Streets Package: Now at $2 BILLION

[Red Arrow]

quote:Originally posted by 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...

Given the choice between a 2 lane road backed up 1/2 mile or a 4 lane road backed up 1/4 mile, I would have to choose the 4 lane. I guess I'm guilty of choosing the wider street.  The exception would be the drive home from work. I choose to take Delaware Ave to 121st rather than the Creek Turnpike and then south on  Memorial.  

In 1971, Memorial was not a problem south of 61st Street. If the sprawl had stayed as open as most on this forum think it is, it might still not be a problem.

[swake]

Christiansen is right, for this to pass there has to be something for everyone in all districts, widening has to be part of the package.

The growing areas of the city need and deserve improved streets just the same as older areas do. Growth is good for the city overall and will lower the cost of streets to each citizen by spreading the cost out in a bigger pool of taxpayers. If you don't address the streets in growing areas you will end up driving that growth, especially commercial growth that happens so often when streets are improved, even more into the suburbs?

[nathanm]

quote:Originally posted by Red Arrow


Given the choice between a 2 lane road backed up 1/2 mile or a 4 lane road backed up 1/4 mile, I would have to choose the 4 lane.

Let's just forget that, excluding Memorial south of the Creek which has excessively high traffic counts, the problem isn't that there are too many cars trying to navigate the street, the problem is left turners and traffic light throughput causing congestion.

[Wrinkle]

The problem, as I see it, is the be-all-end-all nature of the solution. That and a $2 Billion price tag, which by itself is absurd.

What we need is some streets fixed.

In an effort to create a solution, it appears they have managed to obscond with ALL Sales Tax revenue for the next 20 years. So, someone's either going to get left out later, or needs to find a way to get their stuff included now. Thus, Mr. Christiansen's complaint, which is valid under those circumstances.

I also have a problem with them 'including' Vision2025 Sales Tax amounts 'after they end' since it doesn't end for 9 years yet, and this originally was only a ten year plan, now 12 as I understand things at the moment. It's contribution to the cause would be minimal. And, tying up this future potential source prevents it from being assigned to some other public projects at the time it expires.

IMO, all this demonstrats perfectly the beauty and simplicity of Mr. Hewgley's original plan because it doesn't affect the 3rd Penny so future road reconstructions (widenings) can be accommodated on need at the time its' renewal normally rolls around. It also requires no Ad Valorem tax change at all, which is a major consideration.

I have no problem assigning the 4-to-Fix amounts to this cause when it expires in 2011. That helps get the County out of the Sales Tax business, which I support and applaud.

That also would be enough to fund Mr. Hewgley's plan completely by itself, with surpluses, so could mean no increase in Sales Tax rate, a stated objective of the currently proposed plan.

That solves most all the problems as I see it.
And, leaves 3rd Penny and Vision2025 available in a future tense.

The thing that's most needed is a change in the way the City DOES roads and that would include an independent audit of the Public Works Department, along with major revisions to processes. Also allowing qualified national bidders on road projects and for the City to build a set of standardized specifications for our road projects for each road type which include ASTM specs for asphalt, aggregate, depth, shoulder requirements, paint and/or reflector requirments and the bonus/penalty basis on all projects.

Currently, the City allows only local contractors to bid on local road projects.
Bad, bad deal from every aspect.

The snow removal, graffiti brigade and mowing are operational overhead and should be handled as they are currently, except better. That's expected to be an efficiency issue resolved by the PW audit.

I'd also support the inclusion of quality materials, which have a proven record of reducing maintenance costs, lasts longer and reduces road noise, such as the use of recycled tires in asphalt, or the Phillips' road cloth underlayment with asphalt overlays.

Of course, where these things are appropriate could be included in the standardized specifications for that particular road type.

IMO (that's "In My Opinion" literally), doing this makes short work of the issue and mincemeat of the current proposal.

[Red Arrow]

quote:Originally posted by nathanm

quote:Originally posted by Red Arrow


Given the choice between a 2 lane road backed up 1/2 mile or a 4 lane road backed up 1/4 mile, I would have to choose the 4 lane.

Let's just forget that, excluding Memorial south of the Creek which has excessively high traffic counts, the problem isn't that there are too many cars trying to navigate the street, the problem is left turners and traffic light throughput causing congestion.

Some of the throughput is due to red light runners. The first car is justified in a delay to wait for the inevitable driver that is too good to stop for the red. The following cars often wait until the preceeding vehicle is a lot farther through the intersection than necessary before moving. Time to get the traffic stream moving favors long light cycles but I have to admit I don't like being stopped for a long time.

Left turns are indeed a major contribution to the congestion.  Some on this forum propose more intersections. I see that as more left turn opportunities to add to the congestion.

I'm sure this will win me some friends (or not):
"We" need a bridge across the river somewhere between Memorial and Jenks. I believe both Yale and Delaware should be widened to a minimum of 4 lanes.  This will off load some of the traffic on Memorial, Peoria, and Elwood thereby reducing the need to make Memorial even wider.  To the folks along Delaware and Yale who don't want the traffic, I didn't want it on Memorial either but keeping the roads narrow didn't prevent more development.  Maybe the new bridge should have provisions for light rail in addition to the automobile lanes.  That might make a loop down the west side of the river through Jenks and then up the east side near Yale or Sheridan a future option.  Mass transit for S.E. Tulsa, what a novel idea.  We could put in park-and-ride lots in the flood plain to keep people from building more houses there.

[nathanm]

quote:Originally posted by Red Arrow

quote:Originally posted by nathanm

quote:Originally posted by Red Arrow


Given the choice between a 2 lane road backed up 1/2 mile or a 4 lane road backed up 1/4 mile, I would have to choose the 4 lane.

Let's just forget that, excluding Memorial south of the Creek which has excessively high traffic counts, the problem isn't that there are too many cars trying to navigate the street, the problem is left turners and traffic light throughput causing congestion.

Some of the throughput is due to red light runners. The first car is justified in a delay to wait for the inevitable driver that is too good to stop for the red. The following cars often wait until the preceeding vehicle is a lot farther through the intersection than necessary before moving. Time to get the traffic stream moving favors long light cycles but I have to admit I don't like being stopped for a long time.

I'd just like to see 101st widened to 4 through lanes for a quarter mile either side of Memorial and an improved right turn lane southbound at the same location. There's a lot of right turning traffic there that could get off Memorial much more quickly if the turn lane were longer. (perhaps put in a 3rd lane down to 97th or whatever that street is between the BMW dealer and the Nissan dealer) Of course, people around here might be too "polite" (and averse to merging) to use the extra through lanes on 101st. The idea being to cut down on the green time needed at 101st, which of course contributes to the congestion on Memorial itself and getting the cars off Memorial more quickly whenever possible.

Also, synchronizing the lights from 91st to 101st would help a great deal. Perhaps Delaware/121st should be widened, also, but I don't know about that. Including the capability of rail (or a separate BRT area) along that stretch and building a bridge would be nice. I thought it was a stupid idea to connect a bridge to Yale, however. Delaware, not so much. The subdivisions are well set back along there. (from what I remember, it's been awhile since I've been over that way)

That said, I think smaller and more affordable improvements could solve the largest portion of the traffic issues south Tulsa has.

[mrhaskellok]

With all the development that is going in on the north east corner of 101st, I bet you will get your wish.  Just like with the Spirit Center, the landowner (Tim Reemy) has to do some road work to manage the extra traffic coming into his development.  He is also installing a light at 105th.  

I just wish they would put in a bus stop at 101st.  Let those who want to get on a bus there bypass the turnpike exchange nightmare in the mornings and evenings.

[waterboy]

Those are good remarks about the 101st intersection. I pass through there twice a day, the second time around 5-5:15 being a nightmare. Your suggestions would make a huge difference. Timing on Memorial, I'm not so sure but couldn't hurt.

Those are the sorts of improvements I wish they would add to the streets issue rather than making a blanket demand for widening along the entire stretch.

My pet peeve in that area is someone who has 40 cars backed up behind them waiting on the short green light and they stop and waive in some nutbag who just pulled out of the shopping center parking lot. Gee, you're swell.

[Red Arrow]

quote:Originally posted by nathanm
I'd just like to see 101st widened to 4 through lanes for a quarter mile either side of Memorial and an improved right turn lane southbound at the same location. There's a lot of right turning traffic there that could get off Memorial much more quickly if the turn lane were longer. (perhaps put in a 3rd lane down to 97th or whatever that street is between the BMW dealer and the Nissan dealer) Of course, people around here might be too "polite" (and averse to merging) to use the extra through lanes on 101st. The idea being to cut down on the green time needed at 101st, which of course contributes to the congestion on Memorial itself and getting the cars off Memorial more quickly whenever possible.

Also, synchronizing the lights from 91st to 101st would help a great deal. Perhaps Delaware/121st should be widened, also, but I don't know about that. Including the capability of rail (or a separate BRT area) along that stretch and building a bridge would be nice. I thought it was a stupid idea to connect a bridge to Yale, however. Delaware, not so much. The subdivisions are well set back along there. (from what I remember, it's been awhile since I've been over that way)

That said, I think smaller and more affordable improvements could solve the largest portion of the traffic issues south Tulsa has.

A longer right turn lane from southbound Memorial to westbound 101st might help. Mostly the existing lane is empty but that is probably because the right turners are stuck in the existing right lane between the Quick Trip and the Turnpike. Longer left turn lanes would probably help too. See my comment later on dispersing traffic. A longer and maybe additional right turn lane to 169 from northbound Memorial would be good. Lately the northbound trip to go west on the turnpike at 7:20 AM hasn't been too bad. I think maybe the traffic engineers really are trying to improve flow.

I think a bridge connecting to Yale is not so stupid. It would off-load traffic from Memorial, making improvements to Memorial less necessary.  It would provide access to the Saint Francis area and points north like the fairgrounds.  Harvard has too many breaks. Sheridan is too close to Memorial.  Yale provides access to the Creek Turnpike and BA Expressway.  South of the Turnpike, the additions along Yale are set back enough for more lanes. I checked today. The only real sticky spot for Yale is the hill between 81st and 91st. Yale would need to be improved, even if it were only to 3 lanes to allow for turns. Development south of the river is going to add traffic to Tulsa roads, like it or not. I guess where you live determines which street is far enough away to improve and attract more traffic but not in your back yard.  Looking at Google Maps, many houses south of the river (and all over actually) are on 1/4 acre or less lot size. Think 2500 houses per square mile and multiple cars per house. Improving Yale goes along with the concept proposed elsewhere in this forum of more roads handling less traffic each rather than turning each big road into a megastreet.  One reason wide roads don't stop congestion is that they end somewhere and the vehicles have no way to disperse. Providing more dispersion routes may help. Improving Yale, bridge or no bridge, would allow dispersement towards Harvard and Sheridan. Again, this would unload some of the Memorial traffic that presently takes the wide road.

Improving Delaware would be, of course, the shortest way to downtown via Riverside Drive. Delaware/121st is already getting more crowded and slower. Some drivers (and/or their cars) are incapable of negotiating a "country road" faster than a few mile per hour.  I expect the people in the new areas there will start screaming for a wider road shortly.

Installing a BRT with dedicated right of way is most likely not less costly than rail. The ROW would be another lane (or two) built for heavy vehicles. The BRT ROW would also draw comments of having additional paved area that the rest of us cannot use. Not too many people I know want to drive up a rail (only) right of way in their car. If we can afford a real BRT with dedicated ROW, we should install rail instead. A BRT without dedicated ROW is just another bus stuck in traffic. See http://www.lightrailnow.org for advantages and disadvantages of various levels of BRT implementation.

[nathanm]

quote:Originally posted by Red Arrow

quote:Originally posted by nathanm
I'd just like to see 101st widened to 4 through lanes for a quarter mile either side of Memorial and an improved right turn lane southbound at the same location. There's a lot of right turning traffic there that could get off Memorial much more quickly if the turn lane were longer. (perhaps put in a 3rd lane down to 97th or whatever that street is between the BMW dealer and the Nissan dealer) Of course, people around here might be too "polite" (and averse to merging) to use the extra through lanes on 101st. The idea being to cut down on the green time needed at 101st, which of course contributes to the congestion on Memorial itself and getting the cars off Memorial more quickly whenever possible.

Also, synchronizing the lights from 91st to 101st would help a great deal. Perhaps Delaware/121st should be widened, also, but I don't know about that. Including the capability of rail (or a separate BRT area) along that stretch and building a bridge would be nice. I thought it was a stupid idea to connect a bridge to Yale, however. Delaware, not so much. The subdivisions are well set back along there. (from what I remember, it's been awhile since I've been over that way)

That said, I think smaller and more affordable improvements could solve the largest portion of the traffic issues south Tulsa has.

A longer right turn lane from southbound Memorial to westbound 101st might help. Mostly the existing lane is empty but that is probably because the right turners are stuck in the existing right lane between the Quick Trip and the Turnpike. Longer left turn lanes would probably help too. See my comment later on dispersing traffic. A longer and maybe additional right turn lane to 169 from northbound Memorial would be good. Lately the northbound trip to go west on the turnpike at 7:20 AM hasn't been too bad. I think maybe the traffic engineers really are trying to improve flow.

I think a bridge connecting to Yale is not so stupid. It would off-load traffic from Memorial, making improvements to Memorial less necessary.  It would provide access to the Saint Francis area and points north like the fairgrounds.  Harvard has too many breaks. Sheridan is too close to Memorial.  Yale provides access to the Creek Turnpike and BA Expressway.  South of the Turnpike, the additions along Yale are set back enough for more lanes. I checked today. The only real sticky spot for Yale is the hill between 81st and 91st. Yale would need to be improved, even if it were only to 3 lanes to allow for turns. Development south of the river is going to add traffic to Tulsa roads, like it or not. I guess where you live determines which street is far enough away to improve and attract more traffic but not in your back yard.  Looking at Google Maps, many houses south of the river (and all over actually) are on 1/4 acre or less lot size. Think 2500 houses per square mile and multiple cars per house. Improving Yale goes along with the concept proposed elsewhere in this forum of more roads handling less traffic each rather than turning each big road into a megastreet.  One reason wide roads don't stop congestion is that they end somewhere and the vehicles have no way to disperse. Providing more dispersion routes may help. Improving Yale, bridge or no bridge, would allow dispersement towards Harvard and Sheridan. Again, this would unload some of the Memorial traffic that presently takes the wide road.

Improving Delaware would be, of course, the shortest way to downtown via Riverside Drive. Delaware/121st is already getting more crowded and slower. Some drivers (and/or their cars) are incapable of negotiating a "country road" faster than a few mile per hour.  I expect the people in the new areas there will start screaming for a wider road shortly.

Installing a BRT with dedicated right of way is most likely not less costly than rail. The ROW would be another lane (or two) built for heavy vehicles. The BRT ROW would also draw comments of having additional paved area that the rest of us cannot use. Not too many people I know want to drive up a rail (only) right of way in their car. If we can afford a real BRT with dedicated ROW, we should install rail instead. A BRT without dedicated ROW is just another bus stuck in traffic. See http://www.lightrailnow.org for advantages and disadvantages of various levels of BRT implementation.

I agree with you on rail, although given the current regulatory environment, it would have to be heavy rail unless we decided we would never want to use any of the existing tracks.

As far as improvements to Yale, I think beyond turn lanes it's a bad idea. It's too hilly and residential in character, and has been for several years. (I don't live along Yale, BTW) Delaware, on the other hand, is recently developed, pretty flat, and could connect back with Memorial at 121st in Bixby. A more efficient Riverside could entice some to take that route instead of Memorial up to 169. Or maybe they'd stop being cheapskates and pay the 30 cents to use the Creek to get over there.

Of course, we did manage to get Yale improved between 71st and 81st, so I suppose it would be possible to get it widened all the way south to the river, but I don't think it's really necessary. Maybe I just don't go down there enough, but Memorial doesn't seem too congested in Bixby at the river crossing.

It seems like toll collection at 169/Memorial could finance any needed improvements in the area and remove the financial incentive in driving to that intersection rather than Yale or Riverside/Delaware. (I'm kidding, sort of)

Oh, and as far as right turners onto 101st from southbound memorial, fill up at the QT sometime during rush hour. When the light is green, cars are pretty much constantly making that turn. When the light is red, few cars can get to the turn lane at all. I had pretty much ignored the left turn lane, but it could probably use the same treatment.

[sgrizzle]

quote:Originally posted by nathanm


It seems like toll collection at 169/Memorial could finance any needed improvements in the area and remove the financial incentive in driving to that intersection rather than Yale or Riverside/Delaware. (I'm kidding, sort of)

Hey, let them take the hard way, don't divert them over to the roads I use.

[Red Arrow]

quote:Originally posted by waterboy

My pet peeve in that area is someone who has 40 cars backed up behind them waiting on the short green light and they stop and waive in some nutbag who just pulled out of the shopping center parking lot. Gee, you're swell.

One of my favorite gripes about the "courteous" Tulsa drivers too.

[Red Arrow]

quote:Originally posted by nathanm

I agree with you on rail, although given the current regulatory environment, it would have to be heavy rail unless we decided we would never want to use any of the existing tracks.

As far as improvements to Yale, I think beyond turn lanes it's a bad idea. It's too hilly and residential in character, and has been for several years. (I don't live along Yale, BTW) Delaware, on the other hand, is recently developed, pretty flat, and could connect back with Memorial at 121st in Bixby. A more efficient Riverside could entice some to take that route instead of Memorial up to 169. Or maybe they'd stop being cheapskates and pay the 30 cents to use the Creek to get over there.

Of course, we did manage to get Yale improved between 71st and 81st, so I suppose it would be possible to get it widened all the way south to the river, but I don't think it's really necessary. Maybe I just don't go down there enough, but Memorial doesn't seem too congested in Bixby at the river crossing.

It seems like toll collection at 169/Memorial could finance any needed improvements in the area and remove the financial incentive in driving to that intersection rather than Yale or Riverside/Delaware. (I'm kidding, sort of)

Oh, and as far as right turners onto 101st from southbound memorial, fill up at the QT sometime during rush hour. When the light is green, cars are pretty much constantly making that turn. When the light is red, few cars can get to the turn lane at all. I had pretty much ignored the left turn lane, but it could probably use the same treatment.

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.

Delaware/121st would be less expensive to upgrade than Yale. It would negate the recent upgrade from a very narrow bridge to a nice 2 lane bridge on Delaware.  Yale would take a lot of dirt work but I think the setbacks are OK. As for residential concerns, signs prohibiting thru trucks could be posted.  The section from 91st to the turnpike is already widened. South of the turnpike to 101st gets backed up. Numerous turns from 101st to 111th can cause your heart rate to increase as the car in front of you suddenly brakes to turn without signaling. Turn lanes may be sufficient.

I haven't seen the  turn lane at QT as often as you.  I avoid southbound Memorial there whenever possible during rush time. I take 101st from Delaware to Memorial if I need to stop in the shopping center on the SW corner.  101st is usually only backed up a couple of traffic light cycles at 4:45. Later on it can back up 1/2 mile towards Sheridan.

One thing I've noticed about southbound traffic. At some point it stops being congested.  You don't notice anyone turning to side streets but the traffic disappears.  I have used Yale, Sheridan, Memorial, Mingo, and Garnett over the last 30 years. The point where this occurs has gotten farther south as the years go on.

[Ttowndad]

I don't care where they start as long as they make progress.  We have some of the worst roads in the USA.  I ride a motorcycle as a primary mode of transport and I am here to tell you our streets and highway ramps are treacherous.  You don't notice it as much in a car or truck but when you are on a bike and look down it's frightening.  [:O]

[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.