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?
October 26, 2020, 09:28:21 am
Pages: 1 ... 12 13 [14]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Pedestrian Bridge  (Read 41178 times)
Tulsan
Activist
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 62


« Reply #195 on: October 15, 2020, 07:19:56 pm »

I feel like they’re better off not striping it.

« Last Edit: October 15, 2020, 07:21:50 pm by Tulsan » Logged
dbacksfan 2.0
City Father
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1522


« Reply #196 on: October 15, 2020, 10:16:06 pm »

I feel like they’re better off not striping it.



Thanks for posting this, I have been wondering how it would be divided up. I was looking at the paths along the river and comparing them to ones here, and using the measuring tool on Google maps (I know it's not that accurate) and the all looked to be ~10 feet in width but that's for both cyclist and pedestrian traffic.

The one thing I find odd is that all the seating is to face north. JMO opinion is that there should be some south facing seating and this could easily be done with a chicane in the path to move cyclists from one side to the other.
Logged
Oil Capital
City Father
*****
Online Online

Posts: 1190


WWW
« Reply #197 on: October 16, 2020, 07:36:44 am »

I feel like they’re better off not striping it.


Why do you think it's better unstriped?

This layout looks nice, but of course it presumes they come up with money for benches...
« Last Edit: October 16, 2020, 07:43:22 am by Oil Capital » Logged

 
Tulsan
Activist
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 62


« Reply #198 on: October 16, 2020, 08:07:42 am »

Why do you think it's better unstriped?

This layout looks nice, but of course it presumes they come up with money for benches...

Just personal intuition... unlike the trail, the bridge will be a confined space for pedestrians to meander. Folks will not just be getting from point A to point B, but stop to gather, sight-see, sit and rest. The proposed division would confin pedestrians to 78” of the total 216” wide bridge deck, with 24” reserved for center benches and 114” for zooming cyclists. I feel that cyclists go much faster on designated lanes, which will cause the bridge to be more dangerous. What if a pedestrian wishes to look out over that side of the bridge, and has to dodge traffic?

I think the better configuration would be to open the entire space without designated lanes, and require cyclists to go slower and respect pedestrian traffic.
Logged
dbacksfan 2.0
City Father
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1522


« Reply #199 on: October 16, 2020, 10:16:47 am »

Just personal intuition... unlike the trail, the bridge will be a confined space for pedestrians to meander. Folks will not just be getting from point A to point B, but stop to gather, sight-see, sit and rest. The proposed division would confin pedestrians to 78” of the total 216” wide bridge deck, with 24” reserved for center benches and 114” for zooming cyclists. I feel that cyclists go much faster on designated lanes, which will cause the bridge to be more dangerous. What if a pedestrian wishes to look out over that side of the bridge, and has to dodge traffic?

I think the better configuration would be to open the entire space without designated lanes, and require cyclists to go slower and respect pedestrian traffic.

$10.00 say the cycling crowd will whine and cry because people are meandering all over the bridge and they have to keep yelling at people when they approach pedestrians, and they have a right to have protected lanes on the bridge.
Logged
Arkansas Rio Gator
Citizen
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 5


« Reply #200 on: October 16, 2020, 11:06:14 am »

Another article that closes with this quote: "If it's too much for the shade, it would be best to build it without the shade for now," Wells said. "Just get the necessity taken care of and then maybe later we can address the shade issue."

https://ktul.com/news/local/shade-no-longer-part-of-tulsa-pedestrian-bridge


Rather, find a better/cost-effective solution before it's too late to go back to the drawing board. If sufficient funding cannot be secured for shade on this new design, it is effectively more compromised than the old bridge.
Logged
Oil Capital
City Father
*****
Online Online

Posts: 1190


WWW
« Reply #201 on: October 16, 2020, 11:37:16 am »

I don't remember the other designs, but is it possible one them might be more cost-effective?  This appears to be a pretty expensive design.  I'm afraid the best course at this point might be to start over.  Cannon_Fodder's initial reaction to the design finalists captures the issues:

The old bridge provided:

1. A smooth transition from the trails
2. A river crossing
3. Shade
4. Fishing areas
5. One or two small gathering places
6. and was architecturally cool by virtue of aging well
also...
7. had we gotten the renovations that were planned, it also would have been a double-decker structure that separated cyclists and pedestrians.

Generally speaking, none  of these bridges check off all those boxes.  Certainly some have improvements here, others there, but none really amazes me.  Since we are in the conceptual phase, I'm really surprised by that.  Generally speaking,  elements are stripped away for engineering or budget reasons as we go along.  It is less likely that things are added from conceptual design to actual bridge.

#1 is low on my list because it has no shade, has "exposed aggregate" as the surface, and the design seems fairly straight forward bridge

#2 is OK.  It has shade and is a vaguely interesting design

#3 is about the same. Hard to say for sure, but it appears to give some thought to separating cyclists and pedestrians using surfaces. The lighting concept is also interesting (but I wonder if the copper would also serve as a heat radiator).

#4 is very interesting. It offers some shade, gathering places, and is the most unique design.


So I guess I'd go with #4.  Can't say I'm blown away by any of them.
   
« Last Edit: October 16, 2020, 11:45:19 am by Oil Capital » Logged

 
heironymouspasparagus
T-Town Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 12708



« Reply #202 on: October 18, 2020, 09:54:47 pm »



Another article that closes with this quote: "If it's too much for the shade, it would be best to build it without the shade for now," Wells said. "Just get the necessity taken care of and then maybe later we can address the shade issue."




Massively stupid statement by a massively stupid person.  


Wanna know what that is gonna be like?   Get up on a Kohl's store, or Walmart, or whatever your favorite big box is (I have done that.).  In July or August...or any other month of the year.  Walk around a while and experience the thrill of no shade on an elevated surface. 

This is gonna be a bust.



« Last Edit: October 18, 2020, 09:57:18 pm by heironymouspasparagus » Logged

"So he brandished a gun, never shot anyone or anything right?"  --TeeDub, 17 Feb 2018.

I don’t share my thoughts because I think it will change the minds of people who think differently.  I share my thoughts to show the people who already think like me that they are not alone.
Pages: 1 ... 12 13 [14]   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