A grassroots organization focused on the intelligent and sustainable development, preservation and revitalization of Tulsa.
 
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
June 22, 2018, 10:28:35 pm
Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10] 11   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Pedestrian Bridge  (Read 12219 times)
TeeDub
Guest
« Reply #135 on: February 20, 2018, 02:39:36 pm »


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

Makes $100 million seem like a bargain.


Logged
BKDotCom
City Father
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2395



WWW
« Reply #136 on: February 20, 2018, 02:50:14 pm »

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

Makes $100 million seem like a bargain.


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
Logged
sgrizzle
Kung Fu Treachery
T-Town Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 16025


Inconceivable!


WWW
« Reply #137 on: February 20, 2018, 09:46:33 pm »

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



Saves a ton of $$$ to keep it on the west side, makes the bridge (including the shade) feasible.
Logged
sgrizzle
Kung Fu Treachery
T-Town Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 16025


Inconceivable!


WWW
« Reply #138 on: February 20, 2018, 09:47:23 pm »

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

One amount is for adding stairs and removing rails, the other is for an entirely new bridge and dam
Logged
SXSW
City Father
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3586


WWW
« Reply #139 on: February 20, 2018, 10:27:34 pm »

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.  

Logged

 
BKDotCom
City Father
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2395



WWW
« Reply #140 on: February 21, 2018, 08:32:12 am »

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
« Last Edit: February 21, 2018, 09:17:37 am by BKDotCom » Logged
rebound
Philanthropist
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 857


WWW
« Reply #141 on: February 21, 2018, 10:37:55 am »

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


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

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. 



Logged

 
AngieB
Proud Westsider
City Father
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1505



« Reply #142 on: February 21, 2018, 10:50:21 am »

Perhaps the kayak in the rendering is nothing more than artistic license?
Logged
Conan71
Recovering Republican
T-Town Elder
******
Online Online

Posts: 29040



« Reply #143 on: February 21, 2018, 11:26:40 am »


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

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.
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
BKDotCom
City Father
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2395



WWW
« Reply #144 on: February 21, 2018, 01:01:12 pm »


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

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. 


said rendering


Logged
rebound
Philanthropist
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 857


WWW
« Reply #145 on: February 21, 2018, 01:43:24 pm »


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.




Logged

 
cannon_fodder
All around good guy.
T-Town Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 9338



« Reply #146 on: February 23, 2018, 10:07:06 am »

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]).

Logged

- - - - - - - - -
I crush grooves.
rebound
Philanthropist
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 857


WWW
« Reply #147 on: February 23, 2018, 10:33:00 am »

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]).



Yeah,  I looked at the fenceline wrong the map.   I thought it was on the road near the tanks, but now see it is further East, more near the trail.. 

Parking at the skate park would work.  Coming up from below seems like too much of a deterrent.   I assume they want to move it because they are concerned with kayak traffic in the park.  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.   
Logged

 
SXSW
City Father
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3586


WWW
« Reply #148 on: February 23, 2018, 11:48:27 am »

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.  

I agree, it would be better all around to have it on the east side as currently planned.  I found this plan that sheds some more light on the whitewater flume and Crow Creek developments.  It also shows the neighborhood entry points at Boston Ave, Hazel Blvd and 30th St

« Last Edit: February 23, 2018, 11:50:19 am by SXSW » Logged

 
sgrizzle
Kung Fu Treachery
T-Town Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 16025


Inconceivable!


WWW
« Reply #149 on: February 23, 2018, 05:33:28 pm »

said rendering




On the west side of the picture, just about the bottom edge, is the current "Riverparks Kayak Access" which I would assume Kayakers could also use.

I believe the problem is that the river has channels, flow patterns, etc. The "Wave Park" that spawned that Kayak ramp I just mentioned was there due to swift currents on the west side. I'm no hydrological engineer (but I did stay at a HolidayInn Express) but I believe there are some pretty big challenges to the whole dam plan trying to create rapids on the opposite side of where they currently are, but then also not so rapid that you're flooding out the nature walk just south of it. Going with the more natural location dropped the Dam construction cost from $39M to $33M and since the Dam and bridge are part of the same pool of money, $6M saved on the Dam is $6M more that can go towards making the bridge nicer. (And back when they did the old bridge they didn't have to pay $9M for design and engineering)
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10] 11   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

 
  Hosted by TulsaConnect and Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
 

Mission

 

"TulsaNow's Mission is to help Tulsa become the most vibrant, diverse, sustainable and prosperous city of our size. We achieve this by focusing on the development of Tulsa's distinctive identity and economic growth around a dynamic, urban core, complemented by a constellation of livable, thriving communities."
more...

 

Contact

 

2210 S Main St.
Tulsa, OK 74114
(918) 409-2669
info@tulsanow.org