First of all, let me start with saying that I am a massive, huge proponent of public transit in Tulsa. I think the permanence of rail investment (like a streetcar) signals that the city is invested in an area in a way no bus route can. They usually do a great job of drawing development. Functioning transit is also the only way that Tulsa can ever heal the wounds of sprawl and bring density back to the center city. It's what enables awesome things like 24/7 downtowns.
THAT SAID, the river is such a no-brainer for the city. As it is, the state of the river has turned Tulsa's greatest natural asset into an embarrassment. As far as bang for your buck for quality of life in Tulsa, putting water in the river should be the city's #1 priority. The waterfront is a draw for investment, development, people, and happiness that pretty much nothing else can rival. Chicago's lake, San Francisco's ocean, Austin's river are one of the defining characteristics of the city.
I lived in Austin for three years. Austin has terrible transit but an incredible river, which is actually a crappy trickle of a creek they dammed to make what it is today. That river is a center for public life, recreation, development, and post-card pictures in a way that the Arkansas should be in Tulsa.
Lastly, public transit works because traffic congestion makes it a better alternative than driving. Tulsa simply isn't at that point. You can park for free downtown at 10am on a workday. This will hopefully change, but in the meantime putting water in the river has immediate and enormous benefits. It's a win for everyone - drivers, pedestrians, bikers, diners, and everyone else. Most cities would kill to a major river flowing through it, and Tulsa is wasting the opportunity.
There is a huge difference between what Austin can do with it's river due to the terrain and width of the river by downtown and what Tulsa could do. They are apples and oranges.
There is a huge difference between what Austin can do with it's river due to the terrain and width of the river by downtown and what Tulsa could do. They are apples and oranges.
Your statement of we don't need alternatives to driving is very short sited too. This is such a massive problem with the US is our planning is always reactionary and not visionary. Why wait for gridlock when we can see that eventually it will happen.. and solve for it now. At some point Tulsa metro will be twice this size and close to Austin's population (it may not happen for another 100 years, but it will happen). How much wider can we make the BA? What about I-244? We just did this for I-44 and tore out TONS of tax producing properties for a cost of $100 million per mile. We could have built an underground rail line like Vancouver's SkyTrain for almost the same amount of cost per mile. We did all this so people can drive through Tulsa on their way to OKC or Missouri slightly faster. It's maddening.
Transit should be the #1 priority over the River. I think cannon_folder just won the debate, it's to bad we will have to see this come up for a vote again. To many great points to quote them all.
For $350 million we could fix Zink Lake, which would put water in the only part of the river that has development potential and will have a lot of attention draw to it by the Gathering Place. Then take the rest of the $$ and build BRT and Streetcar lines. The City of Tulsa land, concrete plant, and the apartment complex could all eventually be redevelopment into higher density mixed-use development. However, even with water in the river there.. market conditions will take a long time to make anything significant viable when there is much cheaper land to development in the CBD or Uptown that has much more desirable demographics. Odd are we would have to form TIF District or some sort of public assistance to get development done along the river. So not only are we subsidizing development through paying for the damns, we would have to do it to even get new real estate development too. Just look at the River District in Jenks - before the economy crashed they were asking for a HUGE TIF. I would rather put this public money into something that has a much higher potential of economic development return.
If there is so much development potential, form a tax assessment district for Riverside properties and finance damn construction that way.
I heard that a shopping center with a bank, retail and restaurants is going in where the volleyball courts are currently.
This land was for sale recently, noticed the listing disappeared. Wouldn't surprise me to see another strip center built there. I figured it would probably be multifamily like the complex just to the south on Riverside, but retail doesn't surprise me. I hope it's not a Kings Pointe Landing II.
