The Tulsa Forum by TulsaNow

Several cities found massive savings by first examining what each city service really costs. Now Tulsa is about to start that same kind of search.
Indianapolis is where the mayor is looking as the example of what change can mean. The city revamped how it evaluates what it does and how much it costs. The city hired accounting firm KPMG. Their recommendations saved the city $550 million over 13 years.

"That savings alone has allowed Indianapolis to embark on a renaissance of growth and development guided by a better operated city government. This is exactly what we want for the City of Tulsa," said Mayor Bartlett.

So is there one ideal city for all city services?
For years, other cities have been coming to Tulsa to see how one of our success models, EMSA, has worked, so were not completely behind the curve.

If you want Tulsa-sized cities as a model to save money on city services, you may have to look at more than one city.

Tucson would be considered the model for saving millions on street lighting, for example, but I dont know where they stand on bus service, trash, water or funding community centers.

One of the more interesting I have been to in the last few years is Fargo...

Did someone say "Fargo"?

(http://blogs.ocweekly.com/navelgazing/fargo.jpg)

Was my impression too before I went...

She was from up Brainerd, not Fargo.

In all seriousness, can anyone cite examples of cities who's services would be considered a real model we could learn from?
In the EMSA example, Tulsa used to be the worst (think "Mother Jugs and Speed") before we became the model ambulance service.   What city has the most successful public transportation, for instance?
Ive always been told we cant have subways because of the pipelines, but surely there is a map of pipelines somewhere...

There have to be better models we can adopt, rather than throw more money at models that have failed us.

Everyone immediately jumps to subway when it comes to light rail, but I think sydney has the idea with above ground mono rail, which could allow rail in places here where underground lines could not go.

http://www.metrotransport.com.au/index.php/monorail/monorail-home.html

In this day and age, subway would be way too expensive, it'll never happen in Tulsa.  We can't even properly fund streets here.  I did a quick Google and you can figure $100mm to $2 + billion per mile (that was an example in NYC).

You have to look at Portland as having one of the most successful public transit systems that combines streetcars connecting inner neighborhoods through downtown, light rail connecting outlying parts of the city and suburbs to downtown, and buses connecting everywhere in between all with high levels of ridership.  In Portland development follows transit and thus is not centered around the car like in Tulsa and most comparable U.S. cities.  

...which makes me wonder if there is room in the Comprehensive Plan for the day when people decide that their car is just too expensive to use in the city.
Hey, did you ever think we would see the day when people gave up their "house phone"?

Now they never leave home without it!

I love Tulsa. 

We have our share of problems, but they are small compared to most places I've lived.  Our people are friendly and our businesses are strong (relative to the rest of the country).

Our landscape is beautiful, our architecture and development is diverse, we are blessed with resources and a relatively low cost of living.

Fix our streets, sell the city owned eyesores, and lower taxes.  Then we can have other cities attempting to emulate us.  We don't need to emulate anyone. 

Now, if we could only figure out how to get rid of the cord.   ;D

Public transit convenience over a personal vehicle would be another good reason to give up the car.

For those wanting to know which cities have functioning light rail, visit:  www.lightrailnow.org  Scroll down a bit on the left side in the yellow.  There you will find links to success stories, heritage operations and pretty much anything you would want to know.

Gaspar
You already enjoy low taxes.  The big problem is the graft and corruption that sucks up too much of it.

Everything else is right on.  This is a great place to live.  Well, except for the Crashship, maybe...  And it beats OKC handily.  Toronto might be close, except for winter.

Now, let's make it even better.  Oh, yeah, I guess we have to wait for a new mayor, huh?

Portland would definetly be a city I would love to see Tulsa emulate. I just cant see it because the people here have such different attitudes. Bikers there are looked upon with respect. Here we are too lazy to put on our turn signals and we view any biker or walker as road kill.

you can thank Paul Tay and Biker Fox for ruining any chance of bikers in Tulsa getting respect for several years.

And Portland probably even looks down on our biking community now after Paul Tay rode in their "bike naked" event a couple of years ago.

With the weather warming, there will be more cyclists out on the road, please be vigilant and keep an eye out.

Just visited Portland a month ago.  Went to Old Spaghetti Factory - original one - and it was wonderful.  It is exactly what the Spaghetti Warehouse WANTS to be...

And bike trails EVERYWHERE!!!  It is inexcusable that we don' have more of that in this town/county/state.  The existing trail system is very good (much better than anything OKC has) but it is anemic compared to civilized world.  Every time we do a street makeover, there should be bike lanes added.  This is pathetic.

I drove through there 4 times this summer, and I thought it was a dump.  Bismarck and Minot were much nicer.  Fargo reminded me of Texarkana.

Tulsa could learn some lessons from Little Rock.  The River Market district is very nice, and is always busy,  Much busier than any Tulsa district.  And they take care of their historic structures.  Today I walked across this bridge:http://www.bridgehunter.com/ar/pulaski/junction/ (http://www.bridgehunter.com/ar/pulaski/junction/).  The retrofit was very well done and preserves this historic structure.

Oh, yeah...how about fixing some streets??
Get rid of this loser idea of slobbering a 2" layer of rock and used motor oil on the ground and calling it a road.  Use concrete!!

You can build more roads with asphalt than you can with concrete for the same money, so Ill stick my neck out and say we go that route because those in charge are more concerned about greater numbers of quick results on their watch than fewer, better built projects that will outlast them.

We need to build our city to outlive those who build it (or at least have projects survive to the end of their given tax terms).  Concrete streets would be a better investment, but we would have fewer.

Even concrete roads don't seem to last around here.  A trip on Memorial between 81st and 91st will show that.

If you like Fargo, James Lileks has a whole section of his website devoted to his hometown (http://"http://www.lileks.com/fargo/index.html"), then and now. Pretty interesting, even to someone who's never been there.

For streets, you either have a city street department to do the work and buy REAL concrete.  Or do as now and use outside companies, but require them to warrant their work.

And it wouldn't hurt to hire a civil engineer (yeah, we have some) and actually let them design the street the way it should be and then let them require it to be built as designed.  You can't use 6" of 2,000 lb concrete and expect a street to last for more than a month or two.  (Interstates are designed 12" thick here and 24" thick in Germany.  And then we let 150,000 lb trucks drive all over them...all the time.  They are serious.  We are oblivious.)

And with oil prices of recent years, it ain't that much different to do concrete.  We use assfault because of the oil heritage of the state.  "Oil Capital" and all that....

Who is the mayor now?  Oilman.  What are the streets slobbered with?

Here is one for general thought - I and some friends have had this discussion and the consensus is that there IS NO OIL crisis as long as we can "afford" to dump it on the ground and call it a road.  Millions of barrels of it per year across the nation.

And assfault is much less environmentally friendly...(from ACPA - American Concrete Asso. - just like Fox, fair and balanced, no doubt.);
According to the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), asphalt requires approximately 8,981 gallons of diesel fuel per mile (gpm) for production and 1,737 gpm for hauling and placement. Compare this to 548 gpm for production of concrete and 1,369 gpm for placement. So, from production to placement, asphalt requires at least 5.5 times more energy than concrete.

Looking beyond initial costs can bring sometimes surprising results. In a 30-year life-cycle cost analysis, concrete can cost almost 50% less than an equivalently designed asphalt pavement.

Also known as a butt crack

I got to view several sections of I-40 being rebuilt in Arkansas a few years ago.  The put down an asphalt base for the concrete.  It is supposedly better than putting concrete on just dirt or rocks.  Anyone know for sure?

Road base is the key.  Must be stable gravel/aggragate/whatever base.  Can then put the gravel oil base.  But then there must be an adequate paved surface.  This is where we fall down in this country ALWAYS!!

12" road is grossly inadequate - especially if we are going to allow overweight truck traffic - double the nominal legal limit.

24" is minimum for an interstate type road.  That includes other roads, too.  Anywhere there are going to be 150,000 lb and over traffic (legal "limit" is 80,000 lb).

Think Autobahn.

But then again...we are an oil state... so we will keep on using 2" layers of oily rock.

According to the history channel asphalt in the long run is more environmentally friendly because it is more than 80% recyclable.  In addition it withstands drastic weather changes better than concrete.  In case you haven't noticed its quite warm in the summer and we have cold and freezing weather cosntantly for this asphalt si better.  It is more expensive up front according to them, but that assumes the roads are built correctly.  We throw down 3, 4 or 6 inches of concrete or asphalt and call it good.  This is not how its dont in other states or areas that have good roads.  As mentioned we need real engineers and real standards for our roads, not handouts to campaign doners who happen to own companies that build roads.  One thing few consider is our taxes are relatively low and we have a LOT of road miles to service on a per capita basis.







l