The Tulsa Forum by TulsaNow

FWIW, they knew the bridge was coming down about a year ago. Apparently old rail bridges are only good for villains with twirly mustaches to blow up these days.

Here is an original idea from a friend of mine on another site. Maybe it's the extra caffeine I've swilled today, but I'm contemplating submitting something for this -- or, at least, posting something about it now so that others will take my idea and run with it. I was envisioning a new pedestrian bridge like the Ponte Vecchio in Florence, except Tulsa's could be the Art Dec-chio over Arkansas -- or something much less stupid-sounding -- with local-centric retail shops and food stalls, art displays, you name it. Oh! Or The Boxyard Over the Arkansas! Anyway, I'm excited to see what some of our area's awesome visionaries come up with.

Is restoring the historic railroad bridge completely out of the question?

Here is an original idea from a friend of mine on another site. Maybe it's the extra caffeine I've swilled today, but I'm contemplating submitting something for this -- or, at least, posting something about it now so that others will take my idea and run with it. I was envisioning a new pedestrian bridge like the Ponte Vecchio in Florence, except Tulsa's could be the Art Dec-chio over Arkansas -- or something much less stupid-sounding -- with local-centric retail shops and food stalls, art displays, you name it. Oh! Or The Boxyard Over the Arkansas! Anyway, I'm excited to see what some of our area's awesome visionaries come up with.

with local-centric retail shops and food stalls, art displays, you name it. Oh! Or The Boxyard Over the Arkansas!

I just looked up that bridge in Florence.  Wow.  It still amazes me how a few centuries back they could build these amazing cities with muscles and chisels while we, who can engineer space ships and nuclear submarines, are stuck with Bass Pro Shop and Chili's.  

You can propose building a replica. I think that is your closest option.

Here is an original idea from a friend of mine on another site. Maybe it's the extra caffeine I've swilled today, but I'm contemplating submitting something for this -- or, at least, posting something about it now so that others will take my idea and run with it. I was envisioning a new pedestrian bridge like the Ponte Vecchio in Florence, except Tulsa's could be the Art Dec-chio over Arkansas -- or something much less stupid-sounding -- with local-centric retail shops and food stalls, art displays, you name it. Oh! Or The Boxyard Over the Arkansas! Anyway, I'm excited to see what some of our area's awesome visionaries come up with.

Putting some (real) trolley rails across the river there might be a good route for a trolley to get downtown folks to both the Gathering Place and Turkey Mountain.  There would be some difficulties using the old Midland Valley R.O.W. but it is a possibility. Think trolley parks of the late 1800s.

We just added a rail crossing at Southwest Blvd/244.  To go along with the 2 interstate bridges, the abandoned bridge, the SW Blvd bridge and the pedestrian bridge.  I do not believe that rail line is in use or even leased out to anyone yet.  My guess is adding the requirements to carry trains would exponentially increase the expense.

A trolley is admittedly not going to happen right now.  Adding the capability to easily add a trolley later might be a reasonable expense.  Also, the requirements to add a trolley should not be as difficult to meet as providing for a train.  Trolleys run in the streets in a lot of places.  The bridge trolley to pedestrian separation could be as simple as a fence with periodic crossing points.

Would it be possible to re-use certain sections of the trusses from the existing bridge an incorporate them in a new bridge purely for style/decoration? 

Considering the age and potential corrosion issues, it may be less expensive to duplicate the trusses.  I agree that trusses look better than plain old concrete.

Speaking of bridges, is anything planned for the old Highway 66 bridge next to the I-244 bridge?  It always seems like it could be cool again.

Structurally unsafe for vehicles at the present time. There were some ideas to try to turn it into something, but there would be weight/usage limitations.

Structurally unsafe for pedestrians as well, IIRC.

Structurally unsafe for pedestrians as well, IIRC.

And millions of dollars to rehab to make it safe.  My hope is that if the Route 66 museum is ever built that eventually they will want to have the bridge open for pedestrians as part of the overall museum/Rt 66 plaza experience. 

My main feedback is that SHADE is a requirement for any outdoor space in our climate.  No shade, no people.  So we need a design that recognizes that we have an increasingly hot and humid climate, and we need a bridge people can enjoy throughout the year.

On those rare occasions when it's cold, I appreciate the wind breaks on the north side of the bridge, but it's been so long since we had a cold winter, it's not top of mind for me.

4, then 1.

I saw some great other submissions that didn't make the finals. 2 and 3 are boring, and 1 is pretty bland. I want iconic and #1 from a distance could easily look like a highway bridge over any midwestern town.

I like 2 or 4.  The lack of shade or protection from rain on the first one is a big oversight imho.  I lean towards the fourth one for it would definitely be striking and unique, though you do see a lot of that wavy design element in architecture these days almost to the point of it being boring, (oh no not another wavy design) and this bridge could be seen as being extremely derivative.  But then again, hey nice to have something with that modern design element on it in Tulsa.  


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aqua_(skyscraper)

https://archpaper.com/2016/02/arquitectonica-gets-real-wavy-new-seaside-tower-florida

http://architecturestyle.net/projects/zahner-factory-expansion

http://theluxhome.com/banq-restaurant-interior-unique-design-ceiling-restaurant-by-office-da/

etc. etc.

I'd go with No. 4 if it didn't look so ridiculous from the outside.  Like a Tomorrowland design of puffball weirdness.  It'll look as bad as the ORU super futuristic nonsense design.  It otherwise has the most unique features.  I wish there was some middle ground.

That is my overt and main issue with #4.   Even in their mock-ups, when standing at an angle to the bridge from the bank, you can't see onto the bridge.  Which conversely means that when you are on the bridge you can't see out, except for relatively straight down and up river.  I see this as a major shortcoming.   It by-far has the more interesting overall features, and the style itself is different enough that I could get over it, or maybe even grow to like it, but if the views from the bridge are severely restricted then it's a no-go for me. 

Go look at the renderings of #4 again, especially on page 1. The walk paths are on top of the fins/shapes mostly. There are a couple short parts where the view is obscured, but most of the bridge will have a completely unabated view, especially from the West side. You will be able to see onto the bridge perhaps even better than the current pedestrian bridge which blocks the view quite a bit from the bank. The view where you see only shapes is from on the water,  below the bridge.

Yes, they will need to optimize which portions are somewhat blocked and covered (and minimize those areas - and open up best views to the Gathering Place), but most of the bridge design shows an open view so it seems like a good start. Having at least partially obscured view, especially at the entrance, will help to create a sense of space and distinguish the bridge as a place rather than just a path.

Having views in a few places obscured makes the parts where you can see more special. If the entire bridge is unblocked and plain, it will be like the 21st street bridge without cars - i.e. not that interesting. That bridge has completely unabated views and yet I never see groups congregating there.

Go look at the renderings of #4 again, especially on page 1. The walk paths are on top of the fins/shapes mostly. There are a couple short parts where the view is obscured, but most of the bridge will have a completely unabated view, especially from the West side. You will be able to see onto the bridge perhaps even better than the current pedestrian bridge which blocks the view quite a bit from the bank. The view where you see only shapes is from on the water,  below the bridge.

Yes, they will need to optimize which portions are somewhat blocked and covered (and minimize those areas - and open up best views to the Gathering Place), but most of the bridge design shows an open view so it seems like a good start. Having at least partially obscured view, especially at the entrance, will help to create a sense of space and distinguish the bridge as a place rather than just a path.

Having views in a few places obscured makes the parts where you can see more special. If the entire bridge is unblocked and plain, it will be like the 21st street bridge without cars - i.e. not that interesting. That bridge has completely unabated views and yet I never see groups congregating there.

I'm a little disappointed that neither of the 2 designs which had "iconic" towers or arches made the final cut as I believe a bridge that can be spotted from far away would be a very good focal point and a draw for visitors to Tulsa.   All 4 of the final designs are very low profile and IMO none of them are going to be very visible from anywhere other than the immediate area.   4 has the most potential maybe and is more unique, but honestly it's just a little too out there for my tastes.   I dunno.  Just wouldn't have minded seeing a little more height or "grandness" in the final designs

I'm a little disappointed that neither of the 2 designs which had "iconic" towers or arches made the final cut as I believe a bridge that can be spotted from far away would be a very good focal point and a draw for visitors to Tulsa.   All 4 of the final designs are very low profile and IMO none of them are going to be very visible from anywhere other than the immediate area.   4 has the most potential maybe and is more unique, but honestly it's just a little too out there for my tastes.   I dunno.  Just wouldn't have minded seeing a little more height or "grandness" in the final designs

I'm a little disappointed that neither of the 2 designs which had "iconic" towers or arches made the final cut as I believe a bridge that can be spotted from far away would be a very good focal point and a draw for visitors to Tulsa.   All 4 of the final designs are very low profile and IMO none of them are going to be very visible from anywhere other than the immediate area.   4 has the most potential maybe and is more unique, but honestly it's just a little too out there for my tastes.   I dunno.  Just wouldn't have minded seeing a little more height or "grandness" in the final designs

Here are a couple I liked and didn't make it:

Tri-arch: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZV7YOZi_SU

KKT Design #2 (which I like better than the one that got through): https://t.co/BqMFzieHiO

I like both of those better than any in the final four! Maybe they were out of budget?

Tri-arch: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZV7YOZi_SU

Tri-Arch was really, really nice. Tying in the new, the old, and providing shade and sun.
I can't believe it didn't make it.

$$$

Looks 'unkempt'.  Disjointed and not quite finished.

Not elegant or pretty at all.

Looks 'unkempt'.  Disjointed and not quite finished.

Not elegant or pretty at all.

Here are a couple I liked and didn't make it:

Tri-arch: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZV7YOZi_SU

KKT Design #2 (which I like better than the one that got through): https://t.co/BqMFzieHiO

I overheard someone discussing this at a downtown bar over the weekend. They kept calling it "The Glowing Earthworm Bridge"

I'm confused. There's water in the river in these pictures.

I'm confused. There's water in the river in these pictures.

I think it looks awesome at night. The lighting and reflection would really make it stand out. That is a blurry image. It looks far more refined in the better-quality image. It could probably use some refinement to make it look a bit more wavy and smooth at some points, but the concept really stands out.

This one is maybe slightly better quality (mostly just scaled so you can see it without it being as blurry):
https://www.facebook.com/KKTArchitects/photos/a.549088211790683.123933.160491340650374/1562996913733136/?type=3 (https://www.facebook.com/KKTArchitects/photos/a.549088211790683.123933.160491340650374/1562996913733136/?type=3)

There's water in the river now. Lots of it.

I think it looks awesome at night. The lighting and reflection would really make it stand out. That is a blurry image. It looks far more refined in the better-quality image. It could probably use some refinement to make it look a bit more wavy and smooth at some points, but the concept really stands out.

This one is maybe slightly better quality (mostly just scaled so you can see it without it being as blurry):
https://www.facebook.com/KKTArchitects/photos/a.549088211790683.123933.160491340650374/1562996913733136/?type=3 (https://www.facebook.com/KKTArchitects/photos/a.549088211790683.123933.160491340650374/1562996913733136/?type=3)

I guess I'm still very, very dubious regarding this whole design.  How would the lighting shown affect night visibility from the bridge?  If I am out on the bridge at night, is the glow going to detract from the view of downtown, etc?   And, really, do we want to look at a glow-worm across the river every night?  Artsy?  Yes. Cool?  Yes.  Practical for everyday?  Not so sure.

To everyone who wants lots of fancy lighting, please spend some time by the river in the summertime.  EVERY light bulb near the river attracts bugs, and thus, they also attract an impressive number of spiderwebs.  Anything that is glowing at night will be laced with spiderwebs.

If you've ever lived at Westport or spent much time at night on the old bridge or along the river trails, you know what I mean.  Ducking under spiderwebs gets really annoying after a while.  Spiderwebs in hair is even worse. 

I would recommend being cautious about the lighting thing. 

Plus, I vaguely recall another bridge design that had really cool lights that set off the artwork along the bridge....hmmmm... did that one survive a year before it failed and was deemed too expensive to replace?

If we had a canal system, we could be storing up some of that water for future use.

Tri-Arch and option 2 are both much better ideas.

To everyone who wants lots of fancy lighting, please spend some time by the river in the summertime.  EVERY light bulb near the river attracts bugs, and thus, they also attract an impressive number of spiderwebs.  Anything that is glowing at night will be laced with spiderwebs.

If you've ever lived at Westport or spent much time at night on the old bridge or along the river trails, you know what I mean.  Ducking under spiderwebs gets really annoying after a while.  Spiderwebs in hair is even worse. 

I would recommend being cautious about the lighting thing. 

Plus, I vaguely recall another bridge design that had really cool lights that set off the artwork along the bridge....hmmmm... did that one survive a year before it failed and was deemed too expensive to replace?

Yes, a $100,000 car is going to be a much better car than a $30,000 car. They did cost-analysis on the top-10 designs and that included the Tri-Arch one. Apparently it was the one of the most expensive and far out of the range of this project. It would've been nice to see them make a cheaper version of this, but probably would've eliminated many of the features that made it so awesome.

Cost is a key part of design. If we assume unlimited funds, the bridge could be extremely awesome and blow all 4 of these finalists away. The  wave one is unique and has a lot of interesting useful features compared to other finalists.

I mentioned the spider problem on the feedback survey. Unless someone sweeps daily, it's going to get out of control, just like the current bridge.

Now, if we only had a flag... ;)

Is it just me, or were the flag and bridge selection processes nearly identical.

1) Lots of submissions
2) committee narrows choices to 3
3) public votes for one of the 3

bridge:  I'm fond of the current bridge but I'll vote for x  (cost to taxpayers:  $millions-o-dollars)
flag:  what the hell's wrong with our current flag?!  What a waste of tax money.   What a sham selection process!  #flagoutrage  (cost to taxpayers:  $0)

Pedestrian bridge cost estimate more than $23.2 million city has allocated for the project

Building the new bridge could cost $2 million to $7 million more, but final figure could change

The latest cost estimate for construction of a new pedestrian bridge over the Arkansas River is about $2 million to $7 million more than the city has allocated for the project, according to figures provided Tuesday by the city of Tulsa.

The estimate, which ranges from $25 million to $30 million, covers the projected cost to build the base model of the Gateway Bridge. The figure is expected to change by the time final plans for the bridge are completed next fall.

The pedestrian bridge, designed by Michael Van Valkenburgh Associates — the same company that designed A Gathering Place for Tulsa park — was selected by a bridge design committee appointed by Mayor G.T. Bynum.

The bridge will be built at approximately 29th Street and Riverside Drive and connect to the west bank of the Arkansas River.

Not included in the cost estimate are the wooden deck, vegetation, shading and other design elements that were part of the rendering on display in June when the winning bridge design was announced.

In making the announcement, Bynum said the city would not spend more than the $24.5 million it has allocated for the project and that it would look to the private sector if additional funds were needed. In fact, the mayor asked the finalists in the bridge design competition to provide two designs — one that could be built for $24.5 million and one that could be built for $35 million.

“We have a world-class bridge if we don’t add another dime to this,” Bynum said at the time.

Since that pronouncement, the city has spent approximately $1.3 million on design work for the project, leaving $23.2 million for construction.

Nick Doctor, the city’s chief of community development and policy, said a lot of value engineering remains to be done on the project to bring it within the city’s budget.

“There is still a great deal of work to do to refine those numbers and bring them down,” Doctor said.

Asked what the city would get for $25 million to $30 million, Henry Som de Cerff, design engineering manager for the city, said the bridge would have iconic steel arches and a concrete deck.

“But in terms of any aesthetic lighting, shade structure, seating structures, I believe those would not be present,” he said.

Som de Cerff stressed, however, that the bridge design is far from complete and that he is hopeful the city will be able to fund not only the base design but amenities on the deck as well.

“At this point it is a concept-level design,” he said. “As we design it more closely, we may find more saving.”


Som de Cerff said a more precise cost estimate will be presented to Bynum and other members of the Pedestrian Bridge Selection Committee in the spring. It will then be up to the committee to determine how to proceed.

Doctor said the city won’t know whether it needs to raise private money — and how much — for the project until it has a more definitive cost estimate.

“We need that information to know what is being added and what it will cost,” he said. “We have to have realistic numbers.”

Michael Van Valkenburgh Associates worked with the city for about a year to come up with a pedestrian bridge design before Bynum opened the process to the public in March. The city received 234 design submissions.

The pedestrian bridge is expected to take 18 to 24 months to build once construction begins.

The city actually budgeted $27.5 million for the pedestrian bridge project, but $3 million of that has been set aside for contingency. The three major funding sources are the Improve Our Tulsa capital improvements program ($7.7 million); a federal TIGER grant ($4.7 million); and Vision Tulsa sales tax ($15 million).

Not included in the cost estimate are the wooden deck, vegetation, shading and other design elements that were part of the rendering on display in June when the winning bridge design was announced.

...

Asked what the city would get for $25 million to $30 million, Henry Som de Cerff, design engineering manager for the city, said the bridge would have iconic steel arches and a concrete deck.

“But in terms of any aesthetic lighting, shade structure, seating structures, I believe those would not be present,” he said.

The city once again has proven that the only thing it does at a high level is incompetence.

Serious question: Has Bynum made anything better? Can someone point to something he has improved over the previous 2 mayors? Seems like he has just taken everything and made it a bit worse or the same while acting like he is some sort of great compromiser/negotiator.

The city once again has proven that the only thing it does at a high level is incompetence.

Serious question: Has Bynum made anything better? Can someone point to something he has improved over the previous 2 mayors? Seems like he has just taken everything and made it a bit worse or the same while acting like he is some sort of great compromiser/negotiator. See: 71st and Riverside parkland development, Tulsa Flag, BMX/fairgrounds fiasco which wasn't his fault but still a bad look, crime rates continue to rise, terrible Amazon pitch, and the Oh so very helpful statement that "Greatest issue facing Tulsa is racial disparity".  

Yes because it is not even close to true. Most would say education is the #1 issue and poverty is #2. Health and crime are massive problems also. Racial disparity might be top-100 or top-50 but not even remotely close to the very top. Education is in crisis mode right now and that is a huge driving force behind all of the other issues so it should be a top priority.

Donald, chill out.

Donald, chill out.

Another funny guy. I did not vote for Trump. So anyone who says they don't like the brown-nosing politics and lack of achievements of certain politicians is "Donald". I'm surprised you didn't just straight up call me hitler considering I probably hurt your feelings.

And that's your only reprisal to facts you don't like. The mayor is not living up to expectations. The PC/Equal Opportunity Act ways he touts have not done anything to help boost the black population financially in the US at all and they are near a 50-year low financially. Turns out giving groups of people a pacifier doesn't help them grow up but can get you elected. And now we're left with a mayor who is messing up the largest project he has dealt with to date as mayor in a major way and we might get a $25 million plain concrete bridge.

Another white guy with hurt feelings. Please take to the politics board.

And while racial disparities continue, you statement that blacks are "near a 50-year low financially" is very wrong.

http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2016/06/27/1-demographic-trends-and-economic-well-being/st_2016-06-27_race-inequality-ch1-03-2/

“Homeownership is the number one way for African Americans to build wealth,”

“We lost a trillion dollars worth of wealth that we must regain”

City officials say they have not spoken to GKFF about building pedestrian bridge


City has yet to determine whether it will partner with River Parks

A Mayor’s Office official on Tuesday left open the possibility that the city could partner with River Parks Authority to build the new pedestrian bridge over the Arkansas River but added that the city is not talking to the George Kaiser Family Foundation about assuming control of the project.

“No,” Nick Doctor, the city’s chief of community development and policy, said when asked whether the city had spoken to the foundation about the construction and maintenance of the project. “This (discussion) is with River Parks.”

The city and River Parks signed an amendment to their 1975 pedestrian bridge lease in November that allows the city to either build the bridge directly, or “partner with the Authority to lead the design and construction process.”

The amendment was executed along with the city’s new master lease with River Parks Authority to ensure that the parties can work together effectively in the future, Doctor said.

“The amendment we made for this lease provides a clear path and a framework to ensure that both the city of Tulsa and River Parks are cooperating throughout the design and construction of any new dam or pedestrian bridge,” Doctor said. “And it ensures that as we’re working toward River Parks also maintaining that new dam and bridge long term, that they are part of the process from the very beginning.”

Doctor said the city has yet to determine whether it will partner with River Parks on the construction of the pedestrian bridge or the mechanics of how such an arrangement would work.

“There are not a lot of details I can talk to you (about) at this point,” Doctor said.

He did add, however, that since the Gathering Place is a subsidiary of River Parks, “I think it (Gathering Place) is an example of how River Parks could lead on a project of that scale.”

If the city were to partner with the Gathering Place through River Parks Authority, it would seem unlikely that such a deal could be reached without discussions with GKFF.

The foundation is building Gathering Place park along Riverside Drive. The park will connect with the new pedestrian bridge at approximately 29th Street and Riverside Drive. The foundation donated the park to River Parks Authority in 2014.

Mayor G.T. Bynum announced last year that the same company that designed the park, Michael Van Valkenburgh Associates of New York City, had won the public competition to design the bridge.

At the end of the public process, which included 234 submissions, MVVA’s Gateway Bridge edged out The Crossing Bridge, designed by KKT of Tulsa.

Jeff Stava, executive director and trustee of Tulsa’s Gathering Place LLC, was not available for comment Tuesday.

Jamie Marchesano, chairman of the River Parks Authority board of trustees, said last week that River Parks retains the lease on the pedestrian bridge but that there are several options as to who will control the project going forward.

“The question will become, Who is going to take care of it? Is it the city? Is it the authority? Or could it be the Gathering Place, because it ties in with the Gathering Place,” Marchesano said. “It could be multiple people that end up managing and controlling that.”

The city initially planned to rehabilitate the 100-year-old-plus pedestrian bridge and add a second deck in time for the opening of the Gathering Place this summer. But the idea was scrapped in 2014 after an inspection uncovered deficiencies in the bridge that made the planned reconstruction impractical and cost-prohibitive.


The city then worked with MVVA and Gathering Place officials for more than a year on a bridge design. The city came up with six major bridge styles ranging in cost from $14.9 million to $30.4 million, but none of the concepts garnered unanimous support.

In March 2016, soon after taking office, Bynum announced the public design competition.

At the time, he laid out three criteria by which the bring designs would be judged: that it relate to the Gathering Place and the natural surroundings of the area; accommodate pedestrians and cyclists; and be no more expensive than the $24.5 million the city has budgeted for the bridge.

At the end of the selection process, however, the mayor asked the finalists to come up with two final designs: one that could be built within the city’s $24.5 million budget, and one that could be built for $35 million.

Doctor said Tuesday that the latest cost estimates for the bridge are $24.4 million, for a basic 16-foot-wide structure, and $25.9 million for a bridge that varies in width from 16 feet to 21 feet.

The city hopes to find private donors who can pay for the wooden decking, shading, vegetation and other amenities that were part of MVVA’s $35 million bridge design.

The city, for its part, has only $23.2 million left to contribute to the project.

City officials plan to build the pedestrian bridge and a new Zink Dam simultaneously. The city is expected to go out for bids on the projects in September, with construction expected to take 18 months to two years.

City officials say they have not spoken to GKFF about building pedestrian bridge


City has yet to determine whether it will partner with River Parks


http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/government/city-officials-say-they-have-not-spoken-to-gkff-about/article_0a8de775-e791-50a7-9011-37f94d2a4601.html (http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/government/city-officials-say-they-have-not-spoken-to-gkff-about/article_0a8de775-e791-50a7-9011-37f94d2a4601.html)

Quick - someone read all the comments on the story and report back.

Challenge accepted.

Comment 1 complains about the bid being contracted to a NY company and not a Tulsa company.
Comment 2 complains about the length of time taken for the Gathering Place to be completed.
Comment 3 complains about the cost and the inefficiency of our local government.

As of my posting just 3 comments.

Where's Sauer been?  Kind of odd he hasn't been popping in to complain about how the taxpayers can't afford to maintain the Gathering Place.

(http://images2.fanpop.com/images/photos/6300000/Leonard-McCoy-leonard-bones-mccoy-6347756-500-379.jpg)

Wave park/rapids moving to the west bank (like it was before)

One of the nicest things about the old bridge was the cover.  Made it bearable to watch the sand in the river when it was 100 degrees outside...   

Oh well...   Such is the price of progress. 

Would it be silly to suggest they just use the existing concrete piers to save money for the bridge or is that idea already off the table?

Would it be silly to suggest they just use the existing concrete piers to save money for the bridge or is that idea already off the table?

I actually preferred the old trestle bridge to any of the proposed ones. Sentimentality perhaps, but it had character.

Would it be silly to suggest they just use the existing concrete piers to save money for the bridge or is that idea already off the table?

Yeah, it kinda would. Those existing concrete piers are the whole reason the bridge has to be replaced. They were found to be basically gravel held together by sheeting and straps. The concrete completely deteriorated years ago and it has been unsafe for a long time. Kind of a scandal, IMO... Fortunately we never had to pay the consequences. Hopefully that was the only bridge like that.  ::)

This is kinda interesting....

http://www.tulsaworld.com/blogs/news/throwbacktulsa/throwback-tulsa-we-built-a-bridge-to-the-future-in/article_6ab158de-cee3-58ef-990a-d7f75f10f053.html

February 1975 – Tulsa Urban Renewal Authority approves $256,000 contract to remodel the bridge for pedestrians.

Makes $100 million seem like a bargain.

Not on the east side?  That is what is shown in the renderings

(https://www.cityoftulsa.org/media/3977/pedestrianbridge2-sm.jpg)

Especially when adjusted for inflation.
256,000 Feb 1975 dollars is equivalent to 1,208,646.70 Jan 2018 dollars

https://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm

Saves a ton of $$$ to keep it on the west side, makes the bridge (including the shade) feasible.

How so?  I could care less if it's on the east or west side if that is what is needed to make this feasible.  

The rendering shows rapids underneath the bridge.
It's not clear whether that rendering is facing east or west...  (assuming the kayaker is paddling upstream, he's on the west side)
regardless...  unless they're moving the bridge south of the dam (or moving the damn north of the bridge, there's no "arkansas flume" underneath the bridge.  (or have I missed something?)

map of current kayak rapids (https://www.google.com/maps/@36.1155127,-95.9899867,242m/data=!3m1!1e3)

The original design (and as far as I can tell, the rendering), shows the kayak park on the East side:

https://www.cityoftulsa.org/media/3614/bridge-design-finalist-1.pdf (https://www.cityoftulsa.org/media/3614/bridge-design-finalist-1.pdf)

My biggest question with moving it to the West side is access.   Do we expect the kayakers to paddle all the way across the river from the East to use the flume?  There is no parking or access on the West end of the bridge right now. 

The original design (and as far as I can tell, the rendering), shows the kayak park on the East side:

https://www.cityoftulsa.org/media/3614/bridge-design-finalist-1.pdf (https://www.cityoftulsa.org/media/3614/bridge-design-finalist-1.pdf)

My biggest question with moving it to the West side is access.   Do we expect the kayakers to paddle all the way across the river from the East to use the flume?  There is no parking or access on the West end of the bridge right now. 

There is a ramp at the boat house at 23rd & Jackson so it's a bit of a paddle upstream to get back to it but quite do-able unless the river is at max flow.  That said, I'm not sure what the mechanism is supposed to be to get there given the current flume is below the LWD.  I'm guessing it's been used in the past though I don't ever recall seeing anyone using it.  I'm curious if people parked at the soccer field off Elwood and portaged their kayak from there.

Looking at maps again, and I guess an option would be to continue the road on the West side down from the skate park and put a small parking lot near the West end of the bridge. I  could see that being convenient used for other reasons, and not just for Kayakers.

That's a negative Ghostrider. 

The land that isn't River trails is own by Holy Refinery.  It's probable that it is a require distance from giant tanks of petroleum or, at very least, something they aren't likely to part with (let alone to allow vehicles closer).   Ignoring that we can't get the property, there is still the cost of a couple million dollars to build a half mile long road and have a parking lot for the convenience of a few kayakers.  I'm by no means against kayakers and hope the floom goes in for them - but there isn't a budget and I can't imagine where it would come from for such a specific use at the moment.

Currently they park at the west bank soccer complex and wheel their boats up to the PSO plant and down a sidewalk switchback. Major pain in the butt for a "meh" rapids as I understand it (depends on if PSO has worked it lately and water, obviously). 

Luckily, Zink is a lake.  So paddling down from and back up to the skatepark or even Riverparks west wouldn't be too bad.  I've done it myself - when you are out of the current the < mile to the floom location wouldn't be bad at all.   Not optimal, but maybe better than the alternatives (parking at Gathering Place or west bank soccer [which requires fighting the current]).

But, to me, that would be the cool part.  Go to the park and here are all these kayakers running rapids right there.  This would increase kayak use and encourage general canoeing, etc, in the river as opposed to staying on the shore.  Moving it to the other side might be more practical, but is just enough of a  "barrier to entry" (both emotionally and physically) that it will almost certainly affect the number of people who use it.  

said rendering

(https://i.imgur.com/poThsTj.png)

I believe the flow challenge is simply that the POS plant absolutely must have water at all times.  When a working dam is in, the flow of the river is where the engineers say it should be (to a reasonable extent, of course).  Kayaking across a river isn't a deterrent either, parking on the west or east...not a big deal.  But a power plant without water...that's an issue.  I believe that's why you often see big berms below the current dam directing water to the west side.

What is the lifespan of the PSO plant?  Since it is natural gas-powered I assume it will be operational for awhile but I have no idea.  IMO it’s one of the coolest industrial buildings in the city. 

I know there was a jetty built to direct the flow toward the plant, you can see remnants of it.  I would imagine AEP/PSO will be heavily involved in these discussions.

... a concrete rather than steel structure was chosen for the span to minimize vibrations and provide a comfortable environment for pedestrians. The broad span would have open sides and was also wide enough to accommodate benches. It would also provide Wi-Fi service to users. One reason for the amenities: pedestrians tend to shun confined bridges.

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/community/miami-dade/article205432029.html

I don't know where you are going with this.    

The River Parks Authority board will vote Thursday morning on an agreement with the city of Tulsa to take responsibility for the construction of the new pedestrian bridge over the Arkansas River.

The agreement calls for the Gateway Bridge to be constructed by Tulsa's Gathering Place LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of the authority. Gathering Place LLC is the legal name given to the Gathering Place park in 2014 when it was given to the River Parks Authority by the George Kaiser Family Foundation.

The pedestrian bridge, near the 2900 block of Riverside Drive, will connect to the $465 million park, which is scheduled to open Sept. 8.

“It is really exciting to be able to partner with someone like River Parks and the Gathering Place” on the pedestrian bridge, said Nick Doctor, the city’s chief of community development and policy.

The Gateway Bridge was selected as the winner of a bridge design competition conducted by the city of Tulsa in 2017. The bridge was designed by Michael Van Valkenburgh Associates, the same company that designed the Gathering Place.

Under the terms of the proposed agreement, the pedestrian bridge should be completed within three years. The River Parks Authority would be responsible for routine and nonstructural maintenance of the bridge, with the city assuming financial responsibility for major capital improvements.

Jeff Stava, director and trustee of Tulsa's Gathering Place LLC, said he expects demolition of the existing pedestrian bridge to begin 45 to 90 days after the agreement is finalized. The design of the new bridge is expected to take nine to 15 months, with construction ranging from 18 to 22 months, Stava said.

Big Changes Planned For Arkansas River In Tulsa

TULSA, Oklahoma - Construction is set to begin July 2020 for the new Arkansas River pedestrian bridge. Lead Engineer for Tulsa's Storm Water Development Brooke Caviness said plans for the pedestrian bridge and low water dam are about 90 percent complete.

"So we're raising the lake by three feet; we're changing out all the gates on the dam," said Caviness. She said this spring's record flooding prompted a design change to the dam to help improve flow when the water rises.

"So we'll be able to put this new dam in and this new flume in and have no rise condition so the water level doesn't come up," said Caviness.




https://www.newson6.com/story/41419672/big-changes-planned-for-arkansas-river-in-tulsa

Sounds like it is actually finally happening... or at least they might've cleared the way to start. I had heard about government approvals required (cities downstream, Corps of Eng, etc) for changing dam retention. Does anyone know if that's all dealt with or if it was ever an issue?

Big Changes Planned For Arkansas River In Tulsa

TULSA, Oklahoma - Construction is set to begin July 2020 for the new Arkansas River pedestrian bridge. Lead Engineer for Tulsa's Storm Water Development Brooke Caviness said plans for the pedestrian bridge and low water dam are about 90 percent complete.

"So we're raising the lake by three feet; we're changing out all the gates on the dam," said Caviness. She said this spring's record flooding prompted a design change to the dam to help improve flow when the water rises.

"So we'll be able to put this new dam in and this new flume in and have no rise condition so the water level doesn't come up," said Caviness.




https://www.newson6.com/story/41419672/big-changes-planned-for-arkansas-river-in-tulsa

Sounds like a little bit of wishful thinking.  When there is the kind of water we had this year, even Keystone itself didn't help, so how is an extra 3 ft and some different gates downstream gonna help?   It will give many people a "feel good" moment, though.

" I’ve taken visitors to the Gathering Place and usually get the question 'what is going on with the riverfront and bridge?'  That and what’s up with the gravel parking areas..."

Not surprised to hear this. I wish the bridge and its surrounding area across from the Blair property had been more capably handled. This was a special part of the river trail, and it has not been the same since the beginning of the new park's construction. With all that money being thrown around, a better solution should have been come up with by now...or rather...before now. Some people who loved the original bridge are no longer with us, a close friend of mine included.

Now begins another prolonged construction process, and I am not holding my breath. And I still am not sure I believe the original bridge could not have been salvaged, had anyone in charge really wanted to.

I don't believe Mr. Stava was a regular visitor to the River Parks before the GP was built. If he had been, more of what used to be special would have been preserved along with the nice new things.

Not sure what you are asking.   Obviously, if there is a flood and they open the gates on Keystone, then the water is going to rise downstream and will go over the dam.   But adding the three feet and utilizing the flume as basically an overflow channel will greatly reduce the water level variability in the pool.  Adding the extra height will also create more lake above the dam, which will moderate the flow issues as well, by allowing buffer for the flow and holding that extra water for times of low flow.

I remember when the current dam actually worked, and there was water in the river virtually all the time and the crew club was out on the lake regularly, as were others in kayaks and canoes.  Very excited to see this all get fixed and have a new and better lake.

This TW article indicates the current funding for the bridge is sufficient just for the structure itself and that amenities like shade structures will not be part of it, unless they are funded separately.  It also included these new renderings:

(https://bloximages.newyork1.vip.townnews.com/tulsaworld.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/1/13/1130a290-dbc5-51fa-99eb-b29a4056b3fd/5f52ff4ee5156.image.jpg?resize=1200%2C720)

(https://bloximages.newyork1.vip.townnews.com/tulsaworld.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/3/ba/3baa26d0-4e10-5ea7-80bb-3fe1b5fbc13d/5f52ff505a6a0.image.jpg?resize=1200%2C501)

https://tulsaworld.com/news/local/gatheringplace/gathering-place-to-grow-with-pedestrian-bridge-project/article_49b60bfc-eeb3-11ea-acd5-9787e4e61513.html (https://tulsaworld.com/news/local/gatheringplace/gathering-place-to-grow-with-pedestrian-bridge-project/article_49b60bfc-eeb3-11ea-acd5-9787e4e61513.html)

The renderings showing the actual top part of the bridge is super disappointing. I can't believe there's no shade structures designed into it. That bridge will bake in the summer time being out in the office and sun reflecting off the water. I can see why the architect never showed those as much as the renderings where you're looking at it from below.

The KKT design I think was far, far better and had shade areas built into the design.

I think this will still be visually appealing, but how useful it will be in parts of the year I guess we will have to wait and see. That's frankly the best thing about the old bridge was it was covered and was super pleasant to be on during most of the year.

If we're spending this much money on a bridge, it should be iconic. A landmark for our city.

What's worse, this isn't what was originally proposed when the design was selected from others. Here are some photos of the original design with shad structures and seating in the middle: https://www.newson6.com/story/5e35f7b32f69d76f6202afe4/the-gateway-design-selected-as-tulsas-new-pedestrian-bridge

Here are the final four again, if you have a TW subscription: https://tulsaworld.com/news/local/pedestrian-bridge-design-narrowed-to-four-options-public-input-sought/article_424da06b-71da-564f-a3a9-fafa0cf3ae73.html

Out of 233 submissions, they picked a pretty basic design and then dumbed it down farther. Disappointing.

I guess the costs of everything around the bridge eat into the costs of the overall project. If they hadn't completely FUBAR'ed the gathering place budget, they could have finished the river side portion and then the bridge could have been focused on apart from all that.

While not the best outcome the new bridge will still be a major improvement and finally tie everything together.  I feel like the Gathering Place, while amazing, is missing the riverfront interaction that this bridge, the dam and whitewater flume and riverbank improvements along the trail will bring.  Having the Phase 2 portion completed with the gravel lots gone and the new science museum will complete the portion along Riverside.  

If we're spending this much money on a bridge, it should be iconic. A landmark for our city.

What's worse, this isn't what was originally proposed when the design was selected from others. Here are some photos of the original design with shad structures and seating in the middle: https://www.newson6.com/story/5e35f7b32f69d76f6202afe4/the-gateway-design-selected-as-tulsas-new-pedestrian-bridge

Here are the final four again, if you have a TW subscription: https://tulsaworld.com/news/local/pedestrian-bridge-design-narrowed-to-four-options-public-input-sought/article_424da06b-71da-564f-a3a9-fafa0cf3ae73.html

Out of 233 submissions, they picked a pretty basic design and then dumbed it down farther. Disappointing.

I guess the costs of everything around the bridge eat into the costs of the overall project. If they hadn't completely FUBAR'ed the gathering place budget, they could have finished the river side portion and then the bridge could have been focused on apart from all that.

In order to save the old bridge, it would have to be dismantled, the piers completely rebuilt, and then put back together with new timber. The supports are crumbling and can't be fixed.

This could probably be done. Arguable whether it would be better than the proposed design, but if the proposed really doesn't have dedicated bike lanes then its a wash for me.

Based on the renderings, I believe what they're shooting for is to have you park your bike and then take one of the new dedicated kayak routes across the river.

Wonder how they're going to keep nesting birds and piles of trash out of the honeycomb part of the bridge. And chain link fencing? Where they've done this on overpasses like the 244 bridge on Yale near Admiral it just looks terrible - nothing says penitentiary like white concrete and chain link fencing. I dunno - maybe they should add some decorative razor wire to the bridge railing to really make it pop.  ;D

The new pedestrian bridge will not be the exact one Tulsans were shown in renderings when Mayor G.T. Bynum announced that the Gateway Bridge had won the design competition. Those drawings were of the $35 million version of the structure, which included wood decking, shading, benches, vegetation and canopy to shield people from the sun.

Stava said building a canopy or other sun shield over the deck would simply be too expensive. His hope is that construction bids will come in low enough that money will be available to install the up-lighting shown in the renderings and some kind of benches.

It will have to have some sort of shade structure on it for people to actually want to use it.  Heat is one problem, the sun imho will actually be worse, even if its cool out, or cooler over the river. That Oklahoma sun glaring down on you and then more sun reflecting up from the bridge and water surfaces... will be blindingly awful. At least having a covered structure here and there, or even one mid way would make it much nicer, doesn't have to be over the whole thing.  Surely some company or someone would like to have naming rights for a covered area.

I feel like they’re better off not striping it.

(http://tulsaworld.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/0/df/0dfdadc4-0cc0-11eb-80a8-1fe024465aef/5f84ac994777b.image.jpg?crop=824%2C402%2C40%2C1&resize=750%2C366&order=crop%2Cresize)

I feel like they’re better off not striping it.

Why do you think it's better unstriped?

This layout looks nice, but of course it presumes they come up with money for benches...

Just personal intuition... unlike the trail, the bridge will be a confined space for pedestrians to meander. Folks will not just be getting from point A to point B, but stop to gather, sight-see, sit and rest. The proposed division would confin pedestrians to 78” of the total 216” wide bridge deck, with 24” reserved for center benches and 114” for zooming cyclists. I feel that cyclists go much faster on designated lanes, which will cause the bridge to be more dangerous. What if a pedestrian wishes to look out over that side of the bridge, and has to dodge traffic?

I think the better configuration would be to open the entire space without designated lanes, and require cyclists to go slower and respect pedestrian traffic.

Another article that closes with this quote: "If it's too much for the shade, it would be best to build it without the shade for now," Wells said. "Just get the necessity taken care of and then maybe later we can address the shade issue."

Various letters to the editor by different individuals from the last two months.


Bridge claims disputed, October 25 ("Editor's note: Charles Pratt is a licensed professional engineer.")

https://tulsaworld.com/opinion/letters/letter-to-the-editor-bridge-claims-disputed/article_5d6d7d74-1537-11eb-b5e9-ef5ce921d5a0.html

Selected quote: "Had the editors of the Tulsa World closely read the 2015 engineers report, deeming the old pedestrian bridge as dangerous, they would find out that any such conclusion of the bridge’s safety would be fake news."


Design for new pedestrian bridge looks less user-friendly, October 18

https://tulsaworld.com/opinion/letters/letter-to-the-editor-design-for-new-pedestrian-bridge-looks-less-user-friendly/article_8fe4201a-0e6f-11eb-abac-6bfb0e6ec7d3.html

Selected quote: "This taxpayer thinks this plan is outright stupid and wasteful. If the existing structure needs beefing up, do it."


Holding on to the River Parks bridge, September 16

https://tulsaworld.com/opinion/letters/letter-to-the-editor-holding-on-to-the-river-parks-bridge/article_8c06035c-f39c-11ea-8ca5-8b73737d3480.html

Selected quote: "In a city which has bulldozed many of its historic downtown buildings, maybe we might want to hold on to this old bridge. Just saying."


New pedestrian bridge is a step backward, October 20

https://tulsaworld.com/opinion/letters/letter-to-the-editor-new-pedestrian-bridge-is-a-step-backward/article_c8b3ebe8-10d4-11eb-9b82-8f63760b24e6.html

Selected quote: "Please, block the premature demolition of our time-tested, now-abandoned bridge. Research the question impartially. Do not settle for an unworthy successor. Replace it wisely or not at all."


Wonder if anyone with authority is listening...

As much as I would like there to be shade on this bridge how many other pedestrian bridges have shade structures?  Genuine question.  I'm familiar with the one in Austin and it doesn't have any kind of shade, and their summers are longer and more brutal than ours.

The pedestrian bridge over Tempe Town Lake has three areas where shade can be added or removed as the weather changes.

https://goo.gl/maps/dpJDbntKBGCZAGcPA (https://goo.gl/maps/dpJDbntKBGCZAGcPA)

https://goo.gl/maps/91fqY94Bn5gz862L8 (https://goo.gl/maps/91fqY94Bn5gz862L8)

https://goo.gl/maps/cYuf3kJDTRg1v2ve6 (https://goo.gl/maps/cYuf3kJDTRg1v2ve6)

I understand the disappointment and fondness of the old bridge, but don't want to see this become some grand conspiracy theory like everything else these days. If the experts say a bridge is unsafe, we should believe them. I do also agree that the bridge design needs to be revisted. We can call for a better bridge without assuming there's some conspiracy to deliver a poor design.

As much as I would like there to be shade on this bridge how many other pedestrian bridges have shade structures?  Genuine question.  I'm familiar with the one in Austin and it doesn't have any kind of shade, and their summers are longer and more brutal than ours.

Then they have failed in part on their bridge.   Doesn't mean we should fail, too....

Providence also built a new pedestrian bridge...no shade (but looks really nice with the wood planks): https://www.archpaper.com/2020/11/the-providence-river-pedestrian-and-bicycle-bridge-continues-a-shipbuilding-tradition/?trk_msg=VUS83G1H07UKF8KI6H1IGIVL4G&trk_contact=TJ4P18D0QVRFFGLVQQOQVURVKS&trk_sid=F1BE2V9NA7NHMO0RII06OKUIS4&utm_source=listrak&utm_medium=email&utm_term=The+Providence+River+Pedestrian+and+Bicycle+Bridge+continues+a+shipbuilding+tradition&utm_campaign=Outdoor+Spaces%3a+The+Providence+River+Pedestrian+and+Bicycle+Bridge+repurposes+highway+infrastructure (https://www.archpaper.com/2020/11/the-providence-river-pedestrian-and-bicycle-bridge-continues-a-shipbuilding-tradition/?trk_msg=VUS83G1H07UKF8KI6H1IGIVL4G&trk_contact=TJ4P18D0QVRFFGLVQQOQVURVKS&trk_sid=F1BE2V9NA7NHMO0RII06OKUIS4&utm_source=listrak&utm_medium=email&utm_term=The+Providence+River+Pedestrian+and+Bicycle+Bridge+continues+a+shipbuilding+tradition&utm_campaign=Outdoor+Spaces%3a+The+Providence+River+Pedestrian+and+Bicycle+Bridge+repurposes+highway+infrastructure)

Omaha also has a fairly new pedestrian suspension bridge...no shade https://www.visitomaha.com/bob/ (https://www.visitomaha.com/bob/)

Dublin OH (outside Columbus) has a new bridge...no shade https://www.forbes.com/sites/reginacole/2020/04/16/dublin-ohio-builds-a-pedestrian-bridge-between-old-and-new/?sh=7bf5f8192f75 (https://www.forbes.com/sites/reginacole/2020/04/16/dublin-ohio-builds-a-pedestrian-bridge-between-old-and-new/?sh=7bf5f8192f75)

The aforementioned Austin pedestrian bridge...no shade https://www.aiaaustin.org/firm_project/pfluger-pedestrian-bridge (https://www.aiaaustin.org/firm_project/pfluger-pedestrian-bridge)

I made a call the other day. Had a lengthy conversation (I mostly listened) about the much discussed bridge report/safety/restoration issues…

After that call, I was sent a copy of the 2015 HNTB report and given additional notes on it.

Very pertinent info; you can read about what I learned and can now download the full report (to see for yourself) at www.pedbridge.com/blog/

Please consider signing the petition.

Unless somebody is discussing this as a design-build, then I really don't trust any of the cost estimates. This is a pretty special area and it's not like we have tons of pricing to get an accurate number of what would be the most efficient way to do construction. I would also like to see the existing bridge or something similar, but I really don't trust any engineer saying that this will save 10%.

Unfortunately, by statute, Design-Build is not easily authorized on Public work in Oklahoma.

Unfortunately, by statute, Design-Build is not easily authorized on Public work in Oklahoma.

C. The design-build and construction management project delivery methods shall not be used for any project unless the project meets the criteria established by the administrative rules promulgated as required by this act. Such methods shall not be used unless there is a need for compressed construction time as required to respond to a natural disaster or other emergency situation affecting public health and safety, or all of the following criteria for designation are met:

1. The project benefits the public;

2. There is a need for cost control; and

3. The need exists for specialized or complex construction methods due to the unique nature of the project.

Have you looked at the HNTB report?

They have the cred:

https://www.hntb.com/bridges/

Look at the numbers in their report.

I'm not saying that it is wrong, just that I would much rather have a contractor give us an estimate on something that is fairly abnormal. We are now comparing a 5 year old preliminary study done using RS Means and ODOT historical pricing to an as-bid price. They aren't really the same thing. I think your argument is strong enough that the new bridge as designed isn't a good use of our money compared to other options (KKT Bridge?). But I don't buy for an instant that we could rehab the old bridge for half the price of a new bridge. I think HNTB lowballed the repair option and we picked an expensive and bad new bridge.

Also, that is interesting about design-built. I think this would be a perfect implementation for it.

I'm not saying that it is wrong, just that I would much rather have a contractor give us an estimate on something that is fairly abnormal. We are now comparing a 5 year old preliminary study done using RS Means and ODOT historical pricing to an as-bid price. They aren't really the same thing. I think your argument is strong enough that the new bridge as designed isn't a good use of our money compared to other options (KKT Bridge?). But I don't buy for an instant that we could rehab the old bridge for half the price of a new bridge. I think HNTB lowballed the repair option and we picked an expensive and bad new bridge.

Also, that is interesting about design-built. I think this would be a perfect implementation for it.

Why would HNTB have lowballed the repair option and on what grounds do you come to that opinion?  (It wasn't a bid to do the work; I'm just not seeing any motive for them to have lowballed.)

Something somewhat similar to this was said to me between my last post and this one. (Besides which...just my impression...if they were low-balling, isn't the high estimate of almost 20 million a bit high?! Now since I'm not a professional engineer, I can't check this for myself, but from what I've heard...)

I think, bottom line, it does seem pretty clear:

There is good reason to have confidence in HNTB's ability and in their having provided a reasonably accurate estimate. Their figures would certainly be considered significant evidence in a court of law, over and above any run-of-the-mill opinion. It's our best evidence at the moment...

Another thought: Imagine if the public had been told HNTB's full recommendations five years ago...

Why would HNTB have lowballed the repair option and on what grounds do you come to that opinion?  (It wasn't a bid to do the work; I'm just not seeing any motive for them to have lowballed.)

When is the planned demo of the old bridge?

My question is why does the old bridge need to be demoed? I think the new bridge is supposed to be built north of the old bridge, right and it isn't in the way of the new dam I believe - could be wrong though?

Why not keep it open while we can and use it as the pedestrian crossing for walkers, fishing, etc. and the new bridge as a bike/other crossing for faster movement. Especially if we can't afford to install shade or any other amenities. Seems like a win/win and we get separated crossings.

I do get that at some point the old bridge will be unstable and need to be closed but I feel like from what other people have said and what other engineers have said is that bridge isn't in critical fear of collapse. Why not keep it around for another few years, especially until we have the ability to raise money to add shade, etc. to the new bridge. Maybe down the road we can figure out a way to keep both.

When is the planned demo of the old bridge?

My question is why does the old bridge need to be demoed? I think the new bridge is supposed to be built north of the old bridge, right and it isn't in the way of the new dam I believe - could be wrong though?

Why not keep it open while we can and use it as the pedestrian crossing for walkers, fishing, etc. and the new bridge as a bike/other crossing for faster movement. Especially if we can't afford to install shade or any other amenities. Seems like a win/win and we get separated crossings.

I do get that at some point the old bridge will be unstable and need to be closed but I feel like from what other people have said and what other engineers have said is that bridge isn't in critical fear of collapse. Why not keep it around for another few years, especially until we have the ability to raise money to add shade, etc. to the new bridge. Maybe down the road we can figure out a way to keep both.

The bridge IS in fear of collapse. The existing piers are dangerous and crumbling apart. The whole point of this whole ordeal is that the bridge isn't deemed to be safe in it's current condition.

When is the planned demo of the old bridge?

My question is why does the old bridge need to be demoed? I think the new bridge is supposed to be built north of the old bridge, right and it isn't in the way of the new dam I believe - could be wrong though?

Why not keep it open while we can and use it as the pedestrian crossing for walkers, fishing, etc. and the new bridge as a bike/other crossing for faster movement. Especially if we can't afford to install shade or any other amenities. Seems like a win/win and we get separated crossings.

As I understand it the hydraulic model does not provide for "zero rise" (which is one of the design conditions) at the 100 year flood level with the piers from two bridges that close to the LWD.

I wonder if this is really true that it's in fear of collapse or it that's been a 'spin' put on it to push for the new bridge. No doubt there is deferred maintenance on the old bridge that needs to be fixed and I could be wrong, I haven't dug into the history of this much, but I was thinking the main obstacle to keeping the old bridge was that the piers would not support making it a double deck bridge and that modifications to the bridge to facilitate more capacity was far too expensive and we should just build new for that reason. I didn't think the bridge was ever in such poor condition it couldn't be kept in its current fashion for a while. The powers that be just wanted a bigger and nicer bridge that could have separated bike lanes and then an area for pedestrians.

Someone who has read through it could probably answer this, but did the HNTB report just talk about keeping the bridge the way it is and just transferring to new piers or did it go on to discuss that the new piers would allow for the bridge to be modified to a double deck situation that was wanted? Browsing through it this wasn't apparent to me at least.

Even if the piers needed major restoration for safety reasons - why not build a smaller new bridge just for bikes, runners, etc. and then fix the piers on the current bridge, add some new lighting to make it look better at night, etc. and then we solve several of the issues at hand. Seems like the money saved on slightly scaling down the new bridge could possibly pay for repairs to the old bridge to keep it acceptable for pedestrian use.

Seems like there is some solutions out there if the city and others wanted to make it happen, just not sure if they really do. Seems like the entire point of building new has completely evaporated with no shade, seating, and not really having proper spacing between pedestrians and bikes.

We're just getting a crappy version of a new bridge that will have worse functional utility than the old bridge just for vanity purposes to have a bridge designed by MVVA. 

This would taking hoarding to a new level.

You won the internet for the month.  

We would have a growing collection of structurally-deficient bridges for certain.  Tulsa could become the "Obsolete Bridge Capital Of The World." it's another great tourism scheme.

If anyone read the entire article the estimate to repair the old bridge is $20 plus million.  I have fond memories of the old bridge dating back to the early raft races, but maybe I'm just not sentimental enough about it.  Wreck it.

Question is that $20 million figure to repair the bridge as is, or is that figure the 'repairs' needed to make it a double deck bridge. Two very different options.

Just my opinion on the situation but I'd far prefer us keep the old bridge as a non double deck option as a primarily pedestrian crossing given it has shade. If the new bridge was going to be built as promised I'd have far less of a problem and wouldn't think a revaluation was needed.

Given that's not how it's gone I do hope that some at the city stop and ask the question of what other options might we have? Like something I mentioned, maybe scale down the new bridge further and move it further north where the northern stop light is and offers a middle crossing between the old bridge and 21st. It also preserves the ability for pedestrians to walk out on the river without being cooked.

I have an issue with us spending so much money for a vanity project that's tax payer funded where we've had to cut out every amenity to the bridge (shade, benches, etc.)

Either that or our city leaders need to have a very serious discussion on the utility of the bridge and what's really important. Maybe we need to a simpler bridge which doesn't look as pretty but have far better utility in which is the sole purpose of the bridge. I have a problem with us spending tax payer money on a design like this that isn't needed (coming from someone who has degrees in this field) and ignores the purpose of needing a new bridge in the first place (separated bikes/pedestrians, better shade, sitting areas, etc.).

The first priority should have always been how to do pay for the things needed, if we couldn't afford the fancy design from MVVA then they should have raised money for that part... not the other way around. It's a complete bait and switch and feels like a kick back to the landscape architect via us. We shouldn't be in the situation were we're being told oh we'll fundraise for benches and shade at some point in the future... that just shouldn't be acceptable. This new bridge also does not appear to even provide better separation of bikes/pedestrians which was supposedly the biggest driver of why the old bridge couldn't be repair. Seems like BS to me.

At the very least it should be vetted publicly further given we aren't getting what was promised to us in the first place to be shown this really is the best thing, instead of the vibe of 'just trust us, blah blah' that we've gotten from the city. There's very valid questions that can be asked and thought on that in the end will be better for everyone.

Question is that $20 million figure to repair the bridge as is, or is that figure the 'repairs' needed to make it a double deck bridge. Two very different options.

Just my opinion on the situation but I'd far prefer us keep the old bridge as a non double deck option as a primarily pedestrian crossing given it has shade. If the new bridge was going to be built as promised I'd have far less of a problem and wouldn't think a revaluation was needed.

Given that's not how it's gone I do hope that some at the city stop and ask the question of what other options might we have? Like something I mentioned, maybe scale down the new bridge further and move it further north where the northern stop light is and offers a middle crossing between the old bridge and 21st. It also preserves the ability for pedestrians to walk out on the river without being cooked.

I have an issue with us spending so much money for a vanity project that's tax payer funded where we've had to cut out every amenity to the bridge (shade, benches, etc.)

Either that or our city leaders need to have a very serious discussion on the utility of the bridge and what's really important. Maybe we need to a simpler bridge which doesn't look as pretty but have far better utility in which is the sole purpose of the bridge. I have a problem with us spending tax payer money on a design like this that isn't needed (coming from someone who has degrees in this field) and ignores the purpose of needing a new bridge in the first place (separated bikes/pedestrians, better shade, sitting areas, etc.).

The first priority should have always been how to do pay for the things needed, if we couldn't afford the fancy design from MVVA then they should have raised money for that part... not the other way around. It's a complete bait and switch and feels like a kick back to the landscape architect via us. We shouldn't be in the situation were we're being told oh we'll fundraise for benches and shade at some point in the future... that just shouldn't be acceptable. This new bridge also does not appear to even provide better separation of bikes/pedestrians which was supposedly the biggest driver of why the old bridge couldn't be repaired. That the only option was this very costly double decking of that bridge which would require significantly different reconstruction of the piers and structural supports. Seems like BS to me honestly.

At the very least it should be vetted publicly further given we aren't getting what was promised to us in the first place to be shown this really is the best thing, instead of the vibe of 'just trust us, blah blah' that we've gotten from the city. There's very valid questions that can be asked and thought on that in the end will be better for everyone.

For analogy purposes this entire thing seems like we're getting a BOK Center exterior design (starchitect) with the old Ford Center interior... kind of backwards. Imagine if we had done that. The reason why the BOK Center is worth it was because we did it right and was purposely designed to be a superior arena for concerts compared to other regional venues. We are not doing the pedestrian bridge right currently. I'd by far rather have a Ford Center exterior and a BOK interior... the thing that actually matters to people who are using it and not just an Instagram picture.

This is a great post in many ways. Conan, LandArch is right. The "20 million" (19.9) figure is indeed the HIGH estimate for the double-decker, as given in the 2015 HNTB report. The HNTB report gives a LOW double-deck rehabilitation estimate of approximately "17.5 Million."  NO ONE in the media has yet reported about the single-deck versus double-deck rehabilitation distinction. I have told EVERYONE. Always edited out. It could save MANY MILLIONS according to what I've been told.

I always respect and look forward to reading your development opinions and your contributions here.

A pedestrian bridge in this location is a vanity project whether it's a new bridge or pouring $20m into something nearly as old as the very city itself which has structural and liability issues.  The pedestrian bridge is purely recreational with the exception of a small number of commuters using it, I did when I'd ride my bike to work in west Tulsa, but it's not like there was a huge throng of us commuting back and forth daily that we can say commerce really benefitted from it.  

I get the idea of public input on a final product for the bridge, but is anyone really going to remember in 20 years that there was any controversy revolving around pedestrian bridges?  Maybe I'm too far removed from the daily happenings in Tulsa and my thoughts are the citizens of Tulsa have been given a $350 million park and now people are sounding a bit ungrateful about a nice accoutrement to the park in the form of a bridge.  I'm pretty sure any shortfalls out of V-2025 funding or whichever pot this came from will be underwritten by GKFF and some of his close associates.

You and Gator bring up an interesting point I hadn't remembered about the old pedestrian bridge: People stopping and hanging over the edges and enjoying views.  That is somewhat of a difference for the other bridges as they are just throughways though you might get some people hanging out looking at downtown or south down the river.

I'm not overly aware of what they are calling for on the current design on the new bridge.  If it's not much wider then what Paul Zachary was saying about insufficient width for the flow on the old bridge doesn't hold water...but that still doesn't ameliorate all the structural unknowns once you start in on a 116 year old steel bridge.

I still think a new bridge is a safer investment but points about it being able to accommodate people out for an easy stroll or dropping a line over the rail as well as people jogging or pedaling along is well taken.

I guess I need to dig in further on what they have narrowed down to the current design (pun may or may not be intended).  My interest piqued when I saw in the TW that a petition was being circulated to stop the demo of the old bridge and I figured I could count on a few of you here to fill me in on the controversy and I appreciate your responses.  When I left Tulsa in 2017, I was under the impression that the old bridge was toast.

  It's like buying a new Range Rover with crank windows and cloth seats... no thanks.

I thought the same until I dug a little deeper on it as well and then when a few people started posting about it here I have learned even more.

Sounds like we weren't really lied to by the city but we were told 10% of the truth and they just omitted the rest (like that they studied other options in that HNTB report). The bridge is toast if you're talking about retrofitting it to be a double deck pedestrian bridge which would allow to break up the various uses (active users and passive users). However, it appears like it really would not be a monumental feat in order to save the bridge as is...

The city and others are being fairly misleading when they quote the cost to fix the old bridge is 'too much and should be new for that reason' in the figure they always point to is what it'd cost expand it with a second deck and refurbish it - not to keep it the same size and fix deferred maintenance issues, like moving it onto new piers.

You have to ask yourself why would we pay so much for a new bridge that might end up being twice as much to keep the old bridge as is without the double deck, to not really get any better function out of the new bridge. Yes, you'd still have the issues of bikes versus pedestrians on the old bridge and the city points back to that - but I don't see how the new bridge vastly improves that issue with the cut back that it's worth building new. 

If we were getting the bridge promised to us, I'd have very different feelings about it. Instead, to preserve the vanity of the project, they're cutting the utility (the critical part) out of the new bridge - and that's completely backwards. It's like buying a new Range Rover with crank windows and cloth seats... no thanks. We can raise money later for power windows though... It looks nice to take pictures for Instagram while standing outside it, just don't ask your friends to ride with you. 

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?

Michael Wallis supports saving the bridge. See his important statement in today's paper. Or you can see it online.

https://www.facebook.com/tulsaworldopinion/posts/1761774130648688

Bridge petition is currently over 1,300 signatures.

Hope you have been enjoying a great Christmas Season!

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?

er successor, DeCort says, will also have to carry on the foundation’s advocacy for the 11th Street Bridge, where the original Route 66 crossed the Arkansas River. It’s still standing but not used.

“It’s frustrating that we still haven’t found a way to repurpose it,” she says, listing it as her “biggest disappointment.” “It’s the reason Tulsa has Route 66, and I see tourists there every day. Something needs to be done with it.”

I read the report several years ago and as I recall the 11th Street Bridge is a structural mess due to chloride contamination which likely came from the river water used for mixing the concrete during construction.  I love arched bridges, especially that one as my Grandfather took it from his home on North Denver to work in the oil fields but unfortunately the only way I see the Avery bridge re-opening would be to construct a new one in its place and I'm not sure that is even possible with registered historic structures.  

Also note that the new pathway under the 244 bridge was Federally funded and the 11th street bridge does not qualify for such Federal Highway funds.

When I first started driving in 1979, the 11th St. bridge was open for all four lanes. Then a couple of years later the report came out that there were problems with the bridge and it was narrowed to two lanes, no vehicles over 10,000 lbs, and no pedestrian traffic, and then by '82 or '83 late 1980 it was closed and the new bridge was in place. Pedestrian traffic was close off in 2008.

I just remember everyone saying something to the effect of "The bridge is at a point of imminent collapse". I don't doubt that there where structural defects, it's just like how many other hundreds of bridges in the state that for decades was a case of deferred maintenance like the bridges on the BA from Yale to downtown.(specifically Yale to Utica)

The same seems to be true for the Midland bridge. I remember when it first opened it was only half way, but it had one or two observation decks on the top side, that were later removed since they were deemed unsafe because of structural issues with the bridge, and that was 40+ years ago.

I know there were question about it's structural condition after the floods in '84, '86, and I want to say that there was one or two more in the late 90's early 00's that there was long periods of high water flows in the river.

modified to reflect info according to Wiki

Like Zingo?  ;-)

Seriously, there are a couple places in The Gathering Place where the old bridge could be repurposed and preserved.

https://www.facebook.com/TulsaPedestrianBridge/posts/169878848287444

It's not available to people without a Facebook account.

Lol....gotta have Facebook!   How else can the entire interwebz snoop into your life?   

There seems to be plenty of other opportunities, although some of the info is incorrect.

I mean it's literally in the process of being dismantled right now. It can't be stopped. I wish there was another solution, but it's too late, and preservation has lost the fight. Disappointing, but not sure what is left other than complaining about another piece of history being lost. Calls, emails, none of it matters now.

Looking forward to watching more pieces get installed.  I know this bridge has its detractors but I think it will look really cool especially lit up at night.

(https://static-12.sinclairstoryline.com/resources/media/2f18350a-ae46-4e1b-b938-75df89dc0b78-large16x9_GatewayBridgerendering1.jpg)

It looks pretty similar to the rendering - especially after the cross braces come off that are in place while moving the pieces.  The TW article indicates they will finish the west side by February and then will start working on the east side to connect it with the expected opening in spring 2023

How wide is the bridge deck?  Arched base looks super narrow (around 4') and it appears as though the vertical parts angle outward, but guessing the deck is perhaps 10' wide?

It looks pretty similar to the rendering - especially after the cross braces come off that are in place while moving the pieces.  The TW article indicates they will finish the west side by February and then will start working on the east side to connect it with the expected opening in spring 2023

(https://scontent-ort2-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.6435-9/249048085_2029163357261022_8406983909351470827_n.jpg?_nc_cat=102&ccb=1-5&_nc_sid=730e14&_nc_ohc=i28jcXPpM9MAX9psh4x&tn=1n3eGh-esQMtKFKs&_nc_ht=scontent-ort2-1.xx&oh=b8ebb56172cd4db2261513d04f0fac22&oe=619E11C0)

Or maybe the diagonals stay after engineering analysis.  They would go nicely with an Art-Deco city if the bolted joints were rivets instead.

I don’t mind them kind of wish they were staying to be honest.  But if they were the steel would need to match

They just look a bit elaborate to temporary.  I don't know enough about the grade(s) of steel that form protective rust to say whether that would work.  Maybe the angles are not made in the steel that can rust for protection.

I guess they could be permanent, they aren’t in the latest rendering and don’t match the finish of the rest of the steel is why I assumed they were temporary supports.  I guess we’ll find out over the next few months.

I guess they could be permanent, they aren’t in the latest rendering and don’t match the finish of the rest of the steel is why I assumed they were temporary supports.  I guess we’ll find out over the next few months.

No way are they permanent. It's just a bunch of scrap angle iron and some pieces of flat steel probably cut with a metal brake that are put in place for support during transport. I'm assuming they will remove the temp supports, fill holes, and coat the remaining elements when in place since unless they're shooting for rust streaks going down the foundations which is probably a little too steampunk for the masses.

Also - all grades of steel rust. You have to get into an allow like stainless steel to get any kind of corrosion resistance without some sort of coating being added (like a powdercoat). I seriously doubt they used weathering steel on this since the budget was already shot. Hopefully they'll budget some money to do a yearly repaint or at least touch-up of the bridge.

They used weathering steel. That’s why there was no money left over for amenities.

Well then - I stand corrected. That is gonna streak the crap out of the support pillars.

It shouldn’t come off if it’s coated correctly.  It will require annual maintenance and periodic recoating though.  Evidently the increased budget also includes the promised lighting and upgraded railings (not sure if that means aluminum or glass)

Weathering steel:
https://usbridge.com/what-is-weathering-steel/

Weathering or corten is about 2x the cost of regular steel. Imagine what kind of bridge we could have had if they just used regular steel instead. Would have at least gave back $5 million or more I bet that could have gone to shade, wider bridge deck, seating, etc. that we were all told they couldn't afford.

Maybe we should have just built a SkyRide over the river?

No way are they permanent. It's just a bunch of scrap angle iron and some pieces of flat steel probably cut with a metal brake that are put in place for support during transport. I'm assuming they will remove the temp supports, fill holes, and coat the remaining elements when in place since unless they're shooting for rust streaks going down the foundations which is probably a little too steampunk for the masses.

Also - all grades of steel rust. You have to get into an allow like stainless steel to get any kind of corrosion resistance without some sort of coating being added (like a powdercoat). I seriously doubt they used weathering steel on this since the budget was already shot. Hopefully they'll budget some money to do a yearly repaint or at least touch-up of the bridge.

(https://i.ibb.co/PjF3BLS/FB-IMG-1639889304361.jpg)

the crew is making the Coffer Dam jump to the East side this weekend.

So it looks like we're getting most of the bells and whistles after all... pretty proud of my company for putting up some of the cash for this. :)

https://tulsaworld.com/news/local/private-donors-pitch-in-7-2-million-to-push-pedestrian-bridge-construction-forward/article_0accc620-bc42-11ec-b8e2-f7eb2760aaf8.html?utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook&utm_campaign=user-share&fbclid=IwAR26wvRN8J8sakbsmYQGneMl9jj9Y5Q6kqs5PMev88O7wyvTNvlXMk_F2sU

I figured they'd eventually find a donor, glad to see Williams step up as usual to help add some of the needed items. I'm still baffled why shade is not a bigger priority of the city to include. The seating will be useless most of the year without shade structures. At least a big step forward to making the utility of the bridge better.

Yeah it seems like they could have done the shade thing instead of like the LEDs? I mean the LEDs will be cool and all, but I’d rather have the shade structure. But it seems like they are just maybe working on more corporate donations for that part… I bet it will be added eventually.

I don’t get the fascination with the shade structure.  You don’t have shade structures over the rest of the trails why is it needed on the bridge? 

I don’t get the fascination with the shade structure.  You don’t have shade structures over the rest of the trails why is it needed on the bridge?  

I don’t get the fascination with the shade structure.  You don’t have shade structures over the rest of the trails why is it needed on the bridge? 

Without shade why would any casual user want to be on the bridge or gather on the bridge. The added amenities from Williams will help, but without shade the seating will be unusable most of the year.

It comes down to the uses/utility of the bridge. If you're going to put seating on the bridge, it needs shade. My irritations with the bridge originally was that if we want to tear down the old one for a "bigger, better" new bridge that it should at least have the same or more utility. Right now the bridge is really only going to be good for bike riders and probably joggers. We were sold on the idea that the bridge would have the ability to be utilized for more casual visitors as well. Especially for the Gathering Place users, there should be a significant amount of more casual users who are walking versus bike/running/exercise and those users would be spending more time on the structure. Without shade why would any casual user want to be on the bridge or gather on the bridge. The added amenities from Williams will help, but without shade the seating will be unusable most of the year.

Shade solution:  Just provide bridge crossing umbrellas on each end. 
Install the umbrella app on your phone to rent the umbrella.

I get your point, but "most of the year" seems a bit extreme.  It's maybe June-August where having no shade would be untenable for the vast majority of the time, and even then there are times when it isn't quite as hot, it's cloudy, etc., and also people don't just use it in the heat of the day... tons of people walk on the trails in the morning and in the evening when it could be used in the summer.