The Council was provided a copy of the Public Works Performance Audit by EMA in committee meeting yesterday. The link to the Tulsa World story is here:
http://www.tulsaworld.com/site/printerfriendlystory.aspx?articleid=20081029_11_A11_hSomea781560
The reports itself as presented to Council is here:
http://www.tulsaworld.com/webextra/content/items/TulsaDraftPublicWorksAssessmentReportppt3.pdf
Reading the Tulsa World article itself gives a lot of insight into the report without needing to read it entirely until you want to sleep...its 52 pages. It really expressed what so many in here and in Tulsa have been saying for years with regards to PWD, its leadership and the approaches taken to fix, maintain and improve our infrastructure.
Highlights:
- The audit states that long-term maintenance is provided by voter-approved funding; however, "this five-year funding is not adequate to meet Pavement Condition Index targets." Although the voter-approved $452 million "Fix Our Streets" program is well-done and well-documented, "it is the default street maintenance program."
So already the latest streets package that was supposed to fix and increase by just a couple index points the PCI rating is failing.
- One finding indicated there is "an institutional aversion to change, whether it be within the city or the department.
No surprise there, Tulsans have been demanding change in the way PWD performs its functions for years and nothing happens.
[/list]
- Another finding suggests that the city leadership, constituents and the management of Public Works have dissimilar priorities, which has resulted in mismatched priorities
Here I have a fundamental problem with this one...the City's leadership and the Public Works Department work for the citizens...not supposed to be the other way around. This is why we hold elections to approve funding for projects we say are needed to improve our quality of life and its up to our elected officials to ensure those projects move forward through direction to Public Works.
- And then there is the litany of recommended changes for Public Works, many of which have been discussed in here and in the publi for years. "Cascio said changes should be made within the Public Works Department, including a performance management program, automated time and attendance system, better communication, a plan to institute new technologies to develop performance measures, aligning organizational capacity with service delivery, and changing the department's management style of top down to a team-based approach.
All designed to increase effective leadership, improve performance and efficiencies and eliminate waste...anyone think these will get implemented?
Throughout all this...the one factor that has remained constant has been Charles Hardt and the management of PWD that for 20 years has remained unchanged, unflinching in the way it conducts business and averse to change. Based on this audit, Tulsa really needs to ask itself, can it afford Charles Hardt any longer at a salary of $172,000 +/- or is it time he goes and the rest of the PWD management get a shake up?
This is one time I relish saying: "I told you so"
If the audit as reported by the TW is correct with tongue-in-cheek it indicated that the city is over managed and they wanted to be very vague about accusing the mayor and the council of mismanagement . The citizens realize that street maintenance has been prioritized within God Little Acres' on their pet projects. 51% ???
There is a bright side to the audit as with the burn plant opening up it will be a short haul to dispose of the $240,000, 52 page look into the city operations. ;D
The citizens of Tulsa in less of a week will go to the polls to make a choice for a person that will have the department heads shake hands and introduce themselves. They should hope that apathy does not control their election. :(
The situation at public works could be enough to make me a single-issue voter if one of the candidates would come out in favor of a massive shake up of PW that would remove, re-assign, or totally disrupt the existing power structure in Public Works.
Something with which to chew on my councilman's ear.
Street 'maintenance' just flat isn't done around here. Primarily, that's due to it supposedly being a General Fund budget line item, which has been cut to zero over the years so that money could be spent on other things. Road work has become viewed as only possible via the Third Penny projects, which means they have to have a capital improvement aspect to their specs.
I was trying to remember the last time I saw anyone doing crack sealing on any city street. Think it may have been right in front of my house about 1985.
Quote from: Wrinkle on November 04, 2009, 11:35:13 PM
Street 'maintenance' just flat isn't done around here. Primarily, that's due to it supposedly being a General Fund budget line item, which has been cut to zero over the years so that money could be spent on other things. Road work has become viewed as only possible via the Third Penny projects, which means they have to have a capital improvement aspect to their specs.
I was trying to remember the last time I saw anyone doing crack sealing on any city street. Think it may have been right in front of my house about 1985.
Our current "street maintenance" consists mainly of following our contracted crews and fixing their work.
I keep seeing more and more reasons to quit bidding our street work out to the lowest common denominator. We have a good deal of capital now, we have equipment sitting idle, let the city do it. The county does their own and they do it at roughly half the cost. Plus, they do a better job because doing a poor job just means more work on themselves.
The city should be doing at least its' own maintenance. Third Penny projects could be bid yet. But, that process needs an overhaul so that there can be more competition and allow out of city contractors to bid.
As it is, only one or two companies currently get virtually all the work.
Imagine stormwater, water supply, et all suffer the same condition.
Quote from: sgrizzle on November 05, 2009, 09:25:57 AM
Our current "street maintenance" consists mainly of following our contracted crews and fixing their work.
I keep seeing more and more reasons to quit bidding our street work out to the lowest common denominator. We have a good deal of capital now, we have equipment sitting idle, let the city do it. The county does their own and they do it at roughly half the cost. Plus, they do a better job because doing a poor job just means more work on themselves.
That should come as no surprise that the county can do their own maintenance at 1/2 the cost. If you contract out to a for-profit company, they are going to want to...get this...make a profit. Wow, what a concept! The city
should be doing it's own repairs.
Quote from: sgrizzle on November 05, 2009, 09:25:57 AM
Our current "street maintenance" consists mainly of following our contracted crews and fixing their work.
I keep seeing more and more reasons to quit bidding our street work out to the lowest common denominator. We have a good deal of capital now, we have equipment sitting idle, let the city do it. The county does their own and they do it at roughly half the cost. Plus, they do a better job because doing a poor job just means more work on themselves.
Street maintenance crews do not contribute millions of dollars to city campaigns whereas contractors do off times behind screens. Did not the whistle blower on PW prove to any one how the city bidding is operated? Didn't one bid contractor agreed to pay almost a million dollars to stop any investigation of the bidding process? The ratio on the streets is one worker to about every 25 orange barrels.
The bridge over the channel was repaired in a little over a week when the barges hit it. 1200 feet of a Tulsa' street can consume six months to repair. ;D
Quote from: shadows on November 05, 2009, 10:25:20 AM
Street maintenance crews do not contribute millions of dollars to city campaigns whereas contractors do off times behind screens. Did not the whistle blower on PW prove to any one how the city bidding is operated? Didn't one bid contractor agreed to pay almost a million dollars to stop any investigation of the bidding process? The ratio on the streets is one worker to about every 25 orange barrels.
The bridge over the channel was repaired in a little over a week when the barges hit it. 1200 feet of a Tulsa' street can consume six months to repair. ;D
Actually Shadows, it was more like 90 days to repair the bridge, which still was an amazing accomplishment.
Quote from: Conan71 on November 05, 2009, 10:03:47 AM
That should come as no surprise that the county can do their own maintenance at 1/2 the cost. If you contract out to a for-profit company, they are going to want to...get this...make a profit. Wow, what a concept! The city should be doing it's own repairs.
Didn't the city at some point do their own repairs on the roads? I'm sure it was back when I was a child, but I do seem to remember it.
Edit: Meant to ask 'didn't the city at some point do their own road projects'
Quote from: shadows on November 05, 2009, 10:25:20 AM
Street maintenance crews do not contribute millions of dollars to city campaigns whereas contractors do off times behind screens. Did not the whistle blower on PW prove to any one how the city bidding is operated? Didn't one bid contractor agreed to pay almost a million dollars to stop any investigation of the bidding process? The ratio on the streets is one worker to about every 25 orange barrels.
The bridge over the channel was repaired in a little over a week when the barges hit it. 1200 feet of a Tulsa' street can consume six months to repair. ;D
It's "Oft times" as in often. And starting your sentences with "did not" or "Do not", "has not" makes for sentence skipping and makes your posts less readable.
Just a heads up.
Guess I stretch the truth some times but it was an engineering marvel to rebuild the super structure and pour the concrete deck in such a short time. I was under the belief that the deck which would equal pouring a street was done in a week and opened up for traffic. The time span on curing of the concrete on the deck drew my attention.
Quote from: Townsend on November 05, 2009, 11:00:50 AM
It's "Oft times" as in often. And starting your sentences with "did not" or "Do not", "has not" makes for sentence skipping and makes your posts less readable.
Just a heads up.
Thanks for the advise on the passive mode I some times use. English language is a hard language as spelling of a word can be used to mean different thing and meanings of a word sometimes is in relation to a previous words or following words. In the future I will watch out for the usage of passive modes like Shakespeare and the writers used in writing the epistles of the Bible.
Quote from: shadows on November 05, 2009, 11:13:52 AM
Guess I stretch the truth some times but it was an engineering marvel to rebuild the super structure and pour the concrete deck in such a short time. I was under the belief that the deck which would equal pouring a street was done in a week and opened up for traffic. The time span on curing of the concrete on the deck drew my attention.
It's a miracle to even get anything out for bid in 90 days in this state. An incredible feat which probably would have taken 6 months at least under different circumstances.
Quote from: Hoss on November 05, 2009, 10:58:09 AM
Didn't the city at some point do their own repairs on the roads? I'm sure it was back when I was a child, but I do seem to remember it.
Edit: Meant to ask 'didn't the city at some point do their own road projects'
They did back when we still had a "street department" and street commissioner. They were the constant butt of jokes and there was a "Pothole of The Week" feature either on a TV station or KRMG.
Tulsa has always had a reputation either for very rough streets or not very well-planned road construction projects. One thing OKC has over us when it comes to development is planning way ahead on infrastructure before anyone develops an area. There are still parts of north and east OKC which have not had much commercial or residential development, but which have had four lane roads for 20 to 30 years in anticipation of it.
The fact that our city contracts out directly correlates to the idea of we need less government in our lives. The Prince of this mantra was Jimminy Inhofe who as Mayor saw to it we reduced the evilness of the strong arm of government. Otherwise Wrink, one must agree with everything you say.
And Dewey Bartlett is screaming the same less government nonsense on his ads...what is it Dewey wants privatized?
J.D. Metcalf was the last of the great leaders of Tulsa. He was no bs and as commissioner over streets and storm drainage governed with a strong fair authority and dislike for ugliness and waste. He had integrity and respected his duty to the city. He was a wise man. Hard to find this character description when it comes to public service anymore.
Quote from: Conan71 on November 05, 2009, 11:59:18 AM
There are still parts of north and east OKC which have not had much commercial or residential development, but which have had four lane roads for 20 to 30 years in anticipation of it.
Given the typical quality of Oklahoma road construction, they will probably need to be replaced when the development moves in.
Quote from: FOTD on November 05, 2009, 03:46:06 PM
J.D. Metcalf was the last of the great leaders of Tulsa. He was no bs and as commissioner over streets and storm drainage governed with a strong fair authority and dislike for ugliness and waste. He had integrity and respected his duty to the city. He was a wise man. Hard to find this character description when it comes to public service anymore.
I was proud to be the campaign manager the last time J.D. Metcalfe ran for the office of street commissioner (it was before there were any environmental jobs). I completely agree with everything you say. J.D. had a great background. Engineer, successful businessman, hard-worker and wise politician.
He once said this great quote..."it is hard to be engineeringly sound, politically correct, and perfectly timed".
I would love it if road construction, and maintenance, were privatized. The government has no place building public roads and transportation. Let the free market do those things. Let rail compete freely with roads. Let private enterprise and developers and customers determine how a neighborhood or other developments roads should be built, paid for and maintained. Let private enterprise determine whether sprawl or density is more cost effective. Your not a true conservative imo if you think otherwise. Government involvement distorts the actual costs, destroys free enterprise solutions and creativity, and arbitrarily picks winners and losers in the market. At most there might be some government involvement and coordination with interstate highways and basic minimum quality and safety oversight.
Conservative Oklahomans shouldnt be arguing about how the government spends our tax dollars to build and maintain roads, they should be arguing against them doing so in the first place. They seem to get it when it comes to building rail as a transportation option. But not roads? This creates an unfair advantage towards roads and likely distorts the costs. I am willing to bet it would be cheaper over all if the free market, not the goverment determinded where, what type, and how much infrastructure were built. We would also likely end up with more dense growth, more transportation options, more walkable, pedestrian friendly areas, etc.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on November 05, 2009, 04:35:23 PM
I was proud to be the campaign manager the last time J.D. Metcalfe ran for the office of street commissioner (it was before there were any environmental jobs). I completely agree with everything you say. J.D. had a great background. Engineer, successful businessman, hard-worker and wise politician.
He once said this great quote..."it is hard to be engineeringly sound, politically correct, and perfectly timed".
Is that the same JD that it was rumored had a blind interest in Standard Paving that was accused by the department of transportation of shortchanging the underlay on the expressway? Didn't they have to suddenly change their company name? Maybe an interest in the rock quarry at the same time it was OK'd for a landfill while the commission was making a deal for the city to build a trash burner for a private entity?
The city gets $1dollar each month for each person counted in the last census paid from the gasoline taxes for streets and their upkeep. Is this now used for desk jockeys and planning with no money left for repairing the streets as discreetly suggested in the audit?
No one knows what you are talking about.
You seem extra confused these days. Is it daylight savings time or a need for more fiber in your diet?
Quote from: TheArtist on November 05, 2009, 05:06:41 PM
I would love it if road construction, and maintenance, were privatized. The government has no place building public roads and transportation. Let the free market do those things. Let rail compete freely with roads. Let private enterprise and developers and customers determine how a neighborhood or other developments roads should be built, paid for and maintained. Let private enterprise determine whether sprawl or density is more cost effective. Your not a true conservative imo if you think otherwise. Government involvement distorts the actual costs, destroys free enterprise solutions and creativity, and arbitrarily picks winners and losers in the market. At most there might be some government involvement and coordination with interstate highways and basic minimum quality and safety oversight.
Conservative Oklahomans shouldnt be arguing about how the government spends our tax dollars to build and maintain roads, they should be arguing against them doing so in the first place. They seem to get it when it comes to building rail as a transportation option. But not roads? This creates an unfair advantage towards roads and likely distorts the costs. I am willing to bet it would be cheaper over all if the free market, not the goverment determinded where, what type, and how much infrastructure were built. We would also likely end up with more dense growth, more transportation options, more walkable, pedestrian friendly areas, etc.
I wasn't going to take your bait but it sounded like too much fun.
At one time many roads were private. They were paid for by .... tolls. We get the word turnpike from the gate that barred entrance to the road until the toll was paid. Even then, the turnpike companies had to get a charter which allowed them to build and then operate in certain areas. Some times minimum and maximum returns were in the state issued charter which in turn were allowed to be used to set the tolls. Even on well traveled roads, good maintenance was not guaranteed. A bad year of rotting wood planks, if the road was wood planked, may exceed the company's financial ability to repair the road. Government was involved even then. Getting right-of-way could be difficult as eminent domain did not exist. Some roads (and rail roads) were stopped by a few stubborn landowners. Many of the roads were from rural food growing areas to the nearby city. A turnpike may have been financed by farmers as a better way to get their products to the city market. When I look at roads with a last name of "Pike", most of them went from one town to another rather than within a town, at least when the road was built. Naturally the areas along the Pikes were developed. Not always as dense as you may presume. The rich city folks had nice country estates built. Towns already on or near the route developed and expanded with higher density but not necessarily the same as the "big city". There were certainly winners and losers in the road business. It appears that some government entity took over the routes of the losers.
I'm not sure if rail roads east of the Mississippi had to buy their right of way or not. Many of the rail roads in this part of the world had a LOT of land given to them to induce rail road construction. Towns developed at intervals needed by the rail road. To say the major rail systems were built completely with private funds would be like saying roads are financed by gasoline taxes. I will have to agree that present financing by government favors roads. I do see at least one major difference between roads and rail. You can buy a car/truck and operate it at will on public highways and even some private roads. I don't believe you could buy a rail vehicle and operate it at will on the rail ways.
I believe most Conservatives believe the government may (not necessarily must) be involved in infrastructure. If you had one company owning Boston Ave in Tulsa and others owning all the connecting and crossing roads, you would have a toll gate at every intersection. Not very efficient. If you can accept that a city will own the streets within its city limits, it's only a matter of gray when the roads should become private. The excuse to build the Interstates was national security. Maybe they should have been reserved for military vehicles only. People complain about toll roads. They need to learn that passenger rail can be good for them too and like it or not, both are subsidized. As far as local development density, I believe that the developers build the neighborhood streets and then transfer them to the city. Since developers build what they believe will sell, I don't see the density you are looking for without government interference in the form of zoning. (Which I believe is what you are actually advocating anyway.)
Quote from: RecycleMichael on November 05, 2009, 09:08:46 PM
No one knows what you are talking about.
You seem extra confused these days. Is it daylight savings time or a need for more fiber in your diet?
No I guess the reason is that a little town that is hardly a wide place in the road is so much further advanced in recycling than a sprawling city that has been dancing around singing recycling songs for years. Let alone the creation of 1,400 new jobs as a bonus package.
Look, the bottom line is this: who will deal with these civil servants taking full advantage of their power and position and confront their ineptness and chase them from their thrown at city hall?
It will take a concerted effort by the city council, the new mayor and many citizens to oust these entrenched parasites. They are bloodsucking failures. Why is this not a campaign issue?
FOTD: Darwin's travels to seek information on his theory that we are descendants of the animal is being proven more each day as over half of the world is struggling with public self serving servants who seek to dominate. This struggle is becoming more violent. The general public, by fear of retaliation, do not have the resources or drive to remove these entrenched public servants who make a career out of shortchanging their perceived peasants. In the rebelling countries of the world violence has only bred violence.
Quote from: shadows on November 06, 2009, 02:07:10 PM
FOTD: Darwin's travels to seek information on his theory that we are descendants of the animal is being proven more each day as over half of the world is struggling with public self serving servants who seek to dominate. This struggle is becoming more violent. The general public, by fear of retaliation, do not have the resources or drive to remove these entrenched public servants who make a career out of shortchanging their perceived peasants. In the rebelling countries of the world violence has only bred violence.
Once again The devil will ask, why is this not an issue with a mayoral election 5 days away?
FOTD does not believe the use of violence as a way to achieve anything.
Quote from: FOTD on November 06, 2009, 02:56:36 PM
Once again The devil will ask, why is this not an issue with a mayoral election 5 days away?
FOTD does not believe the use of violence as a way to achieve anything.
If you can tell why the two million dollars is being contributed to fill the mayors chair you possibly would know the answer to the question.
On the present scene, the voting public by apathy or reluctance to realize the condition that prevails with these entrenched self-serving public servants which seems to be dedicated to not being responsible to the public but seeking an established income until they are encased in their graves. ;)
Quote from: Red Arrow on November 05, 2009, 10:27:19 PM
I wasn't going to take your bait but it sounded like too much fun.
At one time many roads were private. They were paid for by .... tolls. We get the word turnpike from the gate that barred entrance to the road until the toll was paid. Even then, the turnpike companies had to get a charter which allowed them to build and then operate in certain areas. Some times minimum and maximum returns were in the state issued charter which in turn were allowed to be used to set the tolls. Even on well traveled roads, good maintenance was not guaranteed. A bad year of rotting wood planks, if the road was wood planked, may exceed the company's financial ability to repair the road. Government was involved even then. Getting right-of-way could be difficult as eminent domain did not exist. Some roads (and rail roads) were stopped by a few stubborn landowners. Many of the roads were from rural food growing areas to the nearby city. A turnpike may have been financed by farmers as a better way to get their products to the city market. When I look at roads with a last name of "Pike", most of them went from one town to another rather than within a town, at least when the road was built. Naturally the areas along the Pikes were developed. Not always as dense as you may presume. The rich city folks had nice country estates built. Towns already on or near the route developed and expanded with higher density but not necessarily the same as the "big city". There were certainly winners and losers in the road business. It appears that some government entity took over the routes of the losers.
I'm not sure if rail roads east of the Mississippi had to buy their right of way or not. Many of the rail roads in this part of the world had a LOT of land given to them to induce rail road construction. Towns developed at intervals needed by the rail road. To say the major rail systems were built completely with private funds would be like saying roads are financed by gasoline taxes. I will have to agree that present financing by government favors roads. I do see at least one major difference between roads and rail. You can buy a car/truck and operate it at will on public highways and even some private roads. I don't believe you could buy a rail vehicle and operate it at will on the rail ways.
I believe most Conservatives believe the government may (not necessarily must) be involved in infrastructure. If you had one company owning Boston Ave in Tulsa and others owning all the connecting and crossing roads, you would have a toll gate at every intersection. Not very efficient. If you can accept that a city will own the streets within its city limits, it's only a matter of gray when the roads should become private. The excuse to build the Interstates was national security. Maybe they should have been reserved for military vehicles only. People complain about toll roads. They need to learn that passenger rail can be good for them too and like it or not, both are subsidized. As far as local development density, I believe that the developers build the neighborhood streets and then transfer them to the city. Since developers build what they believe will sell, I don't see the density you are looking for without government interference in the form of zoning. (Which I believe is what you are actually advocating anyway.)
Interesting historical tidbits, thanks. To continue my curiosity on this line of possibilities,,, take for example the neighborhoods. If the developer builds the roads initially, imo it would then be the neighborhoods responsibility to maintain it. I would assume some sort of "neighborhood association" would charge a fee to do so. And you would probably see private companies bidding for the right to maintian these streets and different methods and companies competing to sell the best methods and products to build them as well. As for commercial and retail areas, think mall. The mall basically has "indoor streets". Who pays for the building and upkeep for them? Not the city or government, its the shops and businesses along those "streets". Another example could be the large River District, or the Shops on Main and the Riverwalk in Jenks,,, those (especially the River District) can easily be seen as examples where the development, the businesses and shops, would pay a fee to maintain the streets in their area. They would want the streets maintained, so they would pay, and would be intimately involved in how it was done, quality, what type of materials, cost effectiveness issues, etc. It would seem that in this scenario there would be an incentive to have more; shops, businesses, residences, etc, along a street to help paying for it. Also over time one could see "street unions" developing in which different areas got together to bid out maintenance and so on. Just as Marx didnt see the ameliorating effects that unions would have on capitalism, I think it likely that over time, creative, unforseen ideas would pop up to make everything work.
The main point in all of this is not to really push for such a scenario, though it is interesting to consider, but to point out the hypocracy I see when conservatives scream "Keep the government out of the transportation business!" whenever those of us want to see rail started. (and of course we could add into the equation, the other conservative refrains of "less government the better", "no taxes", "let the free market work", etc). The government IS in the tranportation business and has made it so that roads and cars, and the type of development that goes with that is the main form, to the detriment of rail and pedestrians, and the type of developments that works best for them. The idea is to point out that hypocracy by simply being,,, truly conservative. If they really truly believe that their ideals are correct , that despite an appearance that things might not work out to the best, if you follow the ideals to their conclusion all will work out, then just as they see that the government shouldnt be in the rail transportation business,,,, it should also not be building "road transportation" business. Right?
Otherwise, its sick to be basically saying,,, Well what I really mean is,,, The government can do what I want and reinforce the way of life I want, but not "be in the business" of doing what you want.
Kinda sounds like the conservatives who are also hollering against government being involved in healthcare. Its fine for me the conservative to hold onto what the government is doing for me with medicare and medicade. I am conservative as long as its me getting what I want, but when its you wanting something,,, its too expensive and the government shouldnt be involved. If you want the government out, stand by your ideals and fight to make sure the gov is all the way out. Not, screw what you want while I hold onto what the government is doing for me. They need to be screaming against medicare and medicade just as loudly as they are against "Obamacare". On principal, they should be screaming just as loudly against the government building and maintaining more roads and highways, as they do against building rail. And you know what? If they do, completely stand by their ideals, I will be right there with them because I believe it would ironically result in me getting the world I want.
Artist,
Taking things to the extreme:
Neighborhoods pay for their own road maintenance, have their own water supply, have their own electric company, their own police and fire,.... Then the neighborhood could incorporate into a town, borough, berg, village or whatever the State laws allowed. Then maybe a few really small "towns" could join into a small city. I think you can follow the progression. I don't think liberal/conservative enters yet. (Side note: Actually, in times gone by with Fire companies, if you didn't have your local company's plaque visibly displayed on your house, they wouldn't put our your fire. Maybe not in this part of the country but certainly in colonial times through the early 1900s in some areas "back east".) Regarding streets in particular, I believe that public access/private property should be the dividing line. Anyone can drive on the street in front of my house. They cannot drive in my driveway. The city (Bixby in my case) maintains the street in front of the house. I maintain my driveway. Shopping centers appear to be public because the mall wants customers. They are saying welcome to my driveway. Come in and spend money. I believe they have the right to kick you off of their property. I guess following my logic above, gated communities are responsible for their own streets. I don't know if they are. That's out of my wallet range. More shops, houses, etc would create more traffic and create the need for more frequent maintenance as well as a more substantial street. I have lived where I do since 1971. I think the street in front of our house has been "resurfaced" once. It's fine for the traffic involved. US 169 south of 21st Street is new since we moved here. Most of it is crap in spite of a recent repair. The Creek Turnpike had to have tie bars installed between the concrete segments. More traffic - more maintenance. I don't know where the balance is. We all pay taxes to the city we live in (except maybe a few in unincorporated areas) to provide services and to maintain common areas. Kind of a bigger version of your street group.
There may be a few extreme conservatives that would buy into your scenario. To call them mainstream conservatives would be similar to saying that mainstream Liberals advocate turning all of your paycheck over to the government and letting the "state" take care of your needs. Neither works (see USSR 1917 through late 20th century). The question will always be where to draw the line. To some extent, the "conservative" approach to roads work. Otherwise, the turnpikes around this country (Yes, states other than OK have turnpikes and toll roads.) would go out of business. Mostly they are through routes providing a convenience factor that drivers are willing to pay to use. The taxes on gas/diesel fuel are supposed to pay for roads. Only the most naive believe that is really true. I think some of those taxes get hijacked for other purposes. The tax does give the impression that drivers are paying their way. One "Liberal" benefit of "free" roads is lower cost transportation for all the goods transported by truck which results in lower cost goods for all of us.
The government is in the transportation business. It helped build the rail system in the 1800s. It helped build roads in the 20th century. The gray line is how much. New local passenger rail should be an easier sell than it has been, even to conservatives. Keep a reasonable percentage of cars off the streets and you won't have to widen them, provide parking at downtown destinations.... I wonder how many miles of light rail we could build for the cost of the improvements to I-44? Would commuter rail to BA ultimately cost less than improvements to the BA Expy in a few years? I think so. Freight may be a little more difficult since the RR companies own and maintain the rail, much as I maintain my driveway. When privately owned (real) trolleys ran on the city streets, they were usually required to maintain not only their rails but the city street immediately around the rails. When buses came along, they used the streets for free that were maintained by the trolley companies and cities. Hardly fair.
"Otherwise, its sick to be basically saying,,, Well what I really mean is,,, The government can do what I want and reinforce the way of life I want, but not "be in the business" of doing what you want." I believe even the bluest left extreme Liberals in the US will draw the line at where they want the government to run their lives. How many liberals would willing give 90% of their top dollar just to the Feds. See the incremental tax rates in the mid 1900s.
Healthcare: I would rather talk about transportation issues.
However, the government is typically inefficient in whatever it handles. I prefer a private solution to healthcare. Increasing the pool of insured and not allowing individual companies to cherry pick health groups may be a step in the right direction. Ultimately, the government needs to do what CANNOT be done in the private sector. My biggest fear with government run healthcare is that the result of government "guidance" usually results in the lowest common denominator. Healthcare for the bottom (except perhaps the indigent) will not increase to the level of the affluent. I would expect care to equalize at some substandard level. Just as government interference (free road access for buses) eliminated most of the trolley companies in the US, I expect trying to compete with government healthcare will eliminate private healthcare to all except perhaps the most wealthy who can probably pay for their own care anyway. Remember the difference between truck and auto tags in OK? The big move to "equalize" tags was thought to lower auto tags. Instead, truck tags fees were increased to auto levels. Eventually all the tags were reduced to a lower level but for a while we all got hit in the wallet.
The far right and far left will always yell unfair. The fenceline (the one most folks straddle) will move about as suits the times.