The Tulsa Forum by TulsaNow

Talk About Tulsa => Other Tulsa Discussion => Topic started by: YoungTulsan on September 03, 2008, 02:15:14 am



Title: $451M Streets plan on Nov. 4th General Ballot
Post by: YoungTulsan on September 03, 2008, 02:15:14 am
http://www.newson6.com/global/story.asp?s=8939534 (KOTV)

Looks like the $451 Million version will be on the November 4th general election ballot.

And we even get a detailed list of each project, how nice!  
http://kotv.images.worldnow.com/images/incoming/pdf/0808/Streets5Year.pdf (KOTV)


Will the high turnouts for the Presidential election have a positive or negative effect on the success of this?  I have heard it theorized by some that they generally like to put the tax initiatives on lower turnout days so the Yes voters can be rallied up and the No voters can be kept in the dark.  Is that just a wacky idea, or are the streets a different beast?  Whereas most common people think the streets are bad and need to be fixed, would probably forget to go vote on an odd election day, but will be there at the polls anyway for the Presidential race?

Anything stick out as absurd on the list of projects/costs?  Anything disturbing in its absence from the list?

I didn't know the Crow Creek bridge on Riverside was deficient.  Do you think the replacement would be forward looking to any possible widenings/use changes of Riverside in the future?  That'll sure snarl up traffic if they do it.

I think I will support this, just for the sake of getting the hard work started.  In another 5 to 10 years we can start licking our chops over the upcoming Vision2025 expiration, and during this period we can have serious discussions about doing more than just street widening.


Title: $451M Streets plan on Nov. 4th General Ballot
Post by: YoungTulsan on September 03, 2008, 02:59:35 am
Giant image ahoy!

I shrunk it down, and the forum shrunk it down some more.  You may need to click on it.

(http://img399.imageshack.us/img399/2080/streetsplanmedium256zo6.gif)


Title: $451M Streets plan on Nov. 4th General Ballot
Post by: Conan71 on September 03, 2008, 09:41:14 am
I think this has a great chance of passing and is easier for voters to digest.  I'm glad the Mayor and Council seem to be listening.

I want to read up on it a little more before Friendly Bear starts up with his "tax vampire" naysaying, but on the surface, I can't see any reason I'd not vote for it.



Title: $451M Streets plan on Nov. 4th General Ballot
Post by: carltonplace on September 03, 2008, 10:17:07 am
I see there is more money for the Boulder bridge in the proposal. I wouldn't have any problem with starting there if this passes.


Title: $451M Streets plan on Nov. 4th General Ballot
Post by: Friendly Bear on September 03, 2008, 10:41:05 am
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71

I think this has a great chance of passing and is easier for voters to digest.  I'm glad the Mayor and Council seem to be listening.

I want to read up on it a little more before Friendly Bear starts up with his "tax vampire" naysaying, but on the surface, I can't see any reason I'd not vote for it.





I generally like to get some details and analyze a new tax proposal before I automatically oppose it.

What is the breakdown of funding sources for this new tax?

Details?

P.S. Any reason this Topic wasn't posted on the Political Arena Forum?

May have cooled off the Obamites vitriole a few degrees there.


Title: $451M Streets plan on Nov. 4th General Ballot
Post by: Gaspar on September 03, 2008, 11:39:08 am
Thank you Mayor Taylor.  

This will pass.

We must now make sure that the promotion and advertising for the plan is realistic, ethical, and POSITIVE.  

It's as simple as that, and this is a done deal.

Pictures of sad children, suffering, and the oh so popular "if you don't vote for this, your grandmother will die" marketing ploys will surely kill this just like it did for the Channels project.  Threaten us and we vote no.

Ok, here's how it needs to go down. . . The ads need to focus on the prospect of Tulsa having a reputation for the best, cleanest, smoothest streets in the country.  Show businesses flourishing, happy people on busses, in cars and walking on sidewalks.  Promote the message within a futuristic atmosphere of prosperity and pride.  Tie it in with images of the arena, ballpark and a busy bright down-town atmosphere.  Night time images with rain glistening off of clean smooth streets, and the reflection from the colorful lights of businesses and the movement of people walking around.  Show movement in bright skys with rapidly moving clouds over a bright city landscape (this typically emotes progress).

You're welcome.  No charge.







Title: $451M Streets plan on Nov. 4th General Ballot
Post by: izmophonik on September 03, 2008, 12:00:45 pm
quote:
Originally posted by YoungTulsan

Bored, plotted all the arterials, intersections, and bridges.  Busted out my trusty giant google map of Tulsa.

(http://img354.imageshack.us/img354/9818/2008streetsplanfo7.jpg)
Edit - imageshack killed the resolution on my image.  Don't know where else to upload it - 1313 x 1738 (Tulsa is big!)



e-mail it to me, I'll host it on my website.

adamday1@cox.net


Title: $451M Streets plan on Nov. 4th General Ballot
Post by: TheArtist on September 03, 2008, 12:04:10 pm
quote:
Originally posted by Gaspar

Thank you Mayor Taylor.  

This will pass.

We must now make sure that the promotion and advertising for the plan is realistic, ethical, and POSITIVE.  

It's as simple as that, and this is a done deal.

Pictures of sad children, suffering, and the oh so popular "if you don't vote for this, your grandmother will die" marketing ploys will surely kill this just like it did for the Channels project.  Threaten us and we vote no.

Ok, here's how it needs to go down. . . The ads need to focus on the prospect of Tulsa having a reputation for the best, cleanest, smoothest streets in the country.  Show businesses flourishing, happy people on busses, in cars and walking on sidewalks.  Promote the message within a futuristic atmosphere of prosperity and pride.  Tie it in with images of the arena, ballpark and a busy bright down-town atmosphere.  Night time images with rain glistening off of clean smooth streets, and the reflection from the colorful lights of businesses and the movement of people walking around.  Show movement in bright skys with rapidly moving clouds over a bright city landscape (this typically emotes progress).

You're welcome.  No charge.









I thought you said realistic and ethical,,, then you go and say they should unethically paint that unrealistic picture. This plan, none of the presented plans for that matter, would have given us anything close to the "best, cleanest, smoothest roads in the country". At best we will get our roads up to a "C".



Title: $451M Streets plan on Nov. 4th General Ballot
Post by: Gaspar on September 03, 2008, 12:10:44 pm
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist

quote:
Originally posted by Gaspar

Thank you Mayor Taylor.  

This will pass.

We must now make sure that the promotion and advertising for the plan is realistic, ethical, and POSITIVE.  

It's as simple as that, and this is a done deal.

Pictures of sad children, suffering, and the oh so popular "if you don't vote for this, your grandmother will die" marketing ploys will surely kill this just like it did for the Channels project.  Threaten us and we vote no.

Ok, here's how it needs to go down. . . The ads need to focus on the prospect of Tulsa having a reputation for the best, cleanest, smoothest streets in the country.  Show businesses flourishing, happy people on busses, in cars and walking on sidewalks.  Promote the message within a futuristic atmosphere of prosperity and pride.  Tie it in with images of the arena, ballpark and a busy bright down-town atmosphere.  Night time images with rain glistening off of clean smooth streets, and the reflection from the colorful lights of businesses and the movement of people walking around.  Show movement in bright skys with rapidly moving clouds over a bright city landscape (this typically emotes progress).

You're welcome.  No charge.









I thought you said realistic and ethical,,, then you go and say they should unethically paint that unrealistic picture. This plan, none of the presented plans for that matter, would have given us anything close to the "best, cleanest, smoothest roads in the country". At best we will get our roads up to a "C".





You can't sell a C to people who expect an F.

This plan is a rung on the ladder.  The plan is secondary to the goal.  The goal is presenting something positive for the City of Tulsa and getting the people to agree on a ballet.  Then. . . Following through in such a manner that the people agree to more needed improvements and involve themselves in the solution.

As it stands the people expect the city to threaten them with disaster if they don't vote yes.  If they do vote yes, they expect the city to mismanage the funds and then turn around and ask for more.  

My point is that imagery of success promotes success.  




Title: $451M Streets plan on Nov. 4th General Ballot
Post by: grahambino on September 03, 2008, 12:26:36 pm
quote:
Originally posted by Gaspar

Thank you Mayor Taylor.  

This will pass.

We must now make sure that the promotion and advertising for the plan is realistic, ethical, and POSITIVE.  

It's as simple as that, and this is a done deal.

Pictures of sad children, suffering, and the oh so popular "if you don't vote for this, your grandmother will die" marketing ploys will surely kill this just like it did for the Channels project.  Threaten us and we vote no.

Ok, here's how it needs to go down. . . The ads need to focus on the prospect of Tulsa having a reputation for the best, cleanest, smoothest streets in the country.  Show businesses flourishing, happy people on busses, in cars and walking on sidewalks.  Promote the message within a futuristic atmosphere of prosperity and pride.  Tie it in with images of the arena, ballpark and a busy bright down-town atmosphere.  Night time images with rain glistening off of clean smooth streets, and the reflection from the colorful lights of businesses and the movement of people walking around.  Show movement in bright skys with rapidly moving clouds over a bright city landscape (this typically emotes progress).

You're welcome.  No charge.



"Night time images with rain glistening off of clean smooth streets, and the reflection from the colorful lights of businesses and the movement of people walking around."  

that reads as if it were the opening scene of Taxi Driver.


Title: $451M Streets plan on Nov. 4th General Ballot
Post by: Gaspar on September 03, 2008, 12:40:59 pm
quote:
Originally posted by grahambino

quote:
Originally posted by Gaspar

Thank you Mayor Taylor.  

This will pass.

We must now make sure that the promotion and advertising for the plan is realistic, ethical, and POSITIVE.  

It's as simple as that, and this is a done deal.

Pictures of sad children, suffering, and the oh so popular "if you don't vote for this, your grandmother will die" marketing ploys will surely kill this just like it did for the Channels project.  Threaten us and we vote no.

Ok, here's how it needs to go down. . . The ads need to focus on the prospect of Tulsa having a reputation for the best, cleanest, smoothest streets in the country.  Show businesses flourishing, happy people on busses, in cars and walking on sidewalks.  Promote the message within a futuristic atmosphere of prosperity and pride.  Tie it in with images of the arena, ballpark and a busy bright down-town atmosphere.  Night time images with rain glistening off of clean smooth streets, and the reflection from the colorful lights of businesses and the movement of people walking around.  Show movement in bright skys with rapidly moving clouds over a bright city landscape (this typically emotes progress).

You're welcome.  No charge.



"Night time images with rain glistening off of clean smooth streets, and the reflection from the colorful lights of businesses and the movement of people walking around."  

that reads as if it were the opening scene of Taxi Driver.



Exactly except without all the violence.



Title: $451M Streets plan on Nov. 4th General Ballot
Post by: Conan71 on September 03, 2008, 12:56:38 pm
quote:
Originally posted by Gaspar

quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist

quote:
Originally posted by Gaspar

Thank you Mayor Taylor.  

This will pass.

We must now make sure that the promotion and advertising for the plan is realistic, ethical, and POSITIVE.  

It's as simple as that, and this is a done deal.

Pictures of sad children, suffering, and the oh so popular "if you don't vote for this, your grandmother will die" marketing ploys will surely kill this just like it did for the Channels project.  Threaten us and we vote no.

Ok, here's how it needs to go down. . . The ads need to focus on the prospect of Tulsa having a reputation for the best, cleanest, smoothest streets in the country.  Show businesses flourishing, happy people on busses, in cars and walking on sidewalks.  Promote the message within a futuristic atmosphere of prosperity and pride.  Tie it in with images of the arena, ballpark and a busy bright down-town atmosphere.  Night time images with rain glistening off of clean smooth streets, and the reflection from the colorful lights of businesses and the movement of people walking around.  Show movement in bright skys with rapidly moving clouds over a bright city landscape (this typically emotes progress).

You're welcome.  No charge.









I thought you said realistic and ethical,,, then you go and say they should unethically paint that unrealistic picture. This plan, none of the presented plans for that matter, would have given us anything close to the "best, cleanest, smoothest roads in the country". At best we will get our roads up to a "C".





You can't sell a C to people who expect an F.

This plan is a rung on the ladder.  The plan is secondary to the goal.  The goal is presenting something positive for the City of Tulsa and getting the people to agree on a ballet.  Then. . . Following through in such a manner that the people agree to more needed improvements and involve themselves in the solution.

As it stands the people expect the city to threaten them with disaster if they don't vote yes.  If they do vote yes, they expect the city to mismanage the funds and then turn around and ask for more.  

My point is that imagery of success promotes success.  






They could show revamped downtown streets, residential streets which have been re-done, like Florence Park, etc.

Definitely, cut the hyperbole.  That's what turns people into skeptics and turns off the voters.  I believe it's entirely possible the river tax would have passed without all the outrageous claims and promises they made.



Title: $451M Streets plan on Nov. 4th General Ballot
Post by: Friendly Bear on September 03, 2008, 01:13:12 pm
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71

quote:
Originally posted by Gaspar

quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist

quote:
Originally posted by Gaspar

Thank you Mayor Taylor.  

This will pass.

We must now make sure that the promotion and advertising for the plan is realistic, ethical, and POSITIVE.  

It's as simple as that, and this is a done deal.

Pictures of sad children, suffering, and the oh so popular "if you don't vote for this, your grandmother will die" marketing ploys will surely kill this just like it did for the Channels project.  Threaten us and we vote no.

Ok, here's how it needs to go down. . . The ads need to focus on the prospect of Tulsa having a reputation for the best, cleanest, smoothest streets in the country.  Show businesses flourishing, happy people on busses, in cars and walking on sidewalks.  Promote the message within a futuristic atmosphere of prosperity and pride.  Tie it in with images of the arena, ballpark and a busy bright down-town atmosphere.  Night time images with rain glistening off of clean smooth streets, and the reflection from the colorful lights of businesses and the movement of people walking around.  Show movement in bright skys with rapidly moving clouds over a bright city landscape (this typically emotes progress).

You're welcome.  No charge.









I thought you said realistic and ethical,,, then you go and say they should unethically paint that unrealistic picture. This plan, none of the presented plans for that matter, would have given us anything close to the "best, cleanest, smoothest roads in the country". At best we will get our roads up to a "C".





You can't sell a C to people who expect an F.

This plan is a rung on the ladder.  The plan is secondary to the goal.  The goal is presenting something positive for the City of Tulsa and getting the people to agree on a ballet.  Then. . . Following through in such a manner that the people agree to more needed improvements and involve themselves in the solution.

As it stands the people expect the city to threaten them with disaster if they don't vote yes.  If they do vote yes, they expect the city to mismanage the funds and then turn around and ask for more.  

My point is that imagery of success promotes success.  






They could show revamped downtown streets, residential streets which have been re-done, like Florence Park, etc.

Definitely, cut the hyperbole.  That's what turns people into skeptics and turns off the voters.  I believe it's entirely possible the river tax would have passed without all the outrageous claims and promises they made.





Can anyone provide a precise description of the source of the proposed taxes?

Property?

New Sales Taxes?

Third Penny?

Or?



Title: $451M Streets plan on Nov. 4th General Ballot
Post by: Gaspar on September 03, 2008, 01:22:05 pm
quote:
Originally posted by Friendly Bear

quote:
Originally posted by Conan71

quote:
Originally posted by Gaspar

quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist

quote:
Originally posted by Gaspar

Thank you Mayor Taylor.  

This will pass.

We must now make sure that the promotion and advertising for the plan is realistic, ethical, and POSITIVE.  

It's as simple as that, and this is a done deal.

Pictures of sad children, suffering, and the oh so popular "if you don't vote for this, your grandmother will die" marketing ploys will surely kill this just like it did for the Channels project.  Threaten us and we vote no.

Ok, here's how it needs to go down. . . The ads need to focus on the prospect of Tulsa having a reputation for the best, cleanest, smoothest streets in the country.  Show businesses flourishing, happy people on busses, in cars and walking on sidewalks.  Promote the message within a futuristic atmosphere of prosperity and pride.  Tie it in with images of the arena, ballpark and a busy bright down-town atmosphere.  Night time images with rain glistening off of clean smooth streets, and the reflection from the colorful lights of businesses and the movement of people walking around.  Show movement in bright skys with rapidly moving clouds over a bright city landscape (this typically emotes progress).

You're welcome.  No charge.









I thought you said realistic and ethical,,, then you go and say they should unethically paint that unrealistic picture. This plan, none of the presented plans for that matter, would have given us anything close to the "best, cleanest, smoothest roads in the country". At best we will get our roads up to a "C".





You can't sell a C to people who expect an F.

This plan is a rung on the ladder.  The plan is secondary to the goal.  The goal is presenting something positive for the City of Tulsa and getting the people to agree on a ballet.  Then. . . Following through in such a manner that the people agree to more needed improvements and involve themselves in the solution.

As it stands the people expect the city to threaten them with disaster if they don't vote yes.  If they do vote yes, they expect the city to mismanage the funds and then turn around and ask for more.  

My point is that imagery of success promotes success.  






They could show revamped downtown streets, residential streets which have been re-done, like Florence Park, etc.

Definitely, cut the hyperbole.  That's what turns people into skeptics and turns off the voters.  I believe it's entirely possible the river tax would have passed without all the outrageous claims and promises they made.





Can anyone provide a precise description of the source of the proposed taxes?

Property?

New Sales Taxes?

Third Penny?

Or?





Sales tax rate remains the same, and property taxes see a maximum increase of about $55 for a $100,000 home.



Title: $451M Streets plan on Nov. 4th General Ballot
Post by: Friendly Bear on September 03, 2008, 01:40:54 pm
quote:
Originally posted by Gaspar

quote:
Originally posted by Friendly Bear

quote:
Originally posted by Conan71

quote:
Originally posted by Gaspar

quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist

quote:
Originally posted by Gaspar

Thank you Mayor Taylor.  

This will pass.

We must now make sure that the promotion and advertising for the plan is realistic, ethical, and POSITIVE.  

It's as simple as that, and this is a done deal.

Pictures of sad children, suffering, and the oh so popular "if you don't vote for this, your grandmother will die" marketing ploys will surely kill this just like it did for the Channels project.  Threaten us and we vote no.

Ok, here's how it needs to go down. . . The ads need to focus on the prospect of Tulsa having a reputation for the best, cleanest, smoothest streets in the country.  Show businesses flourishing, happy people on busses, in cars and walking on sidewalks.  Promote the message within a futuristic atmosphere of prosperity and pride.  Tie it in with images of the arena, ballpark and a busy bright down-town atmosphere.  Night time images with rain glistening off of clean smooth streets, and the reflection from the colorful lights of businesses and the movement of people walking around.  Show movement in bright skys with rapidly moving clouds over a bright city landscape (this typically emotes progress).

You're welcome.  No charge.









I thought you said realistic and ethical,,, then you go and say they should unethically paint that unrealistic picture. This plan, none of the presented plans for that matter, would have given us anything close to the "best, cleanest, smoothest roads in the country". At best we will get our roads up to a "C".





You can't sell a C to people who expect an F.

This plan is a rung on the ladder.  The plan is secondary to the goal.  The goal is presenting something positive for the City of Tulsa and getting the people to agree on a ballet.  Then. . . Following through in such a manner that the people agree to more needed improvements and involve themselves in the solution.

As it stands the people expect the city to threaten them with disaster if they don't vote yes.  If they do vote yes, they expect the city to mismanage the funds and then turn around and ask for more.  

My point is that imagery of success promotes success.  






They could show revamped downtown streets, residential streets which have been re-done, like Florence Park, etc.

Definitely, cut the hyperbole.  That's what turns people into skeptics and turns off the voters.  I believe it's entirely possible the river tax would have passed without all the outrageous claims and promises they made.





Can anyone provide a precise description of the source of the proposed taxes?

Property?

New Sales Taxes?

Third Penny?

Or?





Sales tax rate remains the same, and property taxes see a maximum increase of about $55 for a $100,000 home.





Does the Publik Werkes Direktor Chas. Hardt get fired/retired as part of this street tax initiative?

After all, he was in charge when the decision was made back in Mayor Susan Savage's reign to quit maintaining the streets through regular crack filling, patching and re-paving.

Instead, the city adopted the Re-Build concept for street repairs, using the Third Penny Sales Tax instead of city operating budget money.

We since learned the hardt way if you quit maintaining the streets, they deteriorate faster than they can be re-built.

Hardt needs to be replaced by a competent Civil Engineer knowledgeable about street repair/maintenance.

Hardt needs a gold watch, a handshake, and there's the door Good-bye.




Title: $451M Streets plan on Nov. 4th General Ballot
Post by: carltonplace on September 03, 2008, 01:47:04 pm
Sales tax rates remain the same, new 3rd penney funds would be would be focused only on these projects once the current projects completes, and the city would take over our portion of 4 to fix once that expires.


Title: $451M Streets plan on Nov. 4th General Ballot
Post by: EricP on September 03, 2008, 01:47:58 pm
quote:
Originally posted by Friendly Bear[/i
Does the Publik Werkes Direktor Chas. Hardt get fired/retired as part of this street tax initiative?

After all, he was in charge when the decision was made back in Mayor Susan Savage's reign to quit maintaining the streets through regular crack filling, patching and re-paving.

Instead, the city adopted the Re-Build concept for street repairs, using the Third Penny Sales Tax instead of city operating budget money.

We since learned the hardt way if you quit maintaining the streets, they deteriorate faster than they can be re-built.

Hardt needs to be replaced by a competent Civil Engineer knowledgeable about street repair/maintenance.

Hardt needs a gold watch, a handshake, and there's the door Good-bye.



Hey, I think you said something that I agree with for once... I notice how most of Broken Arrow's streets are regularly patched and have the cracks sealed with tar (or whatever) and some of them have been around a LONG time. They Seal Aspen up and down every few years and it sure seems to do the trick.

When Tulsa paves over failing concrete streets, the cracks between slabs just come back with a vengance later... and it seems they did that with just about every damn street in Tulsa. Why did they abandon proper maintenance of the concrete for a quick, thin piece of crap asphault layer?


Title: $451M Streets plan on Nov. 4th General Ballot
Post by: YoungTulsan on September 04, 2008, 06:18:26 am
Those damn neighborhood maps split up randomly in a PDF weren't cutting it for me, I wanted to visualize the whole plan, so I put together an entire map with everything on it :)

My copy is actually 4 times the size (2967x4002), what I posted above is shrunk down.


Title: $451M Streets plan on Nov. 4th General Ballot
Post by: TheArtist on September 04, 2008, 08:39:18 am
quote:
Originally posted by YoungTulsan

Those damn neighborhood maps split up randomly in a PDF weren't cutting it for me, I wanted to visualize the whole plan, so I put together an entire map with everything on it :)

My copy is actually 4 times the size (2967x4002), what I posted above is shrunk down.



Thanks for doing that map. Definitely helps you see what all is in this plan.



Title: $451M Streets plan on Nov. 4th General Ballot
Post by: Rico on September 04, 2008, 01:31:04 pm
Tonights Council will have one Deja Vu item....http://www.cityoftulsa.org/agendas/agendax.asp?FN=000A27A9&num=1


Title: $451M Streets plan on Nov. 4th General Ballot
Post by: YoungTulsan on September 04, 2008, 08:53:14 pm
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist

quote:
Originally posted by YoungTulsan

Those damn neighborhood maps split up randomly in a PDF weren't cutting it for me, I wanted to visualize the whole plan, so I put together an entire map with everything on it :)

My copy is actually 4 times the size (2967x4002), what I posted above is shrunk down.



Thanks for doing that map. Definitely helps you see what all is in this plan.





Yeah, I really think it is a pretty good plan, spread out across all parts of the city.  A decent amount of thought was put into fixing some of the worst streets in town.

I'm not sure, since it isn't specified, if some of these arterial street projects are for widening, replacement, resurfacing, or what.  Some of them look like they should be widenings, but I thought the widenings were scrapped for the $450M vs. the $2B plan.


Title: $451M Streets plan on Nov. 4th General Ballot
Post by: OUGrad05 on September 04, 2008, 09:13:32 pm
I'm not quite sure how I feel about this.  I feel the city is very mismanaged, and asking for more money from the people is absurd.  But at the sametime if the city isn't given a chance to right the ship it will never happen.  But I also feel that 400 million dollars isn't nearly enough to fix the problems with the roads but if its handled properly in three or four years perhaps the rest get fixed :)


Title: $451M Streets plan on Nov. 4th General Ballot
Post by: nathanm on September 05, 2008, 12:27:30 pm
quote:
Originally posted by OUGrad05

in three or four years perhaps the rest get fixed :)


Unlikely. The usual suspects will be out in force whining about how we "just" gave the city $450 million to fix the streets and they're back at the trough asking for more.

Not that there isn't room for personnel improvement in certain city departments, but people around here have such a poor image of any government body asking for any sort of money (basically a bunch of anti-tax nuts it seems) it seems nearly impossible to get anything done that requires lots of money.

I can't for the life of me figure out how Vision 2025 passed. (that was before I moved here)

And FWIW, milling and overlaying asphalt is a widely accepted way of fixing concrete roads. The problem is that it requires a stable base and more importantly, another mill and overlay every 3-5 years. In this town, regular maintenance of that sort seems unlikely.


Title: $451M Streets plan on Nov. 4th General Ballot
Post by: Wrinkle on September 05, 2008, 06:48:16 pm
I have some major issues with the Mayor's plan.
I'll have to delineate them later, but it's too large and uses Ad Valorem unnecessarily.

The good part is the Ad Valorem tax will require a seperate ballot item which can be turned down and still retain the Sales Tax portion.

That would be a pretty good compromise.

I will suggest our Public Works Department is ill-prepaired to spend $90 million per year for each of the next five years on anything.

And, new leadership there is a good idea, too.
I'd support a Gold Watch Party.

I do want to know how much actual PAVING this plan is supposed to provide. Well over half of the total is planned for neighborhood streets, a plan already well in progress as 3rd Penny funding is staged. So, that is nothing new.

We also need to check the status of both the 2001 and 2006 3rd Penny Projects. Many of those have yet to begin. So, how are they going to do those and the new stuff at the same time?



Title: $451M Streets plan on Nov. 4th General Ballot
Post by: inteller on September 05, 2008, 07:52:35 pm
oh WOW!  they are going to actually do something about south Riverside to 121st!  I'm voting for this for sure!


Title: $451M Streets plan on Nov. 4th General Ballot
Post by: Conan71 on September 05, 2008, 09:14:41 pm
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle

I have some major issues with the Mayor's plan.
I'll have to delineate them later, but it's too large and uses Ad Valorem unnecessarily.

The good part is the Ad Valorem tax will require a seperate ballot item which can be turned down and still retain the Sales Tax portion.

That would be a pretty good compromise.

I will suggest our Public Works Department is ill-prepaired to spend $90 million per year for each of the next five years on anything.

And, new leadership there is a good idea, too.
I'd support a Gold Watch Party.

I do want to know how much actual PAVING this plan is supposed to provide. Well over half of the total is planned for neighborhood streets, a plan already well in progress as 3rd Penny funding is staged. So, that is nothing new.

We also need to check the status of both the 2001 and 2006 3rd Penny Projects. Many of those have yet to begin. So, how are they going to do those and the new stuff at the same time?





I'd like to hear what you've got to say about it.  I'm just excited we might finally do something about our streets.  I also hope that we bother to contract out to someone other than the usual suspects.  Did we just hand Becco the keys to all our old equipment?  They suck.

Hardt is definitely past his shelf life, I'd chip in to get him real gold if it'd make him go away.



Title: $451M Streets plan on Nov. 4th General Ballot
Post by: TheTed on September 05, 2008, 10:51:20 pm
I'm really torn on this. With any kind of nod to improving transit I would've been on board.

But it's really, really difficult for me to get behind a plan that just assures we'll continue to fall farther behind other cities when it comes to non-car alternatives.


Title: $451M Streets plan on Nov. 4th General Ballot
Post by: OUGrad05 on September 07, 2008, 10:33:50 am
quote:
Originally posted by TheTed

I'm really torn on this. With any kind of nod to improving transit I would've been on board.

But it's really, really difficult for me to get behind a plan that just assures we'll continue to fall farther behind other cities when it comes to non-car alternatives.


Can you name another city of tulsa's size and spread that has light rail and other forms of mass transit?  

BTW it needs to be in the US, NOT europe.


Title: $451M Streets plan on Nov. 4th General Ballot
Post by: Gaspar on September 07, 2008, 02:54:08 pm
quote:
Originally posted by OUGrad05

quote:
Originally posted by TheTed

I'm really torn on this. With any kind of nod to improving transit I would've been on board.

But it's really, really difficult for me to get behind a plan that just assures we'll continue to fall farther behind other cities when it comes to non-car alternatives.


Can you name another city of tulsa's size and spread that has light rail and other forms of mass transit?  

BTW it needs to be in the US, NOT europe.



Silver Dollar City!  I've ridden the light-rail there several times.  Why can't we just take the train at the zoo and expand the tracks all the way down to 91st street South?




Title: $451M Streets plan on Nov. 4th General Ballot
Post by: Chicken Little on September 07, 2008, 05:19:47 pm
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle

I have some major issues with the Mayor's plan.
Why are we not surprised?

quote:
I'll have to delineate them later, but it's too large and uses Ad Valorem unnecessarily.
Too large, huh?  Our streets will be in about the same condition that they are now, if not worse, when this thing is done.  So, are you saying that maintaining the streets is just not worth it?


Title: $451M Streets plan on Nov. 4th General Ballot
Post by: OurTulsa on September 07, 2008, 06:51:26 pm
quote:
Originally posted by OUGrad05

quote:
Originally posted by TheTed

I'm really torn on this. With any kind of nod to improving transit I would've been on board.

But it's really, really difficult for me to get behind a plan that just assures we'll continue to fall farther behind other cities when it comes to non-car alternatives.


Can you name another city of tulsa's size and spread that has light rail and other forms of mass transit?  

BTW it needs to be in the US, NOT europe.




http://www.lightrailnow.org/success2.htm

New Rail Transit Systems Proposed, Planned, or in Development

USA

Albany - rapid LRT proposed
Albuquerque - regional rail under construction, LRT proposed
Arlington, Va - streetcar system planned
Atlanta - regional rail and streetcar projects in planning
Austin - light regional railway project under way, streetcar system proposed
Bayonne - streetcar in development
Birmingham - rapid LRT proposed, streetcar system in development
Boise - LRT (interurban, streetcar) proposed
Boulder - streetcar proposed
Charlotte - historic trolley upgrade under construction, modern LRT planned
Charlottesville - streetcar proposed
Cincinnati - LRT (interurban, streetcar) in planning
Columbus - LRT (interurban, streetcar) in planning
Corpus Christi - streetcar in planning
Dayton - streetcar proposed
Des Moines - LRT streetcar proposed
Detroit - interurban and streetcar LRT, regional passenger rail proposed
Denton - regional rail in development
El Paso - LRT streetcar system proposed
Fayette - LRT or regional rail proposed
Ft. Lauderdale - streetcar and rapid LRT proposed
Ft. Worth - regional passenger rail planned, streetcar proposed
Fresno - streetcar proposed
Glendale, Ca - streetcar proposed
Grand Rapids - streetcar proposed
Harrisburg - regional rail in development
Honolulu - rail rapid transit planned
Huntington, WV - heritage streetcar proposed
Huntington Beach, Ca - LRT proposed
Indianapolis - rapid LRT proposed, streetcar proposed
Jacksonville - light regional railway and LRT streetcar proposed
Kansas City - rapid LRT proposed
Lancaster - heritage streetcar proposed
Las Vegas - proposed
Louisville - LRT proposed
Madison - regional rail and streetcar proposed
Memphis - heritage streetcar in operation, modern LRT planned
Miami - streetcar projects in planning
Milwaukee - interurban and streetcar LRT, regional passenger rail proposed
Minneapolis - modern LRT in operation, streetcar proposed
Montgomery - heritage streetcar proposed
Nashville - regional "commuter" rail project under way
Norfolk - interurban LRT project under way
Ogden - modern streetcar proposed
Omaha - heritage streetcar proposed
Orange County (Ca) - LRT (interurban or streetcar) in planning
Orlando - regional passenger rail project under way, rapid LRT in planning
Phoenix - interurban LRT project under construction; regional rail and streetcar system proposed
Raleigh - regional rail system in planning
Reading, Pa - streetcar proposed
Richmond - heritage streetcar proposed
Roanoke - heritage streetcar proposed
Rochester - proposed
Salem, Or - streetcar proposed
San Antonio - proposed
Savannah - heritage streetcar (self-propelled) project under way
Seattle - Regional rail and modern streetcar in operation, interurban LRT project under way
Spokane - light railway proposed
Stamford - light rail streetcar proposed
Tampa - historic streetcar in operation, modern LRT streetcar proposed
Toledo - streetcar proposed
Tucson - heritage streetcar system being expanded, LRT proposed
Union County, NJ - LRT project under development
Washington - LRT in planning
Winston-Salem - streetcar project in planning
Yakima - heritage tourist streetcar system being expanded into transit line
 



Title: $451M Streets plan on Nov. 4th General Ballot
Post by: OurTulsa on September 07, 2008, 06:55:54 pm
quote:
Originally posted by OUGrad05

quote:
Originally posted by TheTed

I'm really torn on this. With any kind of nod to improving transit I would've been on board.

But it's really, really difficult for me to get behind a plan that just assures we'll continue to fall farther behind other cities when it comes to non-car alternatives.


Can you name another city of tulsa's size and spread that has light rail and other forms of mass transit?  

BTW it needs to be in the US, NOT europe.



http://www.lightrailnow.org/success1.htm

Rail Transit Systems in Operation

USA SYSTEMS

Electric Light Rail Transit (Interurban & Streetcar)
Modern & Heritage Urban & Interurban Transit Systems (See below for novelty heritage trolley systems)


Baltimore
Boston
Buffalo (modern LRT)
Charlotte (modern LRT, heritage streetcar)
Cleveland (legacy surface electric railway upgraded to modern LRT)
Dallas (modern LRT, heritage streetcar)
Denver
Houston
Hudson-Bergen, NJ
Kenosha, WI (heritage streetcar)
Little Rock (heritage streetcar)
Los Angeles
Memphis (currently heritage streetcar; modern LRT planned)
Minneapolis (Interurban LRT in operation, streetcar proposed)
Newark
New Orleans (entirely heritage streetcar)
Philadelphia (modern LRT, heritage streetcar)
Pittsburgh
Portland
Sacramento
St. Louis
Salt Lake City
San Diego
San Francisco (modern LRT, heritage streetcar)
San Jose
Seattle (currently heritage streetcar; modern LRT in development)
Tacoma, WA
Tampa (currently heritage streetcar; modern LRT planned)


Internally Powered Light Railway

Camden-Trenton, NJ
Galveston, TX

Metro (Rail Rapid Transit) and Regional Passenger Rail ("Commuter Rail")

Albuquerque
Atlanta
Baltimore
Boston
Camden
Chicago
Cleveland
Dallas
Ft. Lauderdale
Ft. Worth
Los Angeles
Miami
Newark
New York City
Oakland
Philadelphia
San Diego
San Francisco/Bay Area
San Jose
Seattle
Trenton
Washington


Novelty Heritage Trolley Systems

Colorado Springs
Ft. Collins
Ft. Smith
Seattle
Tucson  



Title: $451M Streets plan on Nov. 4th General Ballot
Post by: OUGrad05 on September 07, 2008, 08:44:00 pm
OurTulsa you seem to have not read my post even though you quoted it twice.  Here's what I said...

Can you name another city of tulsa's size and spread that has light rail and other forms of mass transit?

BTW it needs to be in the US, NOT europe.


You posted list with MANY proposed cities and a whole list of cities that include Baltimore and SanFrancisco.  MUCH larger cities and much more dense.  

Only a couple are even remotely comparable like ABQ and even its more dense than Tulsa and still only has things in the proposal stage with absolutely ZERO track record of successful mass transit.  Even large cities tend to spend more on the mass transit then the systems bring in which means it costs the tax payers more to operate mass transit than the value they receive back from the system.  That isn't necessarily a bad thing but considering no one can provide any real examples with a city the size of tulsa and with the city spread of tulsa and effective mass transit is probably indictive of it not being efficient.  Only at 4 dollar gas did we as a nation get serious about mass transit but our cities still aren't designed for it and suburbs aren't going away anytime soon.


edit: and since when did a trolly system become mass transit?


Title: $451M Streets plan on Nov. 4th General Ballot
Post by: sgrizzle on September 08, 2008, 05:27:54 am
Real Trolley (on rail) is mass transit.

Austin and Denver are larger than Tulsa but they're not NYC and if you look at density, Denver is very similar. Unlike Tulsa, both have very high barriers to entry in the light rail market. Denver is growing theirs like wildfire (thanks to a full 1c sales tax) and austin is having trouble getting theirs passed.


Title: $451M Streets plan on Nov. 4th General Ballot
Post by: Wrinkle on September 08, 2008, 07:03:51 am
"Novelty Heritage Trolley Systems", at least you added the word "Novelty" appropriately.

In Tulsa, they call 'em "Rubber-Wheeled Trolley's". Have one now, but fleets twice in years' past.

It's almost a racket, we buy them at full value, minimally use them for a year or so, then sell them for $0.10/$1.00 to some amusement park.




Title: $451M Streets plan on Nov. 4th General Ballot
Post by: Wrinkle on September 08, 2008, 07:08:09 am
quote:
Originally posted by Chicken Little

quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle

I have some major issues with the Mayor's plan.
Why are we not surprised?

quote:
I'll have to delineate them later, but it's too large and uses Ad Valorem unnecessarily.
Too large, huh?  Our streets will be in about the same condition that they are now, if not worse, when this thing is done.  So, are you saying that maintaining the streets is just not worth it?



No, I'd think you'd be putting words in my mouth.



Title: $451M Streets plan on Nov. 4th General Ballot
Post by: Oil Capital on September 08, 2008, 07:09:41 am
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle

Real Trolley (on rail) is mass transit.

Austin and Denver are larger than Tulsa but they're not NYC and if you look at density, Denver is very similar. Unlike Tulsa, both have very high barriers to entry in the light rail market. Denver is growing theirs like wildfire (thanks to a full 1c sales tax) and austin is having trouble getting theirs passed.



Not sure what you mean be "Unlike Tulsa, both have very high barriers to entry in the light rail market"


Title: $451M Streets plan on Nov. 4th General Ballot
Post by: Friendly Bear on September 08, 2008, 08:16:14 am
quote:
Originally posted by Oil Capital

quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle

Real Trolley (on rail) is mass transit.

Austin and Denver are larger than Tulsa but they're not NYC and if you look at density, Denver is very similar. Unlike Tulsa, both have very high barriers to entry in the light rail market. Denver is growing theirs like wildfire (thanks to a full 1c sales tax) and austin is having trouble getting theirs passed.



Not sure what you mean be "Unlike Tulsa, both have very high barriers to entry in the light rail market"



Over the weekend, the Lorton's World reported that Tulsa County Commissioner's Fred Perry and John Small-ego came out AGAINST the city road project, because it will grab the Four-to-Fix-the-County sales tax when it expires in 2011.

The Tax Vampires NEVER want to let go of a tax.

Never.

And, I just LOVE it when two different covens of Tax Vampires start arguing over the blood supply!

Their fangs are flashing.

[xx(]


Title: $451M Streets plan on Nov. 4th General Ballot
Post by: RecycleMichael on September 08, 2008, 08:27:05 am
Friendly bear is just making up facts again. There was not a story about two commissioners being against the road tax.

The story quoted Smaligo saying, "Right now, I just don't think I'm ready to lend support to this tax initiative," he said.

County Commission Chairman Fred Perry declined to comment on the issue Friday.

The Comissioner Miller quote was for the proposal. "The mayor's package is the best of all worlds, and I personally will vote for it," she said.

Stop making up facts friendly bear. Better yet, go away.




Title: $451M Streets plan on Nov. 4th General Ballot
Post by: Friendly Bear on September 08, 2008, 09:53:17 am
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael

Friendly bear is just making up facts again. There was not a story about two commissioners being against the road tax.

The story quoted Smaligo saying, "Right now, I just don't think I'm ready to lend support to this tax initiative," he said.

County Commission Chairman Fred Perry declined to comment on the issue Friday.

The Comissioner Miller quote was for the proposal. "The mayor's package is the best of all worlds, and I personally will vote for it," she said.

Stop making up facts friendly bear. Better yet, go away.






Nice attempt at a half-truth.  Did you learn that technique working for the Lorton's World?

SATURDAY's article stated, and I quote:

"County Commission Chairman Fred Perry declined to comment on the issue Friday.

However, Perry has said that he understands and supports the city's efforts to fix its roads but has insisted that the county has needs of its own, including a new Juvenile Bureau facility."

Hardly sounds like he supports the City of Tulsa grabbing the expiring COUNTY Sales Tax...

Here's the entire article from Saturday:

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=20080907_16_A5_Aesnon490810



Title: $451M Streets plan on Nov. 4th General Ballot
Post by: Conan71 on September 08, 2008, 10:53:03 am
quote:
Originally posted by TheTed

I'm really torn on this. With any kind of nod to improving transit I would've been on board.

But it's really, really difficult for me to get behind a plan that just assures we'll continue to fall farther behind other cities when it comes to non-car alternatives.



Not a personal attack, I've heard this said several times now.  I do understand your viewpoint and others with similar ones, but that's kind of like saying:

"Drilling for more oil won't solve all our problems...so we shouldn't do any new drilling"

So we do nothing about it at all and fall further behind in every aspect, including further deteriorating asphalt and concrete streets.

This is what I'm hoping for is that the five year plan turns into a phased improvement program.  First five years stabilizes the road problem, next five or seven, takes care of widening and other mass trans improvements.

We have to start somewhere, we can't keep ignoring this problem. Streets are one essential service we expect out of local government.  Doing nothing about the problem is excusing the municipality of one of it's core services.



Title: $451M Streets plan on Nov. 4th General Ballot
Post by: TheTed on September 08, 2008, 11:38:50 am
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71

quote:
Originally posted by TheTed

I'm really torn on this. With any kind of nod to improving transit I would've been on board.

But it's really, really difficult for me to get behind a plan that just assures we'll continue to fall farther behind other cities when it comes to non-car alternatives.



Not a personal attack, I've heard this said several times now.  I do understand your viewpoint and others with similar ones, but that's kind of like saying:

"Drilling for more oil won't solve all our problems...so we shouldn't do any new drilling"

So we do nothing about it at all and fall further behind in every aspect, including further deteriorating asphalt and concrete streets.

This is what I'm hoping for is that the five year plan turns into a phased improvement program.  First five years stabilizes the road problem, next five or seven, takes care of widening and other mass trans improvements.

We have to start somewhere, we can't keep ignoring this problem. Streets are one essential service we expect out of local government.  Doing nothing about the problem is excusing the municipality of one of it's core services.


I agree that we need to do something and that's why I'm torn. I'll probably end up voting for it.

But it's ridiculous to me that we have an "Energy Crisis" and nobody wants to do anything but wait for somebody to invent some way for us to keep living our current lifestyles, driving everywhere we go, but only in electric cars.

This isn't gonna be magically fixed by some invention. We're gonna have to make drastic lifestyle changes. The sooner we accept that the sooner we can start to solve the problem.


Title: $451M Streets plan on Nov. 4th General Ballot
Post by: Red Arrow on September 08, 2008, 12:44:59 pm
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle

"Novelty Heritage Trolley Systems", at least you added the word "Novelty" appropriately.

In Tulsa, they call 'em "Rubber-Wheeled Trolley's". Have one now, but fleets twice in years' past.

It's almost a racket, we buy them at full value, minimally use them for a year or so, then sell them for $0.10/$1.00 to some amusement park.






Novelty Heritage Trolley systems are generally a small museum operation with operating (real) trolleys. They are not intended for regular daily commuter service.

Colorado Springs, Ft Collins, Ft Smith and Tucson have such operations. I could only find the South Lake Union Streetcar in Seattle which is for regular use, not a museum.

http://www.fstm.org/

http://www.fortnet.org/trolley/

http://www.railwaypreservation.com/vintagetrolley/coloradosprings.htm

http://www.oldpueblotrolley.org/

http://www.seattlestreetcar.org/


Title: $451M Streets plan on Nov. 4th General Ballot
Post by: jne on September 08, 2008, 12:52:25 pm
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71

quote:
Originally posted by TheTed

I'm really torn on this. With any kind of nod to improving transit I would've been on board.

But it's really, really difficult for me to get behind a plan that just assures we'll continue to fall farther behind other cities when it comes to non-car alternatives.



Not a personal attack, I've heard this said several times now.  I do understand your viewpoint and others with similar ones, but that's kind of like saying:

"Drilling for more oil won't solve all our problems...so we shouldn't do any new drilling"

So we do nothing about it at all and fall further behind in every aspect, including further deteriorating asphalt and concrete streets.

This is what I'm hoping for is that the five year plan turns into a phased improvement program.  First five years stabilizes the road problem, next five or seven, takes care of widening and other mass trans improvements.

We have to start somewhere, we can't keep ignoring this problem. Streets are one essential service we expect out of local government.  Doing nothing about the problem is excusing the municipality of one of it's core services.





I agree, the climate could change dramatically in 5 years.  What's gas going to cost in 2013?  Will some transit implemented in smaller cities start to show some success.  Will Tulsa grow its alt energy industry?  Public sentiment may shift in favor of more long term solutions. Doesn't hurt to have a little hope.


Title: $451M Streets plan on Nov. 4th General Ballot
Post by: Red Arrow on September 08, 2008, 12:56:51 pm
quote:
Originally posted by OUGrad05

OurTulsa you seem to have not read my post even though you quoted it twice.  Here's what I said...

Can you name another city of tulsa's size and spread that has light rail and other forms of mass transit?

BTW it needs to be in the US, NOT europe.


You posted list with MANY proposed cities and a whole list of cities that include Baltimore and SanFrancisco.  MUCH larger cities and much more dense.  

Only a couple are even remotely comparable like ABQ and even its more dense than Tulsa and still only has things in the proposal stage with absolutely ZERO track record of successful mass transit.  Even large cities tend to spend more on the mass transit then the systems bring in which means it costs the tax payers more to operate mass transit than the value they receive back from the system.  That isn't necessarily a bad thing but considering no one can provide any real examples with a city the size of tulsa and with the city spread of tulsa and effective mass transit is probably indictive of it not being efficient.  Only at 4 dollar gas did we as a nation get serious about mass transit but our cities still aren't designed for it and suburbs aren't going away anytime soon.


edit: and since when did a trolly system become mass transit?



Comments like your edit are why I object calling the rubber tire, diesel powered thing Tulsa is using a trolley.

Albuquerque has not implemented its downtown trolley but has had success with heavier rail running to the north and south.

http://www.nmrailrunner.com/

My sister takes the Rail Runner to work (and home) and says it's well patronized.


Title: $451M Streets plan on Nov. 4th General Ballot
Post by: Conan71 on September 08, 2008, 02:41:19 pm
quote:
Originally posted by TheTed

quote:
Originally posted by Conan71

quote:
Originally posted by TheTed

I'm really torn on this. With any kind of nod to improving transit I would've been on board.

But it's really, really difficult for me to get behind a plan that just assures we'll continue to fall farther behind other cities when it comes to non-car alternatives.



Not a personal attack, I've heard this said several times now.  I do understand your viewpoint and others with similar ones, but that's kind of like saying:

"Drilling for more oil won't solve all our problems...so we shouldn't do any new drilling"

So we do nothing about it at all and fall further behind in every aspect, including further deteriorating asphalt and concrete streets.

This is what I'm hoping for is that the five year plan turns into a phased improvement program.  First five years stabilizes the road problem, next five or seven, takes care of widening and other mass trans improvements.

We have to start somewhere, we can't keep ignoring this problem. Streets are one essential service we expect out of local government.  Doing nothing about the problem is excusing the municipality of one of it's core services.


I agree that we need to do something and that's why I'm torn. I'll probably end up voting for it.

But it's ridiculous to me that we have an "Energy Crisis" and nobody wants to do anything but wait for somebody to invent some way for us to keep living our current lifestyles, driving everywhere we go, but only in electric cars.

This isn't gonna be magically fixed by some invention. We're gonna have to make drastic lifestyle changes. The sooner we accept that the sooner we can start to solve the problem.



It's a crappy quandry every morning thinking:

"Do I take the truck today and bounce through the holes or ride the motorcycle and try to dodge the holes? " [;)]

There are so many competing interests in our transportation needs that make cohesiveness difficult.  Some are profit-motivated and some are pure altruism.  I am optimistic some of our travel infrastructure issues will become better prioritized and organized with the comp plan update.

Our biggest struggle seems to be figuring out what the priorities are in the first place.  The bicyclists want more rider-friendly streets (I'm a bicyclist as well).  People who like light rail think it should be a priority, etc.  I guess since Tulsa has been devoid of mass transit other than the bus for so long, it's hard for me to think of another first priority other than better roads.  

I ride my bicycle entirely for fitness reasons and keep it adjacent to Riverparks, so I really don't have any complaints about where to ride my bike.  I stick to the trail system, so I'm somewhat blissfully ignorant on the share the road issue.

I'm slowly becoming more of an advocate of inner-city rail or other forms of mass-transit.  Looking around at all the new motor scooters running around town, there is definitely a demand for lower cost per trip transportation.  

I've definitely ridden my motorcycle as often as practical this summer since it gets about 2.75 x the mileage my truck gets.  If there were convenient masstrans options from my home to work, I might make use of them on days I know I don't need to get out during work hours.



Title: $451M Streets plan on Nov. 4th General Ballot
Post by: Friendly Bear on September 08, 2008, 03:43:29 pm
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71

quote:
Originally posted by TheTed

I'm really torn on this. With any kind of nod to improving transit I would've been on board.

But it's really, really difficult for me to get behind a plan that just assures we'll continue to fall farther behind other cities when it comes to non-car alternatives.



Not a personal attack, I've heard this said several times now.  I do understand your viewpoint and others with similar ones, but that's kind of like saying:

"Drilling for more oil won't solve all our problems...so we shouldn't do any new drilling"

So we do nothing about it at all and fall further behind in every aspect, including further deteriorating asphalt and concrete streets.

This is what I'm hoping for is that the five year plan turns into a phased improvement program.  First five years stabilizes the road problem, next five or seven, takes care of widening and other mass trans improvements.

We have to start somewhere, we can't keep ignoring this problem. Streets are one essential service we expect out of local government.  Doing nothing about the problem is excusing the municipality of one of it's core services.





If you vote YES, are you rewarding the incompetent mismanagement of the Publik Werkes Department?

Same bunch has been there for a long, long time.

They drove us into the ditch.

And, we're supposed to let them keep driving our streets department??

They were the knuckleheads who implemented the Re-Build philosophy of letting arterial and neighborhood streets fall into terrible disrepair, as a legal PRETEXT to then use Third Penny Sales Tax dollars instead of Operating Budget dollars to totally re-build them.

As a result, the city quit maintaining the streets using Operating Budget dollars, and the streets deteriorated much faster than they could Re-build them.

Now, they are a shambles.

Smart businessmen don't reward incompetence.

Retire or Fire the leadership at Public Werkes.

Find some competent replacements.  

There are plenty of Civil Engineers in America that have road building/road maintenance experience.

They'll love living here in Tulsa.  Maybe they already are.....




Title: $451M Streets plan on Nov. 4th General Ballot
Post by: inteller on September 08, 2008, 04:56:52 pm
quote:
Originally posted by Friendly Bear

quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael

Friendly bear is just making up facts again. There was not a story about two commissioners being against the road tax.

The story quoted Smaligo saying, "Right now, I just don't think I'm ready to lend support to this tax initiative," he said.

County Commission Chairman Fred Perry declined to comment on the issue Friday.

The Comissioner Miller quote was for the proposal. "The mayor's package is the best of all worlds, and I personally will vote for it," she said.

Stop making up facts friendly bear. Better yet, go away.






Nice attempt at a half-truth.  Did you learn that technique working for the Lorton's World?

SATURDAY's article stated, and I quote:

"County Commission Chairman Fred Perry declined to comment on the issue Friday.

However, Perry has said that he understands and supports the city's efforts to fix its roads but has insisted that the county has needs of its own, including a new Juvenile Bureau facility."

Hardly sounds like he supports the City of Tulsa grabbing the expiring COUNTY Sales Tax...

Here's the entire article from Saturday:

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=20080907_16_A5_Aesnon490810





well, but the county can try to re up the tax...it is just that, it will probably fail.

I'm currently in the FU county mode.  IMO, I think TUlsa should go after every expiring county tax.  There is very little left in Tulsa county that isn't incorporated.  Let the other cities grab the expiring taxes as well.  The county needs to finish widening the few remaining roads that border municipalities and then fix the few remaining rural bridges around town.  hopefully the county government will be absorbed into the city like it was in Jacksonville, FL.


Title: $451M Streets plan on Nov. 4th General Ballot
Post by: OUGrad05 on September 08, 2008, 05:31:09 pm
Since when has Denver become Tulsa?  Denver's light rail has been a disaster until gas hit 3.50 a gllon and really 4 bucks a gallon now its getting passengers.  Denver and Tulsa are not even close to being the same cities or metro areas....I can't believe I even have to say that.