Streets Package: Now at $2 BILLION

[blindnil]

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=20080531_11_A1_hA67651

[1099paralegal]

quote:
Councilor Bill Christiansen maintains the widening needs in his south Tulsa district is too great to ignore and has threatened to pull his support of the initiative if a substantial sum for widening isn't included.

"You can't have a streets package and not include widening," he said. "I think the voters would be outraged."

Yes, Bill, I'm OUTRAGED too!  Sock it to 'em!

[sgrizzle]

The number is a great headline but that is including things like street cleaning, ice removal, and other stuff we pay for already. What's interesting is the bond increase from 600 millionish to 700.

$70 a year (for $100,000 home) is well worth it for me.

[1099paralegal]

quote:Originally posted by sgrizzle

The number is a great headline but that is including things like street cleaning, ice removal, and other stuff we pay for already. What's interesting is the bond increase from 600 millionish to 700.

$70 a year (for $100,000 home) is well worth it for me.

And, NOT one stinkin' dime to get people out of their gas-guzzlers.  More of the same bumpy road to yet another DEAD-end street.  I'm OUT.

[nathanm]

Hopefully the promise of future maintenance is made good on. If not, we'll be right back where we are now before they even get finished fixing all the streets.

I do think that some money should be set aside for alternative transportation, perhaps some more multi-use trails, improvements to bus service, and so on. But we still need to concentrate on fixing the streets we have. Building new ones (except in a few instances where it would relieve extremely excessive traffic counts on a particular street) and expanding existing ones wholesale isn't any solution at all.

Christiansen is out to lunch on this. If he's talking about widening intersections to increase throughput at those particularly congested locations, I could agree, but he sounds like he wants 4 laning throughout south Tulsa. That's just not sustainable. We can't maintain the streets we have, so why on earth would we want to have major lane mile additions as part of what is really just paying for maintenance that should have been happening all along?

[waterboy]

Most of the streets needing repair are north of 71st street. I put over 18000 miles last year on the south Tulsa streets from 91st to 111th and from Yale to 169. Those streets are in great shape and in fact most were recently repaved. However, they are almost all narrow two lane county roads with no shoulders and deep dangerous open ditches on each side.

Its time to be pragmatic and not divide ourselves up like we did on the river projects. These two lane roads are dangerous. At peak traffic times should an emergency arise there is little room to allow for firetrucks and EMSA. I witnessed an accident on one of them and watched as the nearby stationed firetruck pulled over onto the soft shoulder and nearly sank in it. The accident blocked both lanes. It was a fiasco.

Yes, the design of the access to neighborhoods out there creates bottlenecks and the streets should have been widened before more building commenced. But they weren't and I for one don't want to read about people dying because of them.

At the very least we need to cover the ditches, surface the shoulders and add one center turn lane along these streets. That would also eliminate expensive right of way purchases needed if we were to 4 lane them. But only if there is some provision agreed upon to stop such poor planning. Widening to include additional outside lanes, is foolhardy. They will fill up immediately.

[sgrizzle]

quote:Originally posted by 1099paralegal

quote:Originally posted by sgrizzle

The number is a great headline but that is including things like street cleaning, ice removal, and other stuff we pay for already. What's interesting is the bond increase from 600 millionish to 700.

$70 a year (for $100,000 home) is well worth it for me.

And, NOT one stinkin' dime to get people out of their gas-guzzlers.  More of the same bumpy road to yet another DEAD-end street.  I'm OUT.

I want to see rail and tulsa transit improvement, but I think it should be a second ballet/funding issue. If we package the two together, I have no doubt the money would be misappropriated.

[inteller]

quote:Originally posted by nathanm

Hopefully the promise of future maintenance is made good on. If not, we'll be right back where we are now before they even get finished fixing all the streets.

I do think that some money should be set aside for alternative transportation, perhaps some more multi-use trails, improvements to bus service, and so on. But we still need to concentrate on fixing the streets we have. Building new ones (except in a few instances where it would relieve extremely excessive traffic counts on a particular street) and expanding existing ones wholesale isn't any solution at all.

Christiansen is out to lunch on this. If he's talking about widening intersections to increase throughput at those particularly congested locations, I could agree, but he sounds like he wants 4 laning throughout south Tulsa. That's just not sustainable. We can't maintain the streets we have, so why on earth would we want to have major lane mile additions as part of what is really just paying for maintenance that should have been happening all along?

in cas eyou haven't noticed nimrod, most of South Tulsa is congested...BECAUSE THATS WHERE PEOPLE LIVE AND DO BUSINESS.

Try going through 101st/memorial during rush hour.  For that matter try 81st between sheridan and memorial.  Or how about mingo between 71st/81st...BEFORE the CTC pandering intersection.  Then neck it back down again to 91st, drive over Creek and neck it down again! Stupid, stupid, STUPID!

[RecycleMichael]

quote:Originally posted by inteller
Try going through 101st/memorial during rush hour.  For that matter try 81st between sheridan and memorial.  Or how about mingo between 71st/81st...BEFORE the CTC pandering intersection.  Then neck it back down again to 91st, drive over Creek and neck it down again! Stupid, stupid, STUPID!

I think you are way too hard on yourself. Calling yourself stupid one time for living there would have been plenty.

[nathanm]

quote:Originally posted by inteller

quote:Originally posted by nathanm

Hopefully the promise of future maintenance is made good on. If not, we'll be right back where we are now before they even get finished fixing all the streets.

I do think that some money should be set aside for alternative transportation, perhaps some more multi-use trails, improvements to bus service, and so on. But we still need to concentrate on fixing the streets we have. Building new ones (except in a few instances where it would relieve extremely excessive traffic counts on a particular street) and expanding existing ones wholesale isn't any solution at all.

Christiansen is out to lunch on this. If he's talking about widening intersections to increase throughput at those particularly congested locations, I could agree, but he sounds like he wants 4 laning throughout south Tulsa. That's just not sustainable. We can't maintain the streets we have, so why on earth would we want to have major lane mile additions as part of what is really just paying for maintenance that should have been happening all along?

in cas eyou haven't noticed nimrod, most of South Tulsa is congested...BECAUSE THATS WHERE PEOPLE LIVE AND DO BUSINESS.

Try going through 101st/memorial during rush hour.  For that matter try 81st between sheridan and memorial.  Or how about mingo between 71st/81st...BEFORE the CTC pandering intersection.  Then neck it back down again to 91st, drive over Creek and neck it down again! Stupid, stupid, STUPID!

I've done it plenty of times, thanks. I try not to go during the two hours a day that it's really congested. Of course, if you had read my post, you'd understand that I'm all for measures to reduce congestion like widening at intersections to increase traffic light throughput (the biggest problem in south Tulsa) and either adding left turn bays or a continuous center turn lane. The continuous lane would actually make it safer for cyclists, since motorists would have a way to pass them (albeit illegally) much of the time.

The traffic counts aren't all that high, though. It's just a matter of left turners blocking through traffic and the lights letting so few people in on a cycle that traffic backs up.

101st & Memorial is a synchronization issue more than anything else. Maybe extending the right turn lanes would help, too. Of course, it would be cheaper to incentivize employers to offer alternate working hours (9 to 6, whatever) so as to reduce the peak street loading.

Besides, we're the morons who decided to live in an area without the street capacity to handle the traffic as we would like. Sounds like we should pay for fixing it, not all of Tulsa. Or is that too much personal responsibility for you? You seem to be all for it when it's convenient, but not so much when it costs you money.

[TheArtist]

You know, really, having the main roads in that part of town widened isnt so bad, even if your wanting to create more dense, walkable areas. Whats more important is the zoning and land use.

I have seen plenty of other cities that have wide streets with more lanes... BUT the buildings around them are tall, next to the street, mixed use, no seas of parking, etc.

Its also important that the streets and developments within each square mile are laid out to be conducive to pedestrian friendly, mixed use development.

I can imagine that each main artery in that area could be 4 lanes plus a center lane, and it still work quite nicely. What develops and how it develops within that grid is more important. It wont be the same type of development like we see in mid-town. There wont be "Brooksides" on those roads as such, but they can exist on roads within each square mile.

I remember when I was in Paris and seeing all the narrow windy roads. They were once neighborhood roads and market areas. Then built up. One could imagine the little windy back roads around the mall for instance, in time evolving similarly. The main roads become your Champs Elyse, main avenues. Its hard for us to see that when things are currently built so far back from the streets and at low density with no height. But you stick 6 story, plus, buildings right up to the street, with a tree lined sidewalk, on either side of 71st and suddenly 71st isnt that wide.  

Its how we decide that future infill and redevelopment of these areas will happen, that will tell the real story.

We need to allow development to go up, be mixed use, and make sure streets and developments within each square mile are connected a little better.

[1099paralegal]

Originally posted by sgrizzle

I want to see rail and tulsa transit improvement, but I think it should be a second ballet/funding issue. If we package the two together, I have no doubt the money would be misappropriated.
[/quote

Mis-appropriation, it that supposed to be a bad thing?

[mrhaskellok]

A clear understanding of what causes our problems will lead to a real and sustainable solution.  These researchers are helping us to understand the "physics" of traffic control.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=Suugn-p5C1M&feature=related

[Chicken Little]

I don't know if spending $170 million on street widening is the most "pragmatic" choice, waterboy.  

I don't think two-lane roads with bar ditches are a threat to public safety.  I grew up along a stretch of Mingo that had them and still does.  Shifting your car onto the shoulder, by even just a foot or so, allows emergency vehicles to get through.  I grew up with it and have seen a two-lane arterial work safely for decades; I know.

Inteller seems to think that driving south Tulsa at rush hour is a nightmare.  I'm sure it's not a news for anyone to learn that driving anywhere in Tulsa during rush hour takes longer, it doesn't matter how many lanes are there...they fill up with cars at certain times.  I've talked to several friends out south and they don't complain about traffic.

I'm not sure that widening roads is the best solution for south Tulsa.

[cannon_fodder]

quote:Originally posted by inteller


in cas eyou haven't noticed nimrod, most of South Tulsa is congested...BECAUSE THATS WHERE PEOPLE LIVE AND DO BUSINESS.

Try going through 101st/memorial during rush hour.  For that matter try 81st between sheridan and memorial.  Or how about mingo between 71st/81st...BEFORE the CTC pandering intersection.  Then neck it back down again to 91st, drive over Creek and neck it down again! Stupid, stupid, STUPID!

Wait, so are you telling me not everything is wine and roses in South Tulsa?  I thought it was a cookie cutter utopia of white professionals and BMWs.  (/sarcasm for any that dense)

Try driving at 31st and Harvard from 4:30 - 6:30.  Or... well, anywhere.  Wider streets aren't really the answer, they just encourage MORE traffic on that road.  71st is 6 lane with turning lanes everywhere... still crowded.

Add a third lane if you want, but you knew exactly what was there when you moved South.  You knew it was the "hot" place to be and that the area would be growing.  In fact, you endless tout the area as the only part of the city that should grow.  Then you ***** that it is crowded.

Speaking of stupid...