I received the following email last night from the South Tulsa Citizens Coalition.
Dear STCC Supporter -
At a press conference this afternoon, Muscogee (Creek) Nation Principal Chief A.D. Ellis confirmed that the Creek Nation plans to construct a bridge near 121st and Yale Avenue. Chief Ellis said their application to place the land into trust will be filed with the Bureau of Indian Affairs within 3 months. See http://www.tulsaworld.com/site/printerfriendlystory.aspx?articleid=20090820_11_0_Muscog757885
In addition to Chief Ellis' oral confirmation about the Creek Nation's plans for a bridge, the STCC has obtained a conceptual drawing of the Creek Nation's plans for the bridge. Based on this drawing, the Creek Nation plans to construct a bridge that will connect on the south side of the Arkansas River near 131st St. and Yale Pl. and extend to the north side of the Arkansas River landing on a 121st St. between Yale Ave. and Sheridan Ave. The drawing does not show any infrastructure improvements that the Creek Nation plans for the City of Tulsa's streets and intersections.
As was the case with the Cities of Jenks and Bixby, the Creek Nation has decided to create these plans, purchase the land and begin the trust application process all unilaterally without consulting either the City of Tulsa or the abutting neighborhoods and homeowners. Further, the Creek Nation has taken these steps despite the January 22, 2008 Oklahoma Supreme Court ruling that the bridge cannot be built without the City of Tulsa's participation and consent. It is unfortunate that the Creek Nation failed to even attempt to reach a cooperative agreement with the City of Tulsa or abutting neighborhoods and homeowners before proceeding down this path.
The STCC has been entrenched in the bridge issue for almost 5 years. It has been a rollercoaster ride with many ups, downs and twists along the way, and by Chief Ellis' comments today the ride is not yet over. So, please buckle up and know that the STCC is prepared to fight a vigorous legal and political battle no matter the adversary until the bridge is planned and constructed in responsible way that does not detrimentally affect the City of Tulsa.
The STCC will do its best to keep you abreast of any new developments. As always, we thank you for your support.
South Tulsa Citizens Coalition
www.movethatbridge.com
Someone enlighten me:
Why do various people want to build this bridge so badly? Private companies. Jenks/Bixby. And now an Indian Nation.
Why do various people not want this bridge to be built so badly? The City of Tulsa. Neighborhoods in South Tulsa.
The developers / Bixby / Jenks / Indians want the bridge because they are going to make it a toll bridge and keep the profits from the bridge. I think a couple of years back a bond company issued a report that had the profits in the $500 million + range (however I think this was over a period of 50 years or something like that).
The City of Tulsa / neighbors don't want the bridge until someone comes up with a plan and the money to widen the streets and intersections that will be affected by the increased traffice from the bridge.
That's my take in a nutshell.
I wouldn't think that the Oklahoma Supreme Court ruling would have any standing with the Creek Nation. What's more, when/if the land on the Tulsa side of the river is place into trust, that land won't be IN Tulsa anymore, it will be federal land in the Creek Nation on both sides of the river. The Creek Nation can build roads and bridges all it wants on own it's own trust land.
The city has a losing hand, at best they can slow the placement of this land into trust. It's time to make the best deal possible. See if the Creek Nation will make a deal where the city agrees not to fight this land or the land further north across from the casino being placed into trust in exchange for some infrastructure money.
Quote from: swake on August 21, 2009, 03:12:41 PM
The city has a losing hand, at best they can slow the placement of this land into trust. It's time to make the best deal possible. See if the Creek Nation will make a deal where the city agrees not to fight this land or the land further north across from the casino being placed into trust in exchange for some infrastructure money.
I was under the impression the city of Tulsa can refuse connection to it's streets from the bridge if it's built.
Did I misunderstand?
Quote from: Townsend on August 21, 2009, 03:25:17 PM
I was under the impression the city of Tulsa can refuse connection to it's streets from the bridge if it's built.
Did I misunderstand?
And they should refuse connection. The key word here is unilateral.
Swake, when did you become such a Jenks COC booster?
Tulsa has zero interest in helping make Jenks or Bixby more prosperous while it goes broke. I suspect if the bridge owners give the City of Tulsa a larger slice of the profits on the tolls, something will get done.
The connecting point proposed is not great and it is 3 miles from a road larger than two lanes. Tulsa is mainly concerned with getting the roads in the area ready for the traffic and also trying to force the bridge to be build in such a way that cars are forced to riverside.
Quote from: waterboy on August 21, 2009, 04:43:19 PM
And they should refuse connection. The key word here is unilateral.
Swake, when did you become such a Jenks COC booster?
Waterboy, I didn't really comment on if I was for or against the bridge, I commented on the reality of the situation and what the city should do. And no, I don't think the City of Tulsa can block off the bridge if the land is placed into the trust anymore than Tulsa could build a wall on the 96th street bridge blocking access into Jenks. Owasso would have walled off north Tulsa years ago if they could have.
As for your Jenks COC crack, first off, I live in Jenks, though not in an area that would be served by this bridge.
Second, I am in favor of this bridge, and Tulsans should be too. This isn't going to funnel prosperity out of Tulsa, it's going to improve access to Tulsa for people that live in south Jenks and in Bixby. The bridge will mean that the residents in this area will be more likely to travel into Tulsa to shop. Leave them cut off and they will shop in Jenks, Glenpool and Bixby. This is a net gain for Tulsa, not a loss. The bridge actually will help Tulsa's sales tax situation.
Third, the arguments against the bridge are often nonsensical and self serving for a group of very wealthy homeowners that don't want more traffic or the streets developed in their area. Despite the bridge, Yale, 121st and Riverside all being designated as future 4 lane major arterial streets in city and regional planning. The idea that the bridge is going to "suck prosperity" out of Tulsa is ridiculous. The idea that kids at Jenks South East Elementary could be killed by trucks barreling down Yale is really ridiculous.
Jenks and Tulsa should have built this bridge together, split the income and used it to develop the streets and river in the area. But thanks to the south Tulsa homeowners group and Tulsa's worthless city council we are way past that now. I agree with Grizzle about the preferable connection being to riverside than to 121st, but the site is where it is at this point. Tulsa should negotiate for some money to help improve the intersections and install stoplights in at 111th and Sheridan, 101st and Riverside and to widen Yale from 96th to 111th with a stoplights at 111th and 121st.
As Mayor , Dewey would allow the bridge and then get them to use pikepass for the tolls ;D
The process the Creeks must go through to build the bridge is (1) have the BIA accept the land into federal trust (a 3 to 5 year process), (2) get the Corps of Engineers to approve the location and construction of the bridge (a 2 to 3 year process), and (3) actually build the bridge (another 2 year or so process). So, at best, it will actually be at least 7 years before the bridge is constructed.
If the BIA accepts the land into federal trust for the Creeks, then the City of Tulsa has little it can do at that point in time. However, the BIA first has to accept the land into federal trust and there are a many a slip between a cup and lip before that takes place. There are numerous requirements that the Creeks must meet before the BIA will do this and then it really is up to the BIA at that point in time. I personally don't think it is a slam dunk for the Creeks by any means.
As to imroving acces between Bixby, Jenks and Tulsa, I don't think anyone disputes that a new bridge would increase access between those cities. I however do dispute that this one bridge will mean a huge influx of residents to travel into Tulsa for the sole purpose of shopping. Will there be negligible influx? Yes. Will there be such influx as to skew the City of Tulsa's sales tax in a positive direction? No. The residents of Bixby and Jenks already buy most of their products in Tulsa on their way to and from home and work or when they are in Tulsa for other purposes.
As to the point about a group of very wealthy nonsensical homeowners, to me these homeowners are concerned about where the money is going to come from to improve the streets when the bridge is built. I don't think that is nonsensical. I actually appreciate them spending their own money to watch out for Tulsa's interest. I don't think this bridge will suck the prosperity out of Tulsa and I haven't heard the homeowners make that argument. As for the school near 101st and Yale, I have driven down by the school and think there is a legitimate public safety concern for the children and parents.
As to who should build the bridge, I agree that Bixby / Jenks / Tulsa should have built the bridge togher and all of the profits should have gone to street improvements and after all of the streets had been improved they could have split the profits. However, based on what I read in the paper, that was never an option. Bixby and Jenks had a contract with the private investors where the private investers kept 80% of the profits. Bixby and Jenks didn't have enough of the pie to offer the City of Tulsa any meaningful amount and the private investors wouldn't give up any of their share.
I agree that the better connection point is Riverside.
I disagree that the just because the Creeks bought some land that the connection point is now set in stone.
I also disagree that the City of Tulsa should negotiate and settle with only a few streets and intersections improved. The City of Tulsa and the homeowners group can cause the Creeks a lot of trouble and headaches over a 7 year bridge building process. And mind you that this is in no way a slam dunk for the Creeks that the BIA will accept the land into trust or that the Corps of Engineers will approve the construciton of a bridge at that location.
I think the Creeks should make the connection point Riverside and I think that if the Creeks are going to build the bridge, if the Creeks are going to make the bridge a toll bridge and if the Creeks are going to receive all of the profits from the bridge, then the Creeks should have to pay for "all" of the street improvements that result from the bridge.
Quote from: swake on August 21, 2009, 11:01:12 PM
... The bridge will mean that the residents in this area will be more likely to travel into Tulsa to shop. Leave them cut off and they will shop in Jenks, Glenpool and Bixby. This is a net gain for Tulsa, not a loss. The bridge actually will help Tulsa's sales tax situation.
swake,
I'm trying to understand this line of thinking.
What shopping is there in Deep South Tulsa? I can think of some strip malls, essentially convenience shopping, but no destination shopping areas, like Woodland Hills, Promenade, Tulsa Hills, Utica Square - my apologies to midtown for including the last example with others - that might be best reached by taking 75, the Creek Turnpike, or going up Memorial.
Where is it south of the Creek Turnpike that these people from Bixby and Jenks are going?
Otherwise this bridge means that Yale becomes an artery to the Creek and way for people in west Bixby and Jenks to get to the Bixby's new shopping on Memorial.
MG
The details of the location of the bridge, and its resulting impact on area streets and neighborhoods is best determined by those who live in that area. I am only slightly aware of those considerations having spent my life in midtown. However, I worked in the areas described, putting 30000 miles on a car in a year travelling those roads, so I am comfortable in saying that there is opportunity for increased commerce for both sides of the river should a bridge be built. I also know that the existing arterial roads in the area are mostly two lane, no curbs, open ditches, few left turn lanes, congested at peak travel periods and will need to be upgraded.
I never said that Tulsa should build walls between communities. That was a stretch of your own imagination. But effectively ignoring upgrades to surrounding roads that connect to a bridge someone else builds, for purposes not entirely agreed upon, with the hubris that the Creeks display..... is not farfetched. So far this bridge connection has been proposed by private investors for private gain on public properties or has been proposed by another nation who will usurp public lands by using bureacratic devices for essentially- private investment for private gain. Thats it isn't it? Tulsa is just the host in both scenarios and we're expected to just pony up our taxes and improve the surrounding roads to make sure that one of these parties is enriched.
Of course, the argument proffered is that Tulsa will benefit as well from the increased commerce. That has merit to me. Not that it will increase commerce for Tulsa, but more likely that if we don't allow the bridge, then by default each of these communities will be forced to focus their attention to growing and improving their own cities (such a tragedy, eh?) with the amenities they so covet in Tulsa. Our commerce could diminish. Tulsa then suffers the same outcome predicted that the bridge would suck business and taxes out of the city. In effect, either way offers Tulsa very little to gain. Only, one way costs us less outlay in taxes.
So the key issue to me is not the bridge, but who gets to build it, operate it, maintain it and profit from it. If Tulsa doesn't get to be in at the start and be part of the consortium, then screw the others. We end up with less outlay and the same outcome.
Quote from: MacGyver on August 22, 2009, 10:04:22 AM
Where is it south of the Creek Turnpike that these people from Bixby and Jenks are going?
I think the bigger issue for STCC is, people south of the Creek Turnpike bought homes (expensive ones at that) believing, and rightfully so, that the roads south of the Creek Turnpike would not turn into a Memorial. It was a belief that, there was no destination headed north/south to require larger roads because the river would stop any natural high traffic route. People try to believe in the master plan for roads and, when one looks, nothing is in place for the bridge.
Now, some private folks come along, build a bridge, which puts the requirement on the city to build bigger roads to handle the traffic, which causes home values to plummet, and all to no fault of the home owner.
There is no property south of the Creek Turnpike to build large shopping areas. That is exactly why these people bought homes in these areas.
My 2 cents worth. Some thoughts have already been presented by others. Disclaimer, I live a little east of Memorial, south of 111th.
South Tulsa Citizens Coalition doesn't want a bridge, period. I can't say as I blame them but too bad. When our family moved here in 1971, my parents wanted to be a bit out in the country but not quite the boonies. Memorial was 2 lanes south of the RR tracks at 41st and Memorial. It didn't matter because there was nothing here. If the rest of the area had been developed with large lots instead of 5 houses per acre, Memorial wouldn't need to be 6 lanes. People wanting a more dense environment could have stayed in mid-town Tulsa. Moving along, Yale is a major arterial. Even without a bridge, traffic is going to get worse as drivers avoid Memorial as long as possible (121st and Sheridan or Yale or along Delaware to 121st). Count me as one of those drivers. I do not take the Creek home from Jenks because Memorial is so crowded at the busy at the rush 1/2 hour. If/when a bridge is built, it needs easy access to both Delaware/121st and Yale. I go along with the theory that if no bridge is built, shopping opportunities south of the river will be built. The argument that the drivers living south of the river already buy in Tulsa is time limited. Building a bridge to Yale/Delaware will reduce the requirements to continually widen Peoria and Memorial. This falls in line with some of the ideas presented here for more 1/2 mile through streets. People living south of the river will gladly pay a toll. A co-worker lives there and said that "the bridge" would save him 7 miles each way to work. I know the mid-towners will say so what, he should live north of the river. Folks south of the river want better access to places on Yale. Access to St Francis hospital is a real issue. Access to Promenade at 41st and Yale (and possibly Utica Square) would be better served by Yale than Delaware or Memorial. No one here is going to stop the development south of the river. Cutting them off is not going to help Tulsa at all. Half of the "Bixby" shopping along Memorial between 101st and 111th is actually Tulsa on the west side of the road.
The semi-rich folks near Yale need to realize they will eventually get screwed just like the rest of us. The really rich folks actually live along Knoxville, I believe. Tulsa needs to get involved with this bridge to get some revenue to improve Yale and Delaware. There is no question that these roads need to be improved. Tulsa needs to not stick its head in the sand on this issue.
Quote from: MacGyver on August 22, 2009, 10:04:22 AM
swake,
I'm trying to understand this line of thinking.
What shopping is there in Deep South Tulsa? I can think of some strip malls, essentially convenience shopping, but no destination shopping areas, like Woodland Hills, Promenade, Tulsa Hills, Utica Square - my apologies to midtown for including the last example with others - that might be best reached by taking 75, the Creek Turnpike, or going up Memorial.
Where is it south of the Creek Turnpike that these people from Bixby and Jenks are going?
Otherwise this bridge means that Yale becomes an artery to the Creek and way for people in west Bixby and Jenks to get to the Bixby's new shopping on Memorial.
MG
People are will to travel for "destination" shopping and the bridge likely would not change the use of those areas. But it is the shopping areas at 101st/91st and Yale, 101st and Sheridan, 96th and Riverside and 81st and Lewis that would benefit.
Here's what will happen over the next 10-15 years if the bridge isn't built, 151st Street, which is already a 4 lane highway between Glenpool and Bixby will become the next 71st Street type corridor, and if that happens like the Smith Farm area in Owasso, it WILL suck sales taxes out of Tulsa. 151st will probably happen anyway, but the bridge would slow it greatly.
Quote from: swake on August 22, 2009, 11:13:21 PM
People are will to travel for "destination" shopping and the bridge likely would not change the use of those areas. But it is the shopping areas at 101st/91st and Yale, 101st and Sheridan, 96th and Riverside and 81st and Lewis that would benefit.
Here's what will happen over the next 10-15 years if the bridge isn't built, 151st Street, which is already a 4 lane highway between Glenpool and Bixby will become the next 71st Street type corridor, and if that happens like the Smith Farm area in Owasso, it WILL suck sales taxes out of Tulsa. 151st will probably happen anyway, but the bridge would slow it greatly.
I would think people would use the bridge to leave Tulsa for shopping on 151st if it's developed. With the bridge they can count on more traffic going south, thus justifying building a center south of the river.
Plenty of open space to build a "destination" shopping center in the area south of 121st, east of Yale and west of Sheridan. In Tulsa city limits and would be a great sales tax opportunity for the city by getting Bixby and Jenks residents to shop there instead of a development south of the river.
To ease traffic worries, expand Riverside / 121st street to a 4 lane road or possibly 6 from Creek Turnpike to Memorial. If provided a a good road from the proposed bridge exit North of the river to the Creek via Riverside, I suspect more drivers would take that route instead of straight north on Yale. Especially if they're going to downtown via Creek to Highway 75.
Yale would still need to be widened to avoid congestion for the locals, but it's going to need to be expanded someday anyway. Why not strike a deal to get the toll bridge revenue to help offset some of the cost?
A compromise should be reached for the good of all and move forward. It's sad to see powerplays and fear the other side is going to make money get in the way of a bridge that will be good for all involved.
Quote from: HazMatCFO on August 23, 2009, 09:06:13 AM
Plenty of open space to build a "destination" shopping center in the area south of 121st, east of Yale and west of Sheridan.
To ease traffic worries, expand Riverside / 121st street to a 4 lane road or possibly 6 from Creek Turnpike to Memorial. If provided a a good road from the proposed bridge exit North of the river to the Creek via Riverside, I suspect more drivers would take that route instead of straight north on Yale. Especially if they're going to downtown via Creek to Highway 75.
Not building a bridge will practically guarantee commercial development along 151st.
One of the reasons there is still open space south of 121st is the possibility of it getting really wet. Can I interest you in some water front property near the Everglades?
Straight north on Yale is the best bet for getting on the Creek, assuming Yale is properly improved. Traffic at Riverside and the Creek Tpk and 101st is already a mess. We need to relieve some of the congestion by providing alternate routes, not just always expanding existing routes. Improving Delaware/Riverside will probably not cause drivers to take the Creek to 75 to go downtown. It will probably cause them to stay on (free) Riverside. If you send them north on Yale, they will most likely get on the turnpike to either Riverside or 75, depending on what part of downtown they want to go to. People living along Yale will invent all kinds of possibilities to say no one wants to go on Yale. I used to think the same about Memorial. Yale will happen. Maybe not in the next year or two but it will happen.
Part of the problem with he bridge, no one wants to include the City of Tulsa, no one wants to share revenue from the bridge to help offset the long term costs of maintaining the roads the bridge will connect to.
That would most likely be why thus far the leadership in the City of Tulsa has not been interested in the bridge. So instead of these cities working out a deal they ran to the Indians to get the land in a trust.
Personally I happen to agree with both sides, in the long run Tulsa will make the money to maintain the roads and the infrastructure, I also happen to think its silly to say the homeowners 100% don't want a bridge, what they want is to help dictate where it goes. I also see the homeowners side though, no one asked there input, no one on the other side of the river seems to care for the impact on there neighborhoods. Working with the homeowners and the City of Tulsa would mean the bridge could move forward and satisfy more people, and could be a "bridge" to better working relationships between the burbs and the City of Tulsa.
No party in this situation has handled this perfectly, but there is still time to work this out and make it right.
Red Arrow-
I guess if I post this enough then everyone will understand that the STCC is NOT against the bridge...period. That is why the name and website is and always has been movethatbridge.com not stopthatbridge...but movethatbridge.
The STCC tried to work with the initial investors, IVI, County Commissioner Bob Dick and Clay Bird in 2005 but were laughed at and told this bridge was going in at Yale and there was nothing to be done about it so get used to it. We know where that got them. Had they not been their cocky selves...this bridge would be built right now. Oh well.... that's what happens when you get all high and mighty.
The STCC has a group of 5000+ members from all parts of Tulsa and is extremely organized. It's not just a small group of "rich" South Tulsa homeowners with nothing to do. It is a group of well educated people who care about Tulsa and especially what happens financially for this city. The way this bridge is being shoved down the throats of ALL citizens of Tulsa is just wrong.
I agree. This is not about a bridge, but about the attitude and the arrogance of some key players. First trying to privatize it under the radar and without input from the surrounding areas. Then getting a tribe involved so they could leverage power using their special relationship with the federal govt. It just pissed people off.
Quote from: swake on August 22, 2009, 11:13:21 PM
People are will to travel for "destination" shopping and the bridge likely would not change the use of those areas. But it is the shopping areas at 101st/91st and Yale, 101st and Sheridan, 96th and Riverside and 81st and Lewis that would benefit.
Here's what will happen over the next 10-15 years if the bridge isn't built, 151st Street, which is already a 4 lane highway between Glenpool and Bixby will become the next 71st Street type corridor, and if that happens like the Smith Farm area in Owasso, it WILL suck sales taxes out of Tulsa. 151st will probably happen anyway, but the bridge would slow it greatly.
Thanks for your response, but the question still stands: what shopping is there is deep south Tulsa that Bixby/Jenks residents are not going to have closer to them. My sense is this is mostly strip mall development without any particular unique attraction. Bixby and Jenks has and will have more strip malls. I like the Bistro and the other businesses down there but I don't see anyone from Bixby/Jenks going there more often because of a Yale bridge.
I am in violent agreement with you that without any change in traffic flow, 151st or another corridor will develop like Owasso has and bleed Tulsa tax rolls further, but I just don't see the proposed Yale bridge as anything but arterial access for people that bought homes (too) far out and trucks full of toilet paper.
MG
Quote from: da dawg on August 23, 2009, 01:57:05 PM
Red Arrow-
I guess if I post this enough then everyone will understand that the STCC is NOT against the bridge...period. That is why the name and website is and always has been movethatbridge.com not stopthatbridge...but movethatbridge.
The STCC tried to work with the initial investors, IVI, County Commissioner Bob Dick and Clay Bird in 2005 but were laughed at and told this bridge was going in at Yale and there was nothing to be done about it so get used to it. We know where that got them. Had they not been their cocky selves...this bridge would be built right now. Oh well.... that's what happens when you get all high and mighty.
The STCC has a group of 5000+ members from all parts of Tulsa and is extremely organized. It's not just a small group of "rich" South Tulsa homeowners with nothing to do. It is a group of well educated people who care about Tulsa and especially what happens financially for this city. The way this bridge is being shoved down the throats of ALL citizens of Tulsa is just wrong.
I agree that "the bridge" has been thrust down the throats of several but not ALL Tulsans and I disagree with the politics that have been used so far. I have also
never seen anything from STCC that the primary approach to Yale would be acceptable if Yale were properly improved. It has always been OK as long as it's not in your back yard. Move the traffic to Delaware. I would have liked either Sheridan or Mingo to be the major highway to Bixby to at least 121st St. Naming a website movethatbridge.com vs. stopthatbridge.com is nothing more than clever marketing. This may well turn into the rich folks along Yale vs the rich folks along Delaware. Maybe you can work together and move the traffic to Sheridan. Oops! got some rich folks at 101st and Sheridan. Guess that won't work either. I do not buy into the theory that a bridge will suck Tulsa dry on sales tax. Hey, I live just east of Memorial. I can relate to not wanting Yale any more congested than it is. I really liked it when Memorial was 2 lanes of mostly a country drive south of 51st Street. My parents were told that Memorial would develop and guess what, it did. Yale is a 1 mile arterial. It will develop. 5000+ people out of of all of Tulsa, wow! What's the population of Tulsa? Educated...thanks for the insult. I have a Masters degree in Engineering. I guess I'm STUPID because I disagree with STCC. Get real and demand reasonable improvements to Yale
and Delaware as part of any bridge program, not just to take it somewhere else. You might get more positive results. Property setbacks are already as wide as 4 or more lanes on Yale south of the Creek Turnpike. Must be some kind of plan there. All the dirt work won't be cheap but no one needs to sell their house to the street development. The biggest problem to improving Yale is the hill between 81st and 91st. The grade would also be the biggest hinderance to installing light rail (or real trolleys) along Yale.
Quote from: MacGyver on August 23, 2009, 03:09:55 PM
I just don't see the proposed Yale bridge as anything but arterial access for people that bought homes (too) far out and trucks full of toilet paper.
MG
I have no problem with "Trucks Prohibited Except for Local Delivery".
Quote from: waterboy on August 23, 2009, 03:01:19 PM
I agree. This is not about a bridge, but about the attitude and the arrogance of some key players.
On both sides.
On the first bridge agreement between Tulsa County and the private investors, Tulsa County terminated the agreement with the private investors once it came to light that the terms of the agreement had been agreed to by Bob Dick behind closed doors and were not in the best interest of Tulsa County. I believe in their first lawsuit the STCC proved numerous violations of the open meeting act by Bob Dick and the private investors.
On the second bridge agreement between Jenks / Bixby and the private investors, the Oklahoma Supreme Court ruled that such agreement was illegal.
I don't see a problem with a citizen group using their own money and clout to invalidate two illegal agreements. As a matter of fact, I appreciate them watching out for my tax dollars.
Quote from: Bat Bat on August 24, 2009, 09:27:38 AM
On the first bridge agreement between Tulsa County and the private investors, Tulsa County terminated the agreement with the private investors once it came to light that the terms of the agreement had been agreed to by Bob Dick behind closed doors and were not in the best interest of Tulsa County. I believe in their first lawsuit the STCC proved numerous violations of the open meeting act by Bob Dick and the private investors.
On the second bridge agreement between Jenks / Bixby and the private investors, the Oklahoma Supreme Court ruled that such agreement was illegal.
I don't see a problem with a citizen group using their own money and clout to invalidate two illegal agreements. As a matter of fact, I appreciate them watching out for my tax dollars.
Ahh, yes. Dirty Bob.
What bothers me the most is that the south Tulsa neighborhoods that will be impacted by this bridge aren't being included, nor is the City of Tulsa. The roads out there are not safe for increased levels of traffic, and with so many bad streets in Tulsa, I don't know when there will be time or money to improve them, much less maintain them.
I think Tulsa should just tell the Creek Nation that if they want to build the bridge, that's fine. Tulsa will just barricade its streets on this side of the bridge, preventing access. Our very own "bridge to nowhere."
People should consider this agressive tactic on the part of Creek Nation, and stop supporting their businesses around town. I especially feel bad for the people who live in the area, since they've been fighting this for so long now. No one seems to consider them at all.
How is this bridge not the most important issue in next month's primary election?
This topic has everything...rich developers, regionalism, tribal involvement, unfunded capital needs, citizen activism, public safety...
The Tulsa World ran a big feature story on this City Council race in yesterday's (Sunday's) Tulsa World. Where was this question?
What are the City Council candidates position on this issue?
What are the positions of the Mayor candidates?
Quote from: T-Town Now on August 24, 2009, 10:57:12 AM
The roads out there are not safe for increased levels of traffic, and with so many bad streets in Tulsa, I don't know when there will be time or money to improve them, much less maintain them.
Be part of the plan, get some of the toll money as a condition of building the bridge.
I think Tulsa should just tell the Creek Nation that if they want to build the bridge, that's fine. Tulsa will just barricade its streets on this side of the bridge, preventing access. Our very own "bridge to nowhere."
Bad Attidude. The burbs could say fine, stay in self-sufficient Tulsa, keep out of our town. We're not letting any supply trucks through. Start the Tulsa Airlift modeled after the Berlin Airlift after WWII.
People should consider this agressive tactic on the part of Creek Nation, and stop supporting their businesses around town. I especially feel bad for the people who live in the area, since they've been fighting this for so long now. No one seems to consider them at all.
That's the problem, they have been fighting it rather than trying to come to an equitable solution. Some of them may have been misinformed by their Realtors much like many folks along the 96th St corridor (Creek Tpk) were.
Buy next to an airport, expect airplane noise.
Buy next to the fairgrounds, expect noise and congestion. (The neighbors did manage to kill car racing there.)
Buy next to an identified arterial, expect some day it will be developed.
Edit to change color. I forgot orange is difficult to read in the quote portion.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on August 24, 2009, 11:45:18 AM
How is this bridge not the most important issue in next month's primary election?
What, and ignore the MOST important item facing our city - installing a creationism exhibit at the zoo?
Seriously though, I agree...this has big ramifications for the region and I have mixed feelings about it. Would be nice for the candidates to address their thoughts and what their plan of action would be to address this.
I simply don't see it the way you do Red Arrow. My responses are below in Red.
T-Town said: The roads out there are not safe for increased levels of traffic, and with so many bad streets in Tulsa, I don't know when there will be time or money to improve them, much less maintain them.
Red Arrow responded: Be part of the plan, get some of the toll money as a condition of building the bridge.
Bat Bat response: I agree with T-Town. Be part of the plan Red Arrow? The private investors didn't want to give any money to the City of Tulsa. Bixby / Jenks only wanted to give 10% to the City of Tulsa. It is going to take a lot more than 10% of the profits to pay for the needed street improvements. I think the City of Tulsa and the homeowners are willing to be a part of the plan, but so far neither the private investors, Bixby / Jenks nor the Creeks have wanted to include them in the plan.
T-Town said: I think Tulsa should just tell the Creek Nation that if they want to build the bridge, that's fine. Tulsa will just barricade its streets on this side of the bridge, preventing access. Our very own "bridge to nowhere."
Red Arrow responded: Bad Attidude. The burbs could say fine, stay in self-sufficient Tulsa, keep out of our town. We're not letting any supply trucks through. Start the Tulsa Airlift modeled after the Berlin Airlift after WWII.
Bat Bat response: Bad Attitude? The City of Tulsa has estimated infrastructure improvements necessary to handle the projected bridge traffic at somewhere around $80 million. Was it a bad attitude on the private investors part when they wanted to build the bridge, keep all of the profits for themselves and not give the City of Tulsa a dime? Oh, that's right that wasn't a bad attitude that was just illegal. Was it a bad attitude on Bixby / Jenks' part when they wanted to build the bridge with the private investors and not include the City of Tulsa in any negotiation and late in the game only offer to give them 10%? Oh, that's right that was not a bad attitude that was just illegal. Now, is it a bad attitude on the Creek's part to attempt to put the land in trust for the sole purpose of not having to comply with the City of Tulsa's laws? the law of the State? Or without even discussing the bridge situation with the City of Tulsa or the near by residents? Bad attitude Red Arrow? I think you need to reexamine the situation.
T-Town said: People should consider this agressive tactic on the part of Creek Nation, and stop supporting their businesses around town. I especially feel bad for the people who live in the area, since they've been fighting this for so long now. No one seems to consider them at all.
Red Arrow responded: That's the problem, they have been fighting it rather than trying to come to an equitable solution. Some of them may have been misinformed by their Realtors much like many folks along the 96th St corridor (Creek Tpk) were.
Buy next to an airport, expect airplane noise.
Buy next to the fairgrounds, expect noise and congestion. (The neighbors did manage to kill car racing there.)
Buy next to an identified arterial, expect some day it will be developed.
Bat Bat response: The private investors, Bixby / Jenks and now the Creeks have been fighting it rather than trying to come to an equitable solution. The private investors offer the City of Tulsa not one dime to compensate them for street improvements. Is that equitable? In the last minute of the fourth quarter, Bixby/ Jenks offered the City of Tulsa 10% of the profits? So, the City of Tulsa fronts $80 million infrastructure and Bixby / Jenks offer them 10% of the profit. Is that equitable? So far, the Creeks have not offerred the City of Tulsa squat for street improvements. The Creeks haven't even contacted the City of Tulsa for a discussion. All the Creeks want to do is use the federal trust laws to get around having to deal with the City of Tulsa. Is that equitable?
As for your examples, I don't think anyone is complaning about living next to an identified arterial and I certainly don't think they are complaining about it being developed. I think they are complaining about the fact that it isn't reasonable to dump 24,000 cars per day onto a two lane road that is already conjested with ditches and no stop lights. I think they are complaining about the fact that there is no money to improve these streets in the foreseeable future.
Quote from: Bat Bat on August 24, 2009, 02:37:06 PM
I simply don't see it the way you do Red Arrow. My responses are below in Red.
T-Town said: The roads out there are not safe for increased levels of traffic, and with so many bad streets in Tulsa, I don't know when there will be time or money to improve them, much less maintain them.
Red Arrow responded: Be part of the plan, get some of the toll money as a condition of building the bridge.
Bat Bat response: I agree with T-Town. Be part of the plan Red Arrow? The private investors didn't want to give any money to the City of Tulsa. Bixby / Jenks only wanted to give 10% to the City of Tulsa. It is going to take a lot more than 10% of the profits to pay for the needed street improvements. I think the City of Tulsa and the homeowners are willing to be a part of the plan, but so far neither the private investors, Bixby / Jenks nor the Creeks have wanted to include them in the plan.
T-Town said: I think Tulsa should just tell the Creek Nation that if they want to build the bridge, that's fine. Tulsa will just barricade its streets on this side of the bridge, preventing access. Our very own "bridge to nowhere."
Red Arrow responded: Bad Attidude. The burbs could say fine, stay in self-sufficient Tulsa, keep out of our town. We're not letting any supply trucks through. Start the Tulsa Airlift modeled after the Berlin Airlift after WWII.
Bat Bat response: Bad Attitude? The City of Tulsa has estimated infrastructure improvements necessary to handle the projected bridge traffic at somewhere around $80 million. Was it a bad attitude on the private investors part when they wanted to build the bridge, keep all of the profits for themselves and not give the City of Tulsa a dime? Oh, that's right that wasn't a bad attitude that was just illegal. Was it a bad attitude on Bixby / Jenks' part when they wanted to build the bridge with the private investors and not include the City of Tulsa in any negotiation and late in the game only offer to give them 10%? Oh, that's right that was not a bad attitude that was just illegal. Now, is it a bad attitude on the Creek's part to attempt to put the land in trust for the sole purpose of not having to comply with the City of Tulsa's laws? the law of the State? Or without even discussing the bridge situation with the City of Tulsa or the near by residents? Bad attitude Red Arrow? I think you need to reexamine the situation.
T-Town said: People should consider this agressive tactic on the part of Creek Nation, and stop supporting their businesses around town. I especially feel bad for the people who live in the area, since they've been fighting this for so long now. No one seems to consider them at all.
Red Arrow responded: That's the problem, they have been fighting it rather than trying to come to an equitable solution. Some of them may have been misinformed by their Realtors much like many folks along the 96th St corridor (Creek Tpk) were.
Buy next to an airport, expect airplane noise.
Buy next to the fairgrounds, expect noise and congestion. (The neighbors did manage to kill car racing there.)
Buy next to an identified arterial, expect some day it will be developed.
Bat Bat response: The private investors, Bixby / Jenks and now the Creeks have been fighting it rather than trying to come to an equitable solution. The private investors offer the City of Tulsa not one dime to compensate them for street improvements. Is that equitable? In the last minute of the fourth quarter, Bixby/ Jenks offered the City of Tulsa 10% of the profits? So, the City of Tulsa fronts $80 million infrastructure and Bixby / Jenks offer them 10% of the profit. Is that equitable? So far, the Creeks have not offerred the City of Tulsa squat for street improvements. The Creeks haven't even contacted the City of Tulsa for a discussion. All the Creeks want to do is use the federal trust laws to get around having to deal with the City of Tulsa. Is that equitable?
As for your examples, I don't think anyone is complaning about living next to an identified arterial and I certainly don't think they are complaining about it being developed. I think they are complaining about the fact that it isn't reasonable to dump 24,000 cars per day onto a two lane road that is already conjested with ditches and no stop lights. I think they are complaining about the fact that there is no money to improve these streets in the foreseeable future.
Can you find me any proposal or counter offer the city has made to any group on this at all?
No. I don't think the City of Tulsa has made any propsal or counteroffer to either the private investors, Bixby / Jenks or the Creeks.
Quote from: jtcrissup on August 24, 2009, 02:02:01 PM
What, and ignore the MOST important item facing our city - installing a creationism exhibit at the zoo?
Seriously though, I agree...this has big ramifications for the region and I have mixed feelings about it. Would be nice for the candidates to address their thoughts and what their plan of action would be to address this.
I seem to get asked daily. What do you wanna know?
And the $80 million quote shows that this is NOT about improvements or "moving" the bridge. The bridge is projected to have 7,000 cars a day that could disperse in three directions. 7,000 cars a day is in no way an $80 million load on capacity in the area.
Vision 2025 just widened two and half miles of 61st Street for $13.5 million dollars and construction costs are falling. $80 million would have to be something like the amount of money needed to widen Yale to four lanes from 96th to 121st and Riverside to 4 lanes from 101st to 121st and widen 121st from Riverside to Memorial and probably have $30 - $40 million left over. And that's taking the capacity of each of those streets to 30-40,000 cars per day to solve 7,000 additional cars for all of them combined.
$80 million is a figure so far out of reality as to be about stopping the project altogether. That has to be the amount it would cost to improve everything south of the Turnpike in Tulsa.
QuoteRed Arrow wrote:
Bad Attidude. The burbs could say fine, stay in self-sufficient Tulsa, keep out of our town. We're not letting any supply trucks through. Start the Tulsa Airlift modeled after the Berlin Airlift after WWII.
The burbs have nothing to offer without Tulsa. What company is going to relocate to Broken Arrow if Tulsa weren't in the picture? Broken Arrow is just concrete and strip shopping centers. That's it. Neighborhoods adjacent to the new PAC have no curbs and open gulleys running along the streets.
Jenks? Owasso? What do any of these little burbs have to offer without Tulsa? How many live there, but depend on their livelihood due to jobs in Tulsa?
I think Jenks and Bixby have the bad attitude. They think it's OK to steal our ball team, our tax revenues, and then want a hand out from Tulsa taxpayers, too. No thanks.
Quote from: T-Town Now on August 24, 2009, 03:15:51 PM
The burbs have nothing to offer without Tulsa. What company is going to relocate to Broken Arrow if Tulsa weren't in the picture? Broken Arrow is just concrete and strip shopping centers. That's it. Neighborhoods adjacent to the new PAC have no curbs and open gulleys running along the streets.
Jenks? Owasso? What do any of these little burbs have to offer without Tulsa? How many live there, but depend on their livelihood due to jobs in Tulsa?
I think Jenks and Bixby have the bad attitude. They think it's OK to steal our ball team, our tax revenues, and then want a hand out from Tulsa taxpayers, too. No thanks.
Quote from: swake on August 24, 2009, 03:13:08 PM
And the $80 million quote shows that this is NOT about improvements or "moving" the bridge. The bridge is projected to have 7,000 cars a day that could disperse in three directions. 7,000 cars a day is in no way an $80 million load on capacity in the area.
Vision 2025 just widened two and half miles of 61st Street for $13.5 million dollars and construction costs are falling. $80 million would have to be something like the amount of money needed to widen Yale to four lanes from 96th to 121st and Riverside to 4 lanes from 101st to 121st and widen 121st from Riverside to Memorial and probably have $30 - $40 million left over. And that's taking the capacity of each of those streets to 30-40,000 cars per day to solve 7,000 additional cars for all of them combined.
$80 million is a figure so far out of reality as to be about stopping the project altogether. That has to be the amount it would cost to improve everything south of the Turnpike in Tulsa.
That sounds like exactly what needs to be widened to me. And let's not forget that the traffic projections are now five years old and they started at 7,000+ and went up to 24,000 vehicles per day. So let widen Yale to four lanes from 96th to 121st; Riverside to 4 lanes from 101st to 121st; 121st St. from Riverside to Sheridan (Sheridan to Memorial has already been widened). Don't forget the intersections as well. If you can do all of that and have $30 to $40 million left over, please call the Creeks and tell them we have come up with a deal. They pay for all of the infrastructure for $40 million (your number) and then they can put in their bridge.
Oh darnet, I forgot that they now have to work with the County to compensate them for their lost property tax and the City again to compsate them for their lost sales tax revenue for all of the development they are going to put around the bridge.
Oh, I forgot again. Development around the bridge. I guess those traffice projection number are just going to keep going higher and higher.
Quote from: Bat Bat on August 24, 2009, 02:37:06 PM
I simply don't see it the way you do Red Arrow. My responses are below in Red.
I didn't expect you would. At least we are both staying civil. We're going to run out of colors.
T-Town said: The roads out there are not safe for increased levels of traffic, and with so many bad streets in Tulsa, I don't know when there will be time or money to improve them, much less maintain them.
Red Arrow responded: Be part of the plan, get some of the toll money as a condition of building the bridge.
Bat Bat response: I agree with T-Town. Be part of the plan Red Arrow? The private investors didn't want to give any money to the City of Tulsa. Bixby / Jenks only wanted to give 10% to the City of Tulsa. It is going to take a lot more than 10% of the profits to pay for the needed street improvements. I think the City of Tulsa and the homeowners are willing to be a part of the plan, but so far neither the private investors, Bixby / Jenks nor the Creeks have wanted to include them in the plan.
I used the term "plan" generically. Of course the investors wanted to keep all the profit. The only responses I heard were "no" and to "move the bridge" away from "my yard". I only have the media and this forum as information sources but I never heard a counter offer/demand from Tulsa to require the investors to improve Yale, 121st, or Delaware. I agree that a for profit bridge should be required to contribute to improvements to Yale all the way to the turnpike and to 121st from Sheridan to Delaware and up to 101st. (121st is already 5 lanes between Sheridan and Memorial. I don't know how it was funded but doubt Bixby picked up the whole tab.) There are probably improvements that will be needed south of the river too. The only plan that I have heard the homeowners willing to support is to move the bridge.
T-Town said: I think Tulsa should just tell the Creek Nation that if they want to build the bridge, that's fine. Tulsa will just barricade its streets on this side of the bridge, preventing access. Our very own "bridge to nowhere."
Red Arrow responded: Bad Attidude. The burbs could say fine, stay in self-sufficient Tulsa, keep out of our town. We're not letting any supply trucks through. Start the Tulsa Airlift modeled after the Berlin Airlift after WWII.
Bat Bat response: Bad Attitude? The City of Tulsa has estimated infrastructure improvements necessary to handle the projected bridge traffic at somewhere around $80 million. Was it a bad attitude on the private investors part when they wanted to build the bridge, keep all of the profits for themselves and not give the City of Tulsa a dime? Oh, that's right that wasn't a bad attitude that was just illegal. Was it a bad attitude on Bixby / Jenks' part when they wanted to build the bridge with the private investors and not include the City of Tulsa in any negotiation and late in the game only offer to give them 10%? Oh, that's right that was not a bad attitude that was just illegal. Now, is it a bad attitude on the Creek's part to attempt to put the land in trust for the sole purpose of not having to comply with the City of Tulsa's laws? the law of the State? Or without even discussing the bridge situation with the City of Tulsa or the near by residents? Bad attitude Red Arrow? I think you need to reexamine the situation.
I do get a bit tired of the frequent references to shutting the burbs off and not allowing anyone without a Tulsa utility bill to drive on Tulsa streets. I will not deny some bad attitude on the several attempts to build a bridge by the potential builders.
T-Town said: People should consider this agressive tactic on the part of Creek Nation, and stop supporting their businesses around town. I especially feel bad for the people who live in the area, since they've been fighting this for so long now. No one seems to consider them at all.
Red Arrow responded: That's the problem, they have been fighting it rather than trying to come to an equitable solution. Some of them may have been misinformed by their Realtors much like many folks along the 96th St corridor (Creek Tpk) were.
Buy next to an airport, expect airplane noise.
Buy next to the fairgrounds, expect noise and congestion. (The neighbors did manage to kill car racing there.)
Buy next to an identified arterial, expect some day it will be developed.
Bat Bat response: The private investors, Bixby / Jenks and now the Creeks have been fighting it rather than trying to come to an equitable solution. The private investors offer the City of Tulsa not one dime to compensate them for street improvements. Is that equitable? In the last minute of the fourth quarter, Bixby/ Jenks offered the City of Tulsa 10% of the profits? So, the City of Tulsa fronts $80 million infrastructure and Bixby / Jenks offer them 10% of the profit. Is that equitable? So far, the Creeks have not offerred the City of Tulsa squat for street improvements. The Creeks haven't even contacted the City of Tulsa for a discussion. All the Creeks want to do is use the federal trust laws to get around having to deal with the City of Tulsa. Is that equitable?
The COT rolled over and played dead. The only equitable solution offered by COT was to say no. Why did COT and STCC not launch a plan to get some money from the investors in exchange for cooperation? So far my impression is that COT and STCC want very much NOT to negotiate. Negotiations would not be easy but probably not impossible. I forget what the predicted profits were. Without that, it is impossible to say what percentage is equitable. COT is not going to get any money by saying no bridge.
As for your examples, I don't think anyone is complaning about living next to an identified arterial and I certainly don't think they are complaining about it being developed. I think they are complaining about the fact that it isn't reasonable to dump 24,000 cars per day onto a two lane road that is already conjested with ditches and no stop lights. I think they are complaining about the fact that there is no money to improve these streets in the foreseeable future.
I think they are complaining about developing a designated arterial into an actual arterial, money being available or not. With all the development going in on the flood plane (oops, valuable home sites along 121st), those roads are going to be more crowded anyway. I have nearly 40 yrs of evidence living near Memorial that says so. Not building transportation infrastructure does not stop housing development. Developers are doing the high density (for single family homes) building that will require more and wider roads since meaningful public transit won't happen in the foreseeable future.
Red Arrow, you made more sense to me that last time around. I agree that the City of Tulsa has not come to the table. However, I don't think they have been asked to come to the table. Here is what I "think" happened. I'm not 100% sure but this is my impression.
Round 1: Private investors signed agreement with Tulsa County. Private investors did not ask COT to the table. STCC asked private investors and Tulsa County to table. Private investors / Tulsa County came up with no concessions and told STCC to go home and be quiet. STCC sued. Tulsa County terminated agreement.
Round 2: PI signed agreement with Bixby / Jenks. None of them asked the COT to the table. They all asked STCC to table. They offerred a concession to put the bridge on 121st between Yale and Riverside. STCC asked for money for street improvements but PI / Bixby / Jenks said no. STCC sued. (I'm not really clear on this part, but at some point late into STCC's lawsuit Jenks offered COT 10% of profits). Oklahoma Supreme Court said agreement was illegal and void.
Round 3: Creeks have bought land around 121st between Sheridan and Yale. Creeks have said they plan to put a bridge on the land. According to STCC, the Creeks have developed plans for the bridge already. Creeks are in the process of applying to put the land in trust. Creeks have not asked COT to the table.
Maybe I am just ignorant on the subject and everybody asked COT to the table numerous times and they wouldn't come. If so, shame on them. But I just don't think that is what happened.
I personally think the person (entity) developing the land should get all of the players to the table. As of right now, that is the Creeks and I don't think they have asked either COT of the STCC to the table.
From a pure perspective on getting the bridge built. I think the best bet of getting the bridge built was between Bixby / Jenks / Tulsa (no private investors). I think they could have come up with a reasonable infrastructure plan with the profits from the toll bridge paying for those infrastructure improvements. I also think they could have agreed on an acceptable location. But for whatever reason that did not happen.
I think adding the Creeks into the mix adds all of these other arguments about lost property and sales tax and I don't know if COT and Tulsa County will give up on those arguments.
Quote from: Bat Bat on August 24, 2009, 07:55:37 PM
From a pure perspective on getting the bridge built. I think the best bet of getting the bridge built was between Bixby / Jenks / Tulsa (no private investors). I think they could have come up with a reasonable infrastructure plan with the profits from the toll bridge paying for those infrastructure improvements. I also think they could have agreed on an acceptable location. But for whatever reason that did not happen.
I agree that B/J/T working together is the best option. They would be required to make enough "profit" to pay bonds etc but not to make profits above the interest on the bonds. I believe government bonds can often have tax advantages to the holders making the interest paid occur at a lower rate. I'll probably get bashed by someone here but I think the infrastructure is one of the things the government should provide. Tolls are not nice but are an acceptable way to pay for specific infrastructure. A universal "Pikepass" would be nice for out of state use as more and more roads become toll roads. I've heard there are only a few, maybe one, companies making the equipment. A little (glad I don't have to write it) software change is all that should be required.
I think the bridge is a bad idea. But it is horrible idea if traffic is planned to be funneled down Yale. There is no infrastructure from the Creek Turnpike to 121st to support the incremental traffic due to the bridge.
Although I still do like like the idea, a connection to Riverside Drive makes tons more sense. On Yale you have to go past an elementary school and a stop light at 101st and then go another 6 blocks to get to the Creek Turnpike -- and basically little other commerical development. On Riverside there is no school and no stoplight at 101st. Plus the Creek is right at 101st and you are very close to all the commerical establishments at 96th and Riverside.
All that said the Creek Tribe made an end run on the land. I hope the government is successful in stopping the land being placed in a trust. That should not be allowed.
Quote from: HDPokeFan on August 25, 2009, 05:27:10 PM
I think the bridge is a bad idea. But it is horrible idea if traffic is planned to be funneled down Yale.
There is no infrastructure from the Creek Turnpike to 121st to support the incremental traffic due to the bridge.
Gee, no kidding? Yale needs to be improved, bridge or no bridge. Part of any bridge project needs to include improvements to both Yale and Delaware/Riverside. I know the programs so far have just dumped that on Tulsa but I agree that is wrong.
Although I still do like like the idea, a connection to Riverside Drive makes tons more sense.
You must live on Yale or close to Yale.
On Yale you have to go past an elementary school and a stop light at 101st and then go another 6 blocks to get to the Creek Turnpike -- and basically little other commerical development.
If one stop light and a fenced in school yard are the best you can come up with, move on to something else. In fact, the lack of a lot of commercial development makes Yale comparable to your preference for Delaware/Riverside. The small strip of stores behind the bank on the NE corner of 101st and Yale will be glad to know there is nothing commercial there. After the turnpike, there is little commercial development until you get to 91st, an additional 1/2 mile of 6 lane road. The hill between 91st and 81st must be blocking your view of commercial activity at 81st. (Ever get that far north? That used to be my favorite hill in Tulsa before they "improved" it. That only works if you like twisty country roads.) One more mile and you have access to 71st St going east or west. One more mile and you have a Hospital, the big pink one and the other supporting medical facilities. A little farther and there is LaFortune Park. There are some other commercial opportunities that may or may not matter until you get to..... The Fairgrounds at ....21st & Yale.
On Riverside there is no school and no stoplight at 101st. Plus the Creek is right at 101st and you are very close to all the commerical establishments at 96th and Riverside.
There are some big new homes that will probably be needed to be destroyed to widen Delaware and not build bridge all the way to 101st. Delaware is also a two lane road. I expect that within a year or so there will be a few accidents at the entrances to the housing. Then the stop lights will soon follow along with another speed limit reduction. The only thing new is the 2 lane bridge at about where 111th would be. Please try that route in the morning to get on the turnpike during the week during the Jenks school year. I don't think you will like it now. It will get worse with the development on 121st, even without the bridge. Drivers going east on the turnpike will probably not go west first to get on by 101st and Delaware. I don't consider that a viable route as it presently is for "the bridge" without the same kind of improvements needed for Yale. Short story, the bridge, any bridge, needs to contribute to the improvements on BOTH Delaware and Yale in order to prevent them from becoming a parking lot. Both roads offer potential destinations for shoppers. Drivers are already using Yale to go to and from Bixby to avoid Memorial as far south as possible. Peoria/Elm and Elwood into Jenks are also packed, causing people to cross the river on Memorial and scatter from there. Note to transit fans: I would support a (real) trolley across the bridge that would connect to downtown if enough of the folks living south of the river actually work downtown.
All that said the Creek Tribe made an end run on the land. I hope the government is successful in stopping the land being placed in a trust. That should not be allowed.
I agree the Creek Tribe deal is a dirty deal. Maybe if Tulsa were to initiate meaningful talks with Jenks and Bixby to put in a bridge that would work for everyone (as much as possible) there wouldn't be a potential prize there for private investors or the Creeks. Whether you agree with the development south of the river doesn't matter any more than my disagreement with the housing and commercial development along Sheridan, Memorial, and Mingo. It's there and the people there are willing to pay a toll to cross a bridge for better access to Tulsa.
Although I don't want any homes torn down and hopefully that won't have to be done, the homes you mentioned were built after INCOG came up with the plan with the toll bridge. Almost all of the homes built on Yale were built well before INCOG came up with that idea.
From 81st to 91st on Yale is one lane. Only about half of 91st to 101st is multiple lanes. So significant improvements and an incredible amount of money will need to be spent. Why should Tulsa widen all the way to 121st when there is absolutely no need to? Very little financial benefit for Tulsa with a very high cost.
This is one issue I have to commend our city leaders. All City Councilors and the Mayor unanimously to stop the bridge.
Quote from: HDPokeFan on August 27, 2009, 09:24:39 PM
Although I don't want any homes torn down and hopefully that won't have to be done, the homes you mentioned were built after INCOG came up with the plan with the toll bridge. Almost all of the homes built on Yale were built well before INCOG came up with that idea. The space east to west across the Yale from property fence to property fence south of the turnpike is already wide enough for 4 lanes, or more. So it appears that Yale has been planned to be more than two lanes for quite a while. I agree over the hill between 81st and 91st is an obstacle.
From 81st to 91st on Yale is one lane in each direction, most of the mile. Only about half of 91st to 101st is multiple lanes. Like I said, from the turnpike to 91st. So significant improvements and an incredible amount of money will need to be spent. Why should Tulsa widen all the way to 121st when there is absolutely no need to? We disagree here. It' the same as not widening Memorial south of Woodland Hills when it was built in the mid 70s. Very little financial benefit for Tulsa (I disagree.) with a very high cost. I am in favor of the Toll Bridge (read Bixby, Glenpool, and Jenks residents) paying for the majority of those improvements. Otherwise, Tulsa will eventually pay for all the improvements. They will come. Maybe not for 10 to 15 years, but they will come.
This is one issue I have to commend our city leaders. All City Councilors and the Mayor unanimously to stop the bridge. The opportunity may or may not have already existed to make the bridge pay for improvements to Yale and Delaware. Tulsa needs to make that happen.
I drove over the Yale Hill (between 81st and 91st) today to refresh my memory. The intersections at both 81st and 91st along Yale have been widened, leaving about 3/4 mile to be widened over the hill. The property fence lines over the hill make it obvious that Yale is planned to be at least 4 lanes, two in each direction. I won't make any claims about it being inexpensive.
Just wanted to bring this to an update.
This was in the paper today:
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=11&articleid=20090903_11_0_TheSou572024
Quote from: Red Arrow on August 29, 2009, 11:48:54 PM
I drove over the Yale Hill (between 81st and 91st) today to refresh my memory. The intersections at both 81st and 91st along Yale have been widened, leaving about 3/4 mile to be widened over the hill. The property fence lines over the hill make it obvious that Yale is planned to be at least 4 lanes, two in each direction. I won't make any claims about it being inexpensive.
That would be a difficult project as the grade is fairly steep on that stretch of Yale. It would 'complete' Yale though as a major 4 lane corridor through Tulsa from Pine to 121st and (if the bridge is built) across the river.
Quote from: SXSW on September 04, 2009, 08:46:22 AM
That would be a difficult project as the grade is fairly steep on that stretch of Yale. It would 'complete' Yale though as a major 4 lane corridor through Tulsa from Pine to 121st and (if the bridge is built) across the river.
You've lived in the flat lands too long. :)
Quote from: Red Arrow on September 04, 2009, 12:41:56 PM
You've lived in the flat lands too long. :)
But its a HUGE! MOUNTAIN! that will require incredible feats of engineering. :P
Quote from: TheArtist on September 04, 2009, 01:47:14 PM
But its a HUGE! MOUNTAIN! that will require incredible feats of engineering. :P
Why don't we just build a tunnel? ;)
Or a gondola lift.
Quote from: SXSW on September 04, 2009, 03:42:06 PM
Why don't we just build a tunnel? ;)
Except for the mega $, that would be a nice idea. It would also solve the grade problem for a (real) trolley. I won't hold my breath.
Quote from: Bat Bat on September 04, 2009, 03:48:48 PM
Or a gondola lift.
That might make a nice pedestrian attraction. Get above the trees and you should have a good view. I won't hold my breath on this one either.
Cousins Park project put on hold for bridge talks
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=11&articleid=20121029_16_A1_CUTLIN228279 (http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=11&articleid=20121029_16_A1_CUTLIN228279)
QuoteDesign work on Grace K. Cousins Park in south Tulsa has been put on hold to give city officials time to consider how a Bixby proposal for a toll bridge across the Arkansas River would affect the project.
The proposed bridge would land just south of the park, at about 124th Street, and include an extension of South Delaware Avenue through Cousins Park to 121st Street.
"It is a disappointment, and it is not what the family intended as an honor to Grace Cousins," John Shivel said. "It would potentially destroy the value to the citizens of the possible park."
Shivel, whose deceased wife, Vicki Cousins Shivel, spent the last days of her life working to see the park constructed in honor of her mother, said city officials never notified him about the bridge project and its potential effect on the park.
"No conversation whatsoever," Shivel said.
As recently as mid-July, city officials were speaking glowingly of the proposed park and even attended a fundraising kickoff sponsored by Park Friends Inc.
Among those at the fundraiser was Dale McNamara, Tulsa Park and Recreation Board chairwoman, who said Wednesday that the board has been kept in the dark about the bridge discussions.
"There is nothing I hate more than surprises," McNamara said.
"And this change in plans is totally new, and I am at a mystery as to why we have not heard from the mayor's office."
Park and Recreation Director Lucy Dolman said the department halted the design work in late July after Tulsa City Councilor Phil Lakin and Bixby city officials presented a schematic rendering showing the proposed location of the bridge.
(http://www.tulsaworld.com//articleimages/2012/A1bridgemap1029.jpg)
Dolman said her department did not notify the park board or the Cousins family because the issue is still being examined.
As part of that process, the city is creating a rendering that will show several proposed locations for the road through the park.
"The idea would be, when you get the information, you can decide what is the best-case scenario, or do we have to do something else?" Dolman said. "We are flexible; we are adaptable."
Bixby Mayor Ray Bowen has said his city would propose spending its $11.3 million share of Vision2 funds on helping to build a bridge somewhere on the river, if voters approve the initiative Nov. 6.
Bixby City Manager Doug Enevoldsen described the schematic presented to Tulsa officials in July as "a very preliminary concept for discussion purposes ... it is not set in concrete."
Enevoldsen said the proposal was created in consultation with numerous stakeholders, including those who have previously opposed construction of a south Tulsa bridge.
The proposed bridge would not be privately owned, would not back up traffic along Yale Avenue and would come with the needed infrastructure to accommodate additional traffic on the Tulsa side of the bridge - all conditions that opponents of previous bridge proposals have demanded will be met, Enevoldsen said.
"We envision this having public ownership, possibly with partnership with the Oklahoma Turnpike Authority," Enevoldsen said.
He said he expects that Tulsa County could be a partner in the project but that there are no plans now to request funding from any municipalities.
The bridge as currently proposed would land in Jenks on the west side of the Arkansas River.
Tulsa Mayor Dewey Bartlett said discussions with the city of Bixby about a possible south Tulsa bridge have been just that - discussions and that no decisions have been made.
"This has been going on for 10, 20 years," Bartlett said. "It is just a continuation of that.
"I think what people are trying to do is come up with an idea or a concept of providing a bridge across the Arkansas River that is acceptable to the powers that be."
Bartlett said the city never intended to keep anyone in the dark about the proposed bridge or its potential impact on Cousins Park.
"There has to be a significant amount of communication between a variety of departments in the city," Bartlett said.
"Everybody has to communicate well and come to some agreement on what we should do before we get too involved in drawing up plans because things change."
Charles Cousins conceived of the park in the late 1970s or early '80s as a tribute to his wife, Grace Cousins.
The Cousins family donated 10 acres at the southwest corner of 121st and Yale to the city Park and Recreation Department in 1998, with the stipulation that it remain a conservation area and that the family be involved in its design.
A few years ago, the city bought 35 more acres bounded by 121st Street, Yale Avenue and the Arkansas River for $950,000 with the intention of eventually turning the entire site into a park.
As currently proposed, Cousins Park would be a combination nature center, nature preserve and pioneer park operated with assistance from the Oxley Nature Center Association.
Conceptual designs call for the construction of a farm house, barn, corral, orchard and a schoolhouse that could be used for conducting classes.
The city has committed $244,375 for Phase I of the project, which was scheduled to begin construction by July 2012.
The additional $2.2 million to complete the final three phases was to be raised through private donations.
Two things scare me about this
1. That this is how Bixby wants to utilize Vision2 money
2. The design
A cloverleaf? Telling people you're not going to drastically increase traffic in the area, but then give it a cloverleaf?
It's own access road through city property?
Also, no tie whatsoever to Yale?
Quote from: sgrizzle on October 29, 2012, 01:51:17 PM
Two things scare me about this
1. That this is how Bixby wants to utilize Vision2 money
2. The design
A cloverleaf? Telling people you're not going to drastically increase traffic in the area, but then give it a cloverleaf?
It's own access road through city property?
Also, no tie whatsoever to Yale?
not quite a "conservation area" if there is a roadway running through it.
I would think a bridge running straight north and south and connecting to Delaware would be cheaper than what they are trying to do.
Look at the map and draw the red line straight north.
Yes, it would make for a longer bridge.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on October 29, 2012, 02:23:26 PM
I would think a bridge running straight north and south and connecting to Delaware would be cheaper than what they are trying to do.
Look at the map and draw the red line straight north.
Yes, it would make for a longer bridge.
I'm guessing that there are developers wanting the bridge to lead to 121st through the "proposed street".
I've been surprised Bixby's announcement nearly a month ago that it would likely use its V2 money to build a bridge had generated so little attention. After the pitched battles over this bridge in the past, Bixby's announcement seemed like a bad strategic move. Why risk south Tulsa voter backlash - just wait until after the election.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on October 29, 2012, 02:23:26 PM
I would think a bridge running straight north and south and connecting to Delaware would be cheaper than what they are trying to do.
Look at the map and draw the red line straight north.
Yes, it would make for a longer bridge.
I've thought the exact same thing. It will never be considered though as it makes way too much sense.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on October 29, 2012, 02:23:26 PM
I would think a bridge running straight north and south and connecting to Delaware would be cheaper than what they are trying to do.
Look at the map and draw the red line straight north.
Yes, it would make for a longer bridge.
Since the bridge would most likely be at a higher elevation than the connecting roads, going straight north to Delaware would not leave room for the connections.
How about:
Cross the river perpendicular as planned. Forget the cloverleaf, although that may be the allowance for elevation change. Make the main path curve west toward the Delaware/121st curve with a side path toward Yale. Delaware, Yale, and or 121st would need to be widened and should be part of any bridge project.
Quote from: Red Arrow on October 29, 2012, 11:12:50 PM
Since the bridge would most likely be at a higher elevation than the connecting roads, going straight north to Delaware would not leave room for the connections.
How about:
Cross the river perpendicular as planned. Forget the cloverleaf, although that may be the allowance for elevation change. Make the main path curve west toward the Delaware/121st curve with a side path toward Yale. Delaware, Yale, and or 121st would need to be widened and should be part of any bridge project.
I've been told Yale is being widened. I've seen the crews out there putting flags up.
Mayoral candidate criticizes park delay due to Vision2 proposalhttp://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=334&articleid=20121102_334_0_Delayo923361 (http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=334&articleid=20121102_334_0_Delayo923361)
QuoteDelay of a long-planned south Tulsa park because of a possible bridge that would be funded in part by Vision2 shows the need to vote against the tax package, mayoral candidate Bill Christiansen said.
"I am not opposed to visioning and planning for our needs as we get closer to the expiration of Vision 2025," he said in a press release issued late Thursday night.
"I am proposing a thorough, transparent, and inclusive vision process with dialogue with the citizens of Tulsa to see what we need and how to accomplish those needs."
The $748.8 million Vision2 package's fate will be decided Tuesday by Tulsa County voters.
Christiansen, the only announced candidate so far in Tulsa's 2013 mayoral race, served on the council from 2002 until 2011 and spent many years trying to make the Grace K. Cousins Park a reality.
Charles Cousins conceived of the park decades ago as a tribute to his wife, Grace Cousins.
The Cousins family donated 10 acres at the southwest corner of 121st and Yale to the city Park and Recreation Department in 1998, with the stipulation that it remain a conservation area and that the family be involved in its design.
A few years ago, the city bought 35 more acres bounded by 121st Street, Yale Avenue and the Arkansas River for $950,000 with the intention of eventually turning the entire site into a park.
As planned, Cousins Park would be a combination nature center, nature preserve and pioneer park operated with assistance from the Oxley Nature Center Association.
Before he left the council, Christiansen helped secure $244,375 from the city for the first phase of the project, with an additional $2.2 million to be raised privately for subsequent phases.
But the design work was put on hold due to a Bixby proposal for a toll bridge across the Arkansas River.
The bridge, funded in part by Bixby's $11.3 million share of Vision2 quality-of-life dollars, would land just south of the park, at about 124th Street, and include an extension of South Delaware Avenue through Cousins Park to 121st Street.
Part of what bothers him about Vision2, Christiansen said, is the loose nature of the projects included and their impact.
Proposition 2 of the package includes $361.7 million quality-of-life projects but none are specified on the ballot, he said.
"Let's create a better vision for Tulsa," Christiansen said. "We have the time to do it right, we may not have the chance to do it over."
Read more from this Tulsa World article at http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=334&articleid=20121102_334_0_Delayo923361
So I heard the Creeks were donating land between Sheridan and Yale for the bridge. (KWGS radio blurb)
Looks like they're getting the band back together.
Quote from: Townsend on August 21, 2009, 03:25:17 PM
I was under the impression the city of Tulsa can refuse connection to it's streets from the bridge if it's built.
Did I misunderstand?
I think the City of Tulsa could make the connection a toll. Make about twenty feet of concrete a toll road to get to the toll bridge.
Heck, it could pay for itself and generate money for other roads.
Will they build the Butterfly Park that got poo pooed a while back?
(http://www.cousinspark.com/cousinspark.jpg)
Quote from: Townsend on January 08, 2014, 12:31:51 PM
So I heard the Creeks were donating land between Sheridan and Yale for the bridge. (KWGS radio blurb)
Looks like they're getting the band back together.
I think the Creek Nation recently placed the land it acquired in the area in trust with the Bureau of Indian Affairs. This is step one in the process.
An amphitheater will be cool.
Quote from: Townsend on January 08, 2014, 12:31:51 PM
So I heard the Creeks were donating land between Sheridan and Yale for the bridge. (KWGS radio blurb)
Looks like they're getting the band back together.
They moved it into a trust. What's interesting is that when they purchased the land, it sounded like the plans were definitely for a bridge but now they say they are "exploring options" for the land.
Bring on the bridge...
Quote from: guido911 on January 08, 2014, 10:49:42 PM
Bring on the bridge...
I agree but Yale does need to be widened to 4 lanes to the Turnpike. Make it part of the deal to build the bridge. I think I remember that finishing 169 from 71st to Memorial and keeping it a toll free road was part of the deal for the Creek Turnpike.
I think a bridge will bring/take Bixby shopping dollars to Tulsa. Bring if you live in Tulsa. Take if you live in Bixby. Not building a bridge practically guarantees commercial development south of the river that may not happen if there is a bridge.
Quote from: Red Arrow on January 08, 2014, 11:09:21 PM
I agree but Yale does need to be widened to 4 lanes to the Turnpike. Make it part of the deal to build the bridge. I think I remember that finishing 169 from 71st to Memorial and keeping it a toll free road was part of the deal for the Creek Turnpike.
I think a bridge will bring/take Bixby shopping dollars to Tulsa. Bring if you live in Tulsa. Take if you live in Bixby. Not building a bridge practically guarantees commercial development south of the river that may not happen if there is a bridge.
The proposal to widen Yale Ave is exactly what started all of the fuss.
Quote from: sgrizzle on January 08, 2014, 10:15:46 PM
They moved it into a trust. What's interesting is that when they purchased the land, it sounded like the plans were definitely for a bridge but now they say they are "exploring options" for the land.
Another casino? Tulsa is such a casino desert.
Quote from: carltonplace on January 09, 2014, 08:09:45 AM
The proposal to widen Yale Ave is exactly what started all of the fuss.
Could be timed well. By the time the bridge is completed it might be time to tear up all the work that was just completed on Yale from 101st to 121st.
The blurb stated the land was between Yale and Sheridan so I'm not sure if the alignment would be to Yale or not. If so, I bet that neighborhood East of Yale just a block north of 121st will have a collective poop.
Quote from: Townsend on January 09, 2014, 12:44:07 PM
Could be timed well. By the time the bridge is completed it might be time to tear up all the work that was just completed on Yale from 101st to 121st.
The blurb stated the land was between Yale and Sheridan so I'm not sure if the alignment would be to Yale or not. If so, I bet that neighborhood East of Yale just a block north of 121st will have a collective poop.
There is actually space either way without disturbing the neighborhood. In a previous life, I helped render several iterations of a bridge between Yale and Sheridan. There is a significant amount of land before you arrive at the river. The most intelligent route would be to extend Yale instead of attempting to shift traffic. The corners of Yale at 121st already have several plans for commercial development, and the neighborhoods are very well set back from the roads in all directions. I'm sure there would be a few grumbles, but not many.
We have several friends that live in those neighborhoods and they are for the most part supportive of the idea, because it will ultimately increase their property value and lead to other improvements in the area.
Quote from: Gaspar on January 09, 2014, 01:08:04 PM
There is actually space either way without disturbing the neighborhood. In a previous life, I helped render several iterations of a bridge between Yale and Sheridan. There is a significant amount of land before you arrive at the river. The most intelligent route would be to extend Yale instead of attempting to shift traffic. The corners of Yale at 121st already have several plans for commercial development, and the neighborhoods are very well set back from the roads in all directions. I'm sure there would be a few grumbles, but not many.
We have several friends that live in those neighborhoods and they are for the most part supportive of the idea, because it will ultimately increase their property value and lead to other improvements in the area.
All will be shiny and happy until the work starts. I believe "disturbing" would be subjective.
Do you feel you have the pulse of everyone in these neighborhoods?
Quote from: Townsend on January 09, 2014, 01:15:57 PM
All will be shiny and happy until the work starts. I believe "disturbing" would be subjective.
Do you feel you have the pulse of everyone in these neighborhoods?
No. There are some that have already been fighting it, including one very famous entertainer who lives just north of there, but much like the Creek turnpike and other South Tulsa improvements, it will happen, and everyone knows it will happen.
Simply looking at a map and seeing the distance between the bridge on the Creek Turnpike and Memorial gives a pretty clear indication that a bridge will be built, and Yale is the logical place due its proximity half-way between the two existing bridges. In the long run, it will be good for the neighborhoods on the Tulsa side of the river as it will spur improvements to the roads, but I can see why many don't see it that way at the present time.
Given the money the Creek Nation is spending on River Spirit, no way they build another casino in the Tulsa area.
Bixby mayor: Announcement on new Arkansas River bridge coming in 2015http://www.tulsaworld.com/homepage2/bixby-mayor-announcement-on-new-arkansas-river-bridge-coming-in/article_1f7c9f57-d676-56c8-9ed8-3e5c31c56b30.html (http://www.tulsaworld.com/homepage2/bixby-mayor-announcement-on-new-arkansas-river-bridge-coming-in/article_1f7c9f57-d676-56c8-9ed8-3e5c31c56b30.html)
QuoteBIXBY — Bixby Mayor John Easton says an announcement concerning a proposed bridge over the Arkansas River from south Tulsa to Jenks will be made after Jan. 1.
"As you know, that projected bridge site is outside of Bixby city limits, so we really don't have a role in the decision making," he said. "I've been in contact with the folks contemplating the bridge in south Tulsa County.
"However, I'm not allowed to discuss any further details. But I can say: look for some sort of announcement after the first of the year, and I think most of you will be pleased."
Easton made the remarks during his State of the City address Thursday at the SpirtBank Events Center.
His comments followed those of Bixby Public Schools Superintendent Kyle Wood, who told an auditorium full of teachers and parents last week that he had received information that the south Tulsa bridge was a "done deal."
Furthermore, Wood said the toll bridge would be completed within three years and that an agreement had been reached with nearby residents who were concerned about how the development would impact the area.
Though he would not name who provided the information, Wood viewed it as credible and said it was being taken into consideration when planning an upcoming school bond issue for 2015.
While the mayor did not specify a location, last January, the Muscogee (Creek) Nation placed land in trust along the Arkansas River where a proposed bridge would connect Jenks to far south Tulsa.
Placing the land in trust brought possible bridge construction a step closer, but state transportation officials said a toll bridge was still years from becoming a reality.
The deed, signed by the nation's chief, George Tiger, placed the land into the ownership of the United States to be held in trust for the tribe, allowing the tribe to govern the land and improvements on it.
He said at the time that a bridge is one of a number of options for the land but would not confirm whether that's what the land is intended for.
The land is south of 121st Street and west of Sheridan Road along the north bank of the Arkansas River, about a mile east of the Bixby city limits, according to Tulsa County Assessor's Office records.
Easton said an unrelated, "major infrastructure announcement" for Bixby will be made at the Chamber of Commerce meeting on Dec. 3.
"I'll reassure you that it is big, big, big and you want to be there for it," he said.
While he was cryptic about the upcoming announcements, Easton made it very clear that the future of Bixby will focus on retail development.
The City Council has taken turns attending retail development conventions and has hired Retail Strategies, a Birmingham, Alabama-based consulting firm whose clients include the cities of Edmond and Stillwater, in the hopes of recruiting more retailers to Bixby.
"They are really an involved company and have a wealth of knowledge.
And one of the things that we really like about Retail Strategies is that they put a big emphasis on local business."
The city is also extending the services of Retail Strategies to local businesses by offering to arrange a meeting with the firm.
"We need the storefronts filled by local people who have got an idea. We can put you in touch with our marketing group. The city can be your facilitator."
Easton said the city is also eyeing ways to revamp downtown Bixby to help attract visitors to boost the economy and prevent retail leakage to surrounding communities.
He named Broken Arrow's Rose District and Tulsa's Blue Dome District as examples of what they had in mind.
"Those are visions that we need to look at and our city is looking to see what we can do to help that come about. That's the kind of influence that we need down there."
Quote from: Townsend on November 21, 2014, 11:27:15 AM
Wood said the toll bridge would be completed within three years and that an agreement had been reached with nearby residents who were concerned about how the development would impact the area.
I'd like to hear from those residents.
Quote from: patric on November 21, 2014, 02:56:24 PM
I'd like to hear from those residents.
No-one has heard from those residents in a few weeks, if ya know what I mean.
(http://lowres.cartoonstock.com/death-mafia-mafioso-clown-trunk-car-jlvn1700_low.jpg)
Quote from: patric on November 21, 2014, 02:56:24 PM
I'd like to hear from those residents.
Those residents are reading this article and saying "wait, what?"
Quote from: patric on November 21, 2014, 02:56:24 PM
I'd like to hear from those residents.
Guessing they did not like the sidewalks that were supposed to come with the bridge ... ;D
Quote from: AdamsHall on November 24, 2014, 06:35:33 PM
Guessing they did not like the sidewalks that were supposed to come with the bridge ... ;D
Well, one area cannot claim that.
http://goo.gl/maps/4KsSS
(Yale between 111th and 121st)
Council asks city planners to realign plans for south Tulsa bridgehttp://www.tulsaworld.com/news/government/council-asks-city-planners-to-realign-plans-for-south-tulsa/article_83ca25bc-0b0e-5c31-baf2-9fcddaba0cdd.html (http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/government/council-asks-city-planners-to-realign-plans-for-south-tulsa/article_83ca25bc-0b0e-5c31-baf2-9fcddaba0cdd.html)
QuoteThe Tulsa City Council on Thursday asked area planners to consider realigning a proposed south Tulsa bridge in the master plan for streets and highways.
The south Tulsa bridge, which several years ago was discussed but never approved to be built as a toll bridge, is not scheduled for any funding and exists only in plans. Those plans call for a bridge connecting Yale Avenue across the river from 121st Street to 131st Street.
Councilor Phil Lakin said he recently spoke with a developer who told him the master plan is being referenced by local developers despite those plans being largely obsolete.
"This is just a really simple act to refer this to the (Tulsa Metropolitan Area) Planning Commission for further study," Lakin said. "I have no idea if a bridge will ever go in at south Tulsa."
Lakin's call for the council to have a consensus vote to remove the proposed Yale Avenue bridge connection initiates a process in which several planning groups may consider making the change to the master plan. A bridge in that vicinity would span from the Tulsa city limits to either Jenks or Bixby across the river.
A history of controversy has surrounded the bridge proposal.
At least one version of a toll bridge across the Arkansas River at Yale Avenue was pitched by Bixby City Manager Micky Webb during a Dialog/Visioning 2025 topical meeting on transportation in February 2003.
Attempts by the cities of Jenks and Bixby to build the bridge met with stiff resistance from some Tulsa city councilors and area residents. Lawsuits were filed over its proposed location, who should build it and who would benefit from the tolls.
The matter went to the state Supreme Court, and the case was decided in Tulsa's favor.
In June 2009, the Muscogee (Creek) Nation purchased three plots of land on the northern bank of the Arkansas River. The tribe's Trade and Commerce Authority had announced plans to build a toll bridge between Jenks and Tulsa spanning the Arkansas River near 121st Street and Yale Avenue. Plans also called for an accompanying commercial district that the authority's CEO, Michael Wisner, had said would result in a $1 billion investment for the area.
However, the project was put on hold after the tribe's principal chief, A.D. Ellis, fired Wisner in April 2010 and ousted the Trade and Commerce Authority's board.
Tulsa Mayor Dewey Barlett said in April 2013 that a bridge across the Arkansas River at Yale Avenue is not on the slate of projects for the foreseeable future.
Bixby officials have continued to stress the need for the bridge as a public safety issue in addition to being a matter of convenience.
The consensus to ask planning entities for further review of the connection in the master plan was unanimously approved Thursday night.
I wish they would just build the damn thing! Traffic on the bridge in the mornings and evenings is ridiculous. There have been many times that at 7:20 in the morning that Northbound traffic is backed up all the way to 151st and in the evenings from around 4:45 to 5:30 Southbound traffic can be backed up all the way to 131st. I have even seen it stretch back all the way to 121st on some evenings. It is frustrating and dangerous as there have been more than one occasion when I have seen an emergency vehicle slowed down or totally stopped due to the traffic. One day someone is going to die because fire/EMSA could not respond to an emergency in a timely manner.
Quote from: Ibanez on April 08, 2016, 02:22:52 PM
I wish they would just build the damn thing! Traffic on the bridge in the mornings and evenings is ridiculous. There have been many times that at 7:20 in the morning that Northbound traffic is backed up all the way to 151st and in the evenings from around 4:45 to 5:30 Southbound traffic can be backed up all the way to 131st. I have even seen it stretch back all the way to 121st on some evenings. It is frustrating and dangerous as there have been more than one occasion when I have seen an emergency vehicle slowed down or totally stopped due to the traffic. One day someone is going to die because fire/EMSA could not respond to an emergency in a timely manner.
Growth for growth's sake rearing it's ugly head.
Quote from: Ibanez on April 08, 2016, 02:22:52 PM
I wish they would just build the damn thing! Traffic on the bridge in the mornings and evenings is ridiculous. There have been many times that at 7:20 in the morning that Northbound traffic is backed up all the way to 151st and in the evenings from around 4:45 to 5:30 Southbound traffic can be backed up all the way to 131st. I have even seen it stretch back all the way to 121st on some evenings. It is frustrating and dangerous as there have been more than one occasion when I have seen an emergency vehicle slowed down or totally stopped due to the traffic. One day someone is going to die because fire/EMSA could not respond to an emergency in a timely manner.
Transit?
Quote from: Ibanez on April 08, 2016, 02:22:52 PM
I wish they would just build the damn thing! Traffic on the bridge in the mornings and evenings is ridiculous.
Frankly... what's in it for Tulsa? The ability to quickly get out of Tulsa to live and spend your money in a suburb isn't really helpful. Having to increase the width and traffic upon south Tulsa roads isn't really helpful. Spending money we don't have on a bridge we don't want isn't really helpful.
If you live on 151st street, and work at 5th street on the other side of a river - expect traffic. It isn't a "problem" at that point. It's just traffic. It isn't a god given right to live wherever you want and not have to deal with traffic to go where ever you want.
/sorry for the hostility. But seriously, why would Tulsa want this bridge?
Quote from: cannon_fodder on April 11, 2016, 08:07:52 AM
Frankly... what's in it for Tulsa? The ability to quickly get out of Tulsa to live and spend your money in a suburb isn't really helpful. Having to increase the width and traffic upon south Tulsa roads isn't really helpful. Spending money we don't have on a bridge we don't want isn't really helpful.
If you live on 151st street, and work at 5th street on the other side of a river - expect traffic. It isn't a "problem" at that point. It's just traffic. It isn't a god given right to live wherever you want and not have to deal with traffic to go where ever you want.
/sorry for the hostility. But seriously, why would Tulsa want this bridge?
Because it helps people that live outside the city into the city to spend money and generate sales tax. These people live in Bixby mostly and therefore use Bixby services, Tulsa would like them to spend as much money as possible in Tulsa.
Quote from: TheArtist on April 08, 2016, 03:51:05 PM
Transit?
That would likely help for some, but not all. Many people are like me and have jobs that require travelling between different work sites during the day. On any given day I may be in Tulsa, BA, Owasso, Skiatook, Bartlesville, Sapulpa, etc.. so I need my own vehicle to get to those places and back to my central work location.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on April 08, 2016, 02:39:59 PM
Growth for growth's sake rearing it's ugly head.
I have lived where I do, multiple acres South of anywhere, for nearly 20 years. I see your point about the growth of the suburbs, even then I don't necessarily think it is growth for growths sake. A lot of people I know have moved to those suburbs for the better schools or because they no longer felt safe living in midtown or other older areas of Tulsa. The school issue especially tends to drive people I know to the suburbs as TPS has a poor reputation and they don't want their kids attending what they perceive as failing schools. I have heard time after time from the majority of them that they would have liked to stay where they were, but didn't feel it was best for their children and family to do so.
Quote from: cannon_fodder on April 11, 2016, 08:07:52 AM
Frankly... what's in it for Tulsa? The ability to quickly get out of Tulsa to live and spend your money in a suburb isn't really helpful. Having to increase the width and traffic upon south Tulsa roads isn't really helpful. Spending money we don't have on a bridge we don't want isn't really helpful.
If you live on 151st street, and work at 5th street on the other side of a river - expect traffic. It isn't a "problem" at that point. It's just traffic. It isn't a god given right to live wherever you want and not have to deal with traffic to go where ever you want.
/sorry for the hostility. But seriously, why would Tulsa want this bridge?
Well, you could always follow the Trump Doctrine and have a wall put up around Tulsa to keep those damn suburbanites out. Maybe you can even find a way for the suburbs to pay for it.
Quote from: swake on April 11, 2016, 08:18:13 AM
Because it helps people that live outside the city into the city to spend money and generate sales tax. These people live in Bixby mostly and therefore use Bixby services, Tulsa would like them to spend as much money as possible in Tulsa.
Help me out, because I don't live down that way, but isn't the traffic mostly a rush-hour issue? (We had the same thing to/from Owasso, most of the time it was fine, except high work-transit times.) My point on this is that Those "outside" people work in Tulsa, but choose to live elsewhere, and the bridge makes it a hassle. Which, depending upon your point of view is a bad or good thing. But as for "spend as much money as possible in Tulsa", they will do that or (or not) regardless, because the transit issues don't exist on weekends and later evenings, which is when their disposable dollars are spent.
TLDR, it's only the work transit that is the hassle, not recreational, and so recreational spending isn't affect much either way.
Quote from: rebound on April 11, 2016, 10:23:01 AM
Help me out, because I don't live down that way, but isn't the traffic mostly a rush-hour issue? (We had the same thing to/from Owasso, most of the time it was fine, except high work-transit times.) My point on this is that Those "outside" people work in Tulsa, but choose to live elsewhere, and the bridge makes it a hassle. Which, depending upon your point of view is a bad or good thing. But as for "spend as much money as possible in Tulsa", they will do that or (or not) regardless, because the transit issues don't exist on weekends and later evenings, which is when their disposable dollars are spent.
TLDR, it's only the work transit that is the hassle, not recreational, and so recreational spending isn't affect much either way.
Actually the traffic is pretty bad outside of "rush hour" as well. I had to run to Lowe's on Saturday afternoon and traffic in both directions from 151st to 131st was a nitemare. I think there was something going on at the sports complex in Bixby that was adding to the congestion that day. The thing I worry most about is the heavy traffic, especially when there is an accident on the bridge, keeping an emergency vehicle from being able to respond to something in a timely manner.
I also think a big part of the problem with that stretch of Memorial, really going as far North as 101st, is the timing of the traffic signals. Their timing really seems to be causing traffic to stack up. On the South side oft the bridge traffic in the last few weeks has really stacked up since Bixby put in a new light at 146th. They now have lights at 151st, 148th and 146th and the sync between them is terrible.
Quote from: rebound on April 11, 2016, 10:23:01 AM
Help me out, because I don't live down that way, but isn't the traffic mostly a rush-hour issue? (We had the same thing to/from Owasso, most of the time it was fine, except high work-transit times.) My point on this is that Those "outside" people work in Tulsa, but choose to live elsewhere, and the bridge makes it a hassle. Which, depending upon your point of view is a bad or good thing. But as for "spend as much money as possible in Tulsa", they will do that or (or not) regardless, because the transit issues don't exist on weekends and later evenings, which is when their disposable dollars are spent.
TLDR, it's only the work transit that is the hassle, not recreational, and so recreational spending isn't affect much either way.
So I take you never drive into Bixby via Memorial (The only way from Tulsa outside of HWY75 to 151st St).
Traffic is backed up at 9PM on Tuesday, at 8AM on Saturday, it just s matter of will it be 15 minutes to go 4 miles or 40 minutes.
If the bridge is built, it will be used and provide an alternative route to and from Bixby. Do that or extended the Creek Turnpike and dump off on the south side of the river somewhere...
Quote from: Ibanez on April 11, 2016, 10:11:12 AM
Well, you could always follow the Trump Doctrine and have a wall put up around Tulsa to keep those damn suburbanites out. Maybe you can even find a way for the suburbs to pay for it.
No. I don't want to keep you out. I want to keep you IN!
Making access to the suburbs easier encourages outflow from the city and lowers Tulsa's population and property values. If you can get a $100k house 10 minutes away in Bixby or you have to buy a smaller $200k house in Tulsa, its easy to say "screw it, I will just live in the burbs." Then we need more lanes of highways so those people don't get delayed as more people move to Bixby. See, e.g., cities across the United States stagnating when commuter highways like the BA, 75, and 169 made such exoduses easy. When it takes you 40 minutes to get there, and 40 minutes to get into town to do anything, the equation changes.
Then people who want acreages, to have horses, or other reasons live out that far and density increases, land is utilized, property values rise, etc. It certainly sucks for the suburbs, but on many levels it doesn't help Tulsa to make it easy for someone to zip out of Tulsa as fast as possible. And that ignores the unsustainable cost of sprawl. More police, more fire stations, more power lines, more sewers, more road miles per person. There's a reason why suburbs general operate on the build and abandon model, they don't cash flow. There will be exceptions, but in general the new "place to be" will be somewhere else in 30 years and the middle class housing blocks in Broken Arrow will be run down rentals.
There are many reasons TPS went downhill. Sprawl is very high on that list - breaking apart the richest parts of the city to have their own districts, removal of tax base, decrease of population density, etc. etc. etc. It becomes a self fulfilling prophecy.
So I understand wanting a bridge to get home faster. But Tulsa would have to spend a bunch of money improving infrastructure to allow Jenks residents access to their suburban housing. And of course, the real reason for wanting the bridge: the area the bridge leads to is largely undeveloped. Dozens of new subdivisions could go in there. Then we could build a bigger bridge and expand our roads further so more people could live in Jenks!
A good thing for Jenks and for developers, but it is of minimal value to Tulsa.
Quote from: cannon_fodder on April 11, 2016, 11:19:24 AM
No. I don't want to keep you out. I want to keep you IN!
Making access to the suburbs easier encourages outflow from the city and lowers Tulsa's population and property values. If you can get a $100k house 10 minutes away in Bixby or you have to buy a smaller $200k house in Tulsa, its easy to say "screw it, I will just live in the burbs." Then we need more lanes of highways so those people don't get delayed as more people move to Bixby. See, e.g., cities across the United States stagnating when commuter highways like the BA, 75, and 169 made such exoduses easy. When it takes you 40 minutes to get there, and 40 minutes to get into town to do anything, the equation changes.
Then people who want acreages, to have horses, or other reasons live out that far and density increases, land is utilized, property values rise, etc. It certainly sucks for the suburbs, but on many levels it doesn't help Tulsa to make it easy for someone to zip out of Tulsa as fast as possible. And that ignores the unsustainable cost of sprawl. More police, more fire stations, more power lines, more sewers, more road miles per person. There's a reason why suburbs general operate on the build and abandon model, they don't cash flow. There will be exceptions, but in general the new "place to be" will be somewhere else in 30 years and the middle class housing blocks in Broken Arrow will be run down rentals.
There are many reasons TPS went downhill. Sprawl is very high on that list - breaking apart the richest parts of the city to have their own districts, removal of tax base, decrease of population density, etc. etc. etc. It becomes a self fulfilling prophecy.
So I understand wanting a bridge to get home faster. But Tulsa would have to spend a bunch of money improving infrastructure to allow Jenks residents access to their suburban housing. And of course, the real reason for wanting the bridge: the area the bridge leads to is largely undeveloped. Dozens of new subdivisions could go in there. Then we could build a bigger bridge and expand our roads further so more people could live in Jenks!
A good thing for Jenks and for developers, but it is of minimal value to Tulsa.
I know the bridge technically connects to Jenks, but it would only serve a tiny portion of Jenks residents. This is really about Bixby. This bridge would actually increase traffic on Riverside which would negatively impact access from Jenks to Tulsa on the 71st St bridge, the Jenks Main St/96th St bridge and the Creek Turnpike bridges if you are exiting at Riverside. Traffic is already bad enough along south Riverside. Both the 71st St and 96th St bridges already are badly backed up at rush hour. Adding an outlet mall along The Creek Turnpike is going to make things that much worse.
I understand Cannon's sentiment but we must be pragmatic. I opposed the bridge because it was going to be a private toll bridge. Truth is we can't just let our suburbs suffer when good planning would have ameliorated the problem. That bridge should have been built 10 years before it became such a tie up. I was working that area back then when 106th and Memorial was some kind of farm/ranch land. One cul-de-sac with a physicians office. You'd have to have been blind not to see what was happening.
The school argument is lame though. Bixby, BA, Sand Springs, Owasso and even the vaunted Jenks systems are not that good. The real reason for that sprawl is economics and a tinge of class differences. The areas were sprawling way before the school systems improved.
There are plenty of other projects around town that should get priority before this.....
Quote from: Ibanez on April 11, 2016, 10:09:42 AM
I have lived where I do, multiple acres South of anywhere, for nearly 20 years. I see your point about the growth of the suburbs, even then I don't necessarily think it is growth for growths sake. A lot of people I know have moved to those suburbs for the better schools or because they no longer felt safe living in midtown or other older areas of Tulsa. The school issue especially tends to drive people I know to the suburbs as TPS has a poor reputation and they don't want their kids attending what they perceive as failing schools. I have heard time after time from the majority of them that they would have liked to stay where they were, but didn't feel it was best for their children and family to do so.
Growth for Growth's sake is the sound bite version and is the reality. People go visit quaint, rural areas that have a look and feel that they think they like, so decide to go there. And drag ALL the carp with them that they say they want to get away from. (How many HOA's are there south of the river in Bixby now...?)
And it started before there were schools or all the other pieces required to accommodate the inrush. Bixby, Owasso, Broken Arrow, Jenks - all the small towns that see explosive growth. Now, yes, it has become a self-sustaining growth thing well after the fact of starting the expenditure to build schools and infrastructure. A huge component of it is 'keeping up with the Jone's.' My friend lives in a McMansion out in the suburbs, so I must too.
All promoted and encouraged by the triangle of enablement - realtors, builders, and property tax entities.
And I am not attacking you - but 20 years is short time - actually well after the first waves of this. I worked with a couple of people who got into the neighborhood where Red Arrow lives back in the 60's - and I think those acreages were actually developed sometime in the 50's. That's how long north Bixby has been at it.
Quote from: TheArtist on April 08, 2016, 03:51:05 PM
Transit?
I believe one of the transit plans included a park and ride lot near 121st and Memorial. That would be close to a lot of people. Whether or not enough of them would go where transit would go is up to the experts. That would not eliminate the need for a bridge for the folks south of the river. Maybe the bridge could be built with room for light rail. (I know, dreaming again.)
It would take a LOT of buses or trolleys to significantly reduce traffic on our little stretch of Memorial. Transit would be as slow as traffic without dedicated lanes or ROW for rail. It would be nice to be able to get downtown without using my car. Time and money to travel by transit would have to be competitive with a car though. Judging from the last time I saw parking fees near the BOK Center during an event, the money shouldn't be too difficult.
Quote from: AquaMan on April 11, 2016, 12:49:32 PM
I was working that area back then when 106th and Memorial was some kind of farm/ranch land. One cul-de-sac with a physicians office. You'd have to have been blind not to see what was happening.
Not blind, unable to stop it.
QuoteThe school argument is lame though. Bixby, BA, Sand Springs, Owasso and even the vaunted Jenks systems are not that good. The real reason for that sprawl is economics and a tinge of class differences. The areas were sprawling way before the school systems improved.
My parents wanted a big lot, about an acre. They also wanted a good school for my sister who was starting 9th grade. We got the big lot. My sister said 9th grade in Bixby was like 8th grade in suburban Phila, PA. There was even a bit of 7th grade thrown in. She was here last week visiting so I asked her about it. She said she was unchallenged and bored to death. That was in the early 70s. If Bixby was supposed to be good, I'm glad my parents didn't move into a TPS district.
Quote from: cannon_fodder on April 11, 2016, 11:19:24 AM
No. I don't want to keep you out. I want to keep you IN!
Berlin Wall? ;D
QuoteMaking access to the suburbs easier encourages outflow from the city and lowers Tulsa's population and property values. If you can get a $100k house 10 minutes away in Bixby or you have to buy a smaller $200k house in Tulsa, its easy to say "screw it, I will just live in the burbs." Then we need more lanes of highways so those people don't get delayed as more people move to Bixby. See, e.g., cities across the United States stagnating when commuter highways like the BA, 75, and 169 made such exoduses easy. When it takes you 40 minutes to get there, and 40 minutes to get into town to do anything, the equation changes.
The concept of long commute times to prevent migration to the suburbs has worked so well in southern California.
QuoteThere will be exceptions, but in general the new "place to be" will be somewhere else in 30 years and the middle class housing blocks in Broken Arrow will be run down rentals affordable housing.
QuoteSo I understand wanting a bridge to get home faster. But Tulsa would have to spend a bunch of money improving infrastructure to allow Jenks residents access to their suburban housing.
Make Bixby and Jenks share the cost for improvements to Yale and Delaware.
Quote from: cannon_fodder on April 11, 2016, 08:07:52 AM
Frankly... what's in it for Tulsa? The ability to quickly get out of Tulsa to live and spend your money in a suburb isn't really helpful. Having to increase the width and traffic upon south Tulsa roads isn't really helpful. Spending money we don't have on a bridge we don't want isn't really helpful.
If you live on 151st street, and work at 5th street on the other side of a river - expect traffic. It isn't a "problem" at that point. It's just traffic. It isn't a god given right to live wherever you want and not have to deal with traffic to go where ever you want.
/sorry for the hostility. But seriously, why would Tulsa want this bridge?
There is not much retail along 151st at the moment. Most of those folks south of the river spend money in Tulsa. (The west side of Memorial between 101st and 111th is Tulsa, not Bixby. The east side is Bixby.) Keep it inconvenient to get to Tulsa and you guarantee retail development south of the river. Good for Bixby/Jenks. Not so good for Tulsa.
Quote from: Weatherdemon on April 11, 2016, 10:56:07 AM
So I take you never drive into Bixby via Memorial (The only way from Tulsa outside of HWY75 to 151st St).
Traffic is backed up at 9PM on Tuesday, at 8AM on Saturday, it just s matter of will it be 15 minutes to go 4 miles or 40 minutes.
If the bridge is built, it will be used and provide an alternative route to and from Bixby. Do that or extended the Creek Turnpike and dump off on the south side of the river somewhere...
Northbound Memorial frequently backs up 1/2 mile around noon on Saturdays and Sundays. If I want to go to Riverside/Jones Airport (by Jenks but actually in Tulsa) around that time, I check traffic. I used to go across 121st to Delaware but with all the soccer fields even that is a mess. I will sometimes go south to 151st and across to Peoria/Elm rather than the 2 miles north to the Creek Turnpike. If I need to take stuff to the MET Recycling in Bixby, the choice is easy.
Quote from: cannon_fodder on April 11, 2016, 08:07:52 AM
Frankly... what's in it for Tulsa? The ability to quickly get out of Tulsa to live and spend your money in a suburb isn't really helpful. Having to increase the width and traffic upon south Tulsa roads isn't really helpful. Spending money we don't have on a bridge we don't want isn't really helpful.
If you live on 151st street, and work at 5th street on the other side of a river - expect traffic. It isn't a "problem" at that point. It's just traffic. It isn't a god given right to live wherever you want and not have to deal with traffic to go where ever you want.
/sorry for the hostility. But seriously, why would Tulsa want this bridge?
It's not hostility. South Tulsa has ruined this city. Time to confront it.
Quote from: davideinstein on April 11, 2016, 10:43:34 PM
It's not hostility. South Tulsa has ruined this city. Time to confront it.
Give everything south of 31st St to Jenks, Bixby, and Broken Arrow. Since it is such a drain on Tulsa, Tulsa should be glad to get rid of it.
Quote from: Red Arrow on April 11, 2016, 11:34:23 PM
Give everything south of 31st St to Jenks, Bixby, and Broken Arrow. Since it is such a drain on Tulsa, Tulsa should be glad to get rid of it.
That's the exact mindset that ruined it.
Quote from: davideinstein on April 12, 2016, 12:16:15 AM
That's the exact mindset that ruined it.
Now that it is ruined, why keep it?
Quote from: Red Arrow on April 11, 2016, 08:31:12 PM
The concept of long commute times to prevent migration to the suburbs has worked so well in southern California.
. . .
Make Bixby and Jenks share the cost for improvements to Yale and Delaware.
It is simply a fact that longer commute times increases demand for housing closer in. There are, of course, exceptions to every rule. Though in Los Angeles the average rent downtown is about the same as Bel Air (Los Angeles is a poor example of about anything concerning logical development anyway. A coastal city with a downtown NOT on the beach, wealthy beach communities, and a relative cheap zone in between...). It is a truism in urban planning that freeways created fast and easy access to cheaper suburbs, helping eliminate demand for older inner neighborhoods and creating the sprawl that America has enjoyed since the 1960s.
The developers who want to sell all those lots across the river should pay. Of course, they never will. But those are the only people really standing to profit from this bridge.
Quote from: Red Arrow on April 11, 2016, 08:31:12 PM
Make Bixby and Jenks share the cost for improvements to Yale and Delaware.
Since both communities listed are sales tax donor communities, do you propose they then should share in the sales tax generated by their residents from purchases made in Tulsa?
Quote from: cannon_fodder on April 12, 2016, 08:33:17 AM
It is simply a fact that longer commute times increases demand for housing closer in. There are, of course, exceptions to every rule. Though in Los Angeles the average rent downtown is about the same as Bel Air (Los Angeles is a poor example of about anything concerning logical development anyway. A coastal city with a downtown NOT on the beach, wealthy beach communities, and a relative cheap zone in between...). It is a truism in urban planning that freeways created fast and easy access to cheaper suburbs, helping eliminate demand for older inner neighborhoods and creating the sprawl that America has enjoyed since the 1960s.
The developers who want to sell all those lots across the river should pay. Of course, they never will. But those are the only people really standing to profit from this bridge.
You know, this argument is funny to me. We aren't talking about a P&L statement here, we are talking about a quality of life issue. We all profess to want a better quality of life for the residents of the area, or at least I think we are. Maybe we are just talking about quality of life for Tulsans and not the citizens of the surrounding communities.
Another route across the river would decrease commute times which, in my opinion, provides a better quality of life as it leads to less time sitting in a vehicle stuck in traffic. I also think it improves quality of life by providing for increased public safety as it gives emergency vehicles another route to respond via which should decrease response times. I know I keep saying it, but I am very concerned that sometime soon a person is going to die due to a traffic backup caused by only having one convenient route across the river into/out of Bixby.
Quote from: Red Arrow on April 11, 2016, 08:18:10 PM
Not blind, unable to stop it.
I mean city officials from both areas were blind to what the repercussions of not planning for that growth would mean. They were too busy squabbling over other issues unrelated to serving their constituents.
That a bridge is needed is a no brainer. You don't ignore a communities needs because it didn't happen to grow the way you wanted it too. I have heard that argument by city planners in the past, only to be recognized as folly later when it became more expensive to build. Case in point was 15th and Utica. It was often argued that by keeping the intersection crowded and slow that it would decrease traffic. It didn't. They later added turn lanes.
Maybe that's why we have this infernal backwards/slanted parking cropping up around here.
Quote from: Ibanez on April 12, 2016, 09:39:42 AM
You know, this argument is funny to me. We aren't talking about a P&L statement here, we are talking about a quality of life issue. We all profess to want a better quality of life for the residents of the area, or at least I think we are. Maybe we are just talking about quality of life for Tulsan's and not the citizens of the surrounding communities.
If you want the quality of life that comes with living in Tulsa... live in Tulsa. As a resident of Tulsa, why do I want to pay for a bridge so Bixby residents can enjoy a better quality of life? Of course I want a nicer metro area. But not at the expense of Tulsa. On many levels, we ARE talking about Tulsa's P&L.
Quote
Another route across the river would decrease commute times which, in my opinion, provides a better quality of life as it leads to less time sitting in a vehicle stuck in traffic.
For Bixby/Jenks residents. This bridge will not increase the quality of life for Tulsa residents, so why would Tulsa want to pay for the bridge or for the other needed infrastructure?
Quote
I also think it improves quality of life by providing for increased public safety as it gives emergency vehicles another route to respond via which should decrease response times. I know I keep saying it, but I am very concerned that sometime soon a person is going to die due to a traffic backup caused by only having one convenient route across the river into/out of Bixby.
First, this is anecdotal. I have not heard there is a significant problem with response times to Bixby, Jenks, etc. Second, if there is a safety issue in these communities - it seems that would factor into the decision to move there and be a problem that the community should solve. Pockets of Tulsa have crime problems, is Bixby building infrastructure to help Tulsa with those areas? Of course not.
- - -
The sales tax argument is sound. If adding this bridge would contribute to Tulsa sales tax base more than it would detract from the resident/property tax base, it could be an economically sound decision. But there isn't commercial in that area. So I remain dubious.
Plus, Bixby is tax rich. They have 53mil in revenue and 19k residents (To Tulsa's 400k residents and 700mil revenue). So it seems Bixby is sniping sales tax revenue, not donating it (or their residents are just really, really heavily taxed).
- - -
Here's the deal:
Tulsa is in competition with the suburbs. I know the METRO Tulsa Chamber doesn't like to mention it, but there is only so much development that the metro will support. For a time Tulsa was happy to sprawl east, then south. Then Broken Arrow boomed. Then Owasso. Now Jenks/bixby. For a long time Tulsa didn't really seem to care, we are the big city... let the suburbs do as they please. Unfortunately, we lost a ton of tax base. We lost a ton of density. We have been fairly stagnant city for nearly a generation now. That makes new development harder, that makes big ideas harder, it makes maintaining the sprawl that we acquired harder.
While we do share a lot of common interests with our entire metro and region and we do need to work together on lots of things (it isn't a zero sum game) - but Tulsa needs to realize that our interests are not always aligned. Having nice suburbs and bedroom communities can add to a city. But if they are at the expense of the City, they can also replace it.
The Tulsa residents of the area don't want the bridge. Tulsa residents aren't likely to use the bridge. It won't add to the quality of life for Tulsa residents. Why does Tulsa want to pay for a bridge and/or related infrastructure to add to the quality of life and further development of Bixby?
I certainly get why Bixby wants to do it...
Some of my favorite cities have "Green Belts" and areas where there is very low density, rural/country farm type development. This acts to contain sprawl and increase density. If you have good development guidelines for good infill you can create a really good quality of life. Its very nice to live in an area that has good quality urban spaces and right nearby, beautiful rural/country space. What we have here is mostly bleh, more and more sprawl that is neither city nor country that goes on forever.
I think the river and the parks around it could kind of sort of act as a little bit of a green belt for our city and adding more bridges to the suburbs cuts through the green belt and decreases any benefit it could have.
Find me a spot in Tulsa where I can have an acreage, 20+, large enough to support a garden where we can grow all our own vegetables, have an orchard of 24 various fruit trees as well as blackberries, raspberries and blueberries planted that supply a large portion of our fresh fruit, where I can raise chickens, rabbits and where my wife can keep her horses. Somewhere I can have a berm built and target practice when I feel like it. Find me something that fits all those requirements and I might consider it.
As for the public safety issue. I have heard, though I do not have proof, that the Bixby FD have/had a rule where the stations on the two sides of the river were required to only respond to calls on their side of the river so that both crews would not end up on one side of the river or the other and be "trapped" there in case an accident happened on the bridge that prevented them from getting back across to another call. Again, I have nothing in writing, just what I have heard. It may not even be true any longer as that was 10+ years ago and due to growth my bet is they likely must respond to calls on both sides of the river. Still, it goes to my point that having a second route across the river is a public safety issue.
How would a bridge improve quality of life for Tulsans? Perhaps at some point those Tulsans might need to attend a sports tournament in Bixby or Jenks. Maybe they want to visit Carmichael's during the fall to buy pumpkins or take their children to the petting zoo. Perhaps they would even consider crossing the river during a bike ride, a run, etc.....
Quote from: TheArtist on April 12, 2016, 11:44:54 AM
Some of my favorite cities have "Green Belts" and areas where there is very low density, rural/country farm type development. This acts to contain sprawl and increase density. If you have good development guidelines for good infill you can create a really good quality of life. Its very nice to live in an area that has good quality urban spaces and right nearby, beautiful rural/country space. What we have here is mostly bleh, more and more sprawl that is neither city nor country that goes on forever.
I think the river and the parks around it could kind of sort of act as a little bit of a green belt for our city and adding more bridges to the suburbs cuts through the green belt and decreases any benefit it could have.
This is what I do for a living now.
I try to protect green space.
www.landlegacy.com
Quote from: RecycleMichael on April 12, 2016, 11:56:13 AM
This is what I do for a living now.
I try to protect green space.
www.landlegacy.com
So that brings up a good question, is that Land Legacy greenbelt park in the East Village downtown still on? It seems that the Nordam site that Brickhugger just bought has to directly next to where that park is/was supposed to go.
Quote from: Ibanez on April 12, 2016, 11:55:09 AM
Find me a spot in Tulsa where I can have an acreage, 20+, large enough to support a garden where we can grow all our own vegetables, have an orchard of 24 various fruit trees as well as blackberries, raspberries and blueberries planted that supply a large portion of our fresh fruit, where I can raise chickens, rabbits and where my wife can keep her horses. Somewhere I can have a berm built and target practice when I feel like it. Find me something that fits all those requirements and I might consider it.
You basically can't. You have absolutely chosen wisely and list a ton of great reasons to not live in the city. I have a great number of friends with horses, or 4 wheeler tracks, farm fields/pastures, or want access to a lake, etc., that simply can't do that in an urban environment. I'm not trying to say I have a problem with that at all. In fact, it sounds awesome. If I didn't live IN the City, I'd live in the country where I can do everything you are talking about (not the in-between area where you have neither of the benefits in my view).
I live in the middle of Tulsa. I have a backyard with a small garden (new tactic this year - grow up! on trestles, so hopefully more garden!), a few fruiting trees, and an outdoor kitchen. My house is ~1200 square feet and my neighbors are 10' away. There are wealthy people and poor people all around me. I'm 5 minutes from downtown. I can walk to several cars, restaurants, grocery stores, gyms, pharmacies, bike stores, etc. etc. etc. But if I want to ride my mountain bike its a 20 minute drive. If I want to shoot my rifles, ride a horse, or whatever else its a 30 minute drive.
I have no problem with the choice I have made - I choose to live far from the rural activities I enjoy. By choosing urban over suburban I chose more diverse group of people, more traffic noise, and a smaller house. And I have no intention of asking for some rural or suburban area to pay for infrastructure benefiting me so I can more easily enjoy their quality of life.
Quote from: cannon_fodder on April 12, 2016, 08:33:17 AM
It is simply a fact that longer commute times increases demand for housing closer in. ...
Up to the point of property values getting too high. Then you move to the suburbs or live in
a tenement affordable housing.
QuoteIt is a truism in urban planning that freeways created fast and easy access to cheaper suburbs, helping eliminate demand for older inner neighborhoods and creating the sprawl that America has enjoyed since the 1960s.
Migration to the suburbs started before ready access to the automobile and freeways. Seen those spots about the OKC trolleys and the developers that used what we see as the savior of cities to create early suburbia?
Quote from: Vision 2025 on April 12, 2016, 08:47:30 AM
Since both communities listed are sales tax donor communities, do you propose they then should share in the sales tax generated by their residents from purchases made in Tulsa?
What I would propose is that Jenks and Bixby build the bridge (maybe with some county/state/federal money but not City of Tulsa money) and share with COT in the cost of improving Yale and Delaware. Tulsa would need the sales tax of Bixby and Jenks citizens spending money in Tulsa to maintain the road improvements. That is how us foreigners help pay for the infrastructure to get us to your sales tax generators. The rich folks along Yale probably wouldn't see it that way but Delaware really needs something. It will be used. Keeping it in crappy condition will not stop development in Bixby. I'm sure those folks in public housing near where Delaware and 121st meet aren't happy with the traffic and condition of Delaware. There are a bunch of expensive cars with low profile tires there.
Quote from: AquaMan on April 12, 2016, 09:49:29 AM
I mean city officials from both areas were blind to what the repercussions of not planning for that growth would mean. They were too busy squabbling over other issues unrelated to serving their constituents.
That a bridge is needed is a no brainer. You don't ignore a communities needs because it didn't happen to grow the way you wanted it too. I have heard that argument by city planners in the past, only to be recognized as folly later when it became more expensive to build. Case in point was 15th and Utica. It was often argued that by keeping the intersection crowded and slow that it would decrease traffic. It didn't. They later added turn lanes.
Maybe that's why we have this infernal backwards/slanted parking cropping up around here.
Backwards parking by backwards thinkers. I like it. ;D
Quote from: swake on April 12, 2016, 01:33:11 PM
So that brings up a good question, is that Land Legacy greenbelt park in the East Village downtown still on? It seems that the Nordam site that Brickhugger just bought has to directly next to where that park is/was supposed to go.
No. That project fell through a few years ago.
We did build the park at 6th and Main and one on Archer by the Coney Island.
QuoteThe sales tax argument is sound. If adding this bridge would contribute to Tulsa sales tax base more than it would detract from the resident/property tax base, it could be an economically sound decision. But there isn't commercial in that area.
We have a secret cloaking device to hide a highly commercial area south of the river west of Sheridan. Citizens of Tulsa cannot see it but that is where everyone in the developing mobile home areas go shopping. They cannot afford to go to the expensive Tulsa stores. There is no need to go to the east side of the Jenks bridge (Kohl's etc) or up Yale to places like Whole Foods. There is some token commercial development along Memorial south of the river but about the only place I go is to Carmichael's. Traffic along Peoria/Elm in Jenks is terrible, especially where it goes under the Creek Tpk.
Quote from: Red Arrow on April 11, 2016, 08:18:10 PM
Not blind, unable to stop it.
My parents wanted a big lot, about an acre. They also wanted a good school for my sister who was starting 9th grade. We got the big lot. My sister said 9th grade in Bixby was like 8th grade in suburban Phila, PA. There was even a bit of 7th grade thrown in. She was here last week visiting so I asked her about it. She said she was unchallenged and bored to death. That was in the early 70s. If Bixby was supposed to be good, I'm glad my parents didn't move into a TPS district.
Bixby was not that good in the 70's. TPS was better at that time. And TPS was 2 full years behind schools I went to in Iowa - they taught us algebra in 5th grade!! Along with 'rithmetic....
Quote from: davideinstein on April 11, 2016, 10:43:34 PM
It's not hostility. South Tulsa has ruined this city. Time to confront it.
Perspective moment;
That comment - "South Tulsa has ruined this city..." is similar mantra to what I have heard since the 50's when 'south Tulsa' was the newly developing area around Ranch Acres. 31st and Harvard. We moved "out to the country" near 36th and Harvard. Mayo Meadows was the eastern implementation of that urban sprawl at the same time, and a few years later, we went out there, too, to city limits near 21st and Memorial.
South Tulsa has been 'ruining' this city since just after WWII.....
Quote from: Red Arrow on April 12, 2016, 08:00:33 PM
We have a secret cloaking device to hide a highly commercial area south of the river west of Sheridan. Citizens of Tulsa cannot see it but that is where everyone in the developing mobile home areas go shopping. They cannot afford to go to the expensive Tulsa stores. There is no need to go to the east side of the Jenks bridge (Kohl's etc) or up Yale to places like Whole Foods. There is some token commercial development along Memorial south of the river but about the only place I go is to Carmichael's. Traffic along Peoria/Elm in Jenks is terrible, especially where it goes under the Creek Tpk.
I'm confused. The only commercial property near the proposed bridge is 3.5 miles away on Riverside, directly across from the 96th Street Bridge and Creek Turnpike Bridge. Or the commercial property along Memorial, which is in Bixby. As far as shortening the distance from the new bridge to any of these places, there are maybe 1,000 people that would benefit.
Again, the real reason they want the bridge is so developers can more easily sell track housing in Bixby. Those farm fields would be much easier to turn into lots and sell if there was a bridge right there. Which is a fine goal - for the developers and for Bixby.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on April 13, 2016, 09:40:47 AM
Bixby was not that good in the 70's. TPS was better at that time. And TPS was 2 full years behind schools I went to in Iowa - they taught us algebra in 5th grade!! Along with 'rithmetic....
Actually, we studied some algebra (signed numbers) in the 6th grade in Tulsa at Kendall elementary. That was the 60's. It was simple stuff, but readied us for middle school algebra. We had support from student teachers and supplies from nearby TU. Of course we also had foreign language, art, music, band and physical ed. Stuff that's been cut out of schools thanks to our forward thinking state leaders. No use wasting education on folks who are only going to be flipping burgers and mowing our lawns.
Quote from: cannon_fodder on April 13, 2016, 09:57:59 AM
I'm confused. The only commercial property near the proposed bridge is 3.5 miles away on Riverside, directly across from the 96th Street Bridge and Creek Turnpike Bridge. Or the commercial property along Memorial, which is in Bixby. As far as shortening the distance from the new bridge to any of these places, there are maybe 1,000 people that would benefit.
Again, the real reason they want the bridge is so developers can more easily sell track housing in Bixby. Those farm fields would be much easier to turn into lots and sell if there was a bridge right there. Which is a fine goal - for the developers and for Bixby.
There are a few commercial sites at 91st & Yale in the Whole Food complex and nearby. A few more at 81st & Yale like Fresh Market and Farrell Family Bread. That plus 91st to 101st along Riverside and Delaware would be closer than anything except south of the river in Bixby. Do some looking on Google maps. Not having a bridge is not going to stop development south of the river. Having a bridge would probably make it easier to sell tracts south of the river but those places are going to sell anyway. Most of those folks will shop in Tulsa if it is convenient. Again, block the bridge and you guarantee commercial development south of the river, probably between Glenpool and Bixby. 151st could become the new 71st. Please don't let that happen. When our family moved here in 1971, Memorial was 2 lanes south of the RR at 41st & Memorial and it didn't matter. There was almost nothing south of about 57th St. Woodland Hills was started in 1976 and it's been all downhill regarding traffic since.
You raise some good points. However, those commercial developments are 3-5 miles away from the subdivisions. If the area develops, it is likely that a commercial hub would go in anyway.
But to clarify, I don't think Tulsa should actively block the bridge. It certainly isn't devastating for Tulsa. Merely that I understand why Tulsa doesn't want to help pay for it. Eventually, the bridge is likely to happen - the question is, "on who's dime?"
Quote from: cannon_fodder on April 14, 2016, 08:10:51 AM
You raise some good points. However, those commercial developments are 3-5 miles away from the subdivisions. If the area develops, it is likely that a commercial hub would go in anyway.
But to clarify, I don't think Tulsa should actively block the bridge. It certainly isn't devastating for Tulsa. Merely that I understand why Tulsa doesn't want to help pay for it. Eventually, the bridge is likely to happen - the question is, "on who's dime?"
It probably should be the county, or a toll bridge.
I think Tulsa should put a toll gate on the road just past the bridge. We could use the money.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on April 14, 2016, 01:26:49 PM
I think Tulsa should put a toll gate on the road just past the bridge. We could use the money.
Somehow there's bound to be something that makes it illegal for a city/town in Oklahoma to raise funds that way.
Quote from: Townsend on April 14, 2016, 01:31:18 PM
Somehow there's bound to be something that makes it illegal for a city/town in Oklahoma to raise funds that way.
Here's an idea:
(http://40.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_l04re4IMmO1qbs6n7o1_400.jpg)
Quote from: RecycleMichael on April 14, 2016, 01:26:49 PM
I think Tulsa should put a toll gate on the road just past the bridge. We could use the money.
They can call it The William J. Le Petomane Thruway
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SbWg-mozGsU
Quote from: Townsend on April 14, 2016, 01:31:18 PM
Somehow there's bound to be something that makes it illegal for a city/town in Oklahoma to raise funds that way.
What? Surely that isn't something our "keep government as small, efficient and as local as possible" Republicans would stand for? Must have been a bunch of meddling Democrats who would put something like that into law. Our Republicans will get rid of anything like that pronto.
Quote from: Ibanez on April 14, 2016, 02:24:32 PM
They can call it The William J. Le Petomane Thruway
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SbWg-mozGsU
Harumph!
Quote from: cannon_fodder on April 14, 2016, 08:10:51 AM
You raise some good points. However, those commercial developments are 3-5 miles away from the subdivisions.
Put your suburbanite hat on for a minute. 3-5 miles is nothing in a car if the traffic isn't too much. No one out here is really going to expect urban walkability.
QuoteIf the area develops, it is likely that a commercial hub would go in anyway.
I am confident it will not be stuff like Whole Foods. I would expect a Chili's, Neighborhood Walmart, another CVS or Walgreen's. Stuff that still misses the mark of something like Fresh Market or Whole Foods.
QuoteBut to clarify, I don't think Tulsa should actively block the bridge. It certainly isn't devastating for Tulsa. Merely that I understand why Tulsa doesn't want to help pay for it. Eventually, the bridge is likely to happen - the question is, "on who's dime?"
See my previous posts about Bixby and Jenks paying for the bridge and helping with the improvements to Yale and Delaware.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on April 14, 2016, 01:26:49 PM
I think Tulsa should put a toll gate on the road just past the bridge. We could use the money.
Of course the burbs could counter with toll gates to leave Tulsa on any road they had money in.
Wow! What a way to spur even more commercial development in the burbs. No reason to go to Tulsa other than the Courts.
Actually, a coworker in about 2004-2005 when we had
office space cubes in the City Plex said he would be glad to pay $1 each way in tolls for a bridge over the river at Yale. It would save him gas money compared to either Memorial or Peoria/Elm.