The follow message was sent out by the
South Tulsa Citizens Coalition.
Gaspar....did you ever get to ask Bob David of Leadership Properties about this?? If so what did he say? Thanks!
Dear STCC Supporter –
STCC has learned that the Muscogee (Creek) Nation (the "Creek Nation") will be announcing that it intends to acquire land to the South and to the East of the intersection of 121st and Yale Ave. for the purpose of constructing the South Tulsa toll bridge (the "Bridge") with a northern landing point in between Sheridan and Yale. The Creek Nation has been coordinating its acquisition and construction plans with Leadership Properties and the Cities of Bixby and Jenks. The Creek Nation has not involved the City of Tulsa in any aspect of its plans to acquire the land or construct the Bridge because the Creek Nation plans to put the acquired land into a federal trust, which would essentially free the acquired land from state and local law. Upon learning of this information, Tulsa Mayor Kathy Taylor requested an appearance before the Creek Nation to plead the City of Tulsa's case pertaining to location, infrastructure needs and revenue sharing, but the Creek Nation's Principal Chief A.D. Ellis rejected her request.
The Creek Nation has also been in contact with U.S. Senator James Inhofe's office in an effort to help the Creek Nation navigate the lengthy process of putting the acquired land into a federal trust. STCC contacted a representative of Senator Inhofe's office this evening and expressed its concern over any support Senator Inhofe would lend to helping the Creek Nation either put this land into a federal trust (for the sole purpose of having to avoid Oklahoma's state laws and the City of Tulsa's local laws) or construct the Bridge.
It's unfortunate that once again the City of Tulsa and its citizens have been left out in the cold on this project. STCC would ask that you contact your U.S. Senators (the contact information is below) about this situation and express your opinion on the matter.
U.S. Senator Jim Inhofe
Telephone: (918) 748-5111
Email Contact Form: http://inhofe.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Contact.ContactForm
U.S. Senator Tom Coburn
Telephone: (918) 581-7651
Email Contact Form: http://coburn.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=ContactSenatorCoburn.Home
As always, STCC will keep you apprised of any new developments.
South Tulsa Citizens Coalition
well, it appears the rumors are true.
what IS it with these people? when will someone say enough is enough and reign in these HORRIBLE selfish developers?
Either make it so that no bridge can go in that area ever, or the city should get on the ball and build the toll bridge themselves before someone else does it to make the money.
I have no problem with the City of Tulsa getting the toll $. I'm sure my friend living near 141st & Yale has no problem with the City of Tulsa collecting the tolls. When we both worked at the CityPlex (81st & Lewis), he said a $1.00 toll each way would save him money compared to going through Bixby or going up Peoria or Elwood and through Jenks. Any bridge program must include improvements to both Yale and Delaware or all we will get is one big mess.
Bandwagon:
I would like to see provisions for light rail to cross any bridge in that area. Maybe don't do the rail to begin with but make the bridge to allow it in the future.
I had a couple of thoughts about this.
Didn't the supreme court rule that Jenks couldn't build the bridge without Tulsa? Instead of working with Tulsa, Jenks finds a partner who isn't subject to state and local law. What does that say about Tulsa's relationship with its suburb neighbors?
Why would the Indians allow themselves to be used as a wedge between Jenks / Developers and Tulsa? The Indians are going to take a beating in public relations on this one.
What about the tax dollars? I assume this area is prime development land and the tax dollars would have gone to the State, County and City. Now, nothing....zip....
quote:
Originally posted by Jitter Free
I had a couple of thoughts about this.
What does that say about Tulsa's relationship with its suburb neighbors?
Probably less than favorable. Everyone can fill in their own specifics.
The Indians are going to take a beating in public relations on this one.
Depends on which side of the river you live. I'm near 111th & Memorial so it doesn't directly affect me except that I take Delaware to get home from work. It's impossible to get on the Turnpike at Jenks and Memorial is intolerable going south from the Turnpike for the trip home.
I assume this area is prime development land
A lot of it is low and in the flood plane.
The tribes don't care much about PR. Otherwise they wouldn't proudly advertise their racism in employment practices or their failure to include their slaves's decendants in tribal membership. What they do care about is the same thing that drives Jenks and these developers...money, suburban growth and control.
This is a squeeze play by Jenks/Creeks/Private Developers to force Tulsa into actions that primarily benefit those outside of Tulsa. If Tulsa county's population was surging this would make sense. But, the pie is not getting larger, this group simply is intent on getting a bigger piece of pie. If it works we can only hope that a plan is made for upgrading, maintenance and future light rail that benefits our side of the river.
If we get to the point where Eminent Domain us used to build an Indian Casino, you know it's gone too far...
Private developers force Tulsa into actions that primarily benefit those outside of Tulsa.
Why is it that I hear no (or at least very little) objection to the development on Memorial between 101st and 111th on the east side, Bixby? Memorial is as much a political (tax income) boundary as the river. Where is the Coaliton of Concerned Tulsa Citizens Against Economic Development Just Across the City Border (CoCTCAEDJAtCB) on this issue?
I'm sure that some folks are sincere in their economic development objections. I also believe that for many it is just a smoke screen to keep traffic out of their neighborhood areas.
You may be right that the near Bixby development impacts that area, but there is no need for a public bridge at 101st & Memorial and no coalition of investors formed to upgrade public streets in those areas and then charge the public for using them. Simply private development.
The difference is in assembling private investors and merging with an outlying town to force a larger public entity into funding their interests.
quote:
Originally posted by Red Arrow
Private developers force Tulsa into actions that primarily benefit those outside of Tulsa.
Why is it that I hear no (or at least very little) objection to the development on Memorial between 101st and 111th on the east side, Bixby? Memorial is as much a political (tax income) boundary as the river. Where is the Coaliton of Concerned Tulsa Citizens Against Economic Development Just Across the City Border (CoCTCAEDJAtCB) on this issue?
I'm sure that some folks are sincere in their economic development objections. I also believe that for many it is just a smoke screen to keep traffic out of their neighborhood areas.
At least Memorial is partly paid for by the state (and the feds). And it runs through an essentially 100% commercial area for miles beyond Bixby. There are significant differences, although I agree that the principle is largely the same.
I think part of the frustration may be that the former developers refused to even consider connecting the bridge to Riverside instead of Yale. A Riverside connection would make far more sense for the City of Tulsa if this bridge does end up being built.
quote:
Originally posted by nathanm
I think part of the frustration may be that the former developers refused to even consider connecting the bridge to Riverside instead of Yale. A Riverside connection would make far more sense for the City of Tulsa if this bridge does end up being built.
I think the connection needs to be to BOTH Delaware(Riverside) and Yale.
The connection to Delaware/Riverside makes sense for people working downtown or near the river as my friend and I did (for a while) at CityPlex. There are also some significant shopping opportunities to be accessed by Yale and access to St Francis would also be good. I will side with the folks along Yale that the road needs to be upgraded to handle any additional traffic. (When the Mingo Valley Expy ended at 51st, it took me 30 minutes to get there from 111th & Memorial. Avg speed 14 MPH.) The biggest improvement difficulty would be over "Yale hill" between 81st and 91st. The setbacks from Yale south of the turnpike are probably sufficient but there would be a LOT of dirt work to do.
I'll take either a Riverside or Yale connection over the sillyness that the Creeks are proposing, a connection in between Sheridan and Yale. IMO that just doesn't make any sense.
Infrastructure is a key issue. The roads have to be upgraded to handled the additional traffic no matter where it connects. I'm with Red Arrow on that the Yale hill will an issue. I'm sure it can be done. I am just guessing the price is very very high. I don't see the Creeks chipping in to help Tulsa with these costs.
Since its going to be a toll bridge, why not just dedicate all of the tolls to upgrading the infrastructure before anyone gets a dime? After the infrastructure is paid for, then tolls can be divided up amongst the Creeks and the Cities. Just a thought.
Can someone explain to me why everyone is trying to keep Tulsa out of this?
Talk about bad PR for everyone involved.
Financing, location, infrastructure and revenue sharing are the issues.
Financing. IMO Tulsa really doesn't want the bridge. But even if they did, neither Tulsa, Bixby or Jenks has the money to build the bridge. I think the cost estimates I heard about a couple of years ago were $40 million plus. Jenks and Bixby went out and found them a sugar daddy. The first time it was a group of private investors (the Supreme Court said no to that idea) and now it is the Creek Nation.
Location. Tulsa wants it at Riverside and won't agree to a Yale connection. Jenks is hell bent on putting it at Yale (or I guess now anywhere but Riverside). Bixby doesn't care.
Infrastructure. Tulsa needs money to pay for the infrastructre to handle the bridge traffic which I think is somewhere in the tens of millions of dollars. No one has any money for infrastructure. Not Tulsa, not Jenks, not Bixby and not the Creeks.
Revenue Sharing. Jenks wants a bridge and a large portion of the toll revenues from it and doesn't want to give Tulsa dime. Bixby just wants a bridge and doesn't care about the toll revenue. Tulsa hasn't even got around to thinking about asking for a share of the toll revenues because there they don't like the location and there is no money to pay for infrastructure.
Why has Tulsa been cut out? Because for once (knock on wood and let's hope for more), it seems that Tulsa is being logical. Jenks wants to dictate every issue point to the detriment of Tulsa and Tulsa to date has said "no thank you." So Jenks in typical bully fashion goes and finds a partner (the Creeks) that isn't subject to state or local law so Jenks can have their cake and eat it to. Why is Tulsa being cut out, the same reason as everything else "money" plain and simple.
Its almost a no win situation for the Tulsan that pushes for the bridge.
If Tulsa tries to build it, the people in South Tulsa will throw a fit about it and taxpayers will not want to spend a dime on it and will find some conspiracy theory or another saying someone is making a buck off of it, shady deals, etc.
If Tulsa doesn't build it, someone else will, and leave Tulsa to spend money widening the roads to it and maintaining the roads from extra traffic flow etc.
Danged if you do, danged if ya dont.
quote:
Originally posted by Red Arrow
Private developers force Tulsa into actions that primarily benefit those outside of Tulsa.
Why is it that I hear no (or at least very little) objection to the development on Memorial between 101st and 111th on the east side, Bixby? Memorial is as much a political (tax income) boundary as the river. Where is the Coaliton of Concerned Tulsa Citizens Against Economic Development Just Across the City Border (CoCTCAEDJAtCB) on this issue?
I'm sure that some folks are sincere in their economic development objections. I also believe that for many it is just a smoke screen to keep traffic out of their neighborhood areas.
Well, just look at what is east of Memorial between 101st/111th. Not much. Bixby crapped all over half of that strip a long time ago with incredibly bad strip malls. Just recently they got Regal plaza up which is a vast improvement, and they are getting ready to build 101 Memorial square. Any descent is crushed pretty handily in Bixby because the planning comm is run by a very small body and their government is fairly disconnected from its constituents, more so than Tulsa.
Another issue with lack of development east of memorial is because Bixby AND the county are a bunch of asses when it comes to building roads infrastructure. 111th east of memorial? 2 lane bottleneck. 101st east of memorial? 2 lane bottleneck maintained by the county. Everyone is holding their breath waiting for the state to 3 lane memorial south of the creek yet no one knows ODOT's schedule. It's all a frickin joke. It is like no one learns from their mistakes around here and all we are going to end up with is another 71st/169 nightmare.
just a point of clarification. Is this entity wanting to build the bridge at the very south of yale, along that small road south of John Deere nursery? Or are they wanting to start it at the intersection of 121st/Yale, like soem twisted bull**** you'd see in Sim City, where you have a bridge flying over an exisiting road and populated area?
Inteller, on your clarification point, the Creeks want to put the bridge in the middle between Sheridan and Yale, not connecting to any main thoroughfare.
quote:
Originally posted by Jitter Free
Infrastructure. Tulsa needs money to pay for the infrastructre to handle the bridge traffic which I think is somewhere in the tens of millions of dollars. No one has any money for infrastructure. Not Tulsa, not Jenks, not Bixby and not the Creeks.
Its assumed Tulsa would have to improve the infrastructure to support something it doesnt want.
What if the only infrastructure improvements were a single fire lane just wide enough for emergency vehicles?
quote:
Originally posted by Jitter Free
Inteller, on your clarification point, the Creeks want to put the bridge in the middle between Sheridan and Yale, not connecting to any main thoroughfare.
On what cross street? Saying Sheridan and Yale...might as well say "somewhere between Riverside and Mingo"
quote:
Originally posted by patric
quote:
Originally posted by Jitter Free
Infrastructure. Tulsa needs money to pay for the infrastructre to handle the bridge traffic which I think is somewhere in the tens of millions of dollars. No one has any money for infrastructure. Not Tulsa, not Jenks, not Bixby and not the Creeks.
Its assumed Tulsa would have to improve the infrastructure to support something it doesnt want.
What if the only infrastructure improvements were a single fire lane just wide enough for emergency vehicles?
Why improve the infrastructure at all? Just put up a jersey barrier and let them build all the bridges they want...
quote:
Originally posted by TURobY
Why improve the infrastructure at all? Just put up a jersey barrier and let them build all the bridges they want...
I think Tulsa should just build a very expensive toll road on their side of the bridge. Charge like two bucks for about a hundred yards of real nice road.
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
quote:
Originally posted by TURobY
Why improve the infrastructure at all? Just put up a jersey barrier and let them build all the bridges they want...
I think Tulsa should just build a very expensive toll road on their side of the bridge. Charge like two bucks for about a hundred yards of real nice road.
Yes, Tulsa could deny them curb cuts on anything west of Sheridan so they can trust the hell out of whatever they want, their "customers" are going to have to take an SUV across cow pasture to get to their little toll bridge.
the audacity of developers in this city know no bounds.
quote:
Originally posted by patric
quote:
Originally posted by Jitter Free
Infrastructure. Tulsa needs money to pay for the infrastructre to handle the bridge traffic which I think is somewhere in the tens of millions of dollars. No one has any money for infrastructure. Not Tulsa, not Jenks, not Bixby and not the Creeks.
Its assumed Tulsa would have to improve the infrastructure to support something it doesnt want.
What if the only infrastructure improvements were a single fire lane just wide enough for emergency vehicles?
actually Tulsa is under no obligation to improve jack squat. If the bridge is going to be built on indian territory they can improve whatever they need to on their property. Tulsa can simply deny curb cuts onto tulsa streets.
I dont know if they can deny curb cuts. But I do like the idea of having a toll road leading up to the bridge property. Put the toll thingey right near the entrance to the bridge property to pay for the extra infrastructure we will have to build, that way only the people using the bridge will be paying for what Tulsa will have to do. If thats not legal, put the toll by where the "improvements" will start on the Tulsa side and perhaps give those electronic tag things to the people who live in the area, but ones that will let them pass on the Tulsa toll road for free or a reduced amount.
Let's not forget that we just passed the streets tax. There is already a project allocated for 121st & Riverside, and there is also about $46 million unallocated, which could be directed at a special need project should one arise.
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
quote:
Originally posted by TURobY
Why improve the infrastructure at all? Just put up a jersey barrier and let them build all the bridges they want...
I think Tulsa should just build a very expensive toll road on their side of the bridge. Charge like two bucks for about a hundred yards of real nice road.
Maybe more than that. My friend said a bridge there would save him about 7 miles each way. A 15 mpg truck and $4.00/gallon gas would be a wash (excluding the bridge toll). Then there is the time to go through Bixby or Jenks.
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
quote:
Originally posted by TURobY
Why improve the infrastructure at all? Just put up a jersey barrier and let them build all the bridges they want...
I think Tulsa should just build a very expensive toll road on their side of the bridge. Charge like two bucks for about a hundred yards of real nice road.
Nice idea. Except maybe charge $5. Or just don't build any new roads at all. Let them crawl along on whatever cow paths are down there.
I don't really care, since I will never use it. I just don't want our precious Tulsa infrastructure dollars spent on any more ridiculous sprawl. Perhaps the rule should be: all new infrastructure upgrades will take place within a 6 mile radius of downtown. You built a home on a cow pasture...enjoy the country living and two-lane roads...
quote:
Originally posted by PonderInc
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
quote:
Originally posted by TURobY
Why improve the infrastructure at all? Just put up a jersey barrier and let them build all the bridges they want...
I think Tulsa should just build a very expensive toll road on their side of the bridge. Charge like two bucks for about a hundred yards of real nice road.
Nice idea. Except maybe charge $5. Or just don't build any new roads at all. Let them crawl along on whatever cow paths are down there.
I don't really care, since I will never use it. I just don't want our precious Tulsa infrastructure dollars spent on any more ridiculous sprawl. Perhaps the rule should be: all new infrastructure upgrades will take place within a 6 mile radius of downtown. You built a home on a cow pasture...enjoy the country living and two-lane roads...
And no one outside the 6 mile radius will pay any City of Tulsa taxes.
quote:
Originally posted by PonderInc
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
quote:
Originally posted by TURobY
Why improve the infrastructure at all? Just put up a jersey barrier and let them build all the bridges they want...
I think Tulsa should just build a very expensive toll road on their side of the bridge. Charge like two bucks for about a hundred yards of real nice road.
Nice idea. Except maybe charge $5. Or just don't build any new roads at all. Let them crawl along on whatever cow paths are down there.
I don't really care, since I will never use it. I just don't want our precious Tulsa infrastructure dollars spent on any more ridiculous sprawl. Perhaps the rule should be: all new infrastructure upgrades will take place within a 6 mile radius of downtown. You built a home on a cow pasture...enjoy the country living and two-lane roads...
I checked a 6mi radius (starting S then going towards the E) from 1st & Main. You will keep Johnson Park at 61 and Riverside. Southern Hills and LaFortune Park will be gone. You keep the segment of I-44 that turns NE to intersect the BA. From the intersection of the BA and I-44 the arc crosses Memorial by about 1/4 mile between 11th and Admiral. Then it closely follows the NNW bound section of the Gilcrease. You keep the SW corner of International Airport. You lose most of Mohawk Park but keep Yahola Lake. To the south, cross the river at approximately 61st. West of about 33rd W Ave and 61st it looks like you get into Sandsprings territory.
quote:
Originally posted by PonderInc
I don't really care, since I will never use it. I just don't want our precious Tulsa infrastructure dollars spent on any more ridiculous sprawl. Perhaps the rule should be: all new infrastructure upgrades will take place within a 6 mile radius of downtown. You built a home on a cow pasture...enjoy the country living and two-lane roads...
While I completely agree with the sentiment, I think that might be going a bit too far. Some of the subdivisions in south tulsa have been around for 20 years or more now. Screwing those folks over isn't good policy.
Restricting new development on the far edge of town? I'm all for that. Or maybe make developers pay significant impact fees to pay for infrastructure when the new development is far from the city's core.
The fate of the South Tulsa bridge has been in limbo for years. Today residents learned that Mayor Kathy Taylor has requested federal money (//%22http://www.fox23.com/news/local/story/South-Tulsa-Bridge-Project-Raises-Questions/ap9UeMeU4kGK6WE884_EIw.cspx%22) for the project, even though, they say, she was opposed to it.
quote:
Originally posted by patric
The fate of the South Tulsa bridge has been in limbo for years. Today residents learned that Mayor Kathy Taylor has requested federal money (//%22http://www.fox23.com/news/local/story/South-Tulsa-Bridge-Project-Raises-Questions/ap9UeMeU4kGK6WE884_EIw.cspx%22) for the project, even though, they say, she was opposed to it.
From what I understand, the STCC wants a bridge, just not the Yale alignment. The Mayor says that IF there is going to be a bridge, the city should build it, and collect any toll.
Btw, the Mayor is not requesting federal money for the bridge. Though some may want her too, just not for one with the unwanted Yale alignment.
The Yale alignment would be good for the development at 61st & Yale. Yale needs to be improved to at least the Turnpike.
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
quote:
Originally posted by patric
The fate of the South Tulsa bridge has been in limbo for years. Today residents learned that Mayor Kathy Taylor has requested federal money (//%22http://www.fox23.com/news/local/story/South-Tulsa-Bridge-Project-Raises-Questions/ap9UeMeU4kGK6WE884_EIw.cspx%22) for the project, even though, they say, she was opposed to it.
From what I understand, the STCC wants a bridge, just not the Yale alignment. The Mayor says that IF there is going to be a bridge, the city should build it, and collect any toll.
Btw, the Mayor is not requesting federal money for the bridge. Though some may want her too, just not for one with the unwanted Yale alignment.
Words are so cheap can you trust just words? Surely it takes more than a day to have someone pull out the main list and do some scratching off in Washington.
She'll lose the election before the money would get here anyway[:D]
quote:
Originally posted by patric
The fate of the South Tulsa bridge has been in limbo for years. Today residents learned that Mayor Kathy Taylor has requested federal money (//%22http://www.fox23.com/news/local/story/South-Tulsa-Bridge-Project-Raises-Questions/ap9UeMeU4kGK6WE884_EIw.cspx%22) for the project, even though, they say, she was opposed to it.
Oddly enough, a bridge at 41st St over the river has been on the city's wish list for much longer than a bridge in South Tulsa, yet Taylor the Tyrant deemed it appropriate to ignore a bridge providing greater connectivity within the city for one that provides greater connectivity to the suburbs.
quote:
Originally posted by Double A
Oddly enough, a bridge at 41st St over the river has been on the city's wish list for much longer than a bridge in South Tulsa, yet Taylor the Tyrant deemed it appropriate to ignore a bridge providing greater connectivity within the city for one that provides greater connectivity to the suburbs.
You can't build the 41st alignment anymore, they are putting a park in the way. They are even rerouting stormwater to that exact spot.
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
quote:
Originally posted by Double A
Oddly enough, a bridge at 41st St over the river has been on the city's wish list for much longer than a bridge in South Tulsa, yet Taylor the Tyrant deemed it appropriate to ignore a bridge providing greater connectivity within the city for one that provides greater connectivity to the suburbs.
You can't build the 41st alignment anymore, they are putting a park in the way. They are even rerouting stormwater to that exact spot.
A 41st Bridge is in the Master Plan. Anything Public Works is doing to violate that should be stopped immediately. Not to mention the money being spent to do so.
The park planning also violates the master plan, except mowing down those structures would be a day and a bulldozer's work.
Re-routing stormwater represents significant funding issues, both improperly spent and probably much more than that to correct.
"Can't" isn't the right word. They 'can't' build a south tulsa bridge either.
We need to get a public statement by the Mayor and/or Council regarding a 41st Bridge. Either it's to be planned, or they need to go through the process of eliiminating it from the plan.
The 'by dictate' method of government abuse should be eased. It appears they don't even wish to ask the question, or get an answer.
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
The 'by dictate' method of government abuse should be eased. It appears they don't even wish to ask the question, or get an answer.
This falls into the category of "it's easier to ask for forgiveness than to get permission first".
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
quote:
Originally posted by Double A
Oddly enough, a bridge at 41st St over the river has been on the city's wish list for much longer than a bridge in South Tulsa, yet Taylor the Tyrant deemed it appropriate to ignore a bridge providing greater connectivity within the city for one that provides greater connectivity to the suburbs.
You can't build the 41st alignment anymore, they are putting a park in the way. They are even rerouting stormwater to that exact spot.
Ah yes, the park that was supposed to have been finished in last September. Now when has that pesky due date been moved to?
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
quote:
Originally posted by Double A
Oddly enough, a bridge at 41st St over the river has been on the city's wish list for much longer than a bridge in South Tulsa, yet Taylor the Tyrant deemed it appropriate to ignore a bridge providing greater connectivity within the city for one that provides greater connectivity to the suburbs.
You can't build the 41st alignment anymore, they are putting a park in the way. They are even rerouting stormwater to that exact spot.
A 41st Bridge is in the Master Plan. Anything Public Works is doing to violate that should be stopped immediately. Not to mention the money being spent to do so.
The park planning also violates the master plan, except mowing down those structures would be a day and a bulldozer's work.
Re-routing stormwater represents significant funding issues, both improperly spent and probably much more than that to correct.
"Can't" isn't the right word. They 'can't' build a south tulsa bridge either.
We need to get a public statement by the Mayor and/or Council regarding a 41st Bridge. Either it's to be planned, or they need to go through the process of eliiminating it from the plan.
The 'by dictate' method of government abuse should be eased. It appears they don't even wish to ask the question, or get an answer.
Wonder if its going to show up in the new master plan? One would suspect that it would be, but "when" and what the projected timeline is, is a whole other question. 30 years from now they may be quite ready to tear that "old" park out, build a bigger better one nearby, and put the new bridge in.
http://www.ktul.com/news/stories/1208/579217.html
Maybe the "Bridge" is already there and we just can't see it..