Jim Hewgley on the "Complete Our Streets" Report

| | Comments (8) | TrackBacks (0)

Former City of Tulsa Street Commissioner Jim Hewgley III was on 1170 KFAQ Thursday morning (MP3) talking about the report issued by Mayor Kathy Taylor's "Complete Our Streets" task force. He has some words of praise but also some reservations, and he provides some historical perspective on how our streets got into the shape they're in.

0 TrackBacks

Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Jim Hewgley on the "Complete Our Streets" Report.

TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.batesline.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/3319

8 Comments

XonOFF said:

I listened to the entire thing, twice now, and thought Mr. Hewgley's ideas are almost exactly what needs to be done.

However, once he laid out the method and means, he contradicted himself at the end. He first said the way to achieve a $100 Million paving project in 2009 was to use a $100 Million Bond Issue to effectively 'buy out' $100 Million of rebuilt road projects from the last 3rd Penny Sales Tax (projects which can be funded with a Bond Issue), then use the relieved 3rd Penny funds of $100M for a 10-year paving program at $10M/yr. (Only Sales Tax can be used for Paving Programs, i.e., 'maintenance')

That was good. I liked that fine.

Then, at the end, he said he'd favor a $0.05 Sales Tax for three years (3 x $35M/yr) to get the $100M for the 2009 Paving Program.

Not so good, and contradicts his much wiser earlier plan.

In the meantime, he challenged the Mayor to do two things:

1.) Revise current statutes requiring only local contractors for road work so that out of state contractors could bid on (and win) paving contracts.

and, 2.) Take the $10M Paving and $1M Crack Sealing funds from the existing 3rd Penny Sales Tax (planned for over the next 4 year term) and apply it to a 2008 Paving Program to get things started as soon as possible.

Whatever vote occurs next year as a solution will not provide any funding until 2009, so it's important that road work begin in 2008 with item #2.

This is the only logical solution I've heard to the problem to date, and actually agree it would work.

Hewgley called to tell me that the 1/2 penny for three years was his backup position, if for whatever reason the "takeout" idea -- re-fund $100 million of third penny projects with a G. O. bond issue to free up that much sales tax money for paving and crack sealing -- won't fly.

webworm Author Profile Page said:

The appearance of bicyclists at this meeting leaves me cold. No one group of street users in Tulsa breaks the current ordinances more often and cares less about the consequences. They ride where they want and when they want; they care nothing about staying to their side of the street or stopping for traffic control devices. They are arrogant and crude. It is a wonder that more of them are not struck by cars and trucks. Riding on Riverside Drive, with a perfectly good cycling path close by is a good example. And our Traffic Engineers compound the problem. There are plenty of streets where a bicycle lane could be painted in and used by bikers and observed by motorists. Instead, we have those silly "Share The Road" thingies stuck on the crumbling streets.

Paul Tay said:

Webworm, careful there big boy! 42,000 Americans die EVERY year because of motor vehicles. That's like a fully loaded 747 crashing and killing EVERYONE on board, EVERY two days. More than 2 die EVERY day in Oklahoma because of motor vehicles.

The solution? BAN bicycles! Makes a whole lotta sense. NOT.

Show me a reckless, DRUNKEN, outta-control, law-breaking bicyclist, I'll show you a village IDIOT impersonating Santa at the TPD Awards Banquet, NOT mowing down 5 innocent people in the middle of Memorial, AND leaving them to DIE.

Show me the next wreck on the BA, I'll show you Santa lounging in a hot tub.

At the Complete Our Streets meeting at Central Park, NOT one bicyclist asked for ANY special treatment. NO one asked for bike lanes.

As for my part, all I ask are lower speed limits, and traffic circles to allow more flow through intersections so that the red lights wouldn't "cork" a whole line of motor vehicles in a massive jam.

Current roadway designs ENCOURAGE impatient motorists to CRIMINALLY speed just to catch the red. Shouldn't traffic engineers be held to some account for your next speeding ticket? Naaaaaaah.

By both Oklahoma State Statutes AND Tulsa Revised Ordinance, bicycles do NOT "impede" traffic. Bicycles ARE traffic. Under the definition of traffic, 37 TRO 100, the City has a LEGAL obligation to safely accommodate bicycles.

Tip to motorists when encountering bicyclists: SLOW down, signal a lane change, and make the pass in the OTHER lane. Oklahoma State Statutes require motorists put THREE feet of space when passing bicyclists. Tell me, webworm, WHAT is SO difficult about THAT?

Tip to bicyclists: ENCOURAGE motorists to obey the LAW by riding in the MIDDLE of the lane. In some situations, such as two lane roads in far South Tulsa, move toward the double yellow dividing lines, stick out your right arm to slow traffic, and motion motorists to pass on the RIGHT.

Gutter trolls do NO one favors by encouraging motorist MIS-behavior of passing DANGEROUSLY.

Paul Tay said:

To get back on the issue at hand, the whole idea of "fixing" the streets is NOT sustainable. $1.6 BILLION pays for some pretty nice buses that show up EVERY 5 minutes. Why throw good money after bad, when the price of gas is expected to trend up?

According to the CoS Report, 28% of Tulsans have "no access to vehicles," presumably automobiles. Does it make sense to deprive the right of travel to these people, just because they don't have cars or aren't allow to drive because of prior DUI's and loss of license?

The $650 GO bond subsidizes sprawl and LOWERS property values, while raising property taxes in Mid-Town. When gas is $5, Tulsa will be locked into DEBT just to build a whole lotta very nice BIKE paths. Maybe I really shouldn't be complaining.

XonOFF said:

Another thought...

IF the State gives up the $0.005 Sales Tax = $35M/yr for three years, there's our $100M for a 10-Year/$10M per year paving program.

I've been lobbying for the State to give up a full $0.01 back to municipalities. Then, we can vote for $0.005/$35M per year for road maintenance and have another $0.005/$35M per year for other needed things with a net result of no change in our Sales Tax.

The State's so flush with the 7% wellhead tax that they're having trouble (not too much) spending it all. Cutting the State's take from 4.5% to 3.5% would seem no big deal at this point.
Heck, I'd support the State going all the way back to 2% or less.

webworm Author Profile Page said:

I realize, of course, that Paul rides a bicycle. Who in the City of Tulsa doesn't know that? Way to go, Paul! But don't forget that you have run afoul of the law while riding. So don't bother quoting scriptures about bike riders and car drivers, because they are both pretty bad. The law is very clear about where bicycles are to be ridden. As I said in my earlier comments, I would like for the City to make more room for riders. Lanes for bicycles are quite a possibility in may places in Tulsa.

Paul Tay said:

Yes, webworm, Portland has more bike lanes than any other American city. Yet, motorists on THREE separate occasions managed to KILL two and SEVERELY injuring one ADULT bicyclists in bike lanes, in the October 2007.

In Tulsa, without bike lanes, NOT one ADULT bicyclist died in the last 365 days. NOT one bicyclist caused a wreck on ANY Tulsa streets. NOT one bicyclist KILLED police officers in Glenpool and Bartlesville.

Even the reckless, LAW-breaking, outta control, possibly DRUNK village idiot impersonating Santa caused NO collisions, injuries, or DEATH.

Yes, the LAW is certainly very clear on where bicycles are to be ridden.

37 TRO 1003:
SECTION 1003. RIDING ON RIGHT SIDE
Every person operating a bicycle upon a roadway shall ride as near to the righthand side of the roadway as practicable, exercising due care when passing a standing vehicle or one proceeding in the same direction.

Now, Mr. webworm, define "as near to the righthand side of the roadway as practicable." Is it 2 feet, 4 feet, 7 feet away from the curb?

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Michael Bates published on December 7, 2007 1:29 AM.

Fred Thompson on Charlie Rose was the previous entry in this blog.

Blogging the Iowa caucuses is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Contact

Feeds

Subscribe to feed Subscribe to this blog's feed:
Atom
RSS
[What is this?]