The Tulsa Forum by TulsaNow

(http://www.tulsanow.org/forumpics/boulderbridge.jpg)

Source of above image:
http://www.tulsadevelopmentauthority.org/brady_infill_pdf/section_6_sw_quadrant_concept_development_plan.pdf

Tulsa World article about funding:
http://tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=070805_1_A15_spanc46213

The Boulder Bridge is listed as a high priority for the Brady Village as it will be the main tie between Brady Village and the BOK Center as well as the fact it is one of only two northbound railroad overpasses downtown. City planning has listed the bridge for rehabilitation to part vehicle/part pedestrian although the exact method of rehabilitation or replacement is not yet finalized.

Estimated Cost: $14.4M (City estimate)
Location: Boulder, from 1st to Archer
Status: Seeking federal funding


If you have project details or images you want posted to the forum, you can email admin (at) tulsanow.org and we will post it.

The Brady Village Infill Plan (http://"http://www.tulsadevelopmentauthority.org/plans_brady_infill.html") has many interesting and good ideas.  But I hope that a couple of them are not implemented:
 
1.  Textured pavement on sidewalks, crosswalks, and other pedestrian areas
 
The City has gone crazy with concrete unit pavers and brick pavers.  The concrete unit pavers on the sidewalks and crosswalks along Main Street from 3rd to 6th are relatively rough and uneven compared to concrete.  The brick pavers on 5th Street from Denver to Boston are also rough.  In general, the brand new concrete unit pavers being installed on the sidewalks along Boston between 3rd and 7th create worse walking surfaces than the old concrete sidewalks they replaced.  I've noticed uneven and subsided pavers in several locations.  In some instances, the pavers seem to slope down toward the buildings, such as at the southeast corner of 5th and Boston near the Philcade.  This can lead to leaks into the basements below the sidewalks.
 
Tulsa would be better served by concrete sidewalks properly sloped down away from buildings and toward the curbs.  Textured pavement and unit pavers, if used at all, should be installed in places where people don't walk or should be used as warning devices to protect pedestrians.  For example, areas of textured pavement at the sides of crosswalks can warn motorists to slow down when they hear their tires rumbling while allowing smooth and safer pavement in the actual crosswalks.  A small detail strip of unit pavers installed along a curb alerting pedestrians to a change in elevation of the walking surface is another example.  Placing a few unit pavers around the base of a tree makes some sense.  Installing some accent areas of pavers in seating areas is not a bad idea if those areas are actually used for sitting and not walking.  Textured pavement and unit pavers are costly compared to ordinary concrete.  The City could save lots of money with paint on smooth concrete or asphalt.  The textured pavement should be limited to very small areas.
 
 
2.  Acorn type post lights
 
These are too glaringly bright.  An example is shown in Exhibit 18 on page 28 of Section 5.4 (http://"http://www.tulsadevelopmentauthority.org/brady_infill_pdf/section_5.4_specific_design_policies.pdf") in the Brady Village Infill Plan (http://"http://www.tulsadevelopmentauthority.org/plans_brady_infill.html") online.  City of Tulsa:  Please, please, please -- I'm begging that no more of these lights be installed!  We need fixtures that direct light toward the ground where it's needed.  
 
In contrast, the trafficway light fixtures shown in Exhibit 19 on page 29 appear to be good fixtures provided the lamps are not too bright.

---

 
I've clicked through various sections of the Brady Village Plan link, and I want to emphasize that I think the plan's positive aspects far outweigh the two negatives I mentioned above.  And, contrary to Ken Neal's opinion which appeared in last Sunday's World, my complaint that the rough unit pavers are generally inferior in quality to concrete sidewalks doesn't make me a grump.  We are spending many millions of tax dollars on the streets and sidewalks downtown.  We deserve to have them done correctly.  

quote:

---

Originally posted by booWorld

The Brady Village Infill Plan (http://"http://www.tulsadevelopmentauthority.org/plans_brady_infill.html") has many interesting and good ideas.  But I hope that a couple of them are not implemented:
 
1.  Textured pavement on sidewalks, crosswalks, and other pedestrian areas
 
The City has gone crazy with concrete unit pavers and brick pavers.  The concrete unit pavers on the sidewalks and crosswalks along Main Street from 3rd to 6th are relatively rough and uneven compared to concrete.  The brick pavers on 5th Street from Denver to Boston are also rough.  In general, the brand new concrete unit pavers being installed on the sidewalks along Boston between 3rd and 7th create worse walking surfaces than the old concrete sidewalks they replaced.  I've noticed uneven and subsided pavers in several locations.  In some instances, the pavers seem to slope down toward the buildings, such as at the southeast corner of 5th and Boston near the Philcade.  This can lead to leaks into the basements below the sidewalks.
 
Tulsa would be better served by concrete sidewalks properly sloped down away from buildings and toward the curbs.  Textured pavement and unit pavers, if used at all, should be installed in places where people don't walk or should be used as warning devices to protect pedestrians.  For example, areas of textured pavement at the sides of crosswalks can warn motorists to slow down when they hear their tires rumbling while allowing smooth and safer pavement in the actual crosswalks.  A small detail strip of unit pavers installed along a curb alerting pedestrians to a change in elevation of the walking surface is another example.  Placing a few unit pavers around the base of a tree makes some sense.  Installing some accent areas of pavers in seating areas is not a bad idea if those areas are actually used for sitting and not walking.  Textured pavement and unit pavers are costly compared to ordinary concrete.  The City could save lots of money with paint on smooth concrete or asphalt.  The textured pavement should be limited to very small areas.
 
 
2.  Acorn type post lights
 
These are too glaringly bright.  An example is shown in Exhibit 18 on page 28 of Section 5.4 (http://"http://www.tulsadevelopmentauthority.org/brady_infill_pdf/section_5.4_specific_design_policies.pdf") in the Brady Village Infill Plan (http://"http://www.tulsadevelopmentauthority.org/plans_brady_infill.html") online.  City of Tulsa:  Please, please, please -- I'm begging that no more of these lights be installed!  We need fixtures that direct light toward the ground where it's needed.  
 
In contrast, the trafficway light fixtures shown in Exhibit 19 on page 29 appear to be good fixtures provided the lamps are not too bright.

---

 
I've clicked through various sections of the Brady Village Plan link, and I want to emphasize that I think the plan's positive aspects far outweigh the two negatives I mentioned above.  And, contrary to Ken Neal's opinion which appeared in last Sunday's World, my complaint that the rough unit pavers are generally inferior in quality to concrete sidewalks doesn't make me a grump.  We are spending many millions of tax dollars on the streets and sidewalks downtown.  We deserve to have them done correctly.  

---

I agree completely.  Unit pavers never last as long.  Look at 5th street east of Denver.  Look at Brookside.  They are higher maintenance.  Let sidewalks be concrete, score it in a pattern, finish it with a color, whatever, there is no reason for unit pavers.  They are charming when they are real brick, but you don't see many brick sidewalks in dense cities like NY and Chicago.

And the acorn lights would only be charming if they were gas lanterns.  [}:)]

I have mixed feelings about this project. At least the bridge as proposed would be only 2 lanes of traffic with a wide pedestrian promenade. So the design looks decent.

But I question the wisdom of having a bridge at that location for the amount of money it will cost and (especially) how long we'll have to wait for the dadgum thing. My personal opinion is that they should simply remove the bridge and return Boulder to an at-grade crossing. Here's why in no particular order:

1) The bridge is a visual barrier. It's always struck me that you can't see the Brady Theater from Boulder at 1st or 2nd Street, even though it's only a couple of blocks away. Next time you're at the Blue Dome at 2nd & Elgin, look north up Elgin and you'll see what I mean. You can see all the way to the IDL overpass at Cameron. Why not open up that line of sight to visually connect the two sides of the tracks?

2) Bridges can be intimidating for pedestrians to cross. I think the Boston Avenue bridge is a fine example. Who wants to cross that at night? You can't see the entire length of your journey, who knows what's up at the peak of the bridge waiting for you, and if there's trouble, there's nowhere to go -- you're stuck on the bridge. I think the new Boulder bridge wouldn't be utilized by pedestrians as much as the planners would like to think. Especially if there's a lot of trees or landscaping to further obstruct the line of sight. Too ominous.

3) If there's a train crossing the tracks and people really need to get across the tracks, there's a little-traveled bridge at Main one block away.

4) Although Tulsa's bridges over the tracks used to have businesses along both sides:
(http://www.tulsalibrary.org/JPG/B1690.jpg)
(1st & Main looking north)

And there's nothing preventing that from happening again, having an at-grade crossing might be preferable for development (i.e. flat land).

5) Taking #4 a step further, with an at-grade crossing it would be easy to make Boulder the transit stop for the light rail line that INCOG is talking about putting in between downtown and Broken Arrow. Absolutely PERFECT location, 1.5 blocks from the Brady Theater, 4 blocks from the Cain's, 3 blocks from the new arena, 2 blocks from the Jazz Hall of Fame and 1-2 blocks from the BOK tower for commuters.

In any case, it will be years before they secure the federal funding for a new bridge, and we could create a safe, attractive at-grade crossing for way less than $14.4 million much sooner than that.

I thought there was money in the most recent Third Penny for this bridge.

quote:

---

Originally posted by MichaelBates

I thought there was money in the most recent Third Penny for this bridge.

---

there is, at the end. They are hoping for leftover money.

I've been pondering the bridge scenario in downtown for a while now, and I support the removal of them--maybe not all, but at least two.  They are, as AJ has pointed out, visual barriers between vital parts of downtown.

That visual barrier then creates a feeling that once you cross them, you're not really in downtown anymore at all.  It really does feel like you're miles away, because there's no link.

Sometimes as I travel those bridges on foot, I stop for a second at each tiny plaque memorializing the businesses that once stood there as part of Black Wall Street... and I can't help but think that the city of Tulsa built those bridges for that specific reason of creating a physical and visual barrier to that part of town... They did all they could to cover up what happened, and what better way to ensure most of the businesses were never rebuilt than to built steeply graded bridges...  Just something I've thought about a lot lately.

As for another way to completely remove all those bridges--those barriers...  Though it would be costly, I think the railroad lines should be 'dropped' into the ground low enough that cars could pass over them without even knowing they were going over a working railroad.  Many cities bury railroad tracks, and Tulsa could certainly do the same, but I don't think it would be necessary to completely bury them (though it'd be nice).  Just drop them low enough to keep the roads flat, creating a very strong visual and physical link between those two distinct parts of downtown.  It might also open up some of that land that has laid barren for so long between the beginning and apex of the bridges for possible retail/office/residential development...

Just thoughts...

A I understand it, the city cannot do anything to the railroad tracks, all they can do is kindly request for the railroads to do it and give them money. They have been working on getting the new quad gates put in for years now to support a downtown quiet corridor and it's going from from quickly. You also cannot create a grade greater than 1% for the rail lines for risk of making the line impassible. I would support at-grade vehicle crossings and pedestrian overpasses or vehicular underpasses, but I have spent plenty of time stuck on one side of the tracks or the other and think relegating ourselves to grade-only crossings would be a major hinderance. We only have 3 working bridges now as I understand it and 2 are southbound-only.

quote:

---

Originally posted by sgrizzle

A I understand it, the city cannot do anything to the railroad tracks, all they can do is kindly request for the railroads to do it and give them money. They have been working on getting the new quad gates put in for years now to support a downtown quiet corridor and it's going from from quickly. You also cannot create a grade greater than 1% for the rail lines for risk of making the line impassible. I would support at-grade vehicle crossings and pedestrian overpasses or vehicular underpasses, but I have spent plenty of time stuck on one side of the tracks or the other and think relegating ourselves to grade-only crossings would be a major hinderance. We only have 3 working bridges now as I understand it and 2 are southbound-only.

---

The Main Street bridge is two way.

JMO, but the three bridges plus the Denver Avenue underpass, plus the Boston Avenue pedestrian bridge should serve us well enough. As it stands now, the only at-grade crossings are at Cheyenne and Elgin. I don't think it would hurt us to have one more at Boulder, but that's just me.

Well, an interesting plan.  I do not know if it is the best plan or not - but it would certainly help things.  An at-grade crossing might also be a possibility, but RR cooperation would be a must.  As pointed out, all you can do is ask.

Connecting the BOk Center with the Brady AND the Blue Dome is KEY.

From west to east, we have an at-grade crossing at Guthrie Ave, nothing at Frisco (the bridge was removed to make way for the 1st Street IDL ramp, I think), an at-grade crossing at Elwood, an underpass at Denver, an at-grade crossing at Cheyenne, the closed bridge at Boulder, a two-way bridge at Main, a pedestrian only bridge at Boston, a south-bound bridge at Cincinnati, a north-bound bridge at Detroit, an at-grade crossing at Elgin, an at-grade crossing at Greenwood, a west-bound at-grade crossing at 1st St, an at-grade crossing at 1st Pl, and an at grade crossing at the intersection of 2nd and Lansing.  

I think an at-grade crossing to replace the Boulder Avenue bridge would create a better visual connection.  I vaguely remember seeing some cost estimates, and I think the expense of a street and crossing at grade wasn't much less than rebuilding the bridge.  Anyone know?  Also, would it be feasible to use the existing bridge supports, perhaps add some more and/or bolster them, then build a new bridge on them?

quote:

---

Originally posted by booWorld

From west to east, we have an at-grade crossing at Guthrie Ave, nothing at Frisco (the bridge was removed to make way for the 1st Street IDL ramp, I think), an at-grade crossing at Elwood, an underpass at Denver, an at-grade crossing at Cheyenne, the closed bridge at Boulder, a two-way bridge at Main, a pedestrian only bridge at Boston, a south-bound bridge at Cincinnati, a north-bound bridge at Detroit, an at-grade crossing at Elgin, an at-grade crossing at Greenwood, a west-bound at-grade crossing at 1st St, an at-grade crossing at 1st Pl, and an at grade crossing at the intersection of 2nd and Lansing.  

I think an at-grade crossing to replace the Boulder Avenue bridge would create a better visual connection.  I vaguely remember seeing some cost estimates, and I think the expense of a street and crossing at grade wasn't much less than rebuilding the bridge.  Anyone know?  Also, would it be feasible to use the existing bridge supports, perhaps add some more and/or bolster them, then build a new bridge on them?

---

I agree with those who are skeptical of spending the money to replace this bridge.  It has been closed for 10+ years with no discernible impact on traffic.  Replacing it with a grade crossing would create a much nicer connection between downtown and the Brady District.  I believe there was a comment in the original article about it being the only northbound bridge... but aren't they planning to convert all the streets to two-way streets anyway?  That's what they were saying several years ago...

The City is planning to convert the streets downtown to two-way traffic except for 7th & 8th; Cincinnati & Detroit; and possibly 1st & 2nd.  I'm not sure about 1st & 2nd since 2nd has been removed between Frisco and Denver.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oil Capital

quote:

---

Originally posted by booWorld

From west to east, we have an at-grade crossing at Guthrie Ave, nothing at Frisco (the bridge was removed to make way for the 1st Street IDL ramp, I think), an at-grade crossing at Elwood, an underpass at Denver, an at-grade crossing at Cheyenne, the closed bridge at Boulder, a two-way bridge at Main, a pedestrian only bridge at Boston, a south-bound bridge at Cincinnati, a north-bound bridge at Detroit, an at-grade crossing at Elgin, an at-grade crossing at Greenwood, a west-bound at-grade crossing at 1st St, an at-grade crossing at 1st Pl, and an at grade crossing at the intersection of 2nd and Lansing.  

I think an at-grade crossing to replace the Boulder Avenue bridge would create a better visual connection.  I vaguely remember seeing some cost estimates, and I think the expense of a street and crossing at grade wasn't much less than rebuilding the bridge.  Anyone know?  Also, would it be feasible to use the existing bridge supports, perhaps add some more and/or bolster them, then build a new bridge on them?

---

I agree with those who are skeptical of spending the money to replace this bridge.  It has been closed for 10+ years with no discernible impact on traffic.  Replacing it with a grade crossing would create a much nicer connection between downtown and the Brady District.  I believe there was a comment in the original article about it being the only northbound bridge... but aren't they planning to convert all the streets to two-way streets anyway?  That's what they were saying several years ago...

---

It hasn't been 10+ years. I used to park on that bridge up until the day it closed.

quote:

---

Originally posted by sgrizzle

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oil Capital

quote:

---

Originally posted by booWorld

From west to east, we have an at-grade crossing at Guthrie Ave, nothing at Frisco (the bridge was removed to make way for the 1st Street IDL ramp, I think), an at-grade crossing at Elwood, an underpass at Denver, an at-grade crossing at Cheyenne, the closed bridge at Boulder, a two-way bridge at Main, a pedestrian only bridge at Boston, a south-bound bridge at Cincinnati, a north-bound bridge at Detroit, an at-grade crossing at Elgin, an at-grade crossing at Greenwood, a west-bound at-grade crossing at 1st St, an at-grade crossing at 1st Pl, and an at grade crossing at the intersection of 2nd and Lansing.  

I think an at-grade crossing to replace the Boulder Avenue bridge would create a better visual connection.  I vaguely remember seeing some cost estimates, and I think the expense of a street and crossing at grade wasn't much less than rebuilding the bridge.  Anyone know?  Also, would it be feasible to use the existing bridge supports, perhaps add some more and/or bolster them, then build a new bridge on them?

---

I agree with those who are skeptical of spending the money to replace this bridge.  It has been closed for 10+ years with no discernible impact on traffic.  Replacing it with a grade crossing would create a much nicer connection between downtown and the Brady District.  I believe there was a comment in the original article about it being the only northbound bridge... but aren't they planning to convert all the streets to two-way streets anyway?  That's what they were saying several years ago...

---

It hasn't been 10+ years. I used to park on that bridge up until the day it closed.

---

And what day was that?  ;-)   So, it has been almost 10 years, not 10+ years.  (Apparently it was closed some time in 1998) The point remains.  Its absence has caused no discernible traffic problems.

I have been downtown at all times; morning, night,and day, and honestly have NEVER seen any traffic. I don't get why we have to have any one way streets?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oil Capital


And what day was that?  ;-)   So, it has been almost 10 years, not 10+ years.  (Apparently it was closed some time in 1998) The point remains.  Its absence has caused no discernible traffic problems.

---

After reading this article (http://"http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=980818_Ne_a12bould") from the Tulsa World, I'm guessing it closed on August 18, 1998.  The last day to park on the bridge would have been August 17, 1998.

Update: Today (3/10/08), workers are putting up chain link fences to block the Boulder Bridge to pedestrian traffic.  (They have also put up very droll signs that say: "Bridge Out." Is there someone downtown who doesn't already know that?)

Does this mean that the city will begin demolishing the bridge?  Or did someone finally break a leg by stepping into that bottomless hole in the sidewalk...and this is the way to prevent further lawsuits?  (Hey, Tulsa, how about a utility cover instead?)

If memory serves, the 3rd Penny would cover about $5 Million of the total needed...and we would BEGIN collecting those funds in approximately 2010 or 2011.

Unless the city is beginning the demolition of the bridge, I don't understand the need to block off the bridge to pedestrians.  (Of course, I walk over the bridge on a fairly regular basis...so I'm biased.)  Anybody have any info/scoop?

I'm beginning to agree with those who say it makes more sense to work on a street-grade solution.  I can imagine Boulder lined with warehouses / art galleries / funky retail space / restaurants / bars (with a pedestrian bridge crossing over the tracks) all of it leading directly to the Old Lady and the Brady District.  

(Hey, everyone needs a dream...)

In the meantime, the best solution is to make 1st Street two-way.  This is the only easy way to allow traffic from the BOK arena to access the Main Street Bridge (an intuitive route...since the Brady district is centered at Main and Brady).  This would allow people to get from downtown to the Brady district without traversing the Denver Ave Jail / Bail Bonds / Salvation Army scenic route ("Go past the jail, homeless center and bail bond companies, and take a right...") and the Cheyenne Ave drug-dealing wall.  

Unless 1st Street goes 2-way, people who are scared of the Denver/Cheyenne corridors will have to go east all the way to Detroit to catch the next "decent" northbound bridge to Brady.  (Not the most logical route for arena-goers.)

I wonder if there was a recent structural that deemed the bridge unsafe for pedestrians?

I went by again tonight, and they did not install chain link fences as I had thought.  (It looked like they were unloading fencing when I went by at noon...but I guess I was wrong.)  The workers did say the bridge was to be "closed to pedestrian traffic" whatever that means.  

Not sure about structural issues...but if it's that bad, they need to tear it down.

I walk over the bridge fairly often, but I didn't today.

I've wondered if the top deck of the bridge could be removed leaving the existing abutments and support columns in place to provide the foundation for a new, narrower deck.  A new bridge wouldn't need to be as wide.  A crossing at grade could work well also.  I'd like to see a comparison of long-term costs for both solutions.

I think 1st Street is wide enough to be converted to two-way traffic, but adjusting the timers on the traffic lights might be an issue.

Wow, they actually managed to make the status quo worse.  We had a bridge that looked like a staging area for an invasion and was off limits to traffic, but we could walk across it.  Now we have one that looks horrible and you can't drive OR walk across it.

This has been going on for so long it is even on the satellite images:
http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Tulsa,+OK,+United+States+of+America&ie=UTF8&ll=36.155791,-95.991443&spn=0.005804,0.010042&t=h&z=17

You think: Working Bridge or other Path to Entertainment District would be on some priority list with 2025.  Without some information on the plans, how is this a step in the right direction?  I'm starting to be very disappointed in the (lack of) development around the BOk center and it does not appear the City is helping the cause.

Well, it's official now... The bridge will be closed off to pedestrians.  The pier caps have started to fall off and it's apparently making noises when people walk across it... Just how fat ARE Tulsans now? [;)]

What's funny is that the City of Tulsa actually thinks they have a chance of getting state funds to replace it (like that will happen!).

Here's the article:

quote:

---

Boulder bridge now unsafe for foot traffic, Tulsa World, By BRIAN BARBER World Staff Writer, 3/12/2008

The Boulder Avenue bridge in downtown Tulsa has been permanently closed, even to pedestrians, after inspectors found it to be unstable.

City officials soon will decide whether to spend about $2.6 million to tear down the bridge completely.

"It's not repairable," said Paul Zachary, the Public Works Department's deputy director of engineering.

The bridge, which was closed to traffic in 1998 because of deterioration, stretches from First to Archer streets over the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway tracks.

It is a main thoroughfare for people walking from parking lots to their workplaces.

The bridge is now blocked with yellow caution tape and orange "Bridge Out" signs but soon will have chain-link fencing and a padlocked gate.

"The pier caps that support the outside sidewalk are starting to slough off, so it's a safety issue," Zachary said.

"People need to take this closing seriously."

The inspection was prompted by calls from pedestrians who reported hearing noises while walking on the bridge, he said.

If demolition is decided upon, the cost would come from the $4.8
million set aside in the 2006 third-penny sales-tax program as matching funds to replace the bridge.

The city last year applied for federal grant money through the Oklahoma Department of Transportation to cover much of the $12 million replacement cost.

But ODOT officials notified the city this week that although the Boulder bridge is deficient, the federal money is tied up in state bridge projects and not being doled out to cities.

After all the 2006 third-penny projects are complete, Zachary said, there might be enough money left to replace the bridge.

"We'll have to see how that works out," he said. "If there's not enough there, the project will have to go into another funding package."

The 2006 tax program runs until 2013.

The bridge was built in the 1930s to provide access -- unhindered by trains -- to the north side of downtown.

---

I hope a big gust of wind knocks it down... Then, demolition costs are cut enormously [:P]

Yeah, go widen that bridge to nowheresville to 4 lanes, while this one is too bad for PEDESTRIAN traffic.

Just wait until we do some severe train/railway damage from falling debris.

Great news!  The Streets Package includes money to replace the Boulder Bridge!

quote:

---

A total of $78.5 million is earmarked to replace 27 city bridges, including the recently closed Boulder Avenue Bridge downtown. Another $7 million is set aside to repair 63 bridges, and $270,000 is allocated to seal and paint six more.

---

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=20080615_16_A1_spancl953970

I had noticed that.  There is also some money for bike trails, landscaping type things... so makes you wonder if they are having that in there so they can do the bridge with some park type features along it to tie both sides together and make it an enjoyable walk across.

quote:

---

Originally posted by dsjeffries

Great news!  The Streets Package includes money to replace the Boulder Bridge!

---

We had money for that bridge in the 2006 Third Penny.

and I believe in V2025 a part of the Vision Walk.

/correct me if I'm wrong.

The money included in the streets package for the Boulder Bridge is to supplement the money for the bridge from the Third Penny now that the project is a full replacement.

quote:

---

Originally posted by MichaelBates

quote:

---

Originally posted by dsjeffries

Great news!  The Streets Package includes money to replace the Boulder Bridge!

---

We had money for that bridge in the 2006 Third Penny.

---

Yes, but it's well known it was very little money and very low priority. don't let this turn into another low water dam argument that just because there is "some money" for a project, that must mean there is enough to do what they want to do.

Update on demolition of the bridge in today's Tulsa World (http://"http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectID=11&articleID=20080625_16_A19_Tepoet671385").

Another one yesterday. I guess the bridge comes down in the next three months.

Looks like it's finally coming down.  They've set up the road barriers on Archer to divert traffic away from the bridge.  I asked the guys who were setting up the signs, and they said it was supposed to start demo today (3/13/09). 

I assume you have to move slowly.  They can't block the railroad tracks (and I don't see any sort of scaffolding or protection down there.)  And they haven't blocked off the parking lot on the south side of the tracks, where people park sort of "under" the bridge. 

I'm just glad to see some action.  Now...did we ever come up with ALL the money needed to rebuild it???  (That little bit in the 3rd penny was not even half, if I remember correctly...)

Have heard cranes are in position to start disassembling the bridge.