Tulsa Street Plan
Dear Fellow Tulsans,
The five-year, “Fix Our Streets” proposal will be on the ballot on Tuesday. It’s no secret that I favored the twelve-year plan. But, the City Council passed the five-year plan by a 5-4 vote and it’s ‘the will of the Council.’ I believe that I should respect that process and I have not been actively campaigning against it.
I’ve been at several meetings of community organizations over the last few weeks at which the Mayor and others have spoken in favor of the five-year plan. They provided a lot of information about the condition of the streets, but very little information about why their proposal will work. A lot of people have asked me about it. While I still respect the process that the Council went through, I think I have a responsibility to try to answer the voters’ questions.
Last fall, the 22-member “Complete Our Streets” citizens’ committee met for two months. That committee was co-chaired by Dewey Bartlett and Sharon King Davis. They worked hard and met with several outside experts. They released a 25 page report which said it would cost $1.6 billion and take ten years to bring the streets up to an index of 70.
The City Council’s Streets Sub-Committee met weekly for almost a year. We also heard from several outside experts in the industry, as well as the City’s Public Works Department. We proposed a street-repair plan that was very close to the one that the “Complete Our Streets” committee proposed. The “Complete Our Streets” Committee said it would cost $1.6 billion and take ten years to bring the street condition to an index of 70, and the Council’s report said that it would cost $2 billion and take twelve years to bring the streets to an index of 70.
Last summer, in the space of about three weeks, the Mayor came up with the “Fix Our Streets” plan. If it passes on Tuesday, it will cost $451 million, it will take five years, it will bring the street condition to an index of 62, and when it’s over, it will leave more street work to be done than when it started. At the end of the five-year plan, the backlog of needed street work will increase by $64 million.
Even those who favor the five-year plan admit that it doesn’t fix the streets. They say that it’s a start in the right direction. But, no one has developed the next step. There is no plan beyond this first five years. A future Mayor and future City Councilors will have to deal with that problem.
The proponents of the five-year plan also say that it’s better to stay flexible, so that we can address the City’s needs at some future time. They say we should wait until the Comprehensive Plan is updated. But, no matter what happens in the future, unless we are all driving “George Jetson cars,” we will need streets that are in good condition.
They also say that the five-year plan is cheaper than the twelve-year plan. But, it really isn’t cheaper, it’s more expensive. By planning on a five-year horizon instead of twelve, it will eventually cost an additional $400 million to bring the streets up to the same index of 70.
Under the five-year plan, property taxes would increase by $63 per year on a $100,000.00 house. Under the twelve-year plan, they would increase by $71 per year. The difference between the two is sixty-seven cents per month.
The five-year plan will save the average homeowner sixty-seven cents a month, it will leave an additional backlog of $64 million in maintenance work that needs to be done, and it will eventually cost an additional $400 million to achieve the same result.
The five-year plan will defer funding for needs in several areas. It will tie-up Third Penny Sales Tax funds and G.O. Bonds for seven program years without providing any funding for street widening, capital equipment, public facilities, storm water capital projects or sewer capital projects. Those needs are not going to go away. Fire stations will still need roofs. The Police Department will still need cars. But, because the five-year plan defers funding for those needs, a future Mayor and a future City Council will have to address them after 2014, when the Five Year Plan expires.
If street widening is important to you, then you should know that the five-year plan doesn’t have any money for widening. The twelve year plan had $120 million.
By increasing funding for traffic engineering, by redesigning certain intersections, or designing left turn lanes into certain parking lots, etc., we could help make our streets safer. The twelve year plan had $140 million for traffic engineering and safety. The five year plan has none.
Our street right-of-ways should look good all the time, not jut when a major golf tournament comes to town. The twelve year plan had $23 million for additional right-of-way maintenance so that we could increase the number of times that the City mows the right-of-ways, clean graffiti from bridges, etc. The five year plan doesn’t have any.
One of the biggest reasons why our streets have declined is that we have reduced the number of City street maintenance workers, while the lane miles that we are responsible for has increased. About twenty-five years ago, we had over two hundred street maintenance workers. They could be pro-active and they could address needs before they became critical. Today, we have sixty-nine workers. Meanwhile, our lane miles have almost doubled. The twelve year plan had $180 million dollars for additional street maintenance crews. The five year plan has nothing.
The proponents of the five-year plan admit that it doesn’t do the job, that it’s only a start. But, for an additional sixty-seven cents a month, we could do it right. We could have a comprehensive, long-term commitment to really fixing our streets the right way.
I hope this helps answer your questions. You can always send me an e-mail at dist2@tulsacouncil.org.
Leave a Reply