A grassroots organization focused on the intelligent and sustainable development, preservation and revitalization of Tulsa.
 
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
February 25, 2020, 09:58:07 pm
Pages: [1] 2   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Improve our Tulsa vote 11/12/2019  (Read 1987 times)
brettakins
Activist
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 67


« on: November 12, 2019, 11:05:27 am »

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

Logged
Conan71
Recovering Republican
T-Town Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 29312



« Reply #1 on: November 12, 2019, 02:39:15 pm »

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.
Logged

"It has been said that politics is the second oldest profession. I have learned that it bears a striking resemblance to the first” -Ronald Reagan
DowntownDan
Philanthropist
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 894


« Reply #2 on: November 12, 2019, 03:16:31 pm »

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.
Logged
TheArtist
T-Town Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 6722



WWW
« Reply #3 on: November 12, 2019, 06:58:03 pm »

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.

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.
Logged

"When you only have two pennies left in the world, buy a loaf of bread with one, and a lily with the other."-Chinese proverb. "Arts a staple. Like bread or wine or a warm coat in winter. Those who think it is a luxury have only a fragment of a mind. Mans spirit grows hungry for art in the same way h
heironymouspasparagus
T-Town Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 12620



« Reply #4 on: November 13, 2019, 09:20:09 am »

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.


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.



Logged

"So he brandished a gun, never shot anyone or anything right?"  --TeeDub, 17 Feb 2018.

I don’t share my thoughts because I think it will change the minds of people who think differently.  I share my thoughts to show the people who already think like me that they are not alone.
DowntownDan
Philanthropist
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 894


« Reply #5 on: November 13, 2019, 09:57:49 am »

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.

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.
Logged
SXSW
City Father
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4019


WWW
« Reply #6 on: November 13, 2019, 10:27:47 am »

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:
« Last Edit: November 13, 2019, 10:30:26 am by SXSW » Logged

 
DowntownDan
Philanthropist
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 894


« Reply #7 on: November 13, 2019, 10:46:19 am »

^^
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.
Logged
Conan71
Recovering Republican
T-Town Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 29312



« Reply #8 on: November 13, 2019, 12:04:25 pm »


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.


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.
Logged

"It has been said that politics is the second oldest profession. I have learned that it bears a striking resemblance to the first” -Ronald Reagan
SXSW
City Father
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4019


WWW
« Reply #9 on: November 13, 2019, 01:00:05 pm »

^^
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.

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.
Logged

 
Hoss
I'm a Daft Punk
T-Town Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 11240


I might be moving to Montana soon...


WWW
« Reply #10 on: November 13, 2019, 05:11:42 pm »

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.

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).
Logged

Libertarianism is a system of beliefs for people who think adolescence is the epitome of human achievement.

Global warming isn't real because it was cold today.  Also great news: world famine is over because I just ate - Stephen Colbert.

Somebody find Guido an ambulance to chase...
Conan71
Recovering Republican
T-Town Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 29312



« Reply #11 on: November 13, 2019, 09:32:19 pm »

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.

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.
Logged

"It has been said that politics is the second oldest profession. I have learned that it bears a striking resemblance to the first” -Ronald Reagan
Conan71
Recovering Republican
T-Town Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 29312



« Reply #12 on: November 13, 2019, 09:37:16 pm »

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).

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.
Logged

"It has been said that politics is the second oldest profession. I have learned that it bears a striking resemblance to the first” -Ronald Reagan
TulsaGoldenHurriCAN
City Father
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1225



« Reply #13 on: November 14, 2019, 04:54:31 pm »

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!
Logged
Conan71
Recovering Republican
T-Town Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 29312



« Reply #14 on: November 15, 2019, 11:25:15 am »

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.
Logged

"It has been said that politics is the second oldest profession. I have learned that it bears a striking resemblance to the first” -Ronald Reagan
Pages: [1] 2   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

 
  Hosted by TulsaConnect and Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
 

Mission

 

"TulsaNow's Mission is to help Tulsa become the most vibrant, diverse, sustainable and prosperous city of our size. We achieve this by focusing on the development of Tulsa's distinctive identity and economic growth around a dynamic, urban core, complemented by a constellation of livable, thriving communities."
more...

 

Contact

 

2210 S Main St.
Tulsa, OK 74114
(918) 409-2669
info@tulsanow.org