OH NO...not again...Toll Bridge???

[YoungTulsan]

quote:Originally posted by Gold

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

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

[Bat Bat]

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

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

[Red Arrow]

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

[Shely]

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

[sgrizzle]

quote:Originally posted by Red Arrow

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

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

[Red Arrow]

quote:Originally posted by sgrizzle

quote:Originally posted by Red Arrow

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

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

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

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

[TheArtist]

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

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

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

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

[Red Arrow]

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

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

[Love to be outdoors]

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

[patric]

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

[Red Arrow]

quote:Originally posted by Love to be outdoors

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

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

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

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

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

[Red Arrow]

quote:Originally posted by patric

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

Not so wild.

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

[Bat Bat]

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

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

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

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



 

 

[Red Arrow]

quote:Originally posted by Bat Bat

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

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

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

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

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

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

I agree Tulsa should have been involved.  

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

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

[Hoss]

quote:Originally posted by Red Arrow

quote:Originally posted by Bat Bat

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

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

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

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

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

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

I agree Tulsa should have been involved.  

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

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

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