to add up fuel taxes in their head like they do with sales tax nor an income tax.  When your reciept comes out of the pump, it shows the gallons pumped and total price- no tax break-out.

When you buy something over the counter at QT or the mall, it itemizes your taxes, so it's obvious.

Taxing fuel is also a very specific use tax that only affects the people using the public service identified (roads).  I would classify this as a fair tax, and could support it.  However the city would need to satisfy my desire to see changes in their contracting process.

I participate in city contracting to some extent, and they way it is set up (their RFQ, RFP system) excludes many reputable contractors, and invites others to cut corners and do poor work.

In most cases the people preparing the RFQs have no idea how the work should be done, and therefore do not add the proper details necessary for a quality job.  

They should hire an outside consultant to write or evaluate RFQS.  This should be relatively inexpensive.  Six to twelve hours of work at $120 an hour could save millions, and the city would get a set of specifications that they could use for other projects.

What are you trying to do....?

End the use of our "eco-friendly water soluble asphalt"...

Do you have any idea how many "man hours" rely on the usage of this product...?

You may as well say the "Gravy Train" stops here..

Think before you try and place these cost effective ideas into the system.

Next you will try saying we don't need the redundancy of the Economic Development Board.. While contributing to the TMC slush fund...  

Man... it's people like you that would have every one working for a living.
[}:)]

[spoonbill]

quote:Originally posted by Rico

quote:Originally posted by spoonbill

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

quote:Originally posted by Rico

I saw a small portion of Martinson's collection of funding ideas...

The fact that he thinks a "City Income Tax" would cause a "tax revolt".....however... tacking an additional tax on to $90. a barrel oil would not.... is kinda funny.

Tulsa has always been excellent at the planning stage...

It's purely psychological.

People don't tend to add up fuel taxes in their head like they do with sales tax nor an income tax.  When your reciept comes out of the pump, it shows the gallons pumped and total price- no tax break-out.

When you buy something over the counter at QT or the mall, it itemizes your taxes, so it's obvious.

Taxing fuel is also a very specific use tax that only affects the people using the public service identified (roads).  I would classify this as a fair tax, and could support it.  However the city would need to satisfy my desire to see changes in their contracting process.

I participate in city contracting to some extent, and they way it is set up (their RFQ, RFP system) excludes many reputable contractors, and invites others to cut corners and do poor work.

In most cases the people preparing the RFQs have no idea how the work should be done, and therefore do not add the proper details necessary for a quality job.  

They should hire an outside consultant to write or evaluate RFQS.  This should be relatively inexpensive.  Six to twelve hours of work at $120 an hour could save millions, and the city would get a set of specifications that they could use for other projects.

What are you trying to do....?

End the use of our "eco-friendly water soluble asphalt"...

Do you have any idea how many "man hours" rely on the usage of this product...?

You may as well say the "Gravy Train" stops here..

Think before you try and place these cost effective ideas into the system.

Next you will try saying we don't need the redundancy of the Economic Development Board.. While contributing to the TMC slush fund...  

Man... it's people like you that would have every one working for a living.
[}:)]

My deepest apologies.  I don't want to put anyone out.  

The most secure job in tulsa belongs to the guy with the shovel and the truck full of hot asphalt that turns our pot-holes into pot-bumps every year.  

"The government consists of a gang of men exactly like you and me. They have, taking one with another, no special talent for the business of government; they have only a talent for getting and holding office. Their principal device to that end is to search out groups who pant and pine for something they can't get and to promise to give it to them. Nine times out of ten that promise is worth nothing. The tenth time is made good by looting A to satisfy B. In other words, government is a broker in pillage, and every election is sort of an advance auction sale of stolen goods."[H. L. Mencken]

[spoonbill]

quote:Economic Development Board..

you mean the
DEPARTMENT OF REDUNDANCY DEPARTMENT

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by spoonbill



The most secure job in tulsa belongs to the guy with the shovel and the truck full of hot asphalt that turns our pot-holes into pot-bumps every year.  

They must get a LOT of vacation time, I rarely see them out and about.  Great gig if you can get it.

[spoonbill]

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

quote:Originally posted by spoonbill



The most secure job in tulsa belongs to the guy with the shovel and the truck full of hot asphalt that turns our pot-holes into pot-bumps every year.  

They must get a LOT of vacation time, I rarely see them out and about.  Great gig if you can get it.

It's actually 3 guys.  One fills the hole while the other two hold the Earth still (the rotation of the planet can cause an uneven hump).

[booWorld]

quote:Originally posted by recyclemichael

Many cyclists made great points (excluding Paul Tay)...

I thought Paul Tay's request that speed limits in general be lowered was a good one.  His point about drivers roaring from red light to red light was correct.  I've seen that time and time again.

[YoungTulsan]

quote:Originally posted by booWorld

quote:Originally posted by recyclemichael

Many cyclists made great points (excluding Paul Tay)...

I thought Paul Tay's request that speed limits in general be lowered was a good one.  His point about drivers roaring from red light to red light was correct.  I've seen that time and time again.

Stupid lights, they are timed to where you have to go 45 to make the next one

I do like the lights downtown, just coast at 20 and they all change green for you.

[booWorld]

quote:Originally posted by YoungTulsan

I do like the lights downtown, just coast at 20 and they all change green for you.

That depends on which direction you are driving.  In general, the lights on odd-numbered streets are set for west-bound traffic flow.  The lights on even-numbered streets are set for east-bound flow.  The lights on Cheyenne, Main, and Cincinnati are set for south-bound flow.  The lights on Boulder, Boston, and Detroit are set for north-bound flow.  The lights on Denver are set for north-bound flow in the mornings and south-bound flow in the afternoons.  I'm not sure how the controls on the lights will be set after most streets are converted to two-way traffic.

[TUalum0982]

quote:Originally posted by booWorld

quote:Originally posted by recyclemichael

Many cyclists made great points (excluding Paul Tay)...

I thought Paul Tay's request that speed limits in general be lowered was a good one.  His point about drivers roaring from red light to red light was correct.  I've seen that time and time again.

I dont think its the speed limit that is the problem, its the fact that our "fine men in blue" dont enforce the rules.  I cant tell you how many times I have been at a red light with a cop right next to me, and see someone blow right through the red light, and the cop is too busy talking on his phone or not paying attention in general.  Happens time and time again.  Instead of having motorcycle cops work construction zones pulling people over doing 34 in a 30mph zone, when no construction crew is out, have them work the countless intersections where red light offenders are, thus making it safe to actually enter into the intersection without looking both ways twice and waiting 3 or 5 seconds to make sure you dont get t-boned.

[patric]

quote:Originally posted by TUalum0982

I dont think its the speed limit that is the problem, its the fact that our "fine men in blue" dont enforce the rules.  I cant tell you how many times I have been at a red light with a cop right next to me, and see someone blow right through the red light, and the cop is too busy talking on his phone or not paying attention in general.  Happens time and time again.  Instead of having motorcycle cops work construction zones pulling people over doing 34 in a 30mph zone, when no construction crew is out, have them work the countless intersections where red light offenders are, thus making it safe to actually enter into the intersection without looking both ways twice and waiting 3 or 5 seconds to make sure you dont get t-boned.

Youre making a distinction between real public service and easy pickins.  If you need an example, visit south 71st street around HY 169 during the Christmas shopping season.  Traffic is a mess, but the motorcycle cops there arent helping by directing traffic, theyre raking in their funding for the next year.  
Priorities.  Go see for yourself.

[sgrizzle]

http://www.fox23.com/news/local/story.aspx?content_id=4074babb-6590-4049-b3e4-94b2c5292605

quote:
State could pay Tulsa for roads

TULSA, Okla.) November 6 - Bump after bump, drivers are still complaining about Tulsa's streets, but the city says it may have a solution.  They want the state to pay a chunk of the local road projects.

In tonight's town hall meeting, an effort to bring ideas to the Mayor's Task Force on streets, drivers in city council districts 4 and 9 heard about the city's new funding plan.

This week, the city council will vote on a resolution asking the state to rebate Tulsa and other cities the a half a cent state sales tax.

The Oklahoma Municipal League says the tax rebate could generate nearly $35 million a year.  And while it may not fix all thee bumps, seams, and crumbling concrete, some say it's enough to pave the way for improvements.

Driver Michelle Bateman says nothing bothers her more than sitting in traffic because of construction.  "You got people not knowing which way to go, which way to detour, you know choice words and a lot of slammed on brakes."

But city leaders say the headaches construction brings is worth the hassle.  "Somebody will be unhappy.  Somebody is grumpy, they are fixing the roads in their neighborhood even as we speak", says Tulsa City Councilor John Eagleton.

Michelle says, "They say 'oh, there's progress', there's road cones, that's all I see is road cones and I don't see any quality work being done."

Eagleton agrees the city hasn't dedicated itself to building quality streets.  "The real problem is Tulsa has been using every penny brought in for operational expenses and not putting enough attention into roads."

So under a new plan, the city council wants the state to pay Tulsa a half-cent from the state sales tax, generating almost half the amount Tulsa needs to spend on roads each year.

Commuter Annie Ward says this money could save a life.  "You have a lot of pedestrian traffic right here on Brookside alone and it's important one person could lose control of their vehicle and you're not damaging your own and you could take someone out on the walkway."

The Oklahoma Municipal League is the driving force behind this half-cent rule.  It says the state would owe more than 400 towns.  It will be up for debate in the next legislative session.

Tulsa City Council's next town hall meeting is set for next Monday in the western portion of City Council District 2.  That's starts at 6:00 p.m. at Webster High School.