I figured I would start a topic about this after the story in the World today.
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/government/two-major-tax-projects-coming-this-year/article_1adddedc-7b40-5745-b981-29ebcfc51e2a.html
1. Public Safety Tax (would use the 0.6% from Vision 2025 when it expires)
- Street Maintenance and Safety
- Police and 911
- Fire
2. Another River Tax (damn construction, reconstruction, & maintenance)
I'm very concerned at the lack of vision from city leadership in regards to these proposals. These proposals will do little to move the city forward development wise. While every city in the region build some form of rail project, we will again be trying to build damn on the river and funding public "safety" through these if they are both passed. Oklahoma City will have a streetcar, along with Albuquerque, Kansas City, Little Rock, etc. Tulsa will literarly be the only major city in the region without some sort of rail project active around 2020.
Is there going to be a 3rd more civic infrastructure minded proposal later down the line that will include ideas aimed to spur more downtown development and bring other county wide improvements or are these it for the foreseeable future?
Quote from: LandArchPoke on January 04, 2015, 01:12:32 PM
I figured I would start a topic about this after the story in the World today.
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/government/two-major-tax-projects-coming-this-year/article_1adddedc-7b40-5745-b981-29ebcfc51e2a.html
1. Public Safety Tax (would use the 0.6% from Vision 2025 when it expires)
- Street Maintenance and Safety
- Police and 911
- Fire
2. Another River Tax (damn construction, reconstruction, & maintenance)
I'm very concerned at the lack of vision from city leadership in regards to these proposals. These proposals will do little to move the city forward development wise. While every city in the region build some form of rail project, we will again be trying to build damn on the river and funding public "safety" through these if they are both passed. Oklahoma City will have a streetcar, along with Albuquerque, Kansas City, Little Rock, etc. Tulsa will literarly be the only major city in the region without some sort of rail project active around 2020.
Is there going to be a 3rd more civic infrastructure minded proposal later down the line that will include ideas aimed to spur more downtown development and bring other county wide improvements or are these it for the foreseeable future?
Not so long as Dewey is mayor.
Regarding the river tax, is it just for the cities along the river (Sand Springs, Tulsa, Jenks, Bixby, Broken Arrow) or the whole county? Without a really good PR job by the city this will be a tough sale. I support it though, the dams are key to capitalizing on our best natural asset and enhancing the Gathering Place.
As for the public safety tax, what happens to the rest of the Vision 2025 if it's just .6%? What if the rest of that county tax was for more infrastructure projects including a starter streetcar, city beautification and enhanced transit (jumpstarting the Peoria BRT comes to mind).
When is Tulsa going to get serious about transit? At the very least a decent bus system. Some type of downtown circulator, even if it is just buses to start, needs to be implemented as soon as possible. Several buses that ran from the Brady through Blue Dome, the CBD, and soon the East End at intervals of 10 or 15 minutes would be sufficient for now.
Are there any more details about the tax packages? The article was sort of vague.
Quote from: ZYX on January 04, 2015, 05:37:59 PM
When is Tulsa going to get serious about transit? At the very least a decent bus system. Some type of downtown circulator, even if it is just buses to start, needs to be implemented as soon as possible. Several buses that ran from the Brady through Blue Dome, the CBD, and soon the East End at intervals of 10 or 15 minutes would be sufficient for now.
Are there any more details about the tax packages? The article was sort of vague.
The "trolley" does some of this. I'm honestly not sure when it runs though. Bartlett effectively killed the BRT down Peoria by making it one of the last projects to get funding in the recent streets package.
I'm afraid these proposals will really set Tulsa back if they are passed. The public safety taxes seem like a short-cut for funding without actually addressing the problem of why we can't pay for more police, fire, etc. The reason is we can't is because we have stalled in new development in the city. We have little land in the Tulsa city limits to build new development on.
What's the solution? Density and infill. Well we are not doing anything to support infill development. No streetcar, we are doing little streetscaping downtown, no new bike lanes, stalling BRT routes, no commuter rail, no light rail, etc.
Our politicians have become obsessed with "putting water in the river". I have heard many times people allude to how Lady Bird Lake in Austin helped spur the development in and around Downtown Austin. While this is one of the things that helped create a good quality of life around downtown, this is really such a minor thing that a river that looks like the Arkansas in Austin would have not changed anything in how much growth the Downtown Austin has attracted. We will never be able to create a "River" like Little Rock or Austin because the terrain surrounding the Arkansas in Tulsa is so different we will never be able to fully put and keep water in the river.
Austin created an attractive environment for people like musicians to move there by proving things like free health insurance to them. It wasn't a dam damn that did it.
We have become so short sighted it is hindering us from doing anything truly unique for us.
Another crutch is people have become obsessed with Portland, and trying to copy everything they do. Why? I get they have done a lot of great things, but no one seems to look at say Vancouver or Seattle to see how they have attracted even greater growth than Portland.
In fact, Portland and Vancouver were essentially the same cities in the 80s until they both built a different type of transit system, and look how radically different the cities have developed? We are limiting our pool of ideas and inspiration that it will ultimately come back to bite us. Some of our previous greatest civic projects were ideas taken from New York and other much larger world-class cities, and just scaled to fit Tulsa. This attitude would do wonders for us, and to truly evaluate concepts that are successful in London, New York, LA, Washington DC, Vancouver, Stockholm, etc. and see what is scaleable to Tulsa, and how do we make it unique to us. Instead, we forge on like every other mid-sized city who is obsessed with becoming the next Portland - Austin (Jacksonville, Louisville, Omaha, Des Moines, Oklahoma City, etc). How many times have citizens here said they don't want to be these cities (Austin or Portland), we want to be us! Yet our leadership doesn't seem to get it. That's a huge reason this River Tax has failed so many times.
LandArch, I agree with you that transit needs to be the next big investment for Tulsa. Density and infill will be what moves Tulsa forward, and better transit can create that. With Tulsa seemingly behind OKC in every way now I am surprised that a streetcar is not being at least mentioned, since OKC will have one in the next couple years. Do we have to wait until it's a success there before we do it? Same for river development, they've been capitalizing on theirs for 10 years while we're still discussing funding for low water dams. Same goes for a downtown ballpark, arena, housing, bar district, urban park, downtown elementary, etc.
Like I said I think the low water dams are important. "Putting water in the river" should be a top priority. Then it should be transit and encouraging density and infill, basically implementing PlaniTulsa. Which means we need to elect a new mayor in 2017.
Quote from: LandArchPoke on January 04, 2015, 06:08:01 PM
The "trolley" does some of this. I'm honestly not sure when it runs though. Bartlett effectively killed the BRT down Peoria by making it one of the last projects to get funding in the recent streets package.
I'm afraid these proposals will really set Tulsa back if they are passed. The public safety taxes seem like a short-cut for funding without actually addressing the problem of why we can't pay for more police, fire, etc. The reason is we can't is because we have stalled in new development in the city. We have little land in the Tulsa city limits to build new development on.
What's the solution? Density and infill. Well we are not doing anything to support infill development. No streetcar, we are doing little streetscaping downtown, no new bike lanes, stalling BRT routes, no commuter rail, no light rail, etc.
Our politicians have become obsessed with "putting water in the river". I have heard many times people allude to how Lady Bird Lake in Austin helped spur the development in and around Downtown Austin. While this is one of the things that helped create a good quality of life around downtown, this is really such a minor thing that a river that looks like the Arkansas in Austin would have not changed anything in how much growth the Downtown Austin has attracted. We will never be able to create a "River" like Little Rock or Austin because the terrain surrounding the Arkansas in Tulsa is so different we will never be able to fully put and keep water in the river.
Austin created an attractive environment for people like musicians to move there by proving things like free health insurance to them. It wasn't a dam damn that did it.
We have become so short sighted it is hindering us from doing anything truly unique for us.
Another crutch is people have become obsessed with Portland, and trying to copy everything they do. Why? I get they have done a lot of great things, but no one seems to look at say Vancouver or Seattle to see how they have attracted even greater growth than Portland.
In fact, Portland and Vancouver were essentially the same cities in the 80s until they both built a different type of transit system, and look how radically different the cities have developed? We are limiting our pool of ideas and inspiration that it will ultimately come back to bite us. Some of our previous greatest civic projects were ideas taken from New York and other much larger world-class cities, and just scaled to fit Tulsa. This attitude would do wonders for us, and to truly evaluate concepts that are successful in London, New York, LA, Washington DC, Vancouver, Stockholm, etc. and see what is scaleable to Tulsa, and how do we make it unique to us. Instead, we forge on like every other mid-sized city who is obsessed with becoming the next Portland - Austin (Jacksonville, Louisville, Omaha, Des Moines, Oklahoma City, etc). How many times have citizens here said they don't want to be these cities (Austin or Portland), we want to be us! Yet our leadership doesn't seem to get it. That's a huge reason this River Tax has failed so many times.
Whatever trolley may be there is not obvious, as I've never seen trollies, stops, schedules or routes posted, etc.
I don't worry too much about downtown. It will continue to grow. The opportunity to make money is there and increasing as more residents continue to move in. However, I worry that the infrastructure in our inner city will be incredibly far behind that of other cities our size in 5-10 years. Oklahoma City is getting ready to start construction on a downtown streetcar loop, and we aren't even
talking about one.
The already decent amount of private downtown investment could, in my opinion, very quickly grow much, much bigger if we made infrastructure and transportation a priority. Downtown just East of Blue Dome is getting ready to explode with residential. Where is the streetscaping? Where is anything even resembling a transit system? What about bike share? We have it on Riverside, why not in downtown?
I agree with you on the river. I don't see how water in the river will magically cause development to spring up around it. The only thing I can see it directly helping is recreational opportunities with the Gathering Place. We should focus on what we can do to enhance and encourage private development on land, not how artificially pretty we can make the river. Who really just sits and stares at it anyway?
SXSW - I will have to disagree with you in regards to putting water in the river as the top priority. Should fixing Zink Lake be one? I do think so as well. In regards to the other damns? No. Zink Lake bugs me in the fact this should have already been done. Wasn't the money supposed to come from state and federal funds, and then it was the typical out of site out of mind for our lawmakers and now it's become an issue where we have to fund ourselves?
We are spending close to $200 million to fix the dome on the capitol building in Oklahoma City, a dome that everyone in the state could have cared less about. We are about to spend nearly $600 million to repave the IDL, when the traffic counts on 1/2 of it are less than sections of Memorial Drive, 71st Street, and Riverside Drive. How is this ok?
We need to have a long range mass transportation plan that is implementable similar to what Salt Lake City has done. Whether it be Bus Rapid Transit, Light Rail, Light Metro, Streetcars.. we need a plan. PlaniTulsa laid groundwork for it, but there was absolutely no meat in their discussions on transit.
Downtown will continue to grow as ZYX said. The growth potential for downtown is vastly different with transit than without transit. The main reason we haven't seen any new high-rise downtown residential construction is parking costs are to high in comparison to rental rates in the state. How do you fix that issue? You create transit that is accessible to all parts of the city, then new development types become economical.
I think a good transit system is more important than water in the river.
A local circulator system will be needed if we ever want rail between Tulsa and OKC to work. My preference is light rail or streetcar/trollies but a usable bus system is the minimum acceptable. Routes should eventually include a downtown circulator, downtown to Tulsa Int'l Airport, downtown to the Gathering Place , and hopefully downtown to Cherry Street and Brookside. The Peoria Ave BRT is also a good start. Make it easily convertible to Streetcar or Light Rail.
Quote from: LandArchPoke on January 04, 2015, 08:45:28 PM
We are spending close to $200 million to fix the dome on the capitol building in Oklahoma City, a dome that everyone in the state could have cared less about. We are about to spend nearly $600 million to repave the IDL, when the traffic counts on 1/2 of it are less than sections of Memorial Drive, 71st Street, and Riverside Drive. How is this ok?
It may be a matter of semantics, but it's not the dome they are fixing on the capitol building, it's the rest of the building under the dome which is crumbling. It is somewhat symbolic of how skewed our development priorities are in this state. Certainly, there were signs of mechanical obsolescence and structural issues in the 1990's when the whole idea to put a dome on the capitol building was first considered. It probably would have been more prudent to solicit private funds to re-hab the building at that time rather than putting a dome on it.
Putting water in the river does zilch for development opportunities for COT along the river with the exception of the east bank from 71st to 81st. The biggest opportunities would exist between 71st Street to south of Jenks unless we consider more piered development like the Blue Rose to be desirable all up and down the east bank of the river, blocking the view from trail users. There's very limited development space on the west bank north of 71st due to refineries, a power plant, commercial businesses, and a waste treatment facility.
I'm really not certain why Zink Lake is not holding more water right now. Didn't we finish a re-hab of the dam gates last year? It seems to hold no more water now than it did prior to this repair.
Quote from: Conan71 on January 05, 2015, 09:54:03 AM
Certainly, there were signs of mechanical obsolescence and structural issues in the 1990's when the whole idea to put a dome on the capitol building was first considered. It probably would have been more prudent to solicit private funds to re-hab the building at that time rather than putting a dome on it.
Dome = turd polish
I predict that these tax proposals will be miserable failures, and I can't see that the need has been proven for either one of them.
I agree that transit needs to be a top priority if we ever want to get out of the catch 22 of constant street repair and widening to accommodate volume. If we don't do something now, we could quickly have the same type of traffic problems that Austin has. I support a downtown circulator ASAP, the surface parking in downtown is going to start to evaporate in short order and we need alternatives. I would love to see a rail based circulator, but just a bus with arrival times and payment kiosks would work just as well to start.
Quote from: carltonplace on January 05, 2015, 12:33:28 PM
I predict that these tax proposals will be miserable failures, and I can't see that the need has been proven for either one of them.
I agree that transit needs to be a top priority if we ever want to get out of the catch 22 of constant street repair and widening to accommodate volume. If we don't do something now, we could quickly have the same type of traffic problems that Austin has. I support a downtown circulator ASAP, the surface parking in downtown is going to start to evaporate in short order and we need alternatives. I would love to see a rail based circulator, but just a bus with arrival times and payment kiosks would work just as well to start.
Downtown circulator on 3rd/4th to Cincinnati/Detroit to Brady/Archer to Boulder would connect the dots fairly well. Then another lines that runs this route and then goes down Boston from 3rd/4th to 11th all the way to Harvard/TU should be a future corridor as well as something to connect Cherry Street and Riverview on 15th. Brookside and Peoria would be taken care of with the Peoria BRT. All of this could interface with a commuter rail system on the existing tracks from downtown to BA, the airport and Jenks. You could probably build all of that for what we just passed for street improvements and resurfacing the IDL...
And whether we like it or not the river will be the main priority as long as Dewey and his puppet Bynum are running the show. We might as well get that behind us so then we can focus on transit, implementing PlaniTulsa and new zoning and other more important issues facing the city, hopefully with a new administration in 2017, which is also when the Gathering Place should open which at least needs the Zink Dam fixed to really be spectacular. We can argue it should've been the feds, state, etc. but the bottom line is it needs to be fixed before the park opens.
Quote from: SXSW on January 05, 2015, 01:35:16 PM
Downtown circulator on 3rd/4th to Cincinnati/Detroit to Brady/Archer to Boulder would connect the dots fairly well. Then another lines that runs this route and then goes down Boston from 3rd/4th to 11th all the way to Harvard/TU should be a future corridor as well as something to connect Cherry Street and Riverview on 15th. Brookside and Peoria would be taken care of with the Peoria BRT. All of this could interface with a commuter rail system on the existing tracks from downtown to BA, the airport and Jenks. You could probably build all of that for what we just passed for street improvements and resurfacing the IDL...
And whether we like it or not the river will be the main priority as long as Dewey and his puppet Bynum are running the show. We might as well get that behind us so then we can focus on transit, implementing PlaniTulsa and new zoning and other more important issues facing the city, hopefully with a new administration in 2017, which is also when the Gathering Place should open which at least needs the Zink Dam fixed to really be spectacular. We can argue it should've been the feds, state, etc. but the bottom line is it needs to be fixed before the park opens.
What happened to the dam repair which was supposedly finished last year?
Quote from: Conan71 on January 05, 2015, 01:43:24 PM
What happened to the dam repair which was supposedly finished last year?
Only the first phase was finished. The remainder is, I believe, still underway.
In the downtown library (prior to the remodel beginning, not sure if it is available at the Librarium) they kept a file on the fourth floor of neighborhood announcements and developments. It contained great news articles, advertisements and magazine features on neighborhoods and developments such as Lortondale, Maple Ridge, Sungate and others. One of the more interesting articles in the file was a large color spread on a proposed development on the west bank of the river about where I-44 now crosses. The development was to be multi-use with housing, office, retail and recreation on the riverbank and water. I believe a small marina was even included. The development touted the soon to be damned Arkansas River. The date of the article escapes me but I would guess 40+ years ago. My point is, Tulsa folk have pined for water in the river for so damn long its time to either get it done or just move on. I can't decide if the 2007 failed vote was the final referendum or if that campaign was so bungled that we deserve one more heave.
Quote from: rdj on January 05, 2015, 03:00:10 PM
In the downtown library (prior to the remodel beginning, not sure if it is available at the Librarium) they kept a file on the fourth floor of neighborhood announcements and developments. It contained great news articles, advertisements and magazine features on neighborhoods and developments such as Lortondale, Maple Ridge, Sungate and others. One of the more interesting articles in the file was a large color spread on a proposed development on the west bank of the river about where I-44 now crosses. The development was to be multi-use with housing, office, retail and recreation on the riverbank and water. I believe a small marina was even included. The development touted the soon to be damned Arkansas River. The date of the article escapes me but I would guess 40+ years ago. My point is, Tulsa folk have pined for water in the river for so damn long its time to either get it done or just move on. I can't decide if the 2007 failed vote was the final referendum or if that campaign was so bungled that we deserve one more heave.
Not sure if this is the same one, but LostTulsa reposted a TulsaGal article about "Pier 15" from back in the late 60s https://www.facebook.com/LostTulsa/posts/875706469146397.
Looks like another article by TulsaGal mentions a marina in a plan for the "TULCENTER" http://www.tulsagal.net/2010/03/1959-plan-for-central-tulsa-tulcenter.html
Quote from: carltonplace on January 05, 2015, 12:33:28 PM
I predict that these tax proposals will be miserable failures, and I can't see that the need has been proven for either one of them.
I agree that transit needs to be a top priority if we ever want to get out of the catch 22 of constant street repair and widening to accommodate volume. If we don't do something now, we could quickly have the same type of traffic problems that Austin has. I support a downtown circulator ASAP, the surface parking in downtown is going to start to evaporate in short order and we need alternatives. I would love to see a rail based circulator, but just a bus with arrival times and payment kiosks would work just as well to start.
It is incredibly frustrating to see such poorly thought out tax packages. They likely won't, and probably shouldn't be passed. We have so much growth downtown, and so much opportunity to capitalize on that growth and speed it along, but instead we focus on making the river artificially look a bit better. We need leadership that will actually take what the citizens have said they want (PlaniTulsa) and work to increase our growth. We need improved public transportation throughout the city, but especially in the inner core. We need more bike lanes and to provide funding to connect the Riverparks trails all the way through Bixby. So much could be done that would actually provide tangible civic improvements to the county with the hundreds of millions we will spend on building low water dams, but we insist on "river development," whatever that entails.
Why should Tulsa pay for a low water dam that primarily puts water in the river at Jenks? If Jenks or the Casino wants a dam then they can pay for it. Dewey should be focusing on development for Tulsa, there is no proof that water in the river at 91st St will increase development along the river in Tulsa.
Quote from: carltonplace on January 06, 2015, 08:26:08 AM
Why should Tulsa pay for a low water dam that primarily puts water in the river at Jenks? If Jenks or the Casino wants a dam then they can pay for it. Dewey should be focusing on development for Tulsa, there is no proof that water in the river at 91st St will increase development along the river in Tulsa.
^^^We have a winner!
Quote from: carltonplace on January 06, 2015, 08:26:08 AM
Why should Tulsa pay for a low water dam that primarily puts water in the river at Jenks? If Jenks or the Casino wants a dam then they can pay for it. Dewey should be focusing on development for Tulsa, there is no proof that water in the river at 91st St will increase development along the river in Tulsa.
The Tulsa side of the river is pretty much developed or owned by the Creek Nation and slated for development from 101st to 71st.
I've heard some talk about re-programming the park area south of 71st into a more event driven space. Not sure if that has any legs though.
But, doesn't the dam in front of the aquarium back the water up all the way to the Zink Lake dam?
Quote from: rdj on January 06, 2015, 09:48:51 AM
But, doesn't the dam in front of the aquarium back the water up all the way to the Zink Lake dam?
I remember reading it'd back water up well short of Zink.
it would provide water to about 71st St or 61st (depending on the height of the dam).
Quote from: carltonplace on January 06, 2015, 11:45:11 AM
it would provide water to about 71st St or 61st (depending on the height of the dam).
We could try to imitate New Orleans. Build levies and other walls so we could build a dam high enough to get water all the way to the bend in the river toward Sand Springs.
;D
Quote from: carltonplace on January 06, 2015, 11:45:11 AM
it would provide water to about 71st St or 61st (depending on the height of the dam).
Make that more like to 81st or maybe to where Joe Creek runs in. It should be noted that the current plan has never proposed an impoundment between 71st and 51st due to potential for an extended mixing zone/DO sag from The City's Southside plant discharge that could possibly reach to 71st at max conditions, which has never occurred (max. permitted flow and strength at 7Q2 low flow).
Quote from: Vision 2025 on January 07, 2015, 09:38:47 AM
Make that more like to 81st or maybe to where Joe Creek runs in. It should be noted that the current plan has never proposed an impoundment between 71st and 51st due to potential for an extended mixing zone/DO sag from The City's Southside plant discharge that could possibly reach to 71st at max conditions, which has never occurred (max. permitted flow and strength at 7Q2 low flow).
So, even if we spend millions of $ on dams, the River between Zink Dam and 81st Street will look exactly the same? I think the opposition's TV commercial just made itself.
Quote from: DTowner on January 07, 2015, 12:25:47 PM
So, even if we spend millions of $ on dams, the River between Zink Dam and 81st Street will look exactly the same? I think the opposition's TV commercial just made itself.
No, that is incorrect.
Concerning the area you questioned. Yes the structure of the river in that area may remain the same, the upstream dams will function as a system to store and release a lower (but not a trickle) flow of water (1000 cfs) which will provide for "water in the river" at such locations rather than the continual wet at night from hydro releases and minimal flow during the day at times when there in not continual releases from Keystone.
Quote from: Vision 2025 on January 07, 2015, 01:29:48 PM
No, that is incorrect.
Concerning the area you questioned. Yes the structure of the river in that area may remain the same, the upstream dams will function as a system to store and release a lower (but not a trickle) flow of water (1000 cfs) which will provide for "water in the river" at such locations rather than the continual wet at night from hydro releases and minimal flow during the day at times when there in not continual releases from Keystone.
Thanks for the clarification. However, it sounds like the phrase "put water in the river" is still misleading as to what will actually be different. Some water yes, but not nearly the amount most assume.
Water makes you stupid. Look at surfers.
Here there was a substance more precious than all others - it was life itself and entwined all around with symbolism and ritual.
Water.
"Dune", Frank Herbert
So, we're being asked to vote to spend $200 million to make the river look very slightly prettier?
How many miles of divided bike trails could we pave for that money? How many downtown streets could be remade to be two way with added street scaping? How far would that go toward establishing better public transit? Remember the Pop Museum? We could build that and have many many millions left over. How many aging, deteriorating parks and community centers could we remodel/rebuild? The list goes on and on.....why is the city so set on "water in the river?"
I just read that the City of Tulsa is looking at selling old parks. Why would we not include redoing old parks in an upcoming tax package when we are considering selling them due to a lack of funds? I don't understand the reasoning of the mayor.
Quote from: ZYX on January 07, 2015, 05:56:04 PM
So, we're being asked to vote to spend $200 million to make the river look very slightly prettier?
How many miles of divided bike trails could we pave for that money? How many downtown streets could be remade to be two way with added street scaping? How far would that go toward establishing better public transit? Remember the Pop Museum? We could build that and have many many millions left over. How many aging, deteriorating parks and community centers could we remodel/rebuild? The list goes on and on.....why is the city so set on "water in the river?"
Streetcars cost about $25 million/mile so that would pay for about 7-8 miles of streetcar. We could connect Pine St, OSU/Langston Tulsa, Brady, Downtown, Pearl, TU, and Expo Square. How much development would this create in this area? Much more than a damn in Sand Springs and Jenks.
(http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/1024x768q90/673/CmAmzD.png) (https://imageshack.com/i/ipCmAmzDp)
Complete street full reconstruction is about $10-12 million/mile - As there's about 18-20 miles of streets downtown, we could reconstruct every single street in downtown to have street trees, dedicated bikes lane, and on street parking.
Quote from: ZYX on January 07, 2015, 06:02:42 PM
I just read that the City of Tulsa is looking at selling old parks. Why would we not include redoing old parks in an upcoming tax package when we are considering selling them due to a lack of funds? I don't understand the reasoning of the mayor.
Unfortunately, the River proposal isn't the Mayors. This is all G.T. Bynum.
The Mayor is proposing using this same amount of money essentially to fund "public safety". Which should probably come from a property tax raise, as property tax is more stable than sales tax.
Quote from: LandArchPoke on January 07, 2015, 10:48:31 PM
Streetcars cost about $25 million/mile so that would pay for about 7-8 miles of streetcar.
That looks similar to numbers I see on Light Rail Now. That number should be including start up costs including the streetcars, trolley barn etc., not just the track and wires. Future expansions could be less per mile if infrastructure like trolley barns are planned for system expansion.
Quote from: Red Arrow on January 07, 2015, 11:41:23 PM
That looks similar to numbers I see on Light Rail Now. That number should be including start up costs including the streetcars, trolley barn etc., not just the track and wires. Future expansions could be less per mile if infrastructure like trolley barns are planned for system expansion.
I personally think we are in a great need of a implementable mass transit master plan for Tulsa. We've only so far identified potential corridors through Planitulsa, FastForward, etc.
If we have a mass transit system planned out for 100 years from now, and a recurring 5 - 10 year sales tax vote with updated plans to make sure there's no significant market changes to alter or add any routes, we could start building out a world class system. While we are implementing it, we rezone and establish value capture districts that help spur further construction efforts.
That total would also include $0 federal funds or state funds. You never know what would happen if we passed $200 million for a street car line along the route I posted. If we got matching state and federal funds, we could have a spur that goes to Utica Square/St. Johns - a spur down Boulder to Riverside - and an extension to Promenade Mall that could be redeveloped into a walkable town center along with the Expo Square baseball stadium and shopping center across Yale.
But... water in the River create soooo much more development. Young professional will be knocking each other over to move to Tulsa so they can see the amazing Arkansas River "Lakes" ::)
Quote from: LandArchPoke on January 07, 2015, 11:56:26 PM
I personally think we are in a great need of a implementable mass transit master plan for Tulsa. We've only so far identified potential corridors through Planitulsa, FastForward, etc.
I'll be the first to add some creeping elegance to your route by suggesting a dip south to Cherry Street between Peoria and Lewis.
I would think it would be tough to get a fixed rail route on Utica between 15th & 21st. That's a pretty narrow stretch with a funky bend.
First of all, let me start with saying that I am a massive, huge proponent of public transit in Tulsa. I think the permanence of rail investment (like a streetcar) signals that the city is invested in an area in a way no bus route can. They usually do a great job of drawing development. Functioning transit is also the only way that Tulsa can ever heal the wounds of sprawl and bring density back to the center city. It's what enables awesome things like 24/7 downtowns.
THAT SAID, the river is such a no-brainer for the city. As it is, the state of the river has turned Tulsa's greatest natural asset into an embarrassment. As far as bang for your buck for quality of life in Tulsa, putting water in the river should be the city's #1 priority. The waterfront is a draw for investment, development, people, and happiness that pretty much nothing else can rival. Chicago's lake, San Francisco's ocean, Austin's river are one of the defining characteristics of the city.
I lived in Austin for three years. Austin has terrible transit but an incredible river, which is actually a crappy trickle of a creek they dammed to make what it is today. That river is a center for public life, recreation, development, and post-card pictures in a way that the Arkansas should be in Tulsa.
Lastly, public transit works because traffic congestion makes it a better alternative than driving. Tulsa simply isn't at that point. You can park for free downtown at 10am on a workday. This will hopefully change, but in the meantime putting water in the river has immediate and enormous benefits. It's a win for everyone - drivers, pedestrians, bikers, diners, and everyone else. Most cities would kill to a major river flowing through it, and Tulsa is wasting the opportunity.
Where do you park for free on a workday at 10am? If you are, you're likely parked illegally or just not-paying.
Quote from: johrasephoenix on January 08, 2015, 03:12:33 PM
THAT SAID, the river is such a no-brainer for the city. As it is, the state of the river has turned Tulsa's greatest natural asset into an embarrassment. As far as bang for your buck for quality of life in Tulsa, putting water in the river should be the city's #1 priority. The waterfront is a draw for investment, development, people, and happiness that pretty much nothing else can rival. Chicago's lake, San Francisco's ocean, Austin's river are one of the defining characteristics of the city.
I lived in Austin for three years. Austin has terrible transit but an incredible river, which is actually a crappy trickle of a creek they dammed to make what it is today. That river is a center for public life, recreation, development, and post-card pictures in a way that the Arkansas should be in Tulsa.
Lastly, public transit works because traffic congestion makes it a better alternative than driving. Tulsa simply isn't at that point. You can park for free downtown at 10am on a workday. This will hopefully change, but in the meantime putting water in the river has immediate and enormous benefits. It's a win for everyone - drivers, pedestrians, bikers, diners, and everyone else. Most cities would kill to a major river flowing through it, and Tulsa is wasting the opportunity.
I am pretty much undecided on the "put water in the river" concept. But when I hear advocates say it is a no brainer because it is going to lead to this outpouring of "investment, development, people, and happiness" I am left puzzled. Where is this development going to occur in Tulsa? As previously noted by myself and others, there really isn't any undeveloped land along the river within Tulsa south of Hwy 75 to Jenks. And I'm not very moved by spending a lot of money so Jenks can further develop its portion of the river to compete with Tulsa.
Citing to other cities' successful river development is nice, but as far as I can tell none of those rivers and their alignment to their respective cities compare very well to the Arkansas River and Tulsa. We've never been a river town and the river was nothing more than an obstacle in Tulsa's early development.
I'm not trying to pick on this poster, I would just like for someone saying putting water in the river will lead to lots of development and wonderful things to actually describe where they think this development will occur and what these wonderful things will be.
Your last paragraph is exactly what I'm thinking. The idea of river development is great, but, in my opinion, not at the expense of what we currently have on the east bank. What room is there on the west bank for much development? Our Riverparks are a far greater asset than any development could ever be.
I was in favor of the river projects, now I am leaning towards being against. I have been doing some research to figure this out for myself, so I may as well post it.
First, let me say I'm around the river a lot. From Keystone lake down to joining up with the navigation channel. I've boated on it. Fished it. Hiked it. Let my dogs run on sandbars. Hunted down river. Damed it with my son. Cycled around it more times than I can count. I stare at the river from my desk and watch the water rise and fall around "the bend." Hell, for my anniversary this year my wife and I canoed it from River Parks West up past the refinery and a harrowing journey back down (the river was choked down due to the bridge construction, did not intend to run rapids...).
So I appreciate the river as an assets... but should we spend $250 - 350 million to "put water" in it?
1) The environmental argument doesn't work on me
I don't care about the "natural river" or "prairie river" argument because that was thrown out the window with Keystone and isn't ever coming back. Zink dam cut the river off from that point even further. True, we would cut off another ~6 miles of the river even more, but I'm afraid that is irrelevant at this juncture. Sorry, not a "prairie river" by any stretch - it is an entirely man made river that ebbs and flows with the power requirements of Keystone Hydroelectric, the flood management abilities of Keystone, and the cooling and wastewater needs of industry south of the dam (as opposed to some dams which have minimum flow requirements and artificial "floods" for environmental reasons, fish runs, etc.)
2) The cost/benefit argument does, and it is against putting water in the river...
A) The Cost
Why does everyone keep saying $200 million? That was so 2012. The latest estimates have the number at $300,000,000.00, broken down as follows:
Sand Springs: $106.7mil
Zink Repair: $46.4mil
Jenks: $78.7mil
Bixby: $34.5 mil
+ Levee repair and other flood mitigation factors required by the US Corps of Engineers.
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/government/cost-estimate-for-tulsa-area-low-water-dams-goes-up/article_adb31cfb-f4b7-5092-9fbb-dde5153b010f.html
Now, the environmental impact statements, full design, and other factors have not been finalized, approved, or bid out yet... but given that the previous estimate was so low and massive government projects have a tendency to grow, I'm comfortable using $350,000,000.00 in my head.
B) The Benefit
INCOG had a very pretty power point made in 2005 showing wiz bang river development:
http://www.incog.org/Community_Economic_Development/River_Documents/Phase%20II%20Web%20Powerpoint.pdf
That shows dams at 177th W. Ave
East of Hwy 97 bridge
N. of I44 Bridge
Just S. of Creek TP
131st St. in Jenks
Memorial Drive in bixby
Indian Brings (151st and Aspen-ish) in BA
It had wonderful artists renditions of everything. In Sand Springs there was a marina sail baots docked, ther were river front condos, and so on down the river. Clearly we aren't even proposing that many dams, and clearly you can't actually have sailboats in the river (I had a Hobiecat that drafted 3', but even if dredged it would be very difficult to have that on Zink lake). Let's stop selling pipe dreams and talk about what we are really proposing.
1. The Sand Springs dam will help keep continuous flow int he river. Sand Springs may use it as a catalyst for major redevelopment along their river BUT... large portions of sand springs are inside a levee and cannot be developed "along the river". As I said before, this dam will not make it a navigable waterway but for john boats, kayaks, and canoes... so far as I can tell. I think Sand Springs is underdeveloped for the location to downtown, pretty hills, nice downtown, etc. - but given the levees, I'm not sure that helps it develop.
2. Zink dam - needs to be fixed. Then we need to start saving to fix it again. Infrastructure wears out, particularly dams. This is the most heavily developed part of the river and is heavily utilized. Taking it out would probably be even more expensive and I'm not sure AEP can let that happen for their water needs. But this is really Tulsa's problem, not a truly County wide issue (I get that others in the County use it, and the County should kick in some funds, but primarily...).
3. Jenks/South Tulsa Dam
The real meat and potatoes of "what Tulsa gets." If we were to build a dam at 101st backing water up to 71st (at best), how much "development" do we gain? I looked up plots on the Tulsa County Assessor website:
http://www.assessor.tulsacounty.org/assessor-map-interactive.php
In the short version - Tulsa gains about 21 acres of develop-able land on the east bank, and as much as 87 acres on the west bank with river access. So maybe, MAYBE 108 acres of land with river-front access that would benefit from the low water dam in Tulsa. THAT'S MORE THAN $715,000 PER ACRE (assuming we only gain the Tulsa acres)
Jenks doesn't gain much more - the Aquarium area land, maybe some infill development in the Creek owned River Walk Crossing, and some land just east of Jones Riverside that is currently light industrial. Overall, maybe 150 acres?
So combined with the land in Tulsa - probably around 250 acres. Or more than $325k per acre so the river front property can have water to look at.
Here is the effected property breakdown:
EAST BANK Starting at 71st St
- Tulsa Parks land, Helmrich park up to the apartment complexes at little Joe Creek (we could probably give up 5 acres of Helmrich Park which is a barren over grown field)
- The Apartment Complexes are each owned privately (two separate owners)
**JOE CREEK** with the noticeable bridge just north of the Creeks
- Creek smoke shop (5.5 acres) owned by the United States of America and held in trust for the Creeks
- Creek Nation Casino owned by the USA...
***little Joe Creek. The Creek land stops at the edge of their parking lot to the south, it appears, Just opposite the trailer park.***
- City of Tulsa land from there until 101st St. but-for areas that are already developed, mostly managed by the River Parks Authority.
Looking at that land, there are odd plots here and there, often extending into the actual river and usually including River Side Drive (never bothered to replatt it). So it is hard to tell how much developable land there is. BUT, by my best estimate there are another 15 acres + the 6 acres of Helmrich park. If we moved the recreation path to be nearer to the river, the front park of the "wooded" area along the river from the creek nation casino to 96th (The "Bear Fountain" park) could be developed.
Realistically, it would probably be less than that since there are workout stops, parking lots, sculptures, and areas where the trail breaks apart. But-for the area just south of the casino, most of that would be very hard to develop without removing the trail and park amenities. While I know there are some developers who want to do that (as well as the rugby field, disc golf courses, etc.), I don't think that would actually happen.
WEST BANK:
- Just south of 71st the City owns some 37 acres with no access that lies along the river. This is currently some sort of transfer station? Clearly could be repurposed.
- South of that lies 20 acres owned by the Tulsa Airport Improvement Trust, likely restricted due to Jones Riverside Airport runways pointing right at it.
- 30 Acres of private light industrial land and what looks like a sand pit
***into jenks***
- 5 acres of light indutrial
- Riverwalk apartment complexes
- Riverwalk Crossing (owned by Creek Nation)
- Then the area around the aquarium
Maybe there is more land around the aquarium than I think would actually be developed? Maybe I'm selling it short over there, I admit I did not research that section as well. But it is clear that the winners from the Jenks dam would be:
1) The CREEK NATION with 120 acres and no tax bill and their development built or planned already
2) Jenks with as much as 150 acres and a small tax bill, and
3) Tulsa with 108 acres and most of the bill.
4. Bixby Dam
Bixby suffers from the same problem as Sand Springs. They have a levee system blocking the river off from the people. Where in Jenks would you do "river development?"
- - -
I like water in the river. I understand that really it becomes a lake. I get that it silts in, that it isn't natural. I get all that. But the Zink lake area full of water looks better than the River Walk Crossing area. The vast majority of people want to see water when they look in a river.
If this would create a navigable waterway such that boaters could truly go from the Marina in sand springs down to Bixby or the navigation channel, or if the dam would open up a previous flood plain that couldn't be developed, I mean - I'd get it. But it seems like we are proposing spending a ton of money to really improve a handful of acres for development and make the river "pretty." There might be some landowners who make a ton of money, probably a few developers will cash in.... but overall, are we winning?
$300 million to open access to such a limited supply of land for development? Then we have to find a way to fund dredging/maintenance on 4 dams, when we can't do that with one. It is a hard sell to me.
Quote from: cannon_fodder on January 08, 2015, 06:45:51 PM
EAST BANK Starting at 71st St
- Tulsa Parks land, Helmrich park up to the apartment complexes at little Joe Creek (we could probably give up 5 acres of Helmrich Park which is a barren over grown field)
I heard that a shopping center with a bank, retail and restaurants is going in where the volleyball courts are currently.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on January 08, 2015, 08:03:59 PM
I heard that a shopping center with a bank, retail and restaurants is going in where the volleyball courts are currently.
What could be better than replacing a heavily used place for the community to come together and be active than a strip center? If strip centers are the type of development we're being asked to pay $300,000,000+ for.....
Quote from: johrasephoenix on January 08, 2015, 03:12:33 PM
First of all, let me start with saying that I am a massive, huge proponent of public transit in Tulsa. I think the permanence of rail investment (like a streetcar) signals that the city is invested in an area in a way no bus route can. They usually do a great job of drawing development. Functioning transit is also the only way that Tulsa can ever heal the wounds of sprawl and bring density back to the center city. It's what enables awesome things like 24/7 downtowns.
THAT SAID, the river is such a no-brainer for the city. As it is, the state of the river has turned Tulsa's greatest natural asset into an embarrassment. As far as bang for your buck for quality of life in Tulsa, putting water in the river should be the city's #1 priority. The waterfront is a draw for investment, development, people, and happiness that pretty much nothing else can rival. Chicago's lake, San Francisco's ocean, Austin's river are one of the defining characteristics of the city.
I lived in Austin for three years. Austin has terrible transit but an incredible river, which is actually a crappy trickle of a creek they dammed to make what it is today. That river is a center for public life, recreation, development, and post-card pictures in a way that the Arkansas should be in Tulsa.
Lastly, public transit works because traffic congestion makes it a better alternative than driving. Tulsa simply isn't at that point. You can park for free downtown at 10am on a workday. This will hopefully change, but in the meantime putting water in the river has immediate and enormous benefits. It's a win for everyone - drivers, pedestrians, bikers, diners, and everyone else. Most cities would kill to a major river flowing through it, and Tulsa is wasting the opportunity.
There is a huge difference between what Austin can do with it's river due to the terrain and width of the river by downtown and what Tulsa could do. They are apples and oranges.
There is a huge difference between what Austin can do with it's river due to the terrain and width of the river by downtown and what Tulsa could do. They are apples and oranges.
Your statement of we don't need alternatives to driving is very short sited too. This is such a massive problem with the US is our planning is always reactionary and not visionary. Why wait for gridlock when we can see that eventually it will happen.. and solve for it now. At some point Tulsa metro will be twice this size and close to Austin's population (it may not happen for another 100 years, but it will happen). How much wider can we make the BA? What about I-244? We just did this for I-44 and tore out TONS of tax producing properties for a cost of $100 million per mile. We could have built an underground rail line like Vancouver's SkyTrain for almost the same amount of cost per mile. We did all this so people can drive through Tulsa on their way to OKC or Missouri slightly faster. It's maddening.
Transit should be the #1 priority over the River. I think cannon_folder just won the debate, it's to bad we will have to see this come up for a vote again. To many great points to quote them all.
For $350 million we could fix Zink Lake, which would put water in the only part of the river that has development potential and will have a lot of attention draw to it by the Gathering Place. Then take the rest of the $$ and build BRT and Streetcar lines. The City of Tulsa land, concrete plant, and the apartment complex could all eventually be redevelopment into higher density mixed-use development. However, even with water in the river there.. market conditions will take a long time to make anything significant viable when there is much cheaper land to development in the CBD or Uptown that has much more desirable demographics. Odd are we would have to form TIF District or some sort of public assistance to get development done along the river. So not only are we subsidizing development through paying for the damns, we would have to do it to even get new real estate development too. Just look at the River District in Jenks - before the economy crashed they were asking for a HUGE TIF. I would rather put this public money into something that has a much higher potential of economic development return.
If there is so much development potential, form a tax assessment district for Riverside properties and finance damn construction that way.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on January 08, 2015, 08:03:59 PM
I heard that a shopping center with a bank, retail and restaurants is going in where the volleyball courts are currently.
This land was for sale recently, noticed the listing disappeared. Wouldn't surprise me to see another strip center built there. I figured it would probably be multifamily like the complex just to the south on Riverside, but retail doesn't surprise me. I hope it's not a Kings Pointe Landing II.
Quote from: LandArchPoke on January 08, 2015, 09:28:38 PM
This land was for sale recently, noticed the listing disappeared. Wouldn't surprise me to see another strip center built there. I figured it would probably be multifamily like the complex just to the south on Riverside, but retail doesn't surprise me. I hope it's not a Kings Pointe Landing II.
Developers (through Sack and Associates) presented today to TMAPC technical committee and are on TMAPC agenda for two weeks from today. Maybe then we will find out their plan.
Quote from: LandArchPoke on January 08, 2015, 09:28:38 PM
If there is so much development potential, form a tax assessment district for Riverside properties and finance damn construction that way.
Interesting spelling choice.
Unless public transportation becomes cheaper and more convenient than cars, it will not work.
While working downtown I tried riding the express bus in. Truly it was a wonderful experience. I would get on a couple of blocks from my apartment (71st and Lewis) and ride it downtown. That 15 minutes was a great way to start my day. I didn't get angry at traffic, I could plan out my workload, read the paper, whatever. It would drop me off a couple of blocks from the front door of the MidContinent building. Everything was roses.
The real problem came when I left work.
The express runs back at 4:50. While my employer loved to see me there at 7:30ish, there often was things going on last minute. If I missed that express bus, I had to call friends with cars to get me home as there was NO easy way other than trying to navigate the morass of changing buses and routes.
I would say to add more buses, but even that express bus, as full as it was, probably barely paid for itself. Add more and it just gets worse.
If you figure in your time as having a value, driving to the bus stop is a non-starter. Plus, who wants to leave their $20,000 car at the bus stop? I still don't think we have the densities that are necessary to make public transportation more than a novelty.
Quote from: rdj on January 08, 2015, 03:24:07 PM
Where do you park for free on a workday at 10am? If you are, you're likely parked illegally or just not-paying.
I'm curious about this one, too :) I had a couple of coworkers who were playing the wack-a-mole game with free parking spaces, but the crackdown was pushing them to almost the edge of the IDL
Quote from: Red Arrow on January 08, 2015, 11:10:39 PM
Interesting spelling choice.
;D
Quote from: TeeDub on January 09, 2015, 08:38:55 AM
The real problem came when I left work.
The express runs back at 4:50. While my employer loved to see me there at 7:30ish, there often was things going on last minute. If I missed that express bus, I had to call friends with cars to get me home as there was NO easy way other than trying to navigate the morass of changing buses and routes.
You hit the nail on the head here on why public transit isn't used in Tulsa. Frequency is the main driver of ridership. There's been studies after studies after studies about this. Frequency needs to be about 5 minutes, any longer than that you loose ridership very quickly.
Once you limit transit by stopping at certain times and limited frequency you leave it to riders to basically only have no choice to take it because they can't afford a car or to the select few people who make the concise decision to take transit.
Our entire bus system needs a route make over. It's overly confusing and the hub system we have, has proven it doesn't work in practice and through research in other cities. We are bless with an amazing street grid, and running routes straight along them and having minimal transfer times would do a world of good for ridership.
We have lots of options for transportation in Tulsa and we aren't pursuing or planning for any of them. I disagree that people would not use public transportation if it was a viable alternative to their cars. Look at Dallas which is arguably as conservative as Tulsa and they have a growing PS system that is highly utilized.
Tulsa needs to plan for the future or we will have to spend much more money to solve the problem after our commute times and accident rates double. As mentioned above, SH54 is already as wide as it is going to get through mid-town and downtown. Most of our intersections (21st and Utica for example) cannot easily be made larger. Tulsa will need alternatives to get people around and I think that the desire for alternatives is greater than one would expect.
Quote from: carltonplace on January 12, 2015, 09:14:43 AM
We have lots of options for transportation in Tulsa and we aren't pursuing or planning for any of them. I disagree that people would not use public transportation if it was a viable alternative to their cars. Look at Dallas which is arguably as conservative as Tulsa and they have a growing PS system that is highly utilized.
Tulsa needs to plan for the future or we will have to spend much more money to solve the problem after our commute times and accident rates double. As mentioned above, SH54 is already as wide as it is going to get through mid-town and downtown. Most of our intersections (21st and Utica for example) cannot easily be made larger. Tulsa will need alternatives to get people around and I think that the desire for alternatives is greater than one would expect.
More people in Dallas hopping onto mass transit is likely a result of how bad the traffic is there. Unfortunately, for us out here on the prairie who have forsaken mass transit over the last century, an overburden of traffic seems to be required before people will park their cars and take mass transit.
Quote from: Conan71 on January 12, 2015, 09:55:43 AM
More people in Dallas hopping onto mass transit is likely a result of how bad the traffic is there. Unfortunately, for us out here on the prairie who have forsaken mass transit over the last century, an overburden of traffic seems to be required before people will park their cars and take mass transit.
Traffic and parking. As long as we have plenty of lots and spots, we won't get too many public transportation users. I watch the 471 zip down 71st street several times a day. It's usually empty, but every now and then I see one or two people on it. It's obvious that the city doesn't need more busses, they just need to put the busses where the people will use them.
Density and more stuff will not equal more ridership either. Was in an extremely dense area of Dallas a while back on a unseasonably beautiful day.... nobody out walking. Went inside some restaurants and such in the area, lots of people at the restaurants and shops.
2 things about the area.
1. It was not pedestrian/transit friendly. You wouldn't want to walk in the area even if you were an urban type person perfectly prepared and used to walking in a city.
2. Just about every mid-rise to high-rise living, shopping, office tower, restaurant, etc. had parking.
The area was not designed for pedestrians or transit. It was designed for cars.
Currently in Tulsa our city is also designed/zoned for cars as well and it's illegal to build good pedestrian/transit friendly development.
Sure you could spend more money to add busses and routes, and perhaps also tweak what we currently have to get some more ridership, but I doubt it would get us that far, especially per the cost.
Some say, "Well in time we will get enough development it will happen on it's own" Not a chance. We could only dream of having the growth and density that Dallas has had, it would take us generations to get to what they have now at our current rate of growth, but even they show that more growth and density without allowing for, or zoning for, pedestrian friendly/ transit friendly development won't get us what we really want.
The easiest and most cost effective way to get pedestrian/transit friendly development, to get people walking more, to get more cost effective and efficient transit, and more ridership, is to put in the zoning to allow for it.
Tulsa makes the list at #235. At least we beat Oklahoma City at #261.
Other notable cities behind Tulsa.... Terra Haute IN, Montgomery AL, Columbia SC, and the burgeoning metropolis that is DeKalb IL.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/how-your-citys-public-transit-stacks-up/