Isn’t work already started on the new bridge? It’s hard to tell what construction is for the dam and for the bridge. I certainly don’t want to see any delays, we have been waiting for this new bridge long enough as it is.
Would a happy medium resolution be to preserve the old bridge in pieces and potentially use it somewhere else? And if so where do you store the pieces?
My thoughts…
It’s all dam, and it’s going to take a while regardless of what is done. That said:
Is it better to delay some months more, to get this right for Tulsa and generations to come, or to demolish—on an inadequate basis—and thereby royally screw things up, irreparably, for Tulsa and generations to come?
As for the idea of relocating the bridge…
Which makes more sense, moving a classic bridge that is already there (since circa 1905 is the current determination) or moving a bridge that still doesn’t actually exist?
I talked to a higher-level person recently. He mentioned the new bridge could still maybe be built “around” the existing bridge, or “always pushed up a little.” It would take some remodeling and adjustment…
I bet it won’t be until at least 2023, regardless… (Don’t forget about possibly inevitable construction delays.) It really should be done the right way or not at all.
***
If time is of the essence, the *quickest* fix would surely be: Rehabilitate the classic, keeping it a single-deck to avoid unnecessary complications. It’s already there. Check it over again, replacing what is necessary, beginning with the piers—but this time, for single-deck weight load. Bet we’d have a functioning bridge in half the expected time (unless the Gateway Bridge’s construction is going on in the same vicinity) and, it seems probable, for a heck of a lot less money.
So there are definitely reasons why some people are still seriously saying, save money and DON’T build the new bridge. Someone noted, recently, that the *double-decker* version actually discussed in the report would still save millions…that money could, indeed, be put to other uses…
But I think arguing to stop the new bridge is definitely a more problematic (probably unrealistic) position. It is not indefensible, especially in light of certain things from a few years back, but stakeholders already have interests, and canceling construction would surely upset more than a few people. Similarly, demolition plans are already upsetting more than a few people. The general idea of “compromise” makes most sense.
Seriously, a new bridge’s construction should not destroy the original bridge. The planned demolition is truly a cultural/architectural travesty in the making. If it happens, just wait and see. Give it some time to sink in, as hindsight and regret grow…
(Furthermore, the Tulsa public never formally agreed to the destruction or even relocation of the Midland Valley Bridge, regardless of what anyone may have assumed was implied by the 2016 election...)
The Midland Valley Bridge could still be made fully functional—it can still be one of the most pleasant walking bridges in the country, along with being “integral to Tulsa’s early history.”
Has anyone revisited 11th Street, taking the dedicated walkway underneath the bridges, which leads to the Cyrus Avery Bridge commemorative display? Look at those various bridges/structures, near one other. (The Cyrus Avery Bridge is the most beautiful there...) Mr. Wallis’ suggestion for the Midland Valley Bridge and Gateway Bridge would be more doable and elegant than that arrangement.
Keep the old, new, and Tulsa could have the benefits of both—and more functionality.
Happy New Year!