The Tulsa Forum by TulsaNow

I'm going to try and keep this short.

Why is it that Tulsa continues to take major thoroughfares (71st Street east-end & now Memorial Drive south of the Turnpike) and transform them into access roads?  South Memorial is a US Highway for crying out loud.  It is literally the only route for South Tulsans to take to get to Bixby and points further south.  Instead of developing access roads to handle retail traffic, we whore out our only through-corridor to the strip mall and big box gods so that folks can turn their tanks directly from the through street into their precious parking space. 

The way in which we develop some of our retail centers is simply preposterous.  Tulsa Hills is the only development I've seen in Tulsa that is done right, where traffic on 71st Street is allowed to continue UNinterrupted while folks use 2 large turn lanes to turn onto the "ACCESS ROAD".  Once on the "ACCESS ROAD", folks can look around all they want, figure out which store to visit first, compare sale signs and just generally think about their local destination as opposed to trying to actually get somewhere across town. 

It's so absurd.   It's no wonder they want to build another bridge into/out of South Tulsa County.  The only question is will Tulsa turn around and build parking lots on both sides of it so that folks can be in their parking spot in front of their store within 5 seconds of leaving Yale?

I don't mean to hijack your thread but, yeah I think we took that playbook directly from Highway 75. Every time I drive to Dallas it pains me to slow down to 35mph through several towns. I'm looking at you Henryetta, Kiowa, Coalton and Stringtown.

That's their revenue source.   Traffic fines for speeding through their towns. 

I was thinking similar thoughts the other day when I went down south Memorial and saw that at least two more traffic lights were being put in, I think one for the car dealerships and another for the Super Target.  As much traffic that needs to be going through there to keep things running smooth, and they are just slowing it down with light after light after light.  So there are now, what, seven traffic lights between 91st and 111th?  I only pass through from time to time, there could be more.

Unfortunately, it's probably too late to do anything else with Memorial.  That's why I take Riverside/Delaware/121st home from work unless I have business (bank) on Yale.  The time I go to work (secret) generally has acceptable traffic levels on northbound Memorial to the Turnpike. Of course there are always the drivers that got their license from a cereal box.

I know it's a city.  I know there will be traffic.  But it still does not excuse poor planning and design.  Other places have figured this out...but Tulsa never gets these things right. 

Maybe the sales taxes are just too much of an incentive to tell these retailers to design their "centers" differently.  Or maybe these centers aren't really master planned at all, but just a grouping of individually planned stores who have no reason to partner up on the costs of an actual develompent instead of a sea of asphalt only 6 feet from the curbside.

I'm not saying we need miles of frontage roads or anything, but where it makes sense to, lets look ahead a little and see where we're better off providing a single entrance to a development or general area.  Of course then we might not be able to see the giant parking lot that IS the Super Target.  Sometimes I wonder if they're more interested in us seeing the front of their store or just the acres of available parking that could be ours if we only make that turn.

I think I might be getting burb fever.   At least in midtown I don't EXPECT to get anywhere quick.  Hell that part of town has been developed for over 75 years.   But south tulsa has no excuse for continuing these habits when there is so much room to design properly.

I can assure you I can get around mid-town faster than I could ever dream of in South Tulsa.

You just need to know the roads well enough or just take a chance once in a while through some neighborhoods.

I agree w/ you.  It seems the City has essentially rubber stamped any design the big boxes submitted.  You have all these stores, all facing different directions, all set back from the street at different distances. 

If the demographics are there (which they must be, considering the amount of big box stores in that area), the stores are wanting to build there.  The city enforcing a modicum of zoning / design standardization is not going to stop this development from occurring.

The sad thing is, a little foresight and planning could have made this area of the City something special instead of this jumbled tangled mess of parking lots, unsafe streets, traffic jams and ugly shopping centers.

Tulsa consistently fails at all things city planning related.  So long as you have a huge sprawling surface parking lot in front of a faceless box of retail you're good to go.  We can always just make the roads wider or encourage people to move further out of the city . . .

*sigh*

Our city's general operating fund is too starved for cash under the current system.  That is a huge part of why we capitulate to the demands of these people.   Folks running the city actually fear we will miss out on crucial tax dollars if we ask developers to make any sort of concessions or alterations to their plans which are specifically formulated to be as cheaply constructed, visually appalling, car oriented, brightly lit, and traffic snarling as any city is weak enough to allow.

All of our basic services seem to be tied to whoring ourselves out to retail development.  We need different revenue streams not tied to the volatile and abusive retail market. 

I'm not ready to cry out for higher taxes, but something about our way of raising revenue and budgeting essential services needs to change to where we aren't afraid to say NO to potential developers' "spineless city" option.

I would love it if people started moving back to the city.  Most of the new developments have the houses so close they might as well be in the city.  As the big box stores fail from lack of business, make the stores (or landlords) tear down the buildings and restore the land to its previous condition.  Make a green belt along the arterials.  That plus a little help from Patrick with light pollution and maybe I could see the stars lower than 40 degrees above the horizon to the north again. The streets down here would last a lot longer and wouldn't need to be wider.  If I have to drive a few miles to the grocery store, so what.  It was that way when we moved here.  I'll just have to buy more than tonight's dinner to make the trip worthwhile. 

Nailed it.

Easy to see how the street conditions continue to decline so rapidly when our lane miles continue to outpace our population by a gazillion to 1.  WHAT IS BEING DONE TO STOP THIS????!!!  It's happening right in front of our eyes and yet no one seems to give a damn except a handful of educated civic-minded message board junkies. 

I'm having a bad day.

It sucks because I WANT to live here, but I've never been less proud to invite others to come visit.

Every place has its good and bad points.  I do need to ask why you WANT to live here if it's so terrible.  I could understand if you were trapped by family or finances but you claim to want to be here.  Why?  There must be something you like.  What is it?  Maybe thinking about whatever is good will improve your day.

I didn't intentionally end up here, but it's pretty nice. (Better than Little Rock, other than the politics, IMO)

However, bringing people here is a little embarrassing, if only because they always wonder why the roads are so bad. I don't know if I mentioned this here, but I was in the Dominican Republic last month, and the roads there were better in every way but drainage. In town, out of town, in the resort, out of the resort, all better in surface quality.

Some of the unpaved roads were smoother than some of the worse roads here in Tulsa.

My being here is somewhat by chance too.  My dad accepted an oil company transfer here (yes, long time ago) and I followed.  After I finished college and did 4 years in the US Navy I came back and went to TU.  I decided the Tulsa area was not too bad so I stayed.  I stayed in spite of such representation as Jim Jones and Mike Synar.  I liked them about as much as many of the more vocal posters here like Jim Inhofe.  I actually thought David Boren was OK.

There are some really bad roads here for sure.  I don't think the Dominican Republic has quite the same road maintenance issues as Tulsa.  I also understand the lower class in the DR makes the poor in Tulsa look well off.  Maybe they spend their money on roads for the tourists and let the poor fend for themselves.

I wasn't just talking about the touristy roads. To be sure the roads in the resort were pretty darn nice.

Ironically, if you make what a poor person does here over there, you can actually afford things like health care. It doesn't take a lot to live decently. On the other hand, the destitute are in much worse shape. On the gripping hand, the weather is much nicer for living on the street.

Honestly, I think the climate is just a cop-out for most of us being cheapskates. The noise about the terrible roads and bridges being made up by the media a few years back when the statewide bond issue was on the ballot (and failed to pass) convinced me of that. Yes, I did hear someone say it was a conspiracy between the government, the media, and the construction companies to fleece the taxpayers and that the roads here aren't bad. It amazes me how blind some people can be when ideology and reality conflict. (I'm sure others would say the same about me)

I think the thermal cycles do have something to do with the road conditions.  As a level of bad, when I was in Germany in 95, I saw a sign on a 2 lane country road that warned of a bad surface (strasse schade).  In Oklahoma that road would have been considered good.  Another condition is that our new roads are not that spectacular.  The new lanes on Memorial between the turnpike and 111th must have been designed to match the condition of the existing lanes.  One last rant... At least in the 70s, Oklahoma had an asphalt specification that everyone paving an Oklahoma road  had to use.  Sounds like a good idea until you find out the spec was out of date and much better roads were possible.

It's a fair question Red Arrow.  I appreciate that you're trying to keep me thinking positive.  :)    My crankiness about street development (and street conditions) is something I've carried for a long time, probably since I was a "ute" (did you say utes?....no no "youths"....lol)

To be honest, the reason I'm here is because I did not pursue my education to the extent I should I have.  Therefore my career opportunities are somewhat limited and I have been fortunate to find myself in a steady full-time position with one of our local "jewel" companies.   I have young children and I'm able to provide a stable life for them.  But I want more for my kids and I sincerely hope they are able to parlay their educations into successful careers.  And to be honest, I'm not sure what Tulsa is going to have in 15 years to keep my kids here.   

I believe in (I think Bill Cosby's) theory of never challenge worse.  Just as soon as you say things couldn't possibly get worse, they do.  Therefore, if things are really so bad, they could be worse. If they truly could not possibly be worse, the only way is better.  Have a day.

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=16&articleid=20091001_16_0_WASHIN975802 (http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=16&articleid=20091001_16_0_WASHIN975802)



What does this mean for Tulsa?

In my negative assessment, it means any funds Oklahoma has to allocate will be cut.  Which means Tulsa's road projects will have to be shelved for another 10-15 years in order to move I-44 in Oklahoma City.

Why all the hate on South Memorial Drive?

It is what it is....suburban development....As soon as the Creek Turnpike/US 169 loop was connected at Memorial, everybody knew Memorial south of the Creek would be like the restaurant/shopping row on 71st.

Tulsa just does not have the population to support much large scale development as  so you get mostly small to moderate strip malls + big box stores.  I think the majority of people who live in the area and shop there are content with it.

One easy/cheap suggestion would be to require landscaping at the front of any commerical development where it fronts the arterial street.  In Dallas the use of hedges along the streets, blocks the view of the parking lots w/o blocking the view of the restaruant or building which seems to give a much nicer, greener feel to things.

Also grassy medians with trees to help beautify and add to urban forest where-ever possible.

As for Tulsa Hills being held up as an example of the "right way", I disagree.  I was disappointed to see it built as 1/2 mile (so far) street lined with big boxes and strip malls with very little landscaping.

When announced it was touted as a lifestyle center, which in most other cities means basically an open air mall layout with limited parallel street parking on the interior with big box on one end or adjacent on perimeter with walkable landscaped common areas with play areas, amphitheater, etc. and surface or garage parking on perimeter

Doesn't mean we have to like it. 

We have something like that already, but the way it works is when the landscaping or trees die from lack of care they just tear it out and pave it over.

Anyone remember what the Burger Street on 21st at Harvard looked like before the landscaping was removed?

Im looking at change of use to residential for a rental property Im interested in.

Has anyone come across any online planning permission discussion forums with a UK bias?

Im sure they must be out there as the whole local authority/planning laws is always ripe for discussion.

CoffeeCup

You also post under the Inveree09 screen name.  Why the multiple identities?

This poster must live on a different planet than earth and is trying to hide his/her/its true identity. 

Bunnies??? Pancakes???

Happy to oblige:
(http://xenohistorian.files.wordpress.com/2008/02/playboybunnypancake.jpg)

Q:What weighs 25 tons and drives down our streets 2X per week, unnecessarily?

A:once per week trash collection in conjunction with mandatory weekly recycling!

Streets are designed to get us from place to place.  Since I moved back a year ago, I've yet to have a problem accomplishing this on Tulsa's streets.  I realize the people posting on TulsaNow are pretty progressive, so can we stop complaining about the potholes and focus our attention on attracting and retaining talent?  Who ever said, "I got a really great job offer in Tulsa, but their streets were unacceptable"?

Individuals may not say that, well most anyway, but businesses who may be looking to relocate may well use that as on reason not to move here. It may just be one reason in a long checklist, but it is something we can and are fixing. That said, this thread was about developments and there road layout mainly (though not only) in the southern part of town so I don;t really see a connection. Not going to even reply to the other part of your post since it makes no sense as we don't have mandatory recycling. Heck if we did we would create lots of jobs with varying pay grades but that is also off topic.

At what point though are we going to be told that we aren't going to get all street improvements and repairs due to budget crunches?  How much wiggle room is in the legal contract between the city and voters?

I'm still in total disbelief that there aren't 100 to 200 other positions on the city payroll outside of police and fire which cannot be cut instead of cutting the police force off at their knees.  I predict contract negotiations are going to get real ugly next month.

As far as cuts, let's start with Hardt and work our way outward from there.

Have any of the projects from the street tax even started?