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

[TheArtist]

quote:Originally posted by Red Arrow

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

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

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

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

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

[Red Arrow]

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

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

[No Sugar Please]

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

[Shely]

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

[Red Arrow]

quote:Originally posted by Shely

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

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

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

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

[waterboy]

quote:Originally posted by Red Arrow

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

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

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

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

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

[Red Arrow]

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

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

[Osupikapp1]

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

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

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

[sgrizzle]

Huh?

[Red Arrow]

quote:Originally posted by Osupikapp1

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

121st between Memorial and Sheridan is 5 lanes.

[patric]

quote:Originally posted by Red Arrow

121st between Memorial and Sheridan is 5 lanes.

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

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

[carltonplace]

+1

[TheArtist]

quote:Originally posted by Red Arrow

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

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

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

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

 

[inteller]

quote:Originally posted by patric

quote:Originally posted by Red Arrow

121st between Memorial and Sheridan is 5 lanes.

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

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

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

[Red Arrow]

quote:Originally posted by TheArtist

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

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

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