Streets Package: Now at $2 BILLION

[Red Arrow]

I have heard that Oklahoma's road building standards are not adequate. Unfortunately I cannot back that with facts.  If, however, that is true, rebuilding the roads to sub-par standards is a waste of time and money.

[waterboy]

quote:Originally posted by OUGrad05

quote:Originally posted by 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.

This is a good post, however, you're missing the underlying problem...

The city should have planned for expansion and should have built/designed the transportation network (in this case roads) correctly the first time.  Few other states have the problems we have with roads.  Why?  Because other states tend to build their roads correctly at the outset of construction.  They also plan for future growth and lane expansion far better than this state and its cities do.  

So now they're going to raise taxes on tulsa citizens yet again to pay for roads.  Which is a common theme in Oklahoma.  Roads are ****ty, raise taxes, fix roads by hiring inefficient highly unionized road crews.  Build new roads but build them with 4, 6 or 8 inches instead of the more substantial 10, 12 and in some cases 14 inches used in places like Texas.

The city and state and federal government for that matter can't just raise taxes to fund their pet projects and irresponsibility.  Part of tulsa's problem is the actual population of the city hasn't grown a whole lot the last 20 or 30 years because the city has been mismanaged.  People are moving to the suburbs at an alarming rate which errodes tulsa's tax base and makes them more reliant on retail/sales taxes...many of which is also moving to various suburbs.  

This happens in all reasonably sized towns in our state and Oklahoma City and Tulsa are both bad about raising taxes to fund basic infrastructure needs the tax dollars are already supposed to be used for.

That is why I noted we need to be pragmatic.

You point out the facts for sure. Yes, we didn't plan for the white flight and the leap frogging of neighborhoods by new wealth that has competed to outdo each other. Those are the underlying reasons that south Tulsa grew. Union, Jenks and BA provided cheap land, little restraint by authorities and shiny new schools with few minorities.

The process that made sure there wasn't enough infrastructure to support that growth came from the unholy alliance of developers/builders/city & county officials who worked as a team to accomodate that "demand". The city/county didn't have the money to build wide, well built, well planned roads until tax revenues started to roll in from the new ad valorem taxes and the new sales tax from retail growth. By then it was too expensive to do, so they just repave them. Of course the developer/builders had no intention of paying for quality infrastructure as they had in the previous generations of development.

A fine mixture of greed, poor planning and the base instincts of consumers put us into this mess. We now need to address it. I won't support widening until the process for expanding without planning is changed. But it does need to be done.

[Red Arrow]

quote:Originally posted by waterboy
[I won't support widening until the process for expanding without planning is changed. But it does need to be done.

Unfortunately that process will need to include the suburbs as well as the City of Tulsa itself. I wish us all luck.

[nathanm]

quote:Originally posted by Red Arrow


Light rail can sometimes share the tracks with heavy rail. In Memphis, the trolley uses a section of heavy rail as part of its loop.  The gage needs to be the same. I don't know if there needs to be a different height on any overhead wires.

It's not a gauge issue, it's an issue of the standard to which the rail vehicles themselves must be built if they're part of the interconnected rail network. The standard requires that they be quite heavy, amongst other things.

[TURobY]

Any chance that we might get a piece of this action?

Mayors ask Congress to help fix U.S. infrastructure

[OUGrad05]

quote:Originally posted by TURobY

Any chance that we might get a piece of this action?

Mayors ask Congress to help fix U.S. infrastructure

We're still paying for it.  Just with our federal tax dollars.  I'd much rather do this stuff on a local level.  The federal government has no business funding projects like 91st and memorial or 71st and memorial etc...they can and should help fund US highways but not local roads.

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by TURobY

Any chance that we might get a piece of this action?

Mayors ask Congress to help fix U.S. infrastructure

Sounds like a kind way of saying "Another $60 bln in national debt:

"To answer such demands, Sens. Chris Dodd, D-Connecticut, and Chuck Hagel, R-Nebraska, are pushing a bill to create a National Infrastructure Bank that would raise money for major national projects by issuing up to $60 billion in tax credit bonds, which could then be leveraged into greater funding."

How did we ever build the road system we had in the first place?  Now we can't seem to maintain it.  Is that a huge part of our national debt?

[swake]

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

quote:Originally posted by TURobY

Any chance that we might get a piece of this action?

Mayors ask Congress to help fix U.S. infrastructure

Sounds like a kind way of saying "Another $60 bln in national debt:

"To answer such demands, Sens. Chris Dodd, D-Connecticut, and Chuck Hagel, R-Nebraska, are pushing a bill to create a National Infrastructure Bank that would raise money for major national projects by issuing up to $60 billion in tax credit bonds, which could then be leveraged into greater funding."

How did we ever build the road system we had in the first place?  Now we can't seem to maintain it.  Is that a huge part of our national debt?

We could offset the $60 billion by leaving Iraq 30 minutes early.

[TURobY]

quote:Originally posted by OUGrad05


We're still paying for it.  Just with our federal tax dollars.  I'd much rather do this stuff on a local level.  The federal government has no business funding projects like 91st and memorial or 71st and memorial etc...they can and should help fund US highways but not local roads.

Correct, but if we're going to pay for it anyway, we might as well get a piece of the action.

[cks511]

Hey lookie here....A new package!!  I was so wanting the 2 billion....

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=20080731_11_hr628386

[FOTD]

Compro misers!

Actually, FOTD is into getting reduced.

Fire the current Public Werks Overseers who got us here and FOTD will cast his vote for the proposal.....[}:)]

[MDepr2007]

Papa bear just got spanked by mama bear[B)]  and Bynum brought the whip

[Rico]

quote:Originally posted by MDepr2007

Papa bear just got spanked by mama bear[B)]  and Bynum brought the whip

Actually I would have preferred to see Eagleton continue his path towards kamikaze martyrdom...

It would have been a done deal.. except for Bynum and those unfriendly things.[}:)]

[inteller]

hey at least Gomerz got his token subcommittee to explore what happens to water under the bridge....a better use of that committee would be learning to make toast...since thats what he is.

[Wrinkle]

While we're putting extra items on the ballot, what happened to 'Baby Bear'?

Actually, an even smaller initial package than Baby Bear would be better. Even $270 million sounds like too much to give until after 2010.

The Ad Valorem component is of particular concern. Either package has it included when it's not necessary.

As I understand things, the Ad Valorem issue must be a seperate ballot issue. So, I ask, what happens if either resolution passes, but the Ad Valorem part doesn't?