The Tulsa Forum by TulsaNow

The South Tulsa Citizens Coalition sent this message out yesterday. Unbelievable that Jenks is apparently trying to build a bridge again considering the Supreme Court already told them NO with a 9-0 vote! Here's the memo from the STCC....

Dear STCC Supporter –
 STCC has learned that the City of Jenks along with one of Oklahoma’s Indian tribes is a week or so away from announcing a new plan to construct the South Tulsa bridge.  STCC has contacted both Tulsa Mayor Kathy Taylor and Tulsa City Councilor Bill Christiansen regarding this recent development and both public officials informed STCC that the City of Tulsa has unfortunately not been contacted by the City of Jenks to assist in developing the new bridge plan.  Further, STCC has unfortunately not been contacted by the City of Jenks to assist in developing the plan.  From STCC’s standpoint, any new bridge plan must include (1) the City of Tulsa’s participation in and equitable sharing of any revenues derived from the bridge, (2) the financing and construction of the infrastructure necessary to handle the future bridge traffic and (3) the northern connection point of the bridge being Riverside Drive.

 As always, STCC appreciates your support and we will keep you advised of any new developments.

 South Tulsa Citizens Coalition

The arrogance of that city's mayor is unbelievable.  Again, no involvement of the neighborhoods and citizens.  Again, no involvement of Tulsa.

So instead of getting Tulsa on board, Jenks goes and gets the Indians on board, what's up with that?

Is it just me or doesn't logic dictate that if you want to build a bridge from Jenks to Tulsa that you would get both cities on board with the project and also get the neighborhoods and citizens that would be affected on board as well.  Oh yea, that's logical what am I thinking about.

Let em build the bridge. Wherever the indian property meets the city property on the Tulsa side... simply put up a fence. Or better yet, just to drive the point home, a great big, cement, Berlin Wall type thing lol.  They can build all they want and spend all the money they want, but until they decide to help pay for the extra infrastructure on the Tulsa side  and have some revenue sharing agreement, aint nobody going across any bridge. If they want to be that way and find some crafty way of avoiding dealing with Tulsa, let em. They may find some legal way to do so, but its also legal for us to put up a fence or "safety barrier" on OUR property.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bat Bat

So instead of getting Tulsa on board, Jenks goes and gets the Indians on board, what's up with that?

Is it just me or doesn't logic dictate that if you want to build a bridge from Jenks to Tulsa that you would get both cities on board with the project and also get the neighborhoods and citizens that would be affected on board as well.  Oh yea, that's logical what am I thinking about.

---

Time to kick Jenks out of the county.  Let Creek County have em.  [:D]

quote:

---

Originally posted by TheArtist

Let em build the bridge. Wherever the indian property meets the city property on the Tulsa side... simply put up a fence. They can build all they want and spend all the money they want, but until they decide to help pay for the extra infrastructure the Tulsa side will need and have some revenue sharing agreement, aint nobody going across any bridge.

---

Although I agree with your sentiment, I don't believe that is possible. You can't land lock someones property in that way. They must have access even if it means travelling over someone else's property. Perhaps we could threaten to add an additional toll to help pay for access infrastructure improvements. If the toll is high enough its no longer feasible.

Jenks leadership is indeed arrogant and myopic. They'll by gawd get their bridge even if they have to team up with another country to do it. If the Indians back out look for them to secede!

I always thought we should put a toll gate where the Creek Nation Casino property goes out to riverside drive.  We should charge $5.00 per vehicle to drive onto Tulsa city streets.  The money could help the City of Tulsa recover the additional costs of assisting all the people that are lossing their rent/food/medicine money.

quote:

---

Originally posted by waterboy

quote:

---

Originally posted by TheArtist

Let em build the bridge. Wherever the indian property meets the city property on the Tulsa side... simply put up a fence. They can build all they want and spend all the money they want, but until they decide to help pay for the extra infrastructure the Tulsa side will need and have some revenue sharing agreement, aint nobody going across any bridge.

---

Although I agree with your sentiment, I don't believe that is possible. You can't land lock someones property in that way. They must have access even if it means travelling over someone else's property. Perhaps we could threaten to add an additional toll to help pay for access infrastructure improvements. If the toll is high enough its no longer feasible.

Jenks leadership is indeed arrogant and myopic. They'll by gawd get their bridge even if they have to team up with another country to do it. If the Indians back out look for them to secede!

---

Now the toll idea could work. Having a toll just before you get on and off the bridge access on the Tulsa side is perfectly reasonable to help pay for the added infrastructure and increased traffic flow. They cant complain about us doing that since they are essentially doing the same thing.

If a tribe owns land along the river, they can put it into a BIA trust the same way they do casinos.
Once it's in trust it ceases to be Tulsa land and we have no jurisdiction.
The mayor, council, TMAPC, INCOG, voters, etc. are thrown out the window.


At that point the "tribe" could build anything it wants on "indian land" and we have a toll bridge rammed down our throats.
Just hope Jenks likes being in bed with the mob.

IMO there must be infrastructure to handle the new bridge.  The streets around here are bad enough.  No infrastructure no bridge.  I like the additional toll idea.  What is good for the goose is good for the gander.

On the BIA trust thing, I don't think the Indian tribes own any land around the bridge area.

I think the land on the southside of the river is owned by citizens and is within the incorporated areas of Jenks.  Jenks has said they will use eminent domain to acquire the property for the toll bridge.

On the northside of the river, the land is owned by the City of Tulsa (west side of Yale) and by citizens east side of Yale).  I think all of this property is within the incorporated area of Tulsa.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jitter Free

I don't think the Indian tribes own any land around the bridge area.

---

They could either buy land, or someone could deed it to a tribe in a backdoor land deal.  They dont build casinoes on ancient burial grounds, they buy prime real estate and get the federal government to evict the landlord.

quote:

---

Originally posted by patric

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jitter Free

I don't think the Indian tribes own any land around the bridge area.

---

They could either buy land, or someone could deed it to a tribe in a backdoor land deal.  They dont build casinoes on ancient burial grounds, they buy prime real estate and get the federal government to evict the landlord.

---

From what I've read its not quite that simple. Otherwise every tribe member would be buying land and then asking for tribal sovereignty. There were deals made and land swapped at the Riverside location. They prefer to work with the communities they exploit. (I should add, the feds taught them that!)

quote:

---

Originally posted by waterboy

quote:

---

Originally posted by patric

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jitter Free

I don't think the Indian tribes own any land around the bridge area.

---

They could either buy land, or someone could deed it to a tribe in a backdoor land deal.  They dont build casinoes on ancient burial grounds, they buy prime real estate and get the federal government to evict the landlord.

---

From what I've read its not quite that simple. Otherwise every tribe member would be buying land and then asking for tribal sovereignty. There were deals made and land swapped at the Riverside location. They prefer to work with the communities they exploit. (I should add, the feds taught them that!)

---

I will be emailing my MCN Council Representatives to find out more about this.

I was out in south Tulsa, near the river, not too long ago and needed to get to Glenpool.  A bridge sure would have helped.  It kind of left an impresssion with me on this issue.  It's one thing to question the politics of it and quite another to question the need for infrastructure.

How far south? South of the 96th and 101st Bridges?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gold

I was out in south Tulsa, near the river, not too long ago and needed to get to Glenpool.  A bridge sure would have helped.  It kind of left an impresssion with me on this issue.  It's one thing to question the politics of it and quite another to question the need for infrastructure.

---

Was your inconvenience worth $50 to $100 million?  If not, I would say the Jenks bridge and the Bixby bridge are sufficient for the area today.

This bridge issue has been going on for 3+ year now.  I think back when it started the private investors said it would cost $40 million to build the bridge with "no infrastructure."  Construction costs have gone through the roof so I have no idea what it would cost to build in today's dollars.

Also, I think Tulsa came out with a future  infrastructure needs report to handle all of the traffic from the bridge and I think it said the infrastructure needs to handle all of the future traffic was in excess of $100 million.  I think the Tulsa needs report was in a powerpoint presentation if anyone has a link I would be interested in reading it again.

There are a lot of new homes south of the river in that area. A bridge near Yale and 121st would allow those people to more conveniently spend their money in Tulsa. Both Yale AND Delaware/121st should be widened to support the traffic.

That Jenks mayor whatever his name is is the biggest bully!!!  He doesn't care about Tulsa and he could care less about Tulsa's ability to pay for street improvements for cars coming over that bridge.  I don't think we would see hardly any increase in tax dollars because the people who live south of the river already spend their tax dollars in Tulsa they simply live in Bixby and Jenks they don't spend hardly any money there.  

quote:

---

Originally posted by Red Arrow

There are a lot of new homes south of the river in that area. A bridge near Yale and 121st would allow those people to more conveniently spend their money in Tulsa. Both Yale AND Delaware/121st should be widened to support the traffic.

---

I think everyone sees some benefit to the bridge (although some argue who benefits more) but the problem is that they want to collect tolls to pay for the bridge and infrastructure on the South Side but not give a dime to Tulsa to beef up it's infrastructure.

quote:

---

Originally posted by sgrizzle

quote:

---

Originally posted by Red Arrow

There are a lot of new homes south of the river in that area. A bridge near Yale and 121st would allow those people to more conveniently spend their money in Tulsa. Both Yale AND Delaware/121st should be widened to support the traffic.

---

I think everyone sees some benefit to the bridge (although some argue who benefits more) but the problem is that they want to collect tolls to pay for the bridge and infrastructure on the South Side but not give a dime to Tulsa to beef up it's infrastructure.

---

I agree that Tulsa should get some of the tolls for infrastructure.  I expect Tulsa was excluded since the homeowners north of the river, especially along Yale, thought they could stop development by opposing the bridge and opposing improvements in Yale and Delaware/121st.  I can assure them it won't happen that way.  Memorial has never caught up with development traffic since the mid 70s. Since Tulsa wasn't interested in the bridge, people from the south side of the river decided to find a way to build the bridge anyway.  Tulsa may have shot itself in the foot on this one.

A friend at work lives south of the river.  He said the bridge at Yale would save him seven (7) miles each way to get to areas around 81st and Lewis and north. He was more than willing to pay the proposed $1.00 per crossing.

The suburbs are going to get their own retail soon enough. I am more concerned with maintaining the roads and bridges we have now and also very importantly, getting more people to live IN Tulsa. Toll bridge fine, let the people who use it pay for it. But to increase traffic on those roads, people driving more, wasting more gas, sending more money out of the local economy, more wear and tear on the local infrastructure, polluting, etc... I do not need to encourage that by building more roads and bridges. They dont want to drive an extra 7 miles... live in Tulsa or work and shop in the suburbs.

Its not a matter of Tulsa competing with the suburbs, its both the suburbs and Tulsa being more efficient and better places to live, shop, work and play. You want to go long distances, use mass transit. Mass transit going to better designed suburbs and higher density areas within Tulsa.

Remember, many of the neighborhoods within Tulsa were once the "suburban development" of their day. Now we just see it as more sprawl thats difficult to take care of and maintain. More roads that need repairing, etc. These newest neighborhoods in the suburbs will some day be the same with more, newer growth, further out.  

As a Tulsan I am more concerned with Tulsas future growth. If the suburbs want my opinion they can ask and they will indeed get it lol. But I am also not going to "enable" what I see as future bad, less sustainable, inefficient, growth.

A new bridge could also be used by mass transit to the new neighborhoods.  Adding mass transit while the neighborhoods are developing will be more successful than trying to add it later as most of Tulsa has proven.  High density living has been the topic of many threads. Not everyone wants it for themselves. Even then, "high density" has different meanings for different folks. A bridge that saves 7 miles each way on a round trip is a gas savings on a trip that will probably be taken regardless of the miles.  The IDL has been cited as a barrier to sensible development. I see the river as the same type barrier. Crossing that barrier could avoid duplicate retail development that only serves to dilute the customer base at both places and convert more land to parking spaces for cars. I see this particular bridge as making both places more efficient.

I would like to agree with you about not "enabling" growth by adding roads and bridges but local history shows that the growth will happen even with insufficient infrastructure.

Red Arrow- I would first like to correct some misinformation. The citizens in south Tulsa didn't oppose the bridge. They opposed the location and the way it was proposed--all behind closed doors and years of under the table deals. The funny thing is from what I understand, if Bob Dick, Clay Bird and Bill Bacon would not have been arrogant bafoons in the very first meeting with the STCC, this bridge would be built right now. So truth be told they are the reason this bridge is not built.  Someday a bridge needs to be built but even according to INCOGS own plans it is not needed for 10-20 years. We lived in Seattle where many thousands of people drive into and out of Seattle daily. They have 2 bridges. I am amazed at the amount of bridges that go across the River here.

Heres a wild thought...
What if Tulsa said OK to a bridge to be used exclusively for light rail...

quote:

---

Originally posted by Love to be outdoors

Red Arrow- I would first like to correct some misinformation. The citizens in south Tulsa didn't oppose the bridge. They opposed the location and the way it was proposed--all behind closed doors and years of under the table deals. The funny thing is from what I understand, if Bob Dick, Clay Bird and Bill Bacon would not have been arrogant bafoons in the very first meeting with the STCC, this bridge would be built right now. So truth be told they are the reason this bridge is not built.  Someday a bridge needs to be built but even according to INCOGS own plans it is not needed for 10-20 years. We lived in Seattle where many thousands of people drive into and out of Seattle daily. They have 2 bridges. I am amazed at the amount of bridges that go across the River here.

---

Since I think the primary route should go up Yale, with the proper improvements to Yale, and the secondary route up Delaware,it is my opinion that they opposed the bridge.  They did propose a different bridge that sent traffic somewhere else.  The new housing developments along Delaware probably don't want the traffic on "their road" either.  I would like some of the traffic presently forced to use Memorial or Peoria/Elm or Elwood to have a better choice. A bit of a selfish choice, I admit.

I can't argue about the way it was proposed.  Tulsa has also caused/allowed things to be put in communities against the wishes of the local community.

I think INCOG is typically 10 to 20 years behind the needs of transportation.

Looking at a map of Seattle, those "2 bridges" are interstate quality. They are only about 3 miles apart. The routes around the top and bottom of Lake Washington include I-5, I-405 and a few roads marked to be similar to our US75. The east to west distance between I-5 and I-405 apppears to be similar to the distance between US75 and US169. The difference is that the space between US75 and US169 is full of development instead of Lake Washington. Also, 169 only goes as far south as the Creek TPK whereas I-405 continues south and connects to I-5 south of Lake Washington.  The N-S distance of Lake Washington is similar to the distance along the Arkansas river from the bend at downtown Tulsa to Bixby.  I think that a direct comparison of only the number of bridges is insufficient to describe the traffic flow capability.

quote:

---

Originally posted by patric

Heres a wild thought...
What if Tulsa said OK to a bridge to be used exclusively for light rail...

---

Not so wild.

I suggested on another thread that light rail be included but not exlusively. When I said Mass Transit a few replys earlier in  this thread, I was thinking light rail. I think the people of that area would ride a streetcar. I think gas will need to get more expensive to get them in a bus. I also suggested the light rail go up Yale to provide access to St Francis and that part of town with further service by connection to downtown.  The hill between 81st and 91st could be an issue so maybe the light rail could go around it. The right of way along Yale is wide enough but it would take significant dirt moving to put down a set of rails near the river.  I got resoundingly shot down as I remember.  Running the rails up Delaware would be too close to the possible line proposed to use the tracks down the west side of the river going to Kimberly-Clark.  There may also be  potential flooding issues unless the rails are run on the uphill side of Delaware.  There are too many $$$$ houses there now to do that.

I don't think the homeowners north of the river tried to stop development of the bridge and I think they supported the bridge as long as certain items (safety, street needs, Tulsa receiving its share of the revenues) were met.  I don't think the homeowners were against improvements at 121st and Yale either.  I think they begged for those improvements among others.

I think the Memorial example lends more credit to the homeowners' argument.  This is exactly why these homeowners are looking to the future and making sure their area down South doesn't become overcrowded Memorial.

I don't think Tulsa shot itself in the foot either.  I think Tulsa made an educated decisioin to not let the bridge terms be dictated to them by Jenks.  If Jenks is reasonable and doesn't dictate terms to Tulsa, I think the two cities could work out a bridge plan that benefits everyone.

As for the homeowners who live south of the river, why did they buy a house there in the first place?  There wasn't a bridge at Yale or Riverside when they bought their house.  There are a number of acceptable avenues for them to travel to the north side of the river.  So its a convenience thing.  I think the homeowners have weighed a number of valid and legitimate arguments which outweigh convenience.



 

 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bat Bat

I don't think the homeowners north of the river tried to stop development of the bridge and I think they supported the bridge as long as certain items (safety, street needs, Tulsa receiving its share of the revenues) were met.  I don't think the homeowners were against improvements at 121st and Yale either.  I think they begged for those improvements among others.

I think the Memorial example lends more credit to the homeowners' argument.  This is exactly why these homeowners are looking to the future and making sure their area down South doesn't become overcrowded Memorial.

I don't think Tulsa shot itself in the foot either.  I think Tulsa made an educated decisioin to not let the bridge terms be dictated to them by Jenks.  If Jenks is reasonable and doesn't dictate terms to Tulsa, I think the two cities could work out a bridge plan that benefits everyone.

As for the homeowners who live south of the river, why did they buy a house there in the first place?  There wasn't a bridge at Yale or Riverside when they bought their house.  There are a number of acceptable avenues for them to travel to the north side of the river.  So its a convenience thing.  I think the homeowners have weighed a number of valid and legitimate arguments which outweigh convenience.

---

Your memory and mine differ on the attitude of the homeowners north of the river.  I only had the local news media and a friend that lives south of the river available for information.

I wish the homeowners in our area had had enough money to stop the traffic generating commercial development along Memorial and the crowded housing additions that add even more to the traffic snarls.  Memorial was an easy drive 35 years ago.

I agree Tulsa should have been involved.  

I guess if you go back far enough, there were no bridges across the Arkansas.  There were some acceptable venues such as ferries.  Just think, if there were still no bridges maybe Sapulpa, Sandsprings, or Glenpool would be the big city.  Tulsa wasn't always on top of the heap. Tulsa grew because it had something to offer and it became convenient to get there.  

My friend moved south of the river from near 51st & Memorial because he found a place that met his needs and desires that he could not find in the Tulsa city limits. His willingness to pay a toll for convenience indicates he is not asking for a free ride.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Red Arrow

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bat Bat

I don't think the homeowners north of the river tried to stop development of the bridge and I think they supported the bridge as long as certain items (safety, street needs, Tulsa receiving its share of the revenues) were met.  I don't think the homeowners were against improvements at 121st and Yale either.  I think they begged for those improvements among others.

I think the Memorial example lends more credit to the homeowners' argument.  This is exactly why these homeowners are looking to the future and making sure their area down South doesn't become overcrowded Memorial.

I don't think Tulsa shot itself in the foot either.  I think Tulsa made an educated decisioin to not let the bridge terms be dictated to them by Jenks.  If Jenks is reasonable and doesn't dictate terms to Tulsa, I think the two cities could work out a bridge plan that benefits everyone.

As for the homeowners who live south of the river, why did they buy a house there in the first place?  There wasn't a bridge at Yale or Riverside when they bought their house.  There are a number of acceptable avenues for them to travel to the north side of the river.  So its a convenience thing.  I think the homeowners have weighed a number of valid and legitimate arguments which outweigh convenience.

---

Your memory and mine differ on the attitude of the homeowners north of the river.  I only had the local news media and a friend that lives south of the river available for information.

I wish the homeowners in our area had had enough money to stop the traffic generating commercial development along Memorial and the crowded housing additions that add even more to the traffic snarls.  Memorial was an easy drive 35 years ago.

I agree Tulsa should have been involved.  

I guess if you go back far enough, there were no bridges across the Arkansas.  There were some acceptable venues such as ferries.  Just think, if there were still no bridges maybe Sapulpa, Sandsprings, or Glenpool would be the big city.  Tulsa wasn't always on top of the heap. Tulsa grew because it had something to offer and it became convenient to get there.  

My friend moved south of the river from near 51st & Memorial because he found a place that met his needs and desires that he could not find in the Tulsa city limits. His willingness to pay a toll for convenience indicates he is not asking for a free ride.

---

Back in the day after the oil find at the Glenn Pool, the reason Tulsa sprang up so fast is because they had the rail line serving it.  Big cities either grew on the rail line, or on the river.  If you were off either of those, your likelihood of growth as a city or town was not very good.  Tulsa had the fortune of having both.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Red Arrow

A new bridge could also be used by mass transit to the new neighborhoods.  Adding mass transit while the neighborhoods are developing will be more successful than trying to add it later as most of Tulsa has proven.  High density living has been the topic of many threads. Not everyone wants it for themselves. Even then, "high density" has different meanings for different folks. A bridge that saves 7 miles each way on a round trip is a gas savings on a trip that will probably be taken regardless of the miles.  The IDL has been cited as a barrier to sensible development. I see the river as the same type barrier. Crossing that barrier could avoid duplicate retail development that only serves to dilute the customer base at both places and convert more land to parking spaces for cars. I see this particular bridge as making both places more efficient.

I would like to agree with you about not "enabling" growth by adding roads and bridges but local history shows that the growth will happen even with insufficient infrastructure.

---

I keep thinking of Portland and their urban growth boundaries when I think of doing or not doing this bridge. Our river can help act as such a boundary. It makes the property within that boundary more valuable and helps stem sprawl and too much driving.

"Avoid duplicate retail development".... thats exactly what we get with sprawl, the never ending duplication of big box retail strips and people having to drive everywhere to get to everything. Instead think "nodal" with pockets of medium density scattered around. Suburbs as complete, seperate, mini cities surrounded by trees and farmland, connected with a few good roads and mass transit. Not one contiguous sprawling, inefficient mess. There would be less roads and infrastructure, and believe it or not, more nature and community for people to enjoy. One of the sad comments about typical suburban sprawl is that in the end it destroys the nature and "country feel" that people move out there for in the first place. By keeping the nodes more compact, the country feel is actually maintained. The ideal size for these nodes/small towns is about 100-150 thousand population.

I am going to start a different thread to illustrate what I am trying to describe later. Its just a different paradigm for growth, an ideal, if you will. Not everyone will want it, not every place can be that way, but by understanding and having it as an option to consider when making development choices, I think better descisions can be made. Right now we just seem to think in the 2 terms that we understand, that we are used to seeing and see as the only choices of sprawl and urban, when there is actually a very interesting middle road that combines many of the pluses of both and gets rid of many of the negatives of both. Many places in Europe take for granted this type of growth. People there assume its the norm and like it, where as here we argue that somehow the suburban lifestyle as we know it is the norm. Its just a habit that we are familiar with. The way we are talking about this bridge shows that we dont even consider this other option, we continue ever onward with what we know and are familiar with, good or not.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hoss
Back in the day after the oil find at the Glenn Pool, the reason Tulsa sprang up so fast is because they had the rail line serving it.  Big cities either grew on the rail line, or on the river.  If you were off either of those, your likelihood of growth as a city or town was not very good.  Tulsa had the fortune of having both.

---

The Arkansas was useful for transportation for a few months a year.  The rail connections were probably more important. There were also passenger rail connections between Tulsa and Sapulpa as well as between Sandsprings and Tulsa. Sounds like a convenience to me.

I don't like Bates and I don't care for citizens groups and I can't stand Medlock but even I have to admit that this Jenks bridge always created a stink in the air.

If I lived south of the river in Bixby I could get to Tulsa on the Memorial bridge on the 96th street on highway 75 and those are the only ones I know.  Why do we need another bridge so homebuiders can make money or so homeowners don't have to drive a few miles out of their way?  The homebuilder can fend for themselves without a bridge or go into a new line of business.  Convienance?  I live at 61st and Harvard and I drive to Pro Bass Shops in B.A. quite often and I can get there using highway 51 or  using 71st street but you know what it would be a lot easy for me to get there if we spent a billion dollars to build an expressway directly from my house to Pro Bass.  Get real if you live in Bixby, Glenpool or wherever you live on the south side your not getting my tax dollars to build a bridge for your conveinance and before you say ohhh no its a toll bridge only its users will pay for it.  Who's is going to pay for the streets to handle all those care?  You guesses it me and everyother homeowner in Tulsa so you are not getting my tax dollars.  No No No No.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Shely

If I lived south of the river in Bixby I could get to Tulsa on the Memorial bridge on the 96th street on highway 75 and those are the only ones I know.  Why do we need another bridge so homebuiders can make money or so homeowners don't have to drive a few miles out of their way?  The homebuilder can fend for themselves without a bridge or go into a new line of business.  Convienance?  I live at 61st and Harvard and I drive to Pro Bass Shops in B.A. quite often and I can get there using highway 51 or  using 71st street but you know what it would be a lot easy for me to get there if we spent a billion dollars to build an expressway directly from my house to Pro Bass.  Get real if you live in Bixby, Glenpool or wherever you live on the south side your not getting my tax dollars to build a bridge for your conveinance and before you say ohhh no its a toll bridge only its users will pay for it.  Who's is going to pay for the streets to handle all those care?  You guesses it me and everyother homeowner in Tulsa so you are not getting my tax dollars.  No No No No.

---

So what you are saying is that unless someone lives in the city limits of Tulsa, STAY OUT!

What if Broken Arrow told you the same thing and to go find a Pro Bass Shop somewhere in Tulsa? Keep off 71st Street east of the Tulsa-Broken Arrow city limits.  51 is a US route so you can use that up to the exit ramp. Then you cannot use the roads in BA.

Tulsa is going to have to be more friendly than that to develop downtown such that it can get the tax dollars from people living outside the city limits.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Red Arrow

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hoss
Back in the day after the oil find at the Glenn Pool, the reason Tulsa sprang up so fast is because they had the rail line serving it.  Big cities either grew on the rail line, or on the river.  If you were off either of those, your likelihood of growth as a city or town was not very good.  Tulsa had the fortune of having both.

---

The Arkansas was useful for transportation for a few months a year.  The rail connections were probably more important. There were also passenger rail connections between Tulsa and Sapulpa as well as between Sandsprings and Tulsa. Sounds like a convenience to me.

---

The oldest bridge I know of over the Arkansas in this area is the rail road bridge that connected the west side to the east just north of 11th street. Built around 1889 it allowed Tulsa to receive oil and building supplies from surrounding areas. Tulsa didn't want a passenger bridge and refused to believe one was feasible. Ironically, when private enterprize finally built a toll bridge, a rickety metal and wood bridge near south of 11th street, it promptly blunted the growth of Red Fork and other west side communities. Both executives and workers preferred to live away from the refineries, so the bridge allowed them a way to live comfortably in Tulsa but make their living in the oil fields. The ferries became obsolete.

Ironic because its similar to today. Its construction secured Tulsa's future and the city forced the privateers to dismantle their bridge so they could build the "free" 11th street bridge.

Jenks, Bixby and Glenpool have the most to gain this time from a new bridge.

quote:

---

Originally posted by waterboy
 Both executives and workers preferred to live away from the refineries, so the bridge allowed them a way to live comfortably in Tulsa but make their living in the oil fields.

---

Tulsa was the "suburban sprawl" of its early days.  Ironic indeed.

Did anyone bother to look over the "streets package" that Taylor has proposed?  It calls for signifigant improvments to riverside drive.  It makes it wider to Yale...
Soo That means that Tulsa has put the plan in place to add roads to that area.  And think how hard it is to get Tulsa to agree to pony up money for anything let alone a bridge over the river.  
Look at BA, They have 4 laned most roads.  They are widening 71st east of county line to make it an easier drive to the creek turnpike.  I dont see Tulsa trying to widen their crappy streets.  
Look at Bixby... This city is about to crash in an over load of traffic.  Sure they widened Memorial past 101st... buuut what about any side streets.

Tulsa just needs to let Jenks Do the job they dont want to pay for.  You wont squeeze 100 million out of Tulsa to pay for a bridge?  

Sorry for the run on rant...
And Jenks Mayor is Vick Vreeland.  He's been mayor for 20 years.  They also have a city manager.  

Huh?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Osupikapp1

Look at Bixby... This city is about to crash in an over load of traffic.  Sure they widened Memorial past 101st... buuut what about any side streets.

---

121st between Memorial and Sheridan is 5 lanes.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Red Arrow

121st between Memorial and Sheridan is 5 lanes.

---

All this to sustain something that, in the long run, we cant afford to sustain.

Future generations may wonder why we needed so much space for our bicycles and carts ;-)

+1

quote:

---

Originally posted by Red Arrow

quote:

---

Originally posted by waterboy
 Both executives and workers preferred to live away from the refineries, so the bridge allowed them a way to live comfortably in Tulsa but make their living in the oil fields.

---

Tulsa was the "suburban sprawl" of its early days.  Ironic indeed.

---

Tulsa was far more dense back in the day than it is now. Early on it had around 9,000 people per square mile. And mass transit to the "suburbs" lol.  There were plenty of other areas and towns to live away from the refineries and oil fields. The real history is, and you wont likely find it in your kids history books, is that Tulsa had the Hotels, Hookers and gambling. Thats what really made Tulsa different than all the other small towns. They built a bridge across the river so that the money could buy the goods. The oil field workers could spend their money and sow their wild oats here. The oil barons and stary eyed businessmen and prospectors from back east could stay in the fancy hotels to wheel and deal, and I am sure they sowed their share of oats as well. Once the big money set up shop here in the hotels, then came more buildings, big churches, fancy houses, airport, etc.

It was the hotels and the hookers that built Tulsa. The men and their money would have got here one way or the other, bridge or no. The bridge just sealed the deal.

 

quote:

---

Originally posted by patric

quote:

---

Originally posted by Red Arrow

121st between Memorial and Sheridan is 5 lanes.

---

All this to sustain something that, in the long run, we cant afford to sustain.

Future generations may wonder why we needed so much space for our bicycles and carts ;-)

---

oh give me a break....you think there is going to be some sort of doomsday scenario where automobiles don't exist?  puh lease.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TheArtist

Tulsa was far more dense back in the day than it is now. Early on it had around 9,000 people per square mile.

---

9000 people per square mile is approximately 1/4 acre lots with 3 to 4 people per house.  Certainly more dense than now as an average but averages can be deceiving.  It would be interesting to have a map with the density of the developed areas.  For example: If a quarter section is developed but the remaining 3/4 square mile is not, show the developed area at its  density and show the remainder at its density rather than average it together.  Show the density as smooth contour lines like an elevation chart rather than by artificial borders.  I saw something similar to this at the "What about rail" meeting but I don't remember it being in fine enough detail.  There are probably areas of the metro area that meet or exceed 9000/sq mi or more.  I've seen some developments where the houses are packed in pretty close.  There will also be areas with the low density that many here complain about.

edit: darn no-line bifocals make it difficult to catch typos.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Red Arrow

quote:

---

Originally posted by TheArtist

Tulsa was far more dense back in the day than it is now. Early on it had around 9,000 people per square mile.

---

9000 people per square mile is approximately 1/4 acre lots with 3 to 4 people per house.  Certainly more dense than now as an average but averages can be deceiving.  It would be interesting to have a map with the density of the developed areas.  For example: If a quarter section is developed but the remaining 3/4 square mile is not, show the developed area at its  density and show the remainder at its density rather than average it together.  Show the density as smooth contour lines like an elevation chart rather than by artificial borders.  I saw something similar to this at the "What about rail" meeting but I don't remember it being in fine enough detail.  There are probably areas of the metro area that meet or exceed 9000/sq mi or more.  I've seen some developments where the houses are packed in pretty close.  There will also be areas with the low density that many here complain about.

edit: darn no-line bifocals make it difficult to catch typos.

---

I think there is a misunderstanding, its more about the "proportions" of low, medium and high density thats important. When the VAST majority of ALL living is very spread out, low density,,, thats when things get a bit out of hand, inefficient, and expensive. And if there isnt a decent portion of higher density it becomes very, very, difficult to create it. Was reading on a different forum about how some in Austin were mentioning how even the high density living areas with lots of condos, the condos offer sometimes 2 parking spaces per unit. Even if the parking is structured, what it still means is that a good number of people still find it important to use cars to get everywhere, which again hurts the development of "pedestrian friendly" areas. People are still driving to the stores and to work etc. So you still need wide roads, businesses want parking lots, the walkable/pedestrian friendly "infrastructure" doesnt often happen which also stifles mass transit, etc.   Its kind of a self-reinforcing, feedback loop thats hard to break.  Where as even in some small towns in Europe you can see the traditional, midrise, 6 story buildings right up to the edge of town. The new buildings on the edges are just a continuation of that pattern, up to the sidewalk, 3-6 floors. The accepted norm is that people dont often have cars and want to be close to mass transit and walking/biking/scooter distance to lots of things. So the developers build what people want. Its a different kind of self-reinforcing, feedback loop.

Here is a town of about 150 thousand.
The central old part.

(http://img301.imageshack.us/img301/7404/grenoblebyminatokues4.jpg)

More of a "middle" part.
(http://img301.imageshack.us/img301/1889/grenoblefr150thoudp7.jpg)

Close to the edge of town.
(http://img301.imageshack.us/img301/5734/grenobleoutskirtsoc5.jpg)

Aaaand the edge of town.
(http://img301.imageshack.us/img301/8355/grenobleoutskirts2lm3.jpg)

Notice the edge of town how it almost, suddenly ends. It doesnt turn into an endless sea of sprawl. There is even a mass transit line possibly going to the nearby larger city or another, similar "suburb".

I find it fascinating how even right up to the edge of town, and I have seen this in many examples, how similar sized buildings prevail. Again, many of those people may not have or even want cars. Many just walk/bike/scooter or mass transit to where they want to go. Its the prevailing habit, so even on the outskirts of town, the developers build accordingly.

Here is how we do it.

 (now these examples may be extremes or ideals, but I am mostly trying to paint a picture and get an overriding idea across, and again, not everyone wants to live in the above example and nore do they. There are higher density and lower density areas and cities, its more about the proportion of people living in one way or another. We, especially in the midwest, tend to go too far imo, of having a majority of our people living...)

 like this...

Living here.
(http://img301.imageshack.us/img301/9892/74247861dz1.png)

Then a lot of us funnel onto roads.
(http://img301.imageshack.us/img301/8272/4217830858xu8.jpg)

And commute often like this.
(http://img507.imageshack.us/img507/3699/27862hitrafficwebgv8.jpg)

Then drive to shopping districts like this.
(http://img301.imageshack.us/img301/2181/mdistripnd4.jpg)

Then pull in to places like this.
(http://img301.imageshack.us/img301/9575/shoppingvfiles20241vu1.jpg)

Perhaps head to work or back home like this.
(http://img301.imageshack.us/img301/9339/heavytraffici95js8.jpg)

And yes, I know, I know, I know. Some suburbanite will holler "But I CAN walk to places!"

Indeed.
(http://img301.imageshack.us/img301/9672/ped20in20perilob9.jpg)

And, OMG isnt this traffic horrible?
(http://img301.imageshack.us/img301/3815/450693641acdfb5cbfdouu0.jpg)

I remember reading some where how someone mentioned that it appears that the "ideal" city would have a population of around 100-150 thousand.  Then I remember seeing the pics and hearing about what Tulsa was like when it was that size. Then I kept seeing European towns of that size being shown on "Skyscraper forums" . At first in the photo thread I would think it was a larger city like Paris because of how the streets looked, but then would see that the person would put the name and population of the city and would constantly be amazed when I would see that the population of so many of those places was around 100 thousand or so. And they had mass transit options. So you dont need to have a large population or skyscrapers, you just need a certain amount of "compactness".

Plus, many of these towns and cities did indeed have suburbs as we know them, and some often have taller buildings and more "citylike" areas. But it appears the majority of the people lived in more traditional 6 story buildings.

I also noted when they were showing us how the maps that people create for the Comprehensive Plan exercises in other cities often fell into 2 categories. One tendancy was to have a very large, dominant central core then growth spread out from that. Then the other was more "nodal" there were many dense nodes dotting the landscape and connected by mass transit. Still a larger core, but not as large. Each node was also its own little core.

We are so, habitually ingrained, with the particular development pattern we have had over the last 50 years or so, that I think we (city planners, developers, homeowneres, etc) have forgotten and dont even consider that there may be other alternatives. And even if we want the alternative, we are so stuck and force molded by what we have so much of now, that its almost impossible to create something different. I mean just go back up there and look at the amount of asphault that we use for our current way of doing things. WE ALL have to pay for that.

 

quote:

---

Originally posted by TheArtist

quote:

---

Originally posted by Red Arrow

quote:

---

Originally posted by waterboy
 Both executives and workers preferred to live away from the refineries, so the bridge allowed them a way to live comfortably in Tulsa but make their living in the oil fields.

---

Tulsa was the "suburban sprawl" of its early days.  Ironic indeed.

---

Tulsa was far more dense back in the day than it is now. Early on it had around 9,000 people per square mile. And mass transit to the "suburbs" lol.  There were plenty of other areas and towns to live away from the refineries and oil fields. The real history is, and you wont likely find it in your kids history books, is that Tulsa had the Hotels, Hookers and gambling. Thats what really made Tulsa different than all the other small towns. They built a bridge across the river so that the money could buy the goods. The oil field workers could spend their money and sow their wild oats here. The oil barons and stary eyed businessmen and prospectors from back east could stay in the fancy hotels to wheel and deal, and I am sure they sowed their share of oats as well. Once the big money set up shop here in the hotels, then came more buildings, big churches, fancy houses, airport, etc.

It was the hotels and the hookers that built Tulsa. The men and their money would have got here one way or the other, bridge or no. The bridge just sealed the deal.

 

---

That's an interesting take. However, Creek county was full of hookers, hotels and stills. Redfork had anything you wanted too. Most of the small towns around the area had the goods and "services" necessary to satisfy the common needs or could get to them by railroad & ferry.

As in most times, people followed the opinion leaders, the movers and shakers and those folks preferred to be upwind and looking down upon their investments. For instance the McBirney mansion has a fine view from above as did the Cosden home and neither one of them had to worry about flooding.

Artist, I appreciate your view for higher density that rivals Tulsa's early days. I live in one of those dense neighborhoods and dearly love it. It was more convenient in its day when the residents could walk a few blocks to 18th & Boston and get groceries, baked goods, services etc. (now its mostly walk over and get a good meal and some hillbilly beer). But I doubt most of Tulsa wants that anymore.

When I see those interesting pics of European or East Coast cities that embrace the walkable concept I think just how foreign that is to kids who grew up in the suburban mindset. How much of Tulsa that isn't already in a walkable  neighborhood really wants to live this way? Gotta' ask doncha know.

quote:

---

Originally posted by waterboy

quote:

---

Originally posted by TheArtist

quote:

---

Originally posted by Red Arrow

quote:

---

Originally posted by waterboy
 Both executives and workers preferred to live away from the refineries, so the bridge allowed them a way to live comfortably in Tulsa but make their living in the oil fields.

---

Tulsa was the "suburban sprawl" of its early days.  Ironic indeed.

---

Tulsa was far more dense back in the day than it is now. Early on it had around 9,000 people per square mile. And mass transit to the "suburbs" lol.  There were plenty of other areas and towns to live away from the refineries and oil fields. The real history is, and you wont likely find it in your kids history books, is that Tulsa had the Hotels, Hookers and gambling. Thats what really made Tulsa different than all the other small towns. They built a bridge across the river so that the money could buy the goods. The oil field workers could spend their money and sow their wild oats here. The oil barons and stary eyed businessmen and prospectors from back east could stay in the fancy hotels to wheel and deal, and I am sure they sowed their share of oats as well. Once the big money set up shop here in the hotels, then came more buildings, big churches, fancy houses, airport, etc.

It was the hotels and the hookers that built Tulsa. The men and their money would have got here one way or the other, bridge or no. The bridge just sealed the deal.

 

---

That's an interesting take. However, Creek county was full of hookers, hotels and stills. Redfork had anything you wanted too. Most of the small towns around the area had the goods and "services" necessary to satisfy the common needs or could get to them by railroad & ferry.

As in most times, people followed the opinion leaders, the movers and shakers and those folks preferred to be upwind and looking down upon their investments. For instance the McBirney mansion has a fine view from above as did the Cosden home and neither one of them had to worry about flooding.

Artist, I appreciate your view for higher density that rivals Tulsa's early days. I live in one of those dense neighborhoods and dearly love it. It was more convenient in its day when the residents could walk a few blocks to 18th & Boston and get groceries, baked goods, services etc. (now its mostly walk over and get a good meal and some hillbilly beer). But I doubt most of Tulsa wants that anymore.

When I see those interesting pics of European or East Coast cities that embrace the walkable concept I think just how foreign that is to kids who grew up in the suburban mindset. How much of Tulsa that isn't already in a walkable  neighborhood really wants to live this way? Gotta' ask doncha know.

---

I dont think we are somehow genetically different from those people who automatically assume that "walkable, pedestrian oriented, non car centered" development is their norm. I think its just mostly force of habit. Interestingly though, the trend actually is that a lot of young people DO want to "live that way", they DO want what I have described.
Not everyone does, but a growing and ever larger number of people do. The notion that this very thread originally brought up is partly a battle over what direction we want, to either continue heading in and spending our resources on the usual, or do we start shifting more towards a different way and take that development strategy into consideration. Its not as though we dont have plenty of "suburban" living options around here lol. There is no balance what so ever.  If more and more people want something similar to what I have described... where is it? We keep habitually building more and more of the same. And we are choosing as a city and its suburbs to put in the infrastructure/zoning/parking requirements/etc. for more of it. That doesnt help, it actually hurts the prospects for trying to get some change of direction for those who DO want it. IMO we have enough roads and bridges and parking. Lets "hold the line" when we can and nurture a different option a little more. When we made the old comprehensive plan we intentionally changed our development path from the previous way of doing things. We did it before, we can do it again. Its kind of ironic to keep pointing and saying... see thats what people want cause they keep buying it, when its the only option available for purchase in the first place, and at this point we have made it very difficult to create the other option, or even just get it started. How do we know what people would choose when there isnt the other option to choose from?    1. For the most part its actually ILLEGAL to create what I have described. You have to get an exception in order to do so. 2. The current infrastructure and "built environment" inhibit the creation of dense, pedestrian friendly areas. 3. We continue to put a lot of thought, energy, resources and money into "enabling" the current pattern.  

It seems the answer then would be in convincing those who develop and build that it is monetarily worth their changing direction rather than trying to blunt their efforts at suburbanizing or forcing them to change with comprehensive plans and zoning. That will merely create more powerful resistance.

The other group that has to be convinced that it is in their interest is the political powers who derive their employment from satisfying the suburbanites. You can't expect Christiansen to turn his back on his constituents. When we were a commissioner style government the common good could be accomplished but not when its councillor based.

The public demand would have to be overwhelming to overcome these two groups and it is not. When you look at the political climate in Tulsa being so negative you can see that its going to take an awesomely popular leadership group to make it happen. Either that or a sudden influx of wealth distributed throughout the city so that we aren't sniping at each other.

I don't want to troll this thread too long and I'm not as deep into it as you are. If the demand is there, it may already be happening. White City, 41st & Yale, Whittier square, Holiday Hills, and others are either there or almost there. Wouldn't take much to add some sidewalks, some pedestrian bridges, etc. to facilitate more bikes and walkers in those areas. And I guess that's where the comprehensive plan updates are going to be so important. But you still have to show the two major groups, developers and politico's how it not only benefits them but enhances their success. Otherwise they'll continue to ignore or redirect the movement. To me developments like Tulsa Hills, Riverwalk, River District are efforts to suck developmment away from walkable areas as they serve no particular neighborhoods. I am doubtful that they will ever create enough residential tenants to be a neighborhood. Thats window dressing. They are the Woodland Hills of the times.

I would like to see a dense, walkable, urban area for those that want it. Just don't try to force it on an area that doesn't want it just because the area is presently trendy.  If the economics are there, it will work. If there are only a few vocal groups that want it, eventually it will fail. The problem I see is that developers seem to want to cater to the "upscale" groups which will cause further economic stratification. This will cause even more suburban sprawl as the less economically able (poor folks)have to leave the denser areas.  Tulsa's parking lots need to be turned into housing affordable and attractive to the middle class.  

I know this is straying from the original thread. The local facts are that suburban sprawl will not stop until there is a desirable alternative.  Using the river as a boundary seems like it will cause a Big Box store at 141st and Yale as well as 121st and Yale when a bridge would stop that in its tracks.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Red Arrow

I would like to see a dense, walkable, urban area for those that want it. Just don't try to force it on an area that doesn't want it just because the area is presently trendy.  If the economics are there, it will work. If there are only a few vocal groups that want it, eventually it will fail. The problem I see is that developers seem to want to cater to the "upscale" groups which will cause further economic stratification. This will cause even more suburban sprawl as the less economically able (poor folks)have to leave the denser areas.  Tulsa's parking lots need to be turned into housing affordable and attractive to the middle class.  

---

That's exactly what the elitist a**holes on this  board want, economic cleansing to rid these trendy areas of the affordable housing so those in lower income brackets will be forced to leave. Just look at the housing that is being developed downtown, taxpayer subsidized luxury lofts, while the homeless and the affordable housing that does exist is being cleansed from downtown. They are only concerned with the welfare of and for the wealthy. Another example is the Pearl District pork. Economic segregation is the name of their game.