Tulsa's Public Works Performance Audit reveals some major problems

[Conan71]

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. 

[Conan71]

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.

[FOTD]

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.

[Red Arrow]

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.

[RecycleMichael]

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".

[TheArtist]

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.

[shadows]

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?

     

[RecycleMichael]

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?

[Red Arrow]

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.)

[shadows]

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.   

[FOTD]

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?

[shadows]

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.       

[FOTD]

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.

[shadows]

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.

[TheArtist]

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.