The paper this morning posted the full city streets plan this morning with an overview story. What I found most interesting was the map attached to the story that shows all of the arterials and nonarterials that would be worked on during the program.
A bit of light Sunday reading anyone?
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=20080615_16_A1_spancl953970
"Yes we come from the land of plenty"...(http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y179/rico2/Gasxmas.gif)(http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y179/rico2/Gasd.jpg)
[}:)]
widening 91st from Mingo to Memorial? Welcome to 2002....That should have been done a LONG time ago.
I notice that the widening projects are along parts that have had a partial widening....talk about the low hanging fruit. And STILL no widening for 81st from mingo to memorial.
FAIL.
No rail on the agenda. Annoying. Should have been part of the widening bargain.
A ridiculously large plan. Looking at my own neighborhood, it has every single street scheduled to be redone, which absolutely does NOT need to be done.
Some streets on the list just got resurfaced (within the last year), now they're going to do it again?
BIG FAT WASTE!
Keep in mind ... this is a 12 year plan. Do you want to go a dozen years without some attention to your streets. As the story says, not all streets will receive the same level of repair ... some cracks sealed, some overlays, some reconstruction. I have to say, I'm pretty surprised at how quiet everyone's been about the plan. Not much reaction yet.
twelve year plan that starts in 2 years. If they were done last year, they likely might need it again in 15 years.
This is insane. The roads are not that bad; not compared to other needs. We've neglected river development far longer than the roads. Education? Is a laughing-stock.
If the plan was a measured response based on need, I would understand, but this doesn't look like need. I drive many of the roads identified, and they don't need improvement.
I also recognize that in 15 years, these particular roads might need work, but that's true regardless of the road. That tells me this allocation is permanent. As such, I have serious reservations about the plan when the City has more pressing needs than road improvement for 2020.
Put some money in our schools for God's sake.
quote:
Originally posted by CoffeeBean
This is insane. The roads are not that bad; not compared to other needs. We've neglected river development far longer than the roads. Education? Is a laughing-stock.
If the plan was a measured response based on need, I would understand, but this doesn't look like need. I drive many of the roads identified, and they don't need improvement.
I also recognize that in 15 years, these particular roads might need work, but that's true regardless of the road. That tells me this allocation is permanent. As such, I have serious reservations about the plan when the City has more pressing needs than road improvement for 2020.
Put some money in our schools for God's sake.
River development without road development is S-T-U-P-I-D.
I drive enough to know that this city's roads are horrible. Hell, the state's roads are horrible for that matter. I just bought a new vehicle and I cringe every time I come up on a pothole that is unavoidable, which is at least two within every roadmile I drive. Sometimes even those roadmiles on the expressways are the same.
But there is no way in hell I'll be voting for a property tax increase to fund this. The city reps said we couldn't do river development without a tax. Guess what? They found a way.
They need to start being more pushy in DC; hell even in the hellhole down the Turner. The city got us in this mess, they shouldn't have the citizens shoulder the brunt of what their mismanagement has caused.
quote:
Originally posted by CoffeeBean
This is insane. The roads are not that bad; not compared to other needs. We've neglected river development far longer than the roads. Education? Is a laughing-stock.
If the plan was a measured response based on need, I would understand, but this doesn't look like need. I drive many of the roads identified, and they don't need improvement.
I also recognize that in 15 years, these particular roads might need work, but that's true regardless of the road. That tells me this allocation is permanent. As such, I have serious reservations about the plan when the City has more pressing needs than road improvement for 2020.
Put some money in our schools for God's sake.
Do the River First! No wait... Fix the Streets First!! No, scratch that... Fund our Schools First!!
Something has to go first.
quote:
Originally posted by blindnil
Keep in mind ... this is a 12 year plan. Do you want to go a dozen years without some attention to your streets. As the story says, not all streets will receive the same level of repair ... some cracks sealed, some overlays, some reconstruction. I have to say, I'm pretty surprised at how quiet everyone's been about the plan. Not much reaction yet.
While an excellent point, the streets in my neighborhood are 25+ years old and don't get near the traffic an arterial street does. And, streets are made to last much longer then 12 years.
quote:
Originally posted by Wilbur
quote:
Originally posted by blindnil
Keep in mind ... this is a 12 year plan. Do you want to go a dozen years without some attention to your streets. As the story says, not all streets will receive the same level of repair ... some cracks sealed, some overlays, some reconstruction. I have to say, I'm pretty surprised at how quiet everyone's been about the plan. Not much reaction yet.
While an excellent point, the streets in my neighborhood are 25+ years old and don't get near the traffic an arterial street does. And, streets are made to last much longer then 12 years.
Not when they overlay with a minimal depth of asphalt. I'm really hoping there will be use of concrete in many of the repairs. The 4" asphalt "fix" is lacking.
quote:
Originally posted by Hoss
quote:
Originally posted by CoffeeBean
This is insane. The roads are not that bad; not compared to other needs. We've neglected river development far longer than the roads. Education? Is a laughing-stock.
If the plan was a measured response based on need, I would understand, but this doesn't look like need. I drive many of the roads identified, and they don't need improvement.
I also recognize that in 15 years, these particular roads might need work, but that's true regardless of the road. That tells me this allocation is permanent. As such, I have serious reservations about the plan when the City has more pressing needs than road improvement for 2020.
Put some money in our schools for God's sake.
River development without road development is S-T-U-P-I-D.
I drive enough to know that this city's roads are horrible. Hell, the state's roads are horrible for that matter. I just bought a new vehicle and I cringe every time I come up on a pothole that is unavoidable, which is at least two within every roadmile I drive. Sometimes even those roadmiles on the expressways are the same.
But there is no way in hell I'll be voting for a property tax increase to fund this. The city reps said we couldn't do river development without a tax. Guess what? They found a way.
They need to start being more pushy in DC; hell even in the hellhole down the Turner. The city got us in this mess, they shouldn't have the citizens shoulder the brunt of what their mismanagement has caused.
Pure ignorance.
First off, the city doesn't fund "education". I guess you probably drummed up tons of support and voted Yes for the TCC bond issue, right?
I don't know what roads some of you drive, but the only road that makes me "cringe" is that part of peoria with the brick coming up.
Nor do I understand the attempt to draw a causal relationship between roads and river development, e.g., "river development without road development is s-t-u-p-i-d." One has nothing to do with the other outside of competing for dollars.
Maybe I'm too dense, but I don't think the roads will simply vanish with river development. Quite the opposite actually.
And I have never - ever - never heard of, or met a single person anywhere, who made any decision about travel or recreation based upon the quality of roads. (ok, maybe in some third world country during monsoon season, but still . . .).
Has anyone here actually sat down and written off a destination due to the roads? Is there a database somewhere to check the road quality before i book my next vacation? I would hate to arrive in Chicago only to realize that the roads have *gasp* potholes. Oh the humanity!!
I just find the preoccupation with roads absolutely baffling.
quote:
Originally posted by CoffeeBean
I don't know what roads some of you drive, but the only road that makes me "cringe" is that part of peoria with the brick coming up.
Nor do I understand the attempt to draw a causal relationship between roads and river development, e.g., "river development without road development is s-t-u-p-i-d." One has nothing to do with the other outside of competing for dollars.
Maybe I'm too dense, but I don't think the roads will simply vanish with river development. Quite the opposite actually.
And I have never - ever - never heard of, or met a single person anywhere, who made any decision about travel or recreation based upon the quality of roads. (ok, maybe in some third world country during monsoon season, but still . . .).
Has anyone here actually sat down and written off a destination due to the roads? Is there a database somewhere to check the road quality before i book my next vacation? I would hate to arrive in Chicago only to realize that the roads have *gasp* potholes. Oh the humanity!!
I just find the preoccupation with roads absolutely baffling.
AMEN!
If this is Tulsa's most serious problem, then Tulsa has no problems.
I agree with you last two, but still support the effort to find money to fix the roads.
Road money is a good investment of public dollars. The materials are usually all local, the work crews all from around here, even the design and final painting work is done by local crews. These are fine-paying jobs for people willing to work hard and that money is churned right back into the local economy over and over.
I think the worst roads I drive on each day are on the state and interstate highways.
The preoccupation with roads is not baffling to me.
I look at them like I do my trash service. It is something I shouldn't have to worry about. A community is expected to provide and maintain the service, citizens use it and don't have to think any more about it. When all goes well, it is a non-issue. But when they fail, then it's a serious problem.
It has cost me hundreds of dollars in repairs for starters.
On top of that, perception is everything. Just driving from the airport to their hotel a visitor to Tulsa already gets the feel that the city is run down. Smooth roads give the perception of a well maintained and well run city. Crappy roads give people something negative to concentrate on.
Driving around town I see medians crumbling and full of gravel. Bridges that are rusted, cracked, and very frequently with bits of rusted iron sticking out here and there from the concrete. Holes in streets that cause you to swerve. Intersections so bad you have to slow down to safely pass. And highways that are simply crumbling in places.
Street maintenance is a basic city service. Most streets in Tulsa have been neglected for far too long and it is painfully obvious. That hurts the image of our city and irritates our residents. So there is a cost to having crappy streets... perhaps it won't deter someone from coming, but it can dampin' their image of Tulsa when they leave.
- - -
Tulsa has more road miles per capita than nearly any other city. The road in front of Inteller's house is busy from 7am to 9 and from 4pm to 6. Add a turning lane to alleviate those times and the problem (and whining) goes away while not doubling the road miles. Then again, I drive places other than just on my road... so I'm not sure why the plan is a failure if it doesn't fix YOUR road.
This city just didn't think long term (with roads) after some point around 1980. We expanded south so quickly that we never stopped to think about the possibilities of rising gas prices and the huge drain all the required roads would be on the local budget.
At the same time, I don't think a lot of people are willing to make the relative short term sacrifice for roads. Downtown, Brookside, and Utica have construction and people are pissed about that. What happens when we do that all over the city?
This is a big plan and not being a resident of Tulsa I'm not going to come out and say that someone should or should not vote for this measure. I would personally support it if I lived in Tulsa but I can understand if someone else does not. It's a massive and seems like a good plan but it's almost overkill in addressing an issue that is only 50% reality and 50% perception.
I do however agree that Tulsan's perception of the quality of the roads in the city is much worse than reality because of a lack of understanding who is responsible for maintenance of which roadway. Our highways and the related ramps and approach roads are in such bad shape that it creates a very real and understandable perception in the public that the city is not doing it's job when the real failure is (again) with the state. If I lived in Tulsa I would demand that Tulsa does a better job on getting a decent return on our state and federal road taxes.
There certainly are city streets that need a lot of work, and the actual city streets have gotten worse over the last decade but a big part of the perception of the condition of the streets (and city overall) is more related to a lack of any even basic maintenance. Potholes are poorly repaired, grass is not mowed as regularly as it should be and when it is the job is done poorly. Streetlights are allowed to burn out without repair, signs aren't fixed in a timely manner when damaged. None of this has much to do with actual street condition (even pot holes will happen at times on good streets) but it has a lot to do with how the city looks and how the residents perceive the condition of the streets. I like that this plan addresses these constant needs along with new pavement. I also like that it addresses sealing and crack repair as preventative maintenance seems to have been completely forgotten recently.
I too would like to see some rail in the plan, but passing money for rail right now is stupid when the state is unlikely to come up with anything like the needed matching state and federal dollars. Dedicating dollars now in this plan is just a recipe for Bates and company to scream in a few years that they were promised local rail and "we already paid for it" when the state ODOT fails to fund any matching dollars. There is money for more busses in the plan and that is really all that is realistic for mass transit at this time in Tulsa. For urban rail to work in Tulsa (or Oklahoma City) the cities and the state are going to have to come up with a cooperative funding plan that is larger in scope (even if the dollars are less) than this plan and there's going to have to be a change in culture at ODOT.
Tulsa needs to try to fix the streets, this plan does that. Tulsa needs to work on it's appearance, this plan address that too. It grabs revenue streams back from the county, that's very good. It refocuses Tulsa's street spending back into the core of the city where most of the people live. It's a good plan overall. It doesn't add huge amounts of new taxes and I would vote for it. I would like to see some increase lobbying to go with this plan at the state level to fix our highways. Tulsa used to be "America's most beautiful city", this plan might just go a long way to getting us back to that.
Chart 4. Urban areas (population one million or more) with highest share of major roads and
highways with pavements providing an unacceptable ride quality
URBAN AREA PERCENTAGE UNACCEPTABLE:
Los Angeles 66
San Jose 65
San Francisco-Oakland 61
San Diego 60
New Orleans 56
Boston 54
Sacramento 50
Riverside-San Bernardino 42
Tulsa 41
Philadelphia 40
Chart 5. Urban Areas (population of one million or more) with highest annual additional vehicle
operating cost per motorists as result of driving on roads with unacceptable ride quality
URBAN AREA ADDITIONAL VEHICLE OPERATING COSTS
PER DRIVER:
Los Angeles $705
San Jose $704
San Francisco-Oakland $681
San Diego $674
Sacramento $622
New Orleans $621
Tulsa $610
Oklahoma City $586
Riverside-San Bernardino $571
Albuquerque $551
http://www.rebuildca.org/pdfs/BumpyRoadsStudy042804.pdf
I found this study to be quite interesting.
Chart 4. Urban areas (population one million or more) with highest share of major roads and
highways with pavements providing an unacceptable ride quality
URBAN AREA PERCENTAGE UNACCEPTABLE:
Los Angeles 66
San Jose 65
San Francisco-Oakland 61
San Diego 60
New Orleans 56
Boston 54
Sacramento 50
Riverside-San Bernardino 42
Tulsa 41
Philadelphia 40
Chart 5. Urban Areas (population of one million or more) with highest annual additional vehicle
operating cost per motorists as result of driving on roads with unacceptable ride quality
URBAN AREA ADDITIONAL VEHICLE OPERATING COSTS
PER DRIVER:
Los Angeles $705
San Jose $704
San Francisco-Oakland $681
San Diego $674
Sacramento $622
New Orleans $621
Tulsa $610
Oklahoma City $586
Riverside-San Bernardino $571
Albuquerque $551
http://www.rebuildca.org/pdfs/BumpyRoadsStudy042804.pdf
I found this study to be quite interesting.
quote:
Originally posted by Wilbur
A ridiculously large plan. Looking at my own neighborhood, it has every single street scheduled to be redone, which absolutely does NOT need to be done.
Some streets on the list just got resurfaced (within the last year), now they're going to do it again?
BIG FAT WASTE!
Since it seems you didn't read the article in the paper I'll post the part for you that explains why this is. Maybe you did read it, but just forgot or missed it, but either way here you go.
""We're going to be working on the worst roads, but we're also going to be working on the good roads to make sure they don't fall into disrepair," said Paul Zachary, Public Works Department deputy director of engineering. "It's a balanced approach."
Not all streets will receive the same level of work, he cautioned. Some will have cracks sealed, some will have overlays, some will be reconstructed. "
Sounds like they are trying to be a little proactive here like we are always complaining that they should have done a long time ago and weren't. These people are trying to fix the problems left to them by prior administrations/generations. When they are proactive, we call it waste, when they address needs as they appear, we call them slow and wish they would be proactive.
Give me a break man. This is a good thing. Stop complaining! My 2 year old whines less.
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectID=11&articleID=20080617_1__Deepl83710
Street vote to be put off to November
By World Staff
6/17/2008 1:44 PM
Deeply divided over the issue of street widening, Mayor Kathy Taylor and the City Council have agreed to put the brakes on a 12-year, $2 billion streets tax proposal until the Nov. 4 general election.
Councilors had been working toward an Aug. 26 ballot initiative. To do that, they would have had to call for the election no later than June 26 — 60 days in advance.
But all sides agreed that the widening issue needs more study.
The decision came after Councilor Bill Martinson, who has opposed having widening in the package, picked apart the list of five widening projects that are included in the plan.
All are corridor widening projects in south Tulsa. Martinson said other widening projects should be given consideration based on other critieria.
Are bridges along the BA the city, county or state responsibility? How would one know? I just drove under the overpasses at 14th & Lewis and was surprised to see how much of it is falling into the streets. It has deteriorated very quickly since January. Looks pretty dangerous.
^
Sounds to me... like they are forming a City of Tulsa Streets Department.
Which I think may be a good thing.
I do not like them guaranteeing the funding of this street department with a locked in tax.
This would give the City no incentive to strive to balance their needs with the funds received as revenue.
Fund this project for 4 years or so and see if the "General Fund" increases to a point that the City can chip in some of the revenue that is already being made and decrease some of the tax earmarked for this project.
You fund this measure... then everything that they let go to hell in a hand basket becomes another package to be placed before the voters.They need to demonstrate some discipline,
target priorities.... Do what they get paid for..etc.
They don't need to bring a project that is all inclusive.....
They need to bring a project that will address the needs for the next four years or so with an option....Needs will change in the next four years... Hell the automobile may not even be a mode of transportation in twenty years.
I am among those who think that Tulsa needs to invest in more than just concrete and asphalt. When people and corporations are looking at relocating, I'm pretty sure that "Oooh, what nice smooth asphalt they have..." doesn't enter into the equation.
Is the city beautiful? Are there a variety of entertainment and cultural options? Does the city have reliable public transit? Are there interesting and cool things to do? Is it a healthy place to live (ie: clean air and water, opportunities to participate in healthy, active lifestyle...) Will I meet interesting, smart, fun people there? All of these are much more important to a city than smooth roads.
Having said that, I also believe that we have failed to take care of our existing infrastructure. The statistic I remember is that we currently spend half as much money as we did in the 1980's, but have twice as many roads to maintain.
For those people who are crying about an increase in taxes... I hope you will balance the additional $10/year for a $100,000 home vs. the amount you spend getting your wheels realigned every year. Or new shocks. Or bushings, ball joints, brake jobs...
My only concern is that if so much public investment is wrapped up in just street repair, what is our tolerance for additional public investment in the future? While this package won't raise the sales tax (it will just replace existing taxes as they expire), how will we fund truly important projects that will act as catalysts for economic prosperity in the future?
If we give the "do the streets first" people their streets, will there be anything left for the future?
quote:
Originally posted by TulsaSooner
quote:
Originally posted by Hoss
quote:
Originally posted by CoffeeBean
This is insane. The roads are not that bad; not compared to other needs. We've neglected river development far longer than the roads. Education? Is a laughing-stock.
If the plan was a measured response based on need, I would understand, but this doesn't look like need. I drive many of the roads identified, and they don't need improvement.
I also recognize that in 15 years, these particular roads might need work, but that's true regardless of the road. That tells me this allocation is permanent. As such, I have serious reservations about the plan when the City has more pressing needs than road improvement for 2020.
Put some money in our schools for God's sake.
River development without road development is S-T-U-P-I-D.
I drive enough to know that this city's roads are horrible. Hell, the state's roads are horrible for that matter. I just bought a new vehicle and I cringe every time I come up on a pothole that is unavoidable, which is at least two within every roadmile I drive. Sometimes even those roadmiles on the expressways are the same.
But there is no way in hell I'll be voting for a property tax increase to fund this. The city reps said we couldn't do river development without a tax. Guess what? They found a way.
They need to start being more pushy in DC; hell even in the hellhole down the Turner. The city got us in this mess, they shouldn't have the citizens shoulder the brunt of what their mismanagement has caused.
Pure ignorance.
First off, the city doesn't fund "education". I guess you probably drummed up tons of support and voted Yes for the TCC bond issue, right?
That would be a big fat 'no'.
What part of my post did you derive that from? I was one of the most vehement NO voters on the TCC issue. Let TCC fund their own. We've towed the line for them for too long now.
Actually, I was responding to Coffee Bean's nonsense....sorry.
[B)]
quote:
Originally posted by jackbristow
quote:
Originally posted by Wilbur
A ridiculously large plan. Looking at my own neighborhood, it has every single street scheduled to be redone, which absolutely does NOT need to be done.
Some streets on the list just got resurfaced (within the last year), now they're going to do it again?
BIG FAT WASTE!
Since it seems you didn't read the article in the paper I'll post the part for you that explains why this is. Maybe you did read it, but just forgot or missed it, but either way here you go.
""We're going to be working on the worst roads, but we're also going to be working on the good roads to make sure they don't fall into disrepair," said Paul Zachary, Public Works Department deputy director of engineering. "It's a balanced approach."
Not all streets will receive the same level of work, he cautioned. Some will have cracks sealed, some will have overlays, some will be reconstructed. "
Sounds like they are trying to be a little proactive here like we are always complaining that they should have done a long time ago and weren't. These people are trying to fix the problems left to them by prior administrations/generations. When they are proactive, we call it waste, when they address needs as they appear, we call them slow and wish they would be proactive.
Give me a break man. This is a good thing. Stop complaining! My 2 year old whines less.
It's too bad that people who don't agree with you are considered whiners. I suppose everyone who agrees with you is progressive?
Two billion dollars to spend on roads is nothing to sneeze at. The roads we already re-do, most don't need. Ask any of the road crew people. It's called city councilors doing favors for friends. We've got worse problems.
Two Beellion seems miniscule in perspective to the entire project list.
I tend to side with Martinson.
If only they'd curb Harvard from I44 to 61st and put in storm drains .....
Reading the story in the paper this morning, I think Martinson was way off-base.
The five widening projects identified in south Tulsa ARE needed. No I don't live out that way anymore and don't drive that way all that often but used to suffer through it. There is massive gridlock due to short-sighted infrastructure development which is 20 years behind private development in the area.
I will agree that parts of Lewis and Yale in mid-town are dangerously narrow and need to be widened as well as the surface being replaced. ODOT is every bit as guilty as the city in neglecting our roads. My route to work which consists of getting on the BA at 15th, through the IDL to HWY 75 S and exiting at W. 41st St. is hideous. I noticed the ramp from 75N onto the BA is starting to get holes in it. Immediately following that, the expansion joints between the east-bound south lane and adjacent lane is glopped together with heaps of asphalt.
I do agree there are side streets on the plan which don't need to be there. OKC needs to do their part with maintaining the highways through Tulsa, but many of our main arterial streets are shot. That's my observation from driving my truck and riding my motorcycle and bicycle over them.
Seems all have agreed the proposal doesn't work and have put off to November any reconciliation.
And, we thought the Third Penny was safe for awhile, at least through Mayor Taylor's term.
When including Third Penny funds as an extension, it's quite probable all those who've been feeding on it all these years would want their fluff in the streets deal.
People need to start listening to James Hewgley III. He's the only one presenting a real streets program, and the only one with a logical plan. It should get at least fair consideration.
Any politician who comes up with a $2 Billion plan isn't living in the same place as the rest of us. They also will not likely be around when we START paying for it, much less when we finish.
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
Any politician who comes up with a $2 Billion plan isn't living in the same place as the rest of us. They also will not likely be around when we START paying for it, much less when we finish.
++1 Let's see... the channels.....the river.....an out of touch streets package...each package gets more out of control. I'm a big Hewgley fan.
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
Any politician who comes up with a $2 Billion plan isn't living in the same place as the rest of us. They also will not likely be around when we START paying for it, much less when we finish.
I know. It just happens to be a coincidence that our street needs total $2 billion. I mean, WHAT WERE THEY THINKING?? Let's just continue to throw a nickel at a dollar's worth of problems like the past 40 years and hope they magically go away.
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
People need to start listening to James Hewgley III. He's the only one presenting a real streets program, and the only one with a logical plan.
That is the fifth or sixth time you have mentioned Hewgley in one of your posts.
Can you explain your connection, or should we just assume you are the same person?
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
People need to start listening to James Hewgley III. He's the only one presenting a real streets program, and the only one with a logical plan.
That is the fifth or sixth time you have mentioned Hewgley in one of your posts.
Can you explain your connection, or should we just assume you are the same person?
No. They are not one in the same.
Must agree Hewgley understands this issue better than anyone else.
The newspaper the last two daze makes me wonder if they are thinking they own us all.... I mean the TAC editorial asking for the Zeeman's firing was way reactionary. And this mornings castigation of Martinson completely out there.
They run this town down at TulsaWorld. So they know...
quote:
Originally posted by AVERAGE JOE
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
Any politician who comes up with a $2 Billion plan isn't living in the same place as the rest of us. They also will not likely be around when we START paying for it, much less when we finish.
I know. It just happens to be a coincidence that our street needs total $2 billion. I mean, WHAT WERE THEY THINKING?? Let's just continue to throw a nickel at a dollar's worth of problems like the past 40 years and hope they magically go away.
We tried it your way with Education, see how that helped.
Throwing more money doesn't make the 40-year problem go away. Fix the problem.
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
People need to start listening to James Hewgley III. He's the only one presenting a real streets program, and the only one with a logical plan.
That is the fifth or sixth time you have mentioned Hewgley in one of your posts.
Can you explain your connection, or should we just assume you are the same person?
Assume what you want. Does it really matter from where a good plan arrives?
My 'connection' is paying attention.
And, my suggestion was for others to do the same.
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
Seems all have agreed the proposal doesn't work and have put off to November any reconciliation.
And, we thought the Third Penny was safe for awhile, at least through Mayor Taylor's term.
When including Third Penny funds as an extension, it's quite probable all those who've been feeding on it all these years would want their fluff in the streets deal.
People need to start listening to James Hewgley III. He's the only one presenting a real streets program, and the only one with a logical plan. It should get at least fair consideration.
Any politician who comes up with a $2 Billion plan isn't living in the same place as the rest of us. They also will not likely be around when we START paying for it, much less when we finish.
Amigo, for someone that is not familiar with Mister Hewgley, how do I see what he has to say??
I still believe that fixing all the streets over a period of years may be just a way of subsidizing a new arm of City Government.
A "streets dept"......
Why not make this about transportation...
Include streets but keep options open for other forms of development.. ie rail....streetcars...etc.
This massive amount of money is sure to go down in flames.....
We have a very short sighted Government if in this day and age they feel streets are the panacea to lock this amount of money and time into..
Prioritize the work.... Fix the worst... keep the options open.
Don't try to be everyones everything...
quote:
Originally posted by Rico
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
Seems all have agreed the proposal doesn't work and have put off to November any reconciliation.
And, we thought the Third Penny was safe for awhile, at least through Mayor Taylor's term.
When including Third Penny funds as an extension, it's quite probable all those who've been feeding on it all these years would want their fluff in the streets deal.
People need to start listening to James Hewgley III. He's the only one presenting a real streets program, and the only one with a logical plan. It should get at least fair consideration.
Any politician who comes up with a $2 Billion plan isn't living in the same place as the rest of us. They also will not likely be around when we START paying for it, much less when we finish.
Amigo, for someone that is not familiar with Mister Hewgley, how do I see what he has to say??
I still believe that fixing all the streets over a period of years may be just a way of subsidizing a new arm of City Government.
A "streets dept"......
Why not make this about transportation...
Include streets but keep options open for other forms of development.. ie rail....streetcars...etc.
This massive amount of money is sure to go down in flames.....
We have a very short sighted Government if in this day and age they feel streets are the panacea to lock this amount of money and time into..
Prioritize the work.... Fix the worst... keep the options open.
Don't try to be everyones everything...
You forgot one Rico-
"Quit tapping the third penny for anthing but roads"
[;)]
quote:
Originally posted by Rico
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
Seems all have agreed the proposal doesn't work and have put off to November any reconciliation.
And, we thought the Third Penny was safe for awhile, at least through Mayor Taylor's term.
When including Third Penny funds as an extension, it's quite probable all those who've been feeding on it all these years would want their fluff in the streets deal.
People need to start listening to James Hewgley III. He's the only one presenting a real streets program, and the only one with a logical plan. It should get at least fair consideration.
Any politician who comes up with a $2 Billion plan isn't living in the same place as the rest of us. They also will not likely be around when we START paying for it, much less when we finish.
Amigo, for someone that is not familiar with Mister Hewgley, how do I see what he has to say??
I still believe that fixing all the streets over a period of years may be just a way of subsidizing a new arm of City Government.
A "streets dept"......
Why not make this about transportation...
Include streets but keep options open for other forms of development.. ie rail....streetcars...etc.
This massive amount of money is sure to go down in flames.....
We have a very short sighted Government if in this day and age they feel streets are the panacea to lock this amount of money and time into..
Prioritize the work.... Fix the worst... keep the options open.
Don't try to be everyones everything...
So you can get it in his own words:
On June 17, 2008 there's this audio link: (//%22http://podcast.1170kfaq.com/DesktopModules/Orizonti_NukeNews/getLink.aspx?pid=48&tid=1839&newsid=35353%22)
Mr. Hewgley's first appearance was on 12/06/2007 and the audio file was HERE (//%22http://podcast.1170kfaq.com/Portals/48/Recent%20Show/jimhewgley1206.mp3%22) but is now missing.
Mr. Medlock, if you're checking in here, this 12/06/2007 audio file from the "Chris and in the morning show" is no longer available on KFAQ's website. Could you or someone else repost it, or make it otherwise available? This is an important historical interview.
Here's the Batesline.com entry for that event: (//%22http://www.batesline.com/archives/2007/12/jim-hewgley-on-the-complete-our.html%22)
Thought I'd mention (again) that the current proposal generates no new paving money until at least 2010, but begins collection of new Ad Valorem Jan 1, 2009 (which can be used ONLY for CAPITAL projects, i.e., reconstruction and expansion, not paving). That means paving ('repairs') cannot begin for 2-3 more years, if then. Money for paving doesn't really kick in until one of the other taxes expire. The first would be 4-to-fix in 2011 followed by the 3rd Penny in 2012. So, unless we forward bond those future revenues at a greater expense of long term interest rates, no paving can occur until then.
Wasn't the objective here to fix the streets we have?
Mr. Hewgley's plan would've started paving by now, in 2008, if the plan had been voted upon earlier this year, and continued for 10 years.
Basically, it can still begin within a few weeks, perhaps a couple of months of any vote which authorizes that plan.
This plan would also leave the Third Penny on its' normal course to expire in 2012 and available for new road reconstructions and expansions needed then, as it currently does and with a projects listing.
Voters could authorize an amount equal to what is now the 4-to-fix county sales tax to fund Mr. Hewgley's plan and NOT require any new Ad Valorem tax at all.
It also leaves voters the option of renewing Vision2025 sales tax amounts for other new projects later, like a transportation master plan which includes light rail, bus route improvements, bicycle amenities, trails or whatever we deem needed at that time.
It's highly anticipated that none of the existing city leaders would likely be around in 2017 in their current capacity. So, why are we letting them decide everything now for those conditions later?
That flat doesn't make a lick of sense to me.
Just another thought, but shouldn't our 41st Street Bridge be in the next 3rd Penny?
IAC, it should've also shown up in Mr. Martinson's plan, but didn't.
One can't trust what comes out of Public Diswerks nor TulsaWhirled.
Therefore, some of us might just have to join the campaign against raising city fees and taxes to pay for all the past neglect and incompetence....
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
Just another thought, but shouldn't our 41st Street Bridge be in the next 3rd Penny?
IAC, it should've also shown up in Mr. Martinson's plan, but didn't.
Personally, I think $70 or so million on a bridge connecting East and Southwest Tulsa would be money well spent, but, it's not in any official plans right now, is it?
quote:
Originally posted by Chicken Little
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
Just another thought, but shouldn't our 41st Street Bridge be in the next 3rd Penny?
IAC, it should've also shown up in Mr. Martinson's plan, but didn't.
Personally, I think $70 or so million on a bridge connecting East and Southwest Tulsa would be money well spent, but, it's not in any official plans right now, is it?
Funny, I'm one who could benefit from a bridge at 41st, so could my employer, but it's down the list of priorties as I see it.
ENOUGH OF THE HEWGLEY PLAN!
There is no Hewgley Plan. There is a couple pages of scribble written by a guy who used to be an elected official twenty four years ago. He is always against everything and is just going around saying he can do it cheaper. His father's name recognition got him elected when he was young, but his performance was remembered and he lost when he tried to run later. He has no credibility. He has done no home work. He has had no public meetings. He has done nothing but type two pages of speech notes. He is not an engineer nor economist. He is just a cranky old man who thinks everything costs the same as 1984.
One plan has been meetings with citizen groups ever since the Mayor's "Complete Our Streets" group held public hearings last year. One plan has had a city councilor spend hundreds of hours of his and staff research time to investigate. One plan has had the city engineering staff completely measure and prioritize. One plan has had packed public meetings every time it is heard. One plan has had every step of the way covered by local news, from the list to the funding, from policy to the date of the election discussed openly on live broadcasts. One plan is found in a 172 page document, complete with maps and charts of every detail, downloadable from the TulsaWorld.
The other plan is Hewgley's. Calling it a "plan" is insulting. It should have the same weight in this discussion as grafitti.
quote:
Originally posted by ifsandbuts
ENOUGH OF THE HEWGLEY PLAN!
There is no Hewgley Plan. There is a couple pages of scribble written by a guy who used to be an elected official twenty four years ago. He is always against everything and is just going around saying he can do it cheaper. His father's name recognition got him elected when he was young, but his performance was remembered and he lost when he tried to run later. He has no credibility. He has done no home work. He has had no public meetings. He has done nothing but type two pages of speech notes. He is not an engineer nor economist. He is just a cranky old man who thinks everything costs the same as 1984.
One plan has been meetings with citizen groups ever since the Mayor's "Complete Our Streets" group held public hearings last year. One plan has had a city councilor spend hundreds of hours of his and staff research time to investigate. One plan has had the city engineering staff completely measure and prioritize. One plan has had packed public meetings every time it is heard. One plan has had every step of the way covered by local news, from the list to the funding, from policy to the date of the election discussed openly on live broadcasts. One plan is found in a 172 page document, complete with maps and charts of every detail, downloadable from the TulsaWorld.
The other plan is Hewgley's. Calling it a "plan" is insulting. It should have the same weight in this discussion as grafitti.
You know... if that is the best transportation/streets plan the council and the advisers can muster.... we are in fairly deep #*t..
I think I will give this Hewgley fellow a listen anyway...they said some of those same things about Einstein you know.
quote:
Originally posted by ifsandbuts
ENOUGH OF THE HEWGLEY PLAN!
There is no Hewgley Plan. There is a couple pages of scribble written by a guy who used to be an elected official twenty four years ago. He is always against everything and is just going around saying he can do it cheaper. His father's name recognition got him elected when he was young, but his performance was remembered and he lost when he tried to run later. He has no credibility. He has done no home work. He has had no public meetings. He has done nothing but type two pages of speech notes. He is not an engineer nor economist. He is just a cranky old man who thinks everything costs the same as 1984.
One plan has been meetings with citizen groups ever since the Mayor's "Complete Our Streets" group held public hearings last year. One plan has had a city councilor spend hundreds of hours of his and staff research time to investigate. One plan has had the city engineering staff completely measure and prioritize. One plan has had packed public meetings every time it is heard. One plan has had every step of the way covered by local news, from the list to the funding, from policy to the date of the election discussed openly on live broadcasts. One plan is found in a 172 page document, complete with maps and charts of every detail, downloadable from the TulsaWorld.
The other plan is Hewgley's. Calling it a "plan" is insulting. It should have the same weight in this discussion as grafitti.
LOL!...Mr. Hardt??, is that you?
Sure, it doesn't spend $2 BILLION, but it does get our roads repaired.
And, still leaves the 3rd Penny for road reconstructions/expansion.
Dare I suggest.....win/win?
Appears some were hoping for the brass ring.
quote:
Originally posted by ifsandbuts
He has no credibility. He has done no home work. He has had no public meetings. He has done nothing but type two pages of speech notes. He is not an engineer nor economist. He is just a cranky old man who thinks everything costs the same as 1984.
One plan has had the city engineering staff completely measure and prioritize. One plan is found in a 172 page document, complete with maps and charts of every detail, downloadable from the TulsaWorld.
First, by way of your personal attacks, your comments are not to be taken seriously.
Secondly, How did that department go about arriving at their priority list?
Third, Mr. Hewgley understands the process to enlarge, rehabilitate, and pave the city streets with the appropriate over sight and he probably understands where to prioritize with the least waste. He probably understands the less the city does outside of engineering and oversight the better. He must know that the neglect of the streets is a result of bad management.
This damage to our city would never have occured under a street commisioner. But under the direction of public works, a basically non accountable civil service job comprised of ongoing egos, the credibility of performance falls into many Mayor laps.
The guys in public works are lap dogs.
I guess calling people lap dogs is not a personal attack?
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
I guess calling people lap dogs is not a personal attack?
Only to participating COT forum members.......
sniff sniff.....are there any here?
So you are saying that the names called Hewgley are off limits because he is on the forum. Really?
If he has all the answers, why is he hiding behind a screen name?
Let's do the river first, let's do the streets first, let's do TCC first, Let's do ED for American and Spirit first
Naw, let's just do recyclemichael first.
I am confused. Should I be afraid?
quote:
Originally posted by ifsandbuts
ENOUGH OF THE HEWGLEY PLAN!
typro's is that you? gonna haf to send U to TIME OUT!
Just to put some fuel on the fire, did anyone else notice Public Works is proposing to increase its payroll by 100 people on a temporary tax?
If that logic works, the rest of the plan must be alright, too.
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
Just to put some fuel on the fire, did anyone else notice Public Works is proposing to increase its payroll by 100 people on a temporary tax?
If that logic works, the rest of the plan must be alright, too.
That's one of the reasons I said we are putting together a street's department....
We would be creating a new arm of the Gubmint and guaranteeing the money for it to run..
Watched a little of the committee meeting from the 17th..
Martinson had the nerve to bring up a presentation by "Fregonese"...
I guess that was one of the premises he used to pick his "street expansion list"...
He learned real quick the power of the zip code vs. the power of the plan.
I have not read this entire thread, but if this goes to a vote of the people and is passed,(I believe it should be) then everybody needs to realize we will be wading through a sea of orange barrels for the next 10 years or so.
I can only hope that someone has proposed that some,if not a lot of this resurfacing to be done during the night. I lived in Atlanta while they were preparing for the 96 Olympics, and of course there was a lot of resurfacing being done. They would work at night when there was the least amount of traffic. You could come home from work one evening and when you woke up and were heading back to work the next day there might be a mile or two of brand new surface.Just a thought.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
Let's do the river first, let's do the streets first, let's do TCC first, Let's do ED for American and Spirit first
Naw, let's just do recyclemichael first.
Pass.