By next year, oil will be $200/barrel. Gas, $7/gal. 75% of the motorists on the road today will not be able to afford to drive.
If the tax is not used for infrastructure to make public/private transit work, why bother with a street tax? That's like rebuilding homes in Pitcher. Throwing good money after bad.
Mass transit will take years to improve. Even when we get light rail, people will still ride, drive or bus to the train stations. I would say your argument would apply to widening, however. People will always use cars but I can see traffic growth slowing.
quote:
Originally posted by 1099paralegal
By next year, oil will be $200/barrel. Gas, $7/gal. 75% of the motorists on the road today will not be able to afford to drive.
If the tax is not used for infrastructure to make public/private transit work, why bother with a street tax? That's like rebuilding homes in Pitcher. Throwing good money after bad.
Puleeze, most people could double, triple, or better, their gas mileage by simply getting a more fuel efficient car. Even if a lot more people were to stop using their cars as much, buses still use streets, rail cant go everywhere. I have been thinking about getting a scooter for short trips, errands and just cruising about mid-town...still need good streets for that as well.
I am all for better mass transit and spending less money on fuel. If you rely on the notion that we should do those things because of higher fuel prices, it wont work. May cause a temporary frenzy in a few people for a little while, but over all people will simply adapt in other ways, it wont make the change and you will be right back where you are now. There are better arguments for higher density, pedestrian friendly areas, and mass transit. Relying on a false premise, will only get you false results. I dont buy it,,, why should anyone else? You may fool a few people at first, "High oil prices! the sky is falling!Forget the roads, We need mass transit!" but its not a truly convincing or reliable strategy for getting what you want.
If a person drives 15,000 mi/yr, the difference between 20 mpg and 40 mpg is 375 gal/yr. At $7.00/gallon, that is $2625/yr. That won't buy much of a car. If you can, buy a car with better gas mileage because it is the right thing to do. Don't exepect it to pay for itself with better gas mileage unless you drive a LOT of miles per year.
quote:
Originally posted by Red Arrow
If a person drives 15,000 mi/yr, the difference between 20 mpg and 40 mpg is 375 gal/yr. At $7.00/gallon, that is $2625/yr. That won't buy much of a car. If you can, buy a car with better gas mileage because it is the right thing to do. Don't exepect it to pay for itself with better gas mileage unless you drive a LOT of miles per year.
Often a smaller, more fuel efficient car will cost less than say an Escalade or a Hummer,,, or even a Murano [8D]. So your monthly car payments may very well go down as well. Not to mention your insurance payment. Also, I have thought of getting a scooter, not to replace my car but to run errands, commute to work, my "Sunday drive" around town, etc. Could pay for itself in 3 or 4 years. Especially if gas prices go up even more. Not to mention they just look like fun. [:D] In either instance, your still using the roads.
I've been wanting to get a motorcycle myself, and with the increasing gas prices, it seems to be getting more practicle. Not to replace my SUV (sorry, got 4 kids, so it's either the SUV or a minivan, and I'm not doing the minivan thing), but like Artist says, cummute, errands, and actually to be able to afford to go out for a drive. An initial investment of about 4K would pay for itself within two years. Got thwarted on buying it this year, maybe next year.
Oil at $200.00+ a barrel from what I hear will transform pump prices to $12.00 a gallon not $7.00 or so. At least that's the talk in the media- The gasoline pumps in use today only go up to $9.99 a gallon so many stations will have to install new pumps with more number capacity. The cost of installing new gasoline pumps will be passed on to the customers. A motorcycle can help but has drawbacks unless you live where it's warm & sunny alot, motorcycles are bad in rain, ice & snow and you can't carry much on them, a bag of food from the store is about it, you also can't take your whole family out on a vacation on one. I live in Ohio and a motorcycle can really be used only about 3 months of the year, the rest of time it's very cold, snowy or rainy.[B)]
quote: TheArtist
----------------------------------------------
Often a smaller, more fuel efficient car will cost less than say an Escalade or a Hummer,,, or even a Murano . So your monthly car payments may very well go down as well. Not to mention your insurance payment. Also, I have thought of getting a scooter, not to replace my car but to run errands, commute to work, my "Sunday drive" around town, etc. Could pay for itself in 3 or 4 years. Especially if gas prices go up even more. Not to mention they just look like fun. In either instance, your still using the roads.
-----------------------------------------------
I was thinking more of the people with an 8 to 10 year old mid priced vehicle. It may be paid off. The supply of used great gas mileage cars will dry up and folks will be forced to buy new. This will increase insurance costs and payments. The cost of new cars with great gas mileage will probably get a price boost as they did in the early 1980s. I remember a line added to the sticker on new car windows. Some dealers fessed up and called it "ADP", Additional Dealer Profit. People driving Hummers etc will probably not really need to worry much about the purchase price of a new smaller car. Some people have a real requirement for a large vehicle. Reasons vary. For them, a small efficient vehicle will be a second vehicle. A scooter is probably fun and cheap but I don't care for the safety issues.
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
...commute to work...
You don't need a scooter to commute to work. That distance you can walk :)
Because of the lack of transit in Tulsa, many people drive more than 15,000 miles a year, and most families have more than one car (many families have a separate car for every person over the age of 16).
Remember, that the cost to operate a car involves more than just gas (which has tripled in the past few years). You're also paying for the cost of the car, depreciation of the car, insurance, cost of maintenance (tires, oil changes, alignment, tune-ups), car repairs, and...oh yeah...cost to build and repair the roads you drive on (local, state and federal taxes); as well as increased infrastructure costs to the community for spreading out support services over a sprawling area (more fire, more police, more utilities, etc).
So, yeah. Buy a scooter. Scale down the hummer. Get on your bike.
But be thinking of all these things as we begin talking about the comprehensive plan. What does it take to make a city pedestrian and transit friendly? Where can we strategically increase density? How can we bring traditional mixed-use neighborhoods (instead of isolated suburban sprawl) back into style?
In 1920, Tulsa was the 19th most densely populated city in the nation. Now, we're somewhere around 250...less densely populated than even Houston, if I remember correctly.
The current model is unsustainable (the roads package is just one manifestation of that). It's time we grow up and get serious about the future.
quote:
Originally posted by PonderInc
Because of the lack of transit in Tulsa, many people drive more than 15,000 miles a year, and most families have more than one car (many families have a separate car for every person over the age of 16).
Remember, that the cost to operate a car involves more than just gas (which has tripled in the past few years). You're also paying for the cost of the car, depreciation of the car, insurance, cost of maintenance (tires, oil changes, alignment, tune-ups), car repairs, and...oh yeah...cost to build and repair the roads you drive on (local, state and federal taxes); as well as increased infrastructure costs to the community for spreading out support services over a sprawling area (more fire, more police, more utilities, etc).
So, yeah. Buy a scooter. Scale down the hummer. Get on your bike.
But be thinking of all these things as we begin talking about the comprehensive plan. What does it take to make a city pedestrian and transit friendly? Where can we strategically increase density? How can we bring traditional mixed-use neighborhoods (instead of isolated suburban sprawl) back into style?
In 1920, Tulsa was the 19th most densely populated city in the nation. Now, we're somewhere around 250...less densely populated than even Houston, if I remember correctly.
The current model is unsustainable (the roads package is just one manifestation of that). It's time we grow up and get serious about the future.
yeah and in the 1950s TUlsa was only second to LA in cars per capita.
listen, this is a car town. you can't get rid of the car culture. The car will stay, it just needs to adapt.
quote:
Originally posted by inteller
quote:
Originally posted by PonderInc
Because of the lack of transit in Tulsa, many people drive more than 15,000 miles a year, and most families have more than one car (many families have a separate car for every person over the age of 16).
Remember, that the cost to operate a car involves more than just gas (which has tripled in the past few years). You're also paying for the cost of the car, depreciation of the car, insurance, cost of maintenance (tires, oil changes, alignment, tune-ups), car repairs, and...oh yeah...cost to build and repair the roads you drive on (local, state and federal taxes); as well as increased infrastructure costs to the community for spreading out support services over a sprawling area (more fire, more police, more utilities, etc).
So, yeah. Buy a scooter. Scale down the hummer. Get on your bike.
But be thinking of all these things as we begin talking about the comprehensive plan. What does it take to make a city pedestrian and transit friendly? Where can we strategically increase density? How can we bring traditional mixed-use neighborhoods (instead of isolated suburban sprawl) back into style?
In 1920, Tulsa was the 19th most densely populated city in the nation. Now, we're somewhere around 250...less densely populated than even Houston, if I remember correctly.
The current model is unsustainable (the roads package is just one manifestation of that). It's time we grow up and get serious about the future.
yeah and in the 1950s TUlsa was only second to LA in cars per capita.
listen, this is a car town. you can't get rid of the car culture. The car will stay, it just needs to adapt.
We need more half-mile streets like Utica/Delaware 15th street 36th street etc. Instead of a huge busy street every mile, smaller but more frequent streets would work better for both motorists and for walkability. Go hang out at 31st and Utica and look how quaint the traffic is, even at 5PM. This is thanks to the midtown area having those extra streets. Unfortunately, many of the sprawl neighborhoods have been built to where it would be nearly impossible to retroactively cut across them with additional through streets. In fact, that is their very design, to keep through-traffic and riffraff out of their neighborhoods. But we suffer from these poorly designed street systems where a thousand people all dump out onto a street at one point. And from there, we think we have a traffic problem that adding more lanes will somehow solve. When you add more lanes, it just makes that street tougher to get on to. Then people think the street is too dangerous to turn onto, so they get a traffic light added. Before you know it, you have a 6 lane street with traffic lights every 600 feet, slowing things down even more. Crossing on foot is attempted suicide.
That is very insightful. It is the numerous entrance/exits to the old neighborhoods that keeps traffic dissipated. It was the "cut through" streets they were trying to eliminate with the limited access neighborhoods out south. It backfired and causes bottlenecks that like you point out, results eventually in traffic signals.
Alot of new housing developments have streets set out like a can of worms, curvy no way out but the way you came in, where as the older neighborhoods are build with straight streets that take you to main roads. I like the old way better.
We are reaching a point where oil prices will level off for the simple reason that fuel costs are cutting above what many people are willing to pay. The demand curve stiffens dramatically at a certain point - in the USA I'd guess $5 a gallon gas is close to a dramatic stiffening (ie. no more Sunday drives, seriously consider trip costs, etc.).
But in much of the rest of the world, $120+ a barrel is more than their population can or is willing to pay. When the developing world's (including India and China) demand curve is stretch our prices will stabilize. While significant, our impact on oil prices isn't what it used to be...
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
Relying on a false premise, will only get you false results. I dont buy it,,, why should anyone else? You may fool a few people at first, "High oil prices! the sky is falling!Forget the roads, We need mass transit!" but its not a truly convincing or reliable strategy for getting what you want.
WE'RE DOOMED. THE END IS NEAR!
(http://a955.ac-images.myspacecdn.com/images01/37/l_6e4128446529b303157233d9e82f4672.jpg)
quote:
Originally posted by sauerkraut
Oil at $200.00+ a barrel from what I hear will transform pump prices to $12.00 a gallon not $7.00 or so. At least that's the talk in the media- [B)]
Why would a roughly 50-60% jump in crude oil prices lead to a 300% + jump in gasoline prices at the pump?
I'm not so sure that oil prices are going to level off any day soon.
I think it's interesting that we failed to learn the lessons from the 70's about the need to continue conservation and researching alternative energy. Meanwhile, we cling to the "lesson" we want to believe from the 70's energy crisis: that market forces will bring the price of oil "back down to normal."
I actually don't think it's going to work that way this time around. The world is vastly different than it was back then.
OPEC doesn't control the oil market like it used to. And the US, while still the major consumer of oil in the world (70% of which we use for transportation, by the way), is not the only fish in the sea. While our oil consumption has risen by 25% since 1975, China's has risen by 400%, with no end in sight. (Sure, it's a fraction of our oil consumption, but you just have to imagine what China will be like in another 10 years if the trend continues.)
There's also lot of volitility/political uncertainty in all the screwy oil exporting states that we rely so heavily upon.
And then a funny thing happened in Iraq....
Too bad we didn't take the trillions of dollars we're wasting in Iraq, and invest it in alternative energy and viable rapid transit. Too bad we continue to fail to understand the high costs of sprawl. Too bad we've been offering tax breaks for businesses to buy trucks and SUVs, instead of small, fuel efficient cars. Too bad the "conservatives" seem to have forgotten the meaning of the word...
Oops...off on a tangent. But you get the idea.
Gotta LOVE this:
Councilor Bill Christiansen said Tuesday he won't support a streets package that does not devote a significant amount to widening projects.
"This is just as important to my south Tulsa district as street rehabilitation is in other areas of the city," he said. "There's got to be a compromise, otherwise I see my constituents being disenfranchised by this."
KILL it, Bill![:D][:D]
At most - add 3rd lanes (turning) to those streets.
The streets in South Tulsa are not the same as streets in midtown. Nearly everything has it's back to the main road, but for several strip malls near intersections which could be serviced by 4-lane. Otherwise, the only turning that goes on is to get into a subdivision; which could be serviced fine with a 3rd lane for the "rush" hour.
The last thing Tulsa needs is more road-miles to maintain.
quote:
Originally posted by Red Arrow
If a person drives 15,000 mi/yr, the difference between 20 mpg and 40 mpg is 375 gal/yr. At $7.00/gallon, that is $2625/yr. That won't buy much of a car. If you can, buy a car with better gas mileage because it is the right thing to do. Don't exepect it to pay for itself with better gas mileage unless you drive a LOT of miles per year.
interesting article on cnn.com yesterday. And I quote...
"The FHWA's "Traffic Volume Trends" report, produced monthly since 1942, shows that estimated vehicle miles traveled (VMT) on all U.S. public roads for March 2008 fell 4.3 percent as compared with March 2007 travel. This is the first time estimated March travel on public roads fell since 1979. At 11 billion miles less in March 2008 than in the previous March, this is the sharpest yearly drop for any month in FHWA history. "
Thats alot of miles!
I read the same story. Keep it up and we won't need to widen any roads in south Tulsa.
Still have to pay the water/sewer/trash bill which are rising to offset 3rd Penny losses expected from road repairs/improvements.
TMUA has gone berserk.
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
Still have to pay the water/sewer/trash bill which are rising to offset 3rd Penny losses expected from road repairs/improvements.
TMUA has gone berserk.
Correction. The trash rates are not going up.
quote:
Originally posted by 1099paralegal
Gotta LOVE this:
Councilor Bill Christiansen said Tuesday he won't support a streets package that does not devote a significant amount to widening projects.
"This is just as important to my south Tulsa district as street rehabilitation is in other areas of the city," he said. "There's got to be a compromise, otherwise I see my constituents being disenfranchised by this."
KILL it, Bill![:D][:D]
I AM one of his constituents and I offer him this advice on the subject.
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3188/2533458921_584d067b06.jpg?)
Buy a vowel, Bill.
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
That is very insightful. It is the numerous entrance/exits to the old neighborhoods that keeps traffic dissipated. It was the "cut through" streets they were trying to eliminate with the limited access neighborhoods out south. It backfired and causes bottlenecks that like you point out, results eventually in traffic signals.
Yes, and the more through streets, the less traffic burden any one residential street has to carry. Focusing an entire subdivision's traffic onto a "residential collector" creates the kind of traffic that leads to requests for speedramps, extra stop signs, and traffic lights. In midtown, I can plan my route out of a residential area so that I don't have to make a left-hand turn onto an arterial. You don't have that option in most of south Tulsa.
YoungTulsan's post is indeed insightful. Twenty years ago, I wrote Mayor Crawford urging mid-mile streets to be built in all newly developed areas. At some point, we may have to build those streets, even if it means clearing a path through existing development. (Hey, they did it to midtown in the '70s.)
Building a through street between Memorial and Garnett to the north of Woodland Hills, Sam's, Best Buy, Target, and Kohl's would do more to relieve traffic on 71st St. than adding lanes to 71st would. Requiring adjacent parking lots to be connected would help, too.
quote:
Originally posted by MichaelBates
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
That is very insightful. It is the numerous entrance/exits to the old neighborhoods that keeps traffic dissipated. It was the "cut through" streets they were trying to eliminate with the limited access neighborhoods out south. It backfired and causes bottlenecks that like you point out, results eventually in traffic signals.
Yes, and the more through streets, the less traffic burden any one residential street has to carry. Focusing an entire subdivision's traffic onto a "residential collector" creates the kind of traffic that leads to requests for speedramps, extra stop signs, and traffic lights. In midtown, I can plan my route out of a residential area so that I don't have to make a left-hand turn onto an arterial. You don't have that option in most of south Tulsa.
YoungTulsan's post is indeed insightful. Twenty years ago, I wrote Mayor Crawford urging mid-mile streets to be built in all newly developed areas. At some point, we may have to build those streets, even if it means clearing a path through existing development. (Hey, they did it to midtown in the '70s.)
Building a through street between Memorial and Garnett to the north of Woodland Hills, Sam's, Best Buy, Target, and Kohl's would do more to relieve traffic on 71st St. than adding lanes to 71st would. Requiring adjacent parking lots to be connected would help, too.
Seems like you've been pushing for 66th for what, like 5 years now?
quote:
Originally posted by 1099paralegal
Gotta LOVE this:
Councilor Bill Christiansen said Tuesday he won't support a streets package that does not devote a significant amount to widening projects.
"This is just as important to my south Tulsa district as street rehabilitation is in other areas of the city," he said. "There's got to be a compromise, otherwise I see my constituents being disenfranchised by this."
KILL it, Bill![:D][:D]
(http://i85.photobucket.com/albums/k57/dr-holliday/turdbeast.jpg)
I do not think street widening should be considered right now at all. Especially with the comprehensive plan being worked on. The idea Bates has about a through street behind the mall is a great idea and imo there should be other half mile streets as well.
Now is the time to be considering this idea as part of the new comprehensive plan. If Christiansen had said something to the effect that we need the funds for South Tulsa to build half mile streets,,, I think he would get more mid-town support. How the South Towners would react I dont know.
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
Still have to pay the water/sewer/trash bill which are rising to offset 3rd Penny losses expected from road repairs/improvements.
TMUA has gone berserk.
Correction. The trash rates are not going up.
Right. Trash rates remain at twice the rate they should be even though we've paid off an incinerator mortgage on a plant we don't own.
Remember, it was TARE from whom the funds to clean up after the ice storm. $11 million in cash laying around from proceeds not being paid on an incinerator mortgage. That was September-December near-quarter, so a year is like $40M.
That alone would go a long way to solving our streets problem.
What is it TARE does again?
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
That was September-December near-quarter, so a year is like $40M.
I really didn't mean to always be correcting your math, but I will at least one more time.
The entire TARE annual budget shows only 26 million dollars through billing of commercial and residential customers. Making $40 million extra in cash would be rather difficult.
I don't know you Wrinkle, but please tell me your job doesn't involve counting.
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
That was September-December near-quarter, so a year is like $40M.
I really didn't mean to always be correcting your math, but I will at least one more time.
The entire TARE annual budget shows only 26 million dollars through billing of commercial and residential customers. Making $40 million extra in cash would be rather difficult.
I don't know you Wrinkle, but please tell me your job doesn't involve counting.
So, do tell me how they acquired $11 million extra in less than four months to give to the Mayor. I believe that also left around $1.5M in their cash account for Milk Duds and such.
While you're at it, explain why an organization with this kind of cash flow required a $7 million loan in 2006.
TARE is not the focus of this thread. Start another and I will explain what I think about trash and local rates.
Despite what you think about city services, the trash providers have a reputation for good service. The amount of complaints are a small part of 1% each month. Tulsans seem very satisfied with trash and hopeful for more recycling.
Roads are a different story. You seem compelled to start conversations saying negative things about the upcoming street bond issue, even before the details are known.
I am not capable yet of debating the pluses and negatives of any street bond. But I know plenty of Tulsans who normally oppose any tax increase who are supportive of paying a little extra for streets. This measure seems well-researched and timely.
I know that passage will be hard anyway. 40% of the people will vote no on any tax and costs are rapidly rising for food, fuel and other city services.
The streets need work. Now is the time to make that investment.
quote:
Originally posted by MichaelBates
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
That is very insightful. It is the numerous entrance/exits to the old neighborhoods that keeps traffic dissipated. It was the "cut through" streets they were trying to eliminate with the limited access neighborhoods out south. It backfired and causes bottlenecks that like you point out, results eventually in traffic signals.
Yes, and the more through streets, the less traffic burden any one residential street has to carry. Focusing an entire subdivision's traffic onto a "residential collector" creates the kind of traffic that leads to requests for speedramps, extra stop signs, and traffic lights. In midtown, I can plan my route out of a residential area so that I don't have to make a left-hand turn onto an arterial. You don't have that option in most of south Tulsa.
YoungTulsan's post is indeed insightful. Twenty years ago, I wrote Mayor Crawford urging mid-mile streets to be built in all newly developed areas. At some point, we may have to build those streets, even if it means clearing a path through existing development. (Hey, they did it to midtown in the '70s.)
Building a through street between Memorial and Garnett to the north of Woodland Hills, Sam's, Best Buy, Target, and Kohl's would do more to relieve traffic on 71st St. than adding lanes to 71st would. Requiring adjacent parking lots to be connected would help, too.
Michael, I think you're right but you still have to keep in mind the reasoning behind why those limited access neighborhoods evolved. It was basically a move on the developers part to squeeze more lots out of the same space at less dollars. Same thing with irregular sized lots. Less paving, curbs, drainage etc. and more lots per acre.
Now that the homes are sold and the city maintains the bottleneck mess, if we go back in and recarve the layout it will be expensive and sets a precedent, or should, that new developments will have to abide by. Immediately you create two sets of angry opposition- developers and residential homeowners.
You could add a third set of opponents when you realize that the traffic on 71st is considered a positive thing by the nearby commercial businesses and billboard owners. They actually pay more in rent based on that traffic as they expect to snag impulse buyers and potential readers of their advertising.
Formidable opponents.
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
TARE is not the focus of this thread. Start another and I will explain what I think about trash and local rates.
Despite what you think about city services, the trash providers have a reputation for good service. The amount of complaints are a small part of 1% each month. Tulsans seem very satisfied with trash and hopeful for more recycling.
Roads are a different story. You seem compelled to start conversations saying negative things about the upcoming street bond issue, even before the details are known.
I am not capable yet of debating the pluses and negatives of any street bond. But I know plenty of Tulsans who normally oppose any tax increase who are supportive of paying a little extra for streets. This measure seems well-researched and timely.
I know that passage will be hard anyway. 40% of the people will vote no on any tax and costs are rapidly rising for food, fuel and other city services.
The streets need work. Now is the time to make that investment.
The thread is about fixing out streets. I suggest the money we've been paying for 20 years to not own an incinerator plant is still being paid to TARE. That, to me, indicates excess revenue which could be used for roads instead.
Since the Council hasn't a clue yet as to how to resolve the fiscal aspects of what they've proposed, suggestions would be useful at this point.
The reason no details of their current plan have been revealed is they've discovered the same thing I did....it doesn't work.
I'd like for you to point out where I trashed the trash service. The discussion has been strictly held to economics.
But, even you would have to admit that TARE does nothing which could not, and should be done by Public Works. Heck, even I can hire outside consultants to do the work of evaluating trash service plans. Isn't that expertise supposed to be the reason for having an Authority, so we don't need outside consultants?
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
That was September-December near-quarter, so a year is like $40M.
I really didn't mean to always be correcting your math, but I will at least one more time.
The entire TARE annual budget shows only 26 million dollars through billing of commercial and residential customers. Making $40 million extra in cash would be rather difficult.
I don't know you Wrinkle, but please tell me your job doesn't involve counting.
Your careful wording has alerted me.
"...annual budget SHOWS only $26 million..."
Perhaps they're clever like the phone company and itemized charges, so only $26m is their share of the fees, with another fee dedicated to the former incinerator mortgage, now cash account.
I really don't know, but whatever was being paid toward the mortgage on the incinerator is still being paid.
Sounds like road funding to me.
Your careful wording has alerted me.
"...annual budget SHOWS only $26 million..."
Perhaps they're clever like the phone company and itemized charges, so only $26m is their share of the fees, with another fee dedicated to the former incinerator mortgage, now cash account.
I really don't know, but whatever was being paid toward the mortgage on the incinerator is still being paid.
Sounds like road funding to me.
Ok parse boy...
Total ACTUAL billings for TARE to all customers for the first ten months of the year is $18,291,000.
I just didn't have the financial documents that were presented at Wednesday's public meeting (attended by the media and a packed audience every month) so I wanted to be careful. You, on the other hand, when confronted with correct numbers as proof of your bad math skills, tried to imply some financial shenanigans.
Yes, the city of Tulsa paid $180 million to finance somebody else's trash to energy plant that has now closed. Blame Senator Inhofe for the most one-sided contract in our city's history. We paid through the nose for twenty years. When it closed last year, trash rates went down an average of 37% for every Tulsa home and business.
But that is not a valid argument against the street bond proposal. It is in the past and the roads need fixing today. Trying to argue that we shouldn't fix the streets because we spent too much on trash service is like saying I shouldn't join a gym because I wasted all that money on cigarettes when I was younger.