Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details

[PonderInc]

Transit's not about solving traffic problems. It's about social equity (everyone should benefit from the public right of way, whether or not they drive a car), and it's about the ability to create great places for people that aren't dominated by enormous parking lots.  When you build for people and transit, you get better, healthier, more resilient places that return greater economic value to the city on a per acre basis.

[TheArtist]

This x1000.

Anybody trying to compare Tulsa to Dallas doesn't understand the comparison they are trying to make.  You can get anywhere in Tulsa, in a car, in 30 minutes or less, any time of the day.  Sometimes you can't go 5-10 miles in a care in Dallas in 30 minutes.  THEY need solutions like this.  Tulsa does not, at least, at this point.

I'm not against public transportation, per se, heck, I'm not even against looking into getting rail transit at a macro level (think Tulsa to OKC).  But dedicated bus lanes on some of our busiest streets?   Proposed by some of the same folks that are against REI, anything at Turkey Mountain, or massive river development, etc?  I don't get it.  But dedicated bus lanes?

I don't want transit because we have some sort of traffic problems or congestion that could be helped with transit.  I want transit because  want to live an urban lifestyle and currently you can't do that in Tulsa.  We once had it way back when but with the last zoning code only suburban style (auto centric) development was legal and promoted while urban, transit oriented development was pretty much illegal and made difficult to implement. 

I think Tulsa as a city should be able to offer both urban and suburban lifestyle options.  I think that would allow us more options for growth (capture those people who want that urban lifestyle but leave or do not move here because we can't offer it).   

Also, we will not be able to have good, cost effective, competitive, pedestrian friendly,  urban development if we do not begin to implement transit so that developers for instance will have more leeway in not having to build as much parking (also known as expense) and can add more density to areas including neighborhoods. 

[RecycleMichael]

I am willing to pay for your transit. But why are you guys not willing to pay for my roads?

I live in southeast Tulsa about nine blocks to the closest bus I can catch at 51st and Sheridan. To catch it to day I have to walk that far, cross two busy intersections and wait because the bus today that goes to that spot only runs every 2 hours and fifteen minutes. I better not miss it.

The vision package has an impressive program for transit including the first in the state permanent funding for transit. It is a solid plan to really makes bus service work on two major streets, Peoria and 11th. The vote will be to spend millions of dollars building a system that won't get within 4 miles of my home.

All that being said, I am voting yes. I am willing to completely subsidize for someone to ride the bus that I will probably never ride and you guys make great arguments that convince me that it will be good for all of us.

But I also hear many of you pissed off that there is some street widening money also on the ballot. It is for roads that many of you may never drive on, but it is still Tulsa and still taxpayers who just choose to live differently than you. All I ask today is that you just accept that roads and widening is still needed in Tulsa and that we support things for you and expect you to support things we want.

[PonderInc]

Let's add up all the money Tulsa has spent on roads in the past 25 years and then compare it to the amount we've spent on transit, sidewalks, and bike lanes.

I bet it works out to be 1,000 to 1 in favor of roads over everything else. (In the $900 million for streets we just approved a couple years ago. I think there was $4 million for the GoPlan...and that was a big deal bc we'd never done it before.)

I don't mind paying for roads...as long as we also pay for other modes of transportation. We've done nothing but build, widen and continuously repair roads in my lifetime. It's time we branch out and work to provide more and better options.

[RecycleMichael]

I really don't want to dedicate a dollar more to roads...

Which is it?

[TheArtist]

I am willing to pay for your transit. But why are you guys not willing to pay for my roads?

I live in southeast Tulsa about nine blocks to the closest bus I can catch at 51st and Sheridan. To catch it to day I have to walk that far, cross two busy intersections and wait because the bus today that goes to that spot only runs every 2 hours and fifteen minutes. I better not miss it.

The vision package has an impressive program for transit including the first in the state permanent funding for transit. It is a solid plan to really makes bus service work on two major streets, Peoria and 11th. The vote will be to spend millions of dollars building a system that won't get within 4 miles of my home.

All that being said, I am voting yes. I am willing to completely subsidize for someone to ride the bus that I will probably never ride and you guys make great arguments that convince me that it will be good for all of us.

But I also hear many of you pissed off that there is some street widening money also on the ballot. It is for roads that many of you may never drive on, but it is still Tulsa and still taxpayers who just choose to live differently than you. All I ask today is that you just accept that roads and widening is still needed in Tulsa and that we support things for you and expect you to support things we want.

I think some of the frustration you may hear, at least in my posts perhaps, is because of the huge disproportionate sums that do and have gone to "roads" over transit.  By a HUGE margin.  That coupled with over a generation of rules and regulations that have made transit and transit oriented development mostly illegal in Tulsa (while having rules and regulations that do unfairly favor automobiles).  

The local government practically has made it so that your "forced" to have a car because they want you to live and get around the way they think is best for you to do so, to build your businesses and live the way they want you to, the rules have been in place which force transit to be ineffective for most of the city, etc.  And that is screwy imho.  If we are not going to truly let the free market decide, then to fight for a little more percentage going to transit and a little more rules for transit zoning is long overdue and only fair.  

I really do believe that either the free market should decide, that the rules be balanced and fair to allow equally for transit oriented development and auto centric development, and that people then pay for the roads or transit they then use... or that again, the rules be balanced and fair to allow equally for transit oriented development and auto centric development (let the best model win of its own merit) and the government then assist accordingly.  

One can't say "The transit is crappy and I and a lot of other people don't, won't or can't use it." therefore why should I pay for it? when the reason it's crappy is because the game is unfairly set up so that the transit has to be crappy and the automobile and roads then need to be good.

We need more money for the roads we have to have because of the rules that make it that way.  Why can't you be happy with the little bit of money your getting for the transit that is lousy because of the rules we gave you that say it has to be lousy in order for our cars and roads to work better (though if all the rules and funding were fair and equal, transit would be more cost effective and efficient).

[johrasephoenix]

Note Denver is killing it with their transit.  Like Tulsa they are a historically sprawled out Western city that allowed its downtown to be hollowed out through the 70s.  Now they have built three rail lines and are in the process of building 4 more.  They are literally creating a big-city style rapid transit system from nothing.  And its revolutionizing the town.

I looked at their light rail schedule - it comes every 10 or 15 minutes.  If they keep building like this it won't be long before their system rivals some of the legacy systems like Chicago or maybe even Boston. 

 Portland and Minneapolis also built pretty stellar transit infrastructure from scratch since the 80s.  It's doable.  It just takes a lot of money and political will. 

[Red Arrow]

And......
If we use buses instead of rail, we still have to take care of the roads.  Grade separated BRT requires maintaining a paved road which would only be used by the buses.

One of the items that made in-street running trolleys unprofitable was that the private trolley companies had to maintain more than the portion of the streets occupied by their rails.  You know, the added portion where the buses and jitneys ran.

[RecycleMichael]

One can't say "The transit is crappy and I and a lot of other people don't, won't or can't use it." therefore why should I pay for it? when the reason it's crappy is because the game is unfairly set up so that the transit has to be crappy and the automobile and roads then need to be good.

We need more money for the roads we have to have because of the rules that make it that way.  Why can't you be happy with the little bit of money your getting for the transit that is lousy because of the rules we gave you that say it has to be lousy in order for our cars and roads to work better (though if all the rules and funding were fair and equal, transit would be more cost effective and efficient).

I am not saying that. I am 100% in favor of all the transit funding. I know that we already subsidize it 5 to 1. For every dollar that goes into TulsaTransit  from a rider the taxpayers put in five. I know it doesn't make sense financially but a great city needs great transit.

WHAT I AM SAYING IS THAT YOU GUYS SHOULD ALSO HELP PAY FOR A ROAD IN SOUTH TULSA THAT IS DESPERATELY NEEDED.

The city screwed up south Mingo by adding 3,000 apartments and three hospitals on a two lane road. But mid-towners on this forum seem to think that we have spent enough money on roads. So screw them. All the roads they drive are already four lanes or more.

I will pay for your buses, but stop saying you won't pay for any more roads for me.

[TheArtist]

I am not saying that. I am 100% in favor of all the transit funding. I know that we already subsidize it 5 to 1. For every dollar that goes into TulsaTransit  from a rider the taxpayers put in five. I know it doesn't make sense financially but a great city needs great transit.

It doesn't make sense financially because at the city wants it to be that way.  We had plenty of chances with the new Comprehensive Plan to create a city where it would make sense financially but those types of plans were shot down.  Transit that "makes sense financially" is still illegal in most of Tulsa.  Why is that?  Why did the council let that happen?

How about a toll road so the people who use the expansion can pay for it? 

[Red Arrow]

How about a toll road so the people who use the expansion can pay for it? 

Falls into the same category as having Transit pay for itself.

Ain't gonna happen

[RecycleMichael]

How about a toll road so the people who use the expansion can pay for it? 

You have got to be kidding.

South Tulsa generated the majority of sales tax that paid for the other roads. Now more people go through through the intersection of 81st and Mingo than go through the intersections of 41st and Peoria or 31st and Lewis or 21st and Yale.

All of these other roads are free and paid for by sales tax. But the area that paid for YOUR roads is expected to pay tolls and you expect them to pay your wide roads and YOUR transit?

You mid-towners are so special.

   

[carltonplace]

This x1000.

Anybody trying to compare Tulsa to Dallas doesn't understand the comparison they are trying to make.  You can get anywhere in Tulsa, in a car, in 30 minutes or less, any time of the day.  Sometimes you can't go 5-10 miles in a care in Dallas in 30 minutes.  THEY need solutions like this.  Tulsa does not, at least, at this point.

I'm not against public transportation, per se, heck, I'm not even against looking into getting rail transit at a macro level (think Tulsa to OKC).  But dedicated bus lanes on some of our busiest streets?   Proposed by some of the same folks that are against REI, anything at Turkey Mountain, or massive river development, etc?  I don't get it.  But dedicated bus lanes?

I fully understood that I was comparing a very conservative red state city that has implemented transportation options against another conservative red state city that despises transportation options. Your X1000 opinion helps to prove this short sighted viewpoint.

[carltonplace]

You have got to be kidding.

South Tulsa generated the majority of sales tax that paid for the other roads. Now more people go through through the intersection of 81st and Mingo than go through the intersections of 41st and Peoria or 31st and Lewis or 21st and Yale.

All of these other roads are free and paid for by sales tax. But the area that paid for YOUR roads is expected to pay tolls and you expect them to pay your wide roads and YOUR transit?

You mid-towners are so special.

   

[heironymouspasparagus]

You have got to be kidding.

South Tulsa generated the majority of sales tax that paid for the other roads. Now more people go through through the intersection of 81st and Mingo than go through the intersections of 41st and Peoria or 31st and Lewis or 21st and Yale.

All of these other roads are free and paid for by sales tax. But the area that paid for YOUR roads is expected to pay tolls and you expect them to pay your wide roads and YOUR transit?

You mid-towners are so special.

    

Keeps going back to the whole "growth for growth's sake" BS that Tulsa (and most other towns/cities - Owasso, BA, etc) indulges in.  That 81st and Mingo area is a mess.  Also, Peoria - we drove up Peoria from 61st to 51st over the weekend - first time in a while - and it is just as big a mess, but 40 years older.

The attitude toward growth is just wrong - for midtown and the suburbs.  If ya can't afford to have the infrastructure in place and ready, ya can't afford to let apartments, housing additions be built.  Not even touching the ongoing maintenance of what is already there!!  Which is a whole other mess!!


In Midtown, as in rural areas, they see something they like - a look...a style...a feel....whatever it is that catches their eye - then "move in", chop up the old scenic, sightly estates to build more and more McMansions on ever smaller postage stamps.  Destroying the look and feel that drew them in the first place.


And still inadequate infrastructure of all kinds.