The Tulsa Forum by TulsaNow

https://www.cityoftulsa.org/media/10655/iot-project-list-and-faq-072919-draft.pdf (https://www.cityoftulsa.org/media/10655/iot-project-list-and-faq-072919-draft.pdf)

Improve Our Tulsa is the City's basic streets and infrastructure program. Approved by voters in 2013, the first Improve Our Tulsa package provided $918.7 million for street and transportation projects and improvements for many areas of city services

$155.71 million: Non-arterial street maintenance and rehabilitation and associated sidewalks

$140.09 million: Arterial street maintenance and rehabilitation and associated sidewalks

$64 million: Street widening/street capacity improvements

$19.2 million: Central Business District (CBD) streets, alleyways, and arena district master plan implementation

$11.1 million: Citywide ADA transition plan implementation and update (rights-of-way)

$7.42 million: Citywide infrastructure partnership funds

$8.9 million: Bridge replacement and rehabilitation program

$5.33 million: Transit-MTTA - Route 66 bus rapid transit

$10 million: Traffic engineering

$5 million: Bicycle-pedestrian infrastructure

$250 thousand: Bond issuance cost

$8 million: Parking facilities

$7 million: Citywide public facilities maintenance and rehabilitation

$6 million: Tulsa Zoo entrance and parking

$6 million: Gilcrease Museum mechanical, electrical and plumbing

$5.34 million: Greenwood Cultural Center facility rehabilitation

$5 million: ADA improvements for city facilities

$3 million: ADA improvements for city parks

$2.46 million: Citywide public facilities roofs

$2.080 million: Animal shelter phase II

$10.125 million: Park facilities roof, HVAC, infrastructure rehabilitation/replacement, security upgrades

$5.5 million: Upgrade, add, or renovate outdoor park play amenities

$4.8 million: Tennis court major rehabilitation, repurpose, or replacement

$3.125 million: Fred Johnson Park rehabilitation and replacement

$1.7 million: Swan Lake rehabilitation

$2.75 million: Hill Park improvements

$1 million: Mohawk Park rehabilitation and renovation

$1 million: Citywide park system parking rehabilitation

$1 million: Police courts building

$1 million: One Technology Center maintenance and rehabilitation

$200 thousand: 600 Civic Center equipment relocation

$23 million: Fire apparatus and equipment

$3 million: 911 Station Alert System

There doesn't seem to be any middle ground from my Tulsa friends on Facebook.  Either adamant "no" or adamant "yes".  If it's simply extending the tax take and not increasing it, I don't really see the rub.  The argument against is that Tulsa is shrinking in population to pay for the improvements.  I see that as a chicken v. egg thing.  Neglect the infrastructure and you send a clear signal to potential imports Tulsa doesn't maintain infrastructure.  You can't expect outsiders to fall in love with a city or town if it looks like the locals don't care much for it.

I don't like street widening, but the designated share is tolerable, and I know I'll never win that argument on a city-wide level. I'm curious about the details of the Swan Lake rehabilitation. I run around that area a lot, and it's always seemed to be underutilized.

The point isn't to not do these things, but to do them in an holistic manner taking into account the direction our city may be heading and what we need to do to encourage good use of the transit funding, making areas more transit and pedestrian/bike friendly, etc.

We push and push and raise our voices trying to get urban zoning but to no avail.  Perhaps if we say no, you can't have this until we make these changes to encourage a better future for the city.  And the zoning changes people have proposed do not cost millions of dollars like these projects, actually they could help grow millions of dollars that could be used for more infrastructure maintenance.

I am basically saying, if you want this, we need to tie it in with this over here as well.  In order for you to get what you want for you and yours, you got to include something for me and mine as well.  They won't listen to us otherwise.  We have no leverage over them, except perhaps them not getting what they prioritize for a change.

80% yes.

Being billed as "baseline stuff".  No strong feelings either way - mildly yes, I guess. 

Unfortunately we have been sending that clear negative infrastructure signal for decades and not sure a couple of votes (2013 and now) are going to do much to reverse that for quite a while.  There is just SO much to do!  Another decade before we see 'visible forward progress'...?   For the long run, let's hope we continue in a positive direction!  Ongoing effort is the only way to show the outside world we are serious.

It is so far past due.

If it had failed, I guarantee the thought would be "I guess there wasn't enough for street widening" and the next package would be much, much worse. Streets need repair, including in midtown. They are also funding better sidewalks and completing sidewalks in some area. Better cross walks too in areas that are being rehabbed. Additional stuff for parks was also a positive. All in all, I think the current council and mayor are pretty in tune with urban needs but cannot ignore the southies and their love for massively wide streets.

I don't know a lot about TIFs, but can they be used in urban areas for some of the things that would make downtown and midtown more pedestrian and bike friendly? I would love to see the GO plan adopted more thoroughly. Bike lanes are popping up and its encouraging but are not quite net connected in some areas. I'll also support zoning changes that make it easier or mandatory to be more dense and pedestrian, in downtown and midtown at least.

Someone told me the 15th St (Cherry St) streetscape project would be funded by this, but I thought that was part of the previous bond package?

My dream urban bike infrastructure project is still a two-way protected cycle track on one side of Cincinnati all the way through downtown from 13th to OSU/John Hope Franklin.  This would then connect to a dedicated bike lane along the Cincinnati flyover that would then connect to the existing Midland Valley trail at 17th St.  This would be the most direct route from downtown to the Gathering Place/RiverParks, and provide a protected north-south "bike highway" through the heart of downtown.

It would look something like this:
(https://www.hbl.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/ProtectedBikeLanes_Vancouver_Dunsmuir_Photo-Paul-Krueger_0.jpg)

^^
That would be very cool. Cherry Street proper is set to begin within a few months so it was part of a previous package, I think the very last piece of it actually. The sidewalks will be better as far as I could tell, as will the intermittent cross walks, but it will be a bike sharrow, which I guess is fine because traffic should not be going fast anyway. There wasn't enough room for a full bike lane, at least that's what the city engineer said and he is in favor of all of the ongoing bike lane projects.

In the last 10 years Tulsa has done quite a bit on needed revamps all over the mid town area:  Peoria, Lewis, Harvard, Yale, Sheridan have all been improved greatly- even before I left town 2.5 years ago.

Good to know.  Cherry Street, IMO, is our neighborhood commercial district in most need of this kind of streetscape to improve not only pedestrian safety but also aesthetics with more trees and improved lighting.  Honestly 15th is just not very good for bikes, much safer to stick to 14th because of the head-in parking along 15th.

Piggy-backing on my earlier post if 13th had dedicated bike lanes in each direction you could create an East-West feeder through north Midtown that connects directly to the cycle track on Cincinnati.  The only issue would be crossing the tracks east of Lewis but if you bridged that gap you could have a bike pathway from downtown all the way to Delaware where the bike lanes by TU could be extended south.  Then you start connecting the urban neighborhoods where people would actually use these bike lanes.

A good friend of mine from back in my post graduation late teens just moved back here after living in Colorado for about 30 years.  He moved after much lamenting about how Tulsa seemed 'stagnant'.  Back in the late 80s I would agree.  He was ready to move away from here.

He moved back here about 6 months ago and he's fallen back in love with the city  Not just because he was born and raised here either, many of the improvements have him sold on staying.  And also the fact that housing is so much cheaper here than in Colorado in general (he lived in several locations around the Denver metro, including Boulder, Longmont, Greeley etc).

Bike lanes create a false sense of safety and confidence and are seldom utilized as they should be.  With Cherry St. being 25 MPH between Peoria and Utica, it never bothered me to ride along there.  Drivers were generally patient.  Then it widened out nicely to Lewis.  From Lewis to Harvard with the curbing it was pretty narrow to feel comfortable.  I'd generally take the sidewalk under the BA then duck into Florence Park to continue eastbound.

If skilled and self-aware cyclists want to commute badly enough by bike, they find ways without bike lanes.

Drive around Rio Rancho, New Mexico and you'd see what I mean about false confidence.  They are some of the most poorly designed lanes and I'd never use them if I lived there.

Tulsa really did look like it was dying in the late 1980's.  So what did I do?  When I moved back from KC in the fall of '87, I rented an apartment at Center Plaza downtown.

When I went to work for Urban Tulsa in 1991, people thought it was somewhat edgy that our office was in the Pythian Building.

No idea what the attraction was to me other than I had a sense Tulsa would be turning around in a big way.  It took about 15 years to gain some serious traction, 32 years later, it's incredible how vibrant the inner city is.

Oh, and if you haven't been to Denver in recent times, it sucks big, sweaty, salty ones.  All that wonderful growth people clamor for, it's ruined Denver and the Springs isn't far behind.

Denver and places like SF, NYC, & DC have the craziness so many want to develop in terms of density and walkable areas. It gets so crowded, you're almost forced to abandon the car, but is supposed to be worth it.


Denver is still far to car-centric still and bad public transport, but has some very walkable areas which, if you can afford, are great areas to live. That's the ultimate price of having a great place to live with lots of jobs, good education system and moderately high taxes that boost the infrastructure. People want to live there and prices surge and highways get packed. Utah is having the same issues with all the migrations from CA. 

I bet long-time Coloradans hate it, but all the people moving in love it and don't know any better (It's low traffic vs LA/SF!). I think it's great to visit but have a hard time believing I could put up with the ridiculous prices and traffic unless I found the perfect walkable spot and really planned to take advantage of the mountains and skiing (which is in itself very hard to do with traffic).

People that live there love it though and the main problems are just infrastructure being behind because growth has happened so quickly. It's a good problem if they react with more affordable housing built in the core areas and public transportation. I wish Tulsa had some more of the kind of issues Denver is having!

One of my Tulsa buddies came out the summer we moved to NE, NM.  We went hiking in the Valle Vidal wilderness in the Carson National Forest.  Bob commented about what a great asset this under-utilized wilderness is and lamented how all his childhood recreational areas outside Denver in the mountains are now so over-run that it's hard to enjoy them anymore.  He also mentioned vandalism is an issue in some mountain recreation areas now.  It's a cautionary tale.  The Valle is one place I want the whole world to know about because it is so cool and peaceful but I want to be selfish about it and not tell a soul and keep it as peaceful as it is now.  Fortunately, the 70 miles of gravel from one end to the other works as sort of a disincentive to too many exploring it.

I love NE NM! So beautiful and peaceful. It's the best place to ski because they don't charge a housing payment for a few days of lift passes!

I get that the overcrowding in parks is frustrating, but also that most people who live there and move there like it a lot and have to accept that "you are the traffic". CO has done a great job promoting itself and all the beauty. It is well known like LA and so many people want to live there. It's nowhere near as bad as LA, but definitely beyond bordering states in prices and crowds.

The good thing for those long-time locals is they can learn the best times to go (or avoid) and have explored enough they can always find a hundred more remote empty places to go. Colorado has infinite wilderness. We have had no issues finding serene isolated places on trips to CO, despite seeing certain areas with crowds. Outside the main popular areas, there's seemingly infinite wilderness. Typically best to go to the mountains on weekdays, earlier and ideally during the school year (which was easy to arrange as a tourist w/o kiddos!).

I've heard taking a weekend trip to the mountains from Denver is a big pain now where what used to be a 1 hour drive takes 2+ hours a lot of the times. Which for me would take that from a weekend trip to 3 day minimum to be worth it. Tulsans can fly to DEN in 2-3 hours so not even that huge of a head start to live there if you're stuck in traffic every day (which adds up to weeks throughout the year).

Fished Valle Vidal last year.   Awesome area.   And yeah,  70 miles of gravel will keep a lot of the city folk out.  :)

This just came out yesterday about New Mexico really working to exploit outdoor tourism:

https://apnews.com/61f25162f1b84145be3115de000f4ec8?fbclid=IwAR1cxrolnz_6rEORSBtcGP68Nhw0jGM_9rLqwV8XO0bMSBprXtFLB0xEQsk

Absolutely yes!   I see these things driving around.  And then there is the backlog of remaining things to do...I know I said 'visible forward progress'.  Some hyperbole.  We have visible forward progress, just so much more to do.  Hoping we keep moving that direction!

Gravel is best enjoyed on a very hot day (100+ is best) on the back of an air-cooled motorcycle with speed limited to under 20 mph!

I really hope a rehab of Peoria in between 31st and 41st is part of this package... and hopefully along the lines of the Cherry Street rehab.  Peoria was brutalized by the extra traffic when Riverside was closed for 3 years (or whatever it was) and is in pretty rough shape.

Peoria is included (31st to 41st, Project 9.14, $1,215,000) as well as 21st to 31st (Project 4.18, $900,000). 

It is. Here is the District 9 project list. Project 9.14 is $1.2M for Peoria arterial street rehab from 31st to 41st. Project 9.19 and 9.20 are to rehab intersections at 31st and Peoria and 41st and Peoria.

https://www.cityoftulsa.org/media/10635/iot-2019-cd9-summary-07-17-19.pdf

Yay!

(And thanks for the link)

Do you (or anyone) know if "rehab" will include anything like they did with Cherry Street? Reducing lanes through Brookside proper, changing parking or generally just making it more pedestrian friendly? Or will this just be resurfacing, etc.?

I agree - there has been movement.   But it has been dozens of miles out of thousands of miles.  I am hoping we can keep it up and even get better at it!

Other than eliminating the few set back properties like the strip center north of Ninde's or QT or the hardware store or Reasor's, side streets, and curb cuts which have been there for years, what kind of improvements would make Brookside more pedestrian-friendly?

Just pure curiosity.  I've always thought of Brookside as a good example of pedestrian development- at least as good as it gets in Tulsa.

I think the suggestion is to take it down to one lane each way, and add bike lanes, etc.   This same topic came up in a recent Maple Ridge meeting I was at.   They did this on 41st West of Peoria, but I can't see them doing this on Peoria proper, even through Brookside.  While I think it would be great, it's an arterial street and I can't see them restricting the flow that much.

I actually think it's fine as it is from 34th to the creek, which is the main area of pedestrian activity.  Obviously it would be great to see Peoria reduced to one lane each direction but I don't think that will happen.  What I'd like to see is the same type of streetscape further south toward 35th, and the intersection at 36th & Peoria made more pedestrian-friendly with bump-outs at the corners. 

Agreed. That would make a lot of sense and would provide continuity all the way down to 36th.  Beyond that, it gets much less pedestrian friendly.   Also, It would be awesome to have the sidewalks widened across the creek along Peoria.  Or, add pedestrian bridges in behind the existing bridge walls.  It scares me every time I walk across that thing, and I see little kids and dogs on leashes, and can't believe somebody hasn't been hit recently.