|
|
|
AquaMan
|
 |
« Reply #1 on: July 14, 2013, 12:53:04 pm » |
|
Guess we should have gone to the public meetings to be ignored. Seems like idiocracy to me too.
The bridge is fine but doesn't handle the combination of serious bikers, fishermen, bowfishermen, pedestrians and runners. It was just supposed to be a pedestrian bridge. Maybe they mean converting the top level to a biking level as has been discussed on these forums.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
onward...through the fog
|
|
|
|
RecycleMichael
|
|
« Reply #2 on: July 14, 2013, 02:14:21 pm » |
|
Guess we should have gone to the public meetings to be ignored. I have gone to most of the public meetings and don't remember discussion of the particulars of this bridge being discussed. There is another public meeting Tuesday night. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Power is nothing till you use it.
|
|
|
|
guido911
|
|
« Reply #3 on: July 14, 2013, 03:37:21 pm » |
|
Screw this entire package. Nothing in it for me.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Someone get Hoss a pacifier.
|
|
|
|
RecycleMichael
|
|
« Reply #4 on: July 14, 2013, 04:51:55 pm » |
|
While I wish the package included the Household Hazardous Waste Facility I was pushing, I think it has many things I like.
I am pleased that the road projects will be designed with sidewalks and bike accessibility. I like that Tulsa Parks will be re-built and new pools for each part of town. I like that the downtown library will be redesigned. I like that the phase one of the Animal shelter is included.
I don't like 600 million dollars on roads.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Power is nothing till you use it.
|
|
|
|
Red Arrow
|
|
« Reply #5 on: July 14, 2013, 07:07:27 pm » |
|
I don't like 600 million dollars on roads.
Until we have an alternative, do we have a choice other than to spend that money on public transit? Get me a way to get downtown without driving and paying for parking and I may do it. Otherwise, parking at Woodland Hills, Tulsa Hills,.... is included in the price of whatever I buy there. No nickel and dime crap to keep me away. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
guido911
|
|
« Reply #6 on: July 14, 2013, 11:38:11 pm » |
|
Get me a way to get downtown...
Why bother? Other than the arena, its wayyyyy overrated. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Someone get Hoss a pacifier.
|
|
|
|
Weatherdemon
|
|
« Reply #7 on: July 15, 2013, 07:06:18 am » |
|
If they added the 2nd level to what is there I would OK with those improvements.
The first thing I envisioned was tearing down what was there and rebuilding it. Seems like a lot of waste.
As far as it not handling the existing pedestrian and bicycle traffic well, I think people are pretty respectful of each other on there but they cyclist need to remember it is named the pedestrian bridge.
I don't know how hard it would be to make the top safe but I was up there many a time as a teen and think it wouldn't take much to make it safe for whatever group they want to move up there.
As for downtown and parking, ugh. Vomit.
Downtowns of this size don't have free parking.
If you're willing to walk as far from your car to get to the BOk Center as you are from your car to a Woodland entrance, you can park for $5 at any event and have a quick and easy exit of downtown when it's over. I know, I used that lot for every event because everyone else is jamming Denver vying for the $20 and $25 dollar spots that take 45 minutes to get our of and are the same distance away from where I park for these events.
I park in the north garage for work and when going to Brady or Blue Dome. It's a tad far from the Blue Dome because all that there is for 3 blocks are the BOk Tower, the Cities ice cube, and the powerplant. It amazes me how few people seem to utilize the garage in the evenings though. All the parking you can want 1/4 bock from the Center of the Universe, 1.5 blocks from Hardesty Arts, and 2 blocks from the core of the Brady and it's well maintained.
I like the idea of a few more downtown parking garages though. It allows for development of the poorly maintained surface lots the east side has become.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
sgrizzle
|
|
« Reply #8 on: July 15, 2013, 09:00:36 am » |
|
The article is wrong. The money is to deck the top of the bridge so that it will be bikes on top, pedestrians where they always were. There will be some changes to the east end to accommodate this when Riverside is changed and the new park is built. They aren't tearing the old bridge out and building a new one.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Conan71
|
|
« Reply #9 on: July 15, 2013, 09:09:16 am » |
|
Guess we should have gone to the public meetings to be ignored. Seems like idiocracy to me too.
The bridge is fine but doesn't handle the combination of serious bikers, fishermen, bowfishermen, pedestrians and runners. It was just supposed to be a pedestrian bridge. Maybe they mean converting the top level to a biking level as has been discussed on these forums.
I noticed a new sign on Saturday going SB at the bridge it's now posted that bow fishing is prohibited from the bridge. That's always looked like an accident waiting to happen to me. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"It has been said that politics is the second oldest profession. I have learned that it bears a striking resemblance to the first” -Ronald Reagan
|
|
|
|
AquaMan
|
|
« Reply #10 on: July 15, 2013, 09:18:03 am » |
|
I noticed a new sign on Saturday going SB at the bridge it's now posted that bow fishing is prohibited from the bridge. That's always looked like an accident waiting to happen to me.
Would that cost 7.75 million? About $3000 per foot. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
onward...through the fog
|
|
|
|
Conan71
|
|
« Reply #11 on: July 15, 2013, 09:19:48 am » |
|
Would that cost 7.75 million? About $3000 per foot.
Is that what the line item cost of the top deck on the bridge is projected to cost, or what are you referring to? If that's the cost, I believe that's even more expensive than paving a mile of four lane roads.  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"It has been said that politics is the second oldest profession. I have learned that it bears a striking resemblance to the first” -Ronald Reagan
|
|
|
|
Weatherdemon
|
|
« Reply #12 on: July 15, 2013, 09:24:23 am » |
|
The article is wrong. The money is to deck the top of the bridge so that it will be bikes on top, pedestrians where they always were. There will be some changes to the east end to accommodate this when Riverside is changed and the new park is built. They aren't tearing the old bridge out and building a new one.
If that's the plan, I think it's great! |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
carltonplace
|
|
« Reply #13 on: July 15, 2013, 09:32:58 am » |
|
The east side ramp to the top needs to be reconfigured, its clumsy and congests with the stairs.
Obviously with bike traffic at the top, a west side ramp will be needed to get down to the trail.
$7.75 Million has to be a typo, should almost be able to get the kayak park for that amount.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
AquaMan
|
|
« Reply #14 on: July 15, 2013, 10:54:02 am » |
|
Is that what the line item cost of the top deck on the bridge is projected to cost, or what are you referring to? If that's the cost, I believe that's even more expensive than paving a mile of four lane roads. Its the caption for the pic in the World. The list of proposed capital improvement projects approved by the City Council on Thursday would allocate $7.75 million for a new, double-deck pedestrian bridge across the Arkansas River just north of 31st Street. CHRISTOPHER SMITH / Tulsa World fileEven with approaches it seems excessive. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
onward...through the fog
|
|
|
|
