I keep reading about the "need" for a bridge over the river at 41st on this forum. And, I'm left wondering...why?
Are we talking about another pedestrian bridge, or a bridge for automobiles?
I-44 crosses over the river at 51st, and there's a bridge at 21st. This means that the furthest you could possibly be from a river crossing is 1.5 miles. The only people who need to worry about an additional 1.5 miles are pedestrians...who can cross at 31st.
41st street is residential all the way from the River to Yale. And anyone trying to get to all the shopping east of 41st and Yale would get there faster on I-44 anyway....no need to channel traffic onto one of the most beautiful streets in town (41st between Peoria and Lewis, specifically).
Personally, I see a much greater need for pedestrian bridges over Riverside Drive than another bridge for cars over the river. I would support additional pedestrian bridges over the river...but even then, I'm not sure that 41st is the most critical location for that.
Is there something I'm missing?
Need and want are two different things, I dont think that a new bridge is needed either.
I would think the industrial areas to the West at 41st would enjoy the easier access to the East side. Why? Who knows. Lunch in Brookside? Shopping at Utica Square?
There may be some development ensue along the banks there but it would be at a high price. Most of that industrial land is being utilized. Most likely benefitted would be the service providers like Acme Wheel alignment that would suddenly be easy for East side to reach.
Would rather we replace the crumbling roads myself.
Ok I may be completely wrong about this, but here is why I would like a 41st bridge.
Firstly, 41st is one of the few East West streets that runs for any consistent amount on the west side of Tulsa. Plus there are a lot of new neighborhoods, the school, etc. on that street. Having 41st connect from the east to the west would really give a much needed continuity of flow connecting east and west Tulsa.
Second, Whenever I have to go to west Tulsa, to do a mural job, inevitably it seems to be in one of those new neighborhoods off of far west 41st. As it is it is akward to get to and you have to go through some yucky looking areas to boot. It may just be me but the exits off I44 on the west side are confusing and many of the roads in that area, well I get lost a lot lol. I would so love to just go straight on through 41st. That drive would be just as easy and familiar as getting around most other places in Tulsa, and not make it seem as if you are having to go through some strange rigamarole to some place completely different, especially for us "navigationally challenged" people lol. I was born and raised on the grid road plan, you get me off on some swoopy, curvy, twisty roads, exits and connections, I give up, go home, and curl up in a corner on the floor in the fetal postition for a few days.
Third, I would like to see a west riverside drive some day and a 41st bridge would help in connecting that without having to get on and off the highway.
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
Ok I may be completely wrong about this, but here is why I would like a 41st bridge.
Firstly, 41st is one of the few East West streets that runs for any consistent amount on the west side of Tulsa. Plus there are a lot of new neighborhoods, the school, etc. on that street. Having 41st connect from the east to the west would really give a much needed continuity of flow connecting east and west Tulsa.
Second, Whenever I have to go to west Tulsa, to do a mural job, inevitably it seems to be in one of those new neighborhoods off of far west 41st. As it is it is akward to get to and you have to go through some yucky looking areas to boot. It may just be me but the exits off I44 on the west side are confusing and many of the roads in that area, well I get lost a lot lol. I would so love to just go straight on through 41st. That drive would be just as easy and familiar as getting around most other places in Tulsa, and not make it seem as if you are having to go through some strange rigamarole to some place completely different, especially for us "navigationally challenged" people lol. I was born and raised on the grid road plan, you get me off on some swoopy, curvy, twisty roads, exits and connections, I give up, go home, and curl up in a corner on the floor in the fetal postition for a few days.
Third, I would like to see a west riverside drive some day and a 41st bridge would help in connecting that without having to get on and off the highway.
But why? Even if it is easier to travel West 41st, who will and why? When you get past 41st and Union heading west, within a mile the road confusingly curves into Southwest Boulevard, runs for a mile or so then ends at 33rd west ave. Most locals use 33rd to connect onto 44/75 at that point. So it would seem a bridge would make it easier for people on the East side of the river to travel through an industrial area, low income housing and a dead Crystal City area to get to ....what?
As for the West Riverside parkway, I'm afraid that is as much a pipedream as converting the PSO powerplant into lofts. It will be an expensive build. The land is in the flood plain and the Feds won't match funds, the land is privately owned by thriving industrial concerns like Arrow Trucking. Some of it is the home of underground toxics. Expected development by retail and housing is at best marginal. Like it or not Tulsans are slow to recognize value on the West side. Their loss.
Once again, who will use it and why? I-75 works pretty well. Unlike Riverside East, it would not connect densely populated areas with downtown. INCOG plans are cool but don't address these problems. Without a total rebuild of the area between Turkey Mtn and 21st street these plans won't make it off the desk.
Just took a look at google earth, it almost seems as though someone was purposely trying to disconnect west Tulsa from the east. 41st going through hwy 75 is fine but when 41st goes through I44 Its as if there were no concern what so ever about traffic flow on 41st. Its a disaster. As for the industrial area right around 41st across the river, its not so bad, I have wandered around there, probably lost, and there are actually some neat old brick buildings over there and one would assume some of that area would clean up a bit if there were any traffic flow. Would probably look better than some of the industrial areas on the east side of the city around Mingo and Garnet especially if they zoned any new construction to look decent and not be just prefab.
I can, in the far future see the need for a 41st Street bridge, but no time soon.
If the riverfront takes off with development north of 31st as is being talked about and if (really, really big if) the refinery and the related industrial areas between 51st and 31st are remediated into developable riverfront land then the bridge can make sense. Until then, why do you need a bridge to connect south Tulsa to an oil refinery and heavy industry area?
And the idea that it would better link the suburban areas on the other side of the refineries, well, those are all on the other side of US75, and it's much faster to take I-44 to 41st Street to get to the those areas than it would be on any proposed bridge, and you don't have to drive through the middle of a industrial complex.
Not a bad idea, just bad timing, and probably won't be a good idea in any of our lifetimes unless the EPA requires Sinclair to close that refinery.
quote:
But why? Even if it is easier to travel West 41st, who will and why? When you get past 41st and Union heading west, within a mile the road confusingly curves into Southwest Boulevard, runs for a mile or so then ends at 33rd west ave. Most locals use 33rd to connect onto 44/75 at that point. So it would seem a bridge would make it easier for people on the East side of the river to travel through an industrial area, low income housing and a dead Crystal City area to get to ....what?
As for the West Riverside parkway, I'm afraid that is as much a pipedream as converting the PSO powerplant into lofts. It will be an expensive build. The land is in the flood plain and the Feds won't match funds, the land is privately owned by thriving industrial concerns like Arrow Trucking. Some of it is the home of underground toxics. Expected development by retail and housing is at best marginal. Like it or not Tulsans are slow to recognize value on the West side. Their loss.
Once again, who will use it and why? I-75 works pretty well. Unlike Riverside East, it would not connect densely populated areas with downtown. INCOG plans are cool but don't address these problems. Without a total rebuild of the area between Turkey Mtn and 21st street these plans won't make it off the desk.
Ok, ok.
First of all Waterboy, if we only built roads for places with rapid growth patterns and good demographics and greenfield development sites then no roads in north and west tulsa would ever be built. These plans are designed to stimulate different thoughts and ideas for our community. Yes, the West Bank is largely industrial...now. But, one, should it always be that way? and two, if not ( and I think not) then what will catalyze its change? That is why you build roads and bridges BEFORE you need them, instead of waiting until you do need them. So you can shape and plan for growth in your city.
Look at it this way. There are local access bridges at 11th, 21st, and 71st. The 51st street Bridge is not really a 'local' access bridge. It's I-44, which is probably about to get even busier with the new 'improvements'...anyway, I am a major proponent of a,
limited access (meaning: no trucks, no industrial access), vehicular/pedestrian 41st street bridge for several reasons:
1) West Tulsa. 41st Street in W. T-town is basically their East/West main arterial. It intersects with Red Fork (Ollie's, for reference). Now, in order to get to Midtown; to say a decent grocery store; from Red Fork, one has to drive 2 miles down SW blvd, around the refinery, and across the 21st bridge. And you are still a good 3 miles from the grocery store. A bridge at 41st would provide West Tulsans to the amenities of midtown. Amenities that in our lifetime are not going to appear in West Tulsa.
2) West Riverside Drive, if this is ever going to happen, more access will be needed from he east side. See below.
3) West Bank development. You want river development in Central Tulsa? Where is the highest amount of underdeveloped land and resources? You got it. Between 11th and 51st Street on the West Bank. A 41st Street bridge opens up the demographic makeup of the land considerably, by providing easy and direct access to this area from one of the wealthiest parts of town. Those are the kind of things that developers want. They don't want their customers to have to drive miles out of their way to get to said development. What kind of development do you want? Quality, unique, local, river-oriented, pedestrian-scaled, development, right? Not big box. Not highway-oriented development. But, mixed use, retail, commercial...maybe even adaptive reuse of the PSO plant (think St. Anthony Main (//%22http://www.saintanthonymain.com/%22) in Minneapolis). A small local-access vehicular/pedestrian bridge at 41st is key...no, it is critical, in order to accomplish these goals.
4) Another pedestrian loop on the river. The larger goal of the Tulsa River Parks Trail System is to create as many loops as possible on the river. Crossings at 11th, 21st, 31st all give park users the ability to choose the length they want to go...south of 31st, you can't cross as a pedestrian again until 71st Street.
Essentially, you take a linear park, and enable its users to utilize sections of the park. People like to walk around things more than they do out and back. It's more interesting visually, and it helps to know how far you may have walked or ridden by providing distinct visual landmarks.
5) Aesthetic opportunity. IMO, this is our opportunity to create a one of a kind landmark structure across the river. I'm thinking
Santiago Calatrava (//%22http://images.google.com/images?q=Santiago+Calatrava&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&hs=dtG&sa=X&oi=images&ct=title%22)....
quote:
Originally posted by Kenosha
Ok, ok.
1) West Tulsa. 41st Street in W. T-town is basically their East/West main arterial. It intersects with Red Fork (Ollie's, for reference). Now, in order to get to Midtown; to say a decent grocery store; from Red Fork, one has to drive 2 miles down SW blvd, around the refinery, and across the 21st bridge. And you are still a good 3 miles from the grocery store. A bridge at 41st would provide West Tulsans to the amenities of midtown. Amenities that in our lifetime are not going to appear in West Tulsa.
Not in our lifetime?
How about march '08?
http://movies.yahoo.com/movie/1809280932/info
Tell me...How do you get to Tulsa Hills from Red Fork, Swake?
That's right...THE HIGHWAY.
I'm talking about local access. I'm talking about folks who need better amenities NEAR their homes. I'm talking about, when the tide rises, all boats should rise with it. Tulsa Hills is will be further, as the crow flies from 41st and Peoria, which makes a 41st Bridge, if I am a West Tulsan, quite desireable.
Love his work. I like the one thats a bridge and a modern art museum, now thats mixed use lol. His new terminal for NY is wonderful.
All that shiny concrete reminds me of how certain sidewalks downtown sparkle and shimmer. The rumor was it was mixed with diamonds[;)]. But its simply mica thrown in the mix. Wouldn't it be a treat if the new sidewalks downtown were done like that. It would be a simple and cheap matter to get some mica and throw it into the concrete while it is mixing before it is poured. Would give downtown Tulsa a little bit of extra magic and memorable uniqueness.
QuoteOriginally posted by Kenosha
Quote
You make some good points and I would at least agree about a pedestrian bridge which is less costly and could be done faster. But I see most of these assertions as coming from residents of the East side of the river. It seems there is some cross culturalizing going on here.
Do people along West 41st hunger for a bridge? Or do developers see an opportunity for slapping a little South Tulsa brand capitalism around what is seen as prime river bank real estate? Rwarn? Sgrizzle? Other Westsiders? How do you feel about being told the only decent grocery shopping is over in Brookside? Family Market has served the area for generations. Is there a reason, other than stigma, that other grocers stay away? There's certainly cheap land available along Crystal City which has nearby highway access. Why no other local access retailers other than QT? I don't even see a WalMart nearby. Are they travelling over 44 to the WalMart Grocery in Brookside? Shame on them and Walmart if so.
Where are the large expanses of trucking, pipe mfrs, pump builders all going to move to? Eastside? Will they take the westside workers with them? The workers who live in the real estate that will become too expensive for them to live in once Riverside West displaces them?
If the Westside is convinced that they want to exchange their blue collar, small town feel for new developments with spandex bikers and clusters of joggers then its fine with me. The Santiago bridges are cool.
Kenosha wrote:
Tell me...How do you get to Tulsa Hills from Red Fork, Swake?
That's right...THE HIGHWAY.
<end clip>
Um, wrong.
As a resident of Red Fork, I can tell you that a highway isn't necessary to get to Tulsa Hills. You can get to 81st Street from 33rd West Avenue or from Union Avenue, both which bring you a short distance from the development.
U.S. 75 is an option, but I can tell you firsthand that most residents in Carbondale and Red Fork aren't going to use it. I certainly won't.
Why fight the inevitable traffic snarl around the U.S. 75 interchange when there are at least two lesser-known local roads that bring you close to the development?
quote:
...there is some cross culturalizing going on here.
Do people along West 41st hunger for a bridge? Or do developers see an opportunity for slapping a little South Tulsa brand capitalism around what is seen as prime river bank real estate? Rwarn? Sgrizzle? Other Westsiders? How do you feel about being told the only decent grocery shopping is over in Brookside? Family Market has served the area for generations. Is there a reason, other than stigma, that other grocers stay away? There's certainly cheap land available along Crystal City which has nearby highway access. Why no other local access retailers other than QT? I don't even see a WalMart nearby. Are they travelling over 44 to the WalMart Grocery in Brookside? Shame on them and Walmart if so.
Where are the large expanses of trucking, pipe mfrs, pump builders all going to move to? Eastside? Will they take the westside workers with them? The workers who live in the real estate that will become too expensive for them to live in once Riverside West displaces them?
If the Westside is convinced that they want to exchange their blue collar, small town feel for new developments with spandex bikers and clusters of joggers then its fine with me. The Santiago bridges are cool
Let me be clear...I am in no way suggesting that West Tulsans be relieved of their identity as unique, hard working individuals. But, for years, they have been crying out to the city as forgotten citizens. I am just addressing what I see as their needs. If they tell us differently, so be it.
I would suggest that the west bank of the river, while technically is in west tulsa, is in fact seperate in identity and function from Red Fork or West Highlands or Southwest Tulsa in general. I don't see redevelopment on the river banks here as gentrification. That being said, I see a higher likelihood of Crystal City being redeveloped if perhaps the west bank was developed.
Be clear about this too...I don't think there are ANY developers interested in this property as it is, so there is not any South Tulsa type capitalism here, at least north of I-44.
I think you are right about the jobs associated with those areas. I can't say what would happen should arrow relocate, or some of the other manufacturers. But the status quo really isn't what we are going for here, is it? Clearly the community should have say in what happens, but why on earth would they be opposed to a bridge at that location? I can't concieve.
quote:
Originally posted by Kenosha
Tell me...How do you get to Tulsa Hills from Red Fork, Swake?
That's right...THE HIGHWAY.
I'm talking about local access. I'm talking about folks who need better amenities NEAR their homes. I'm talking about, when the tide rises, all boats should rise with it. Tulsa Hills is will be further, as the crow flies from 41st and Peoria, which makes a 41st Bridge, if I am a West Tulsan, quite desireable.
Um, well, I live on the west side (Jenks IS west) so for me it's not hard at all.
Redfork is a tiny (and dying) area, but for the few people that live there, take Southwest Blvd to 33rd W Ave south to 71st, then west to the Tulsa Hills site. Easy. Less than 4 miles.
And, it should be noted, there is a small grocer at 61st and 33rd. Only people who have not lived on the west side think there are access problems like what you discribe.
And to live on the west side means that you use 75, a lot.
I like the Crystal City area, my Kids love Ollie's but if you think that a bridge at 41st is going to resurect the area, you don't know what the problems there are. Start with declining population and poor schools. There's plenty of retail there now, it's just empty due to the area being so poor and the population declining.
quote:
Um, wrong.
As a resident of Red Fork, I can tell you that a highway isn't necessary to get to Tulsa Hills. You can get to 81st Street from 33rd West Avenue or from Union Avenue, both which bring you a short distance from the development.
U.S. 75 is an option, but I can tell you firsthand that most residents in Carbondale and Red Fork aren't going to use it. I certainly won't.
Why fight the inevitable traffic snarl around the U.S. 75 interchange when there are at least two lesser-known local roads that bring you close to the development?
Fair enough RWarn...
you would be qualified to answer this question then...1) is there a g. store being built at Tulsa Hills? and 2) given the option would you prefer to shop on Peoria or at Tulsa Hills?
quote:
And to live on the west side means that you use 75, a lot.
I like the Crystal City area, my Kids love Ollie's but if you think that a bridge at 41st is going to resurect the area, you don't know what the problems there are. Start with declining population and poor schools. There's plenty of retail there now, it's just empty due to the area being so poor and the population declining.
Swake... I find it interesing, given what I percieve as your opinions on the subject of urban sprawl, that you would be arguing with me on this issue.
Tulsa Hills is classic big box sprawl...I am suggesting ways to improve our geograhically speaking, center city. Are you opposed to that?
Frankly, I don't think you could have illustrated the need for action in West Tulsa any better than in your above statement. Thanks!
You might want to check with the SW Tulsa Education Initative on your school facts though...not sure they are acurate.
Red Fork is coming back.
http://www.tulsaworld.com/NewsStory.asp?ID=061213_Ne_A10_CityC10408
I am excited and believe that we won't recognize the area in 15 years. It is going to be a wonderful development opportunity for any investor with vision and patience.
To answer Kenosha's question: If there is a SuperTarget as has been reported at Tulsa Hills, there will be a grocery store, and yes, I will patronize it.
I still like the S&S Market at 61st and 33rd West, and I will patronize it, too. It has a good meat market.
(Don't forget that scores of west-siders go to the Warehouse Market near Union Avenue, too. I wouldn't buy produce there, but it's fine for nonperishables. The nearby Braum's is good for dairy products, too.)
I think Red Fork is actually going to prosper at a moderate level in the coming years. I'm not the only one who thinks this. I've talked to observant longtime residents who think that some gentrification is inevitable. That's because Red Fork has 1) inexpensive housing for small families and DINKs; 2) it's close to three major freeways; 3) it's a just few miles from downtown, Brookside, Cherry Street and Midtown attractions; and 4) crime is almost nonexistent.
As for downtown Red Fork (across from Ollie's), it's already seeing a lot of activity there. An art gallery has opened there. Another storefront is being renovated. And the Main Street program that recently was approved by the City Council is going to improve that historic district a lot.
Main Street will improve Crystal City shopping center, too. But after talking to a few tenants there, the main problem the rents are too high for the limited traffic it sees. Apparently an old guy in south Tulsa owns it, and he gets buyout offers for the property from time to time. I think the best thing that could happen is if someone takes Crystal City off his hands, slashes the rent and woos a few start-up businesses.
Back to topic: As for a 41st Street Bridge, I don't see any pressing need for it. If I want to get to the other side of the river, there are no shortage of options to do so. I usually use 11th, 21st, I-44 and 71st. Four options isn't anything to sneeze at.
A bridge would bring progress on both sides, but particularly the west Tulsa side. If you don't live in WT, there's really no reason to visit it for most people. So all anyone sees of WT is what can be seen from I-44, which isn't very flattering. Pretty much just a desolate junkyard in many spots. The 41st and Union area is actually pretty nice, and the vast land of warehouses by 41st and elwood could probably be redeveloped if WT was connected to ET.
The 21st street bridge doesnt bring people to the 41st and Union area because that area is cut off on all sides by I-44, 244/75, and the river. Southwest Blvd sortof comes near the neighborhood, but other than that, the area is completely inaccessible for traffic leisurely flowing through. The refinery is a big cause of the cutoff, as are all the highways and mountains in the area.
With the TCC campus on west 41st, a lot of people would use this route instead of taking the interstate. Even with the widening about to happen, the City of Tulsa still needs to keep doing whatever it can to offload traffic from that busy I-44 corridor.
I think the 41st st bridge would bring development on the west side of the river. It exists as warehouse land today due to the property values of land completely cut off from the rest of the city. The 41st bridge would feed life into the area.
After reading the whole thread, I would like to add, that most of you speaking from west tulsa experience either live, or have specific business there. Of course the roads in place today get you there. But there is some fandangling you must do, due to the various disconnects. To draw random folks to the area, the connection must more or less be mindless. A mindless idiot driving around looking for something to do would never end up at 41st and elwood unless he was lost. However unfortunate it is, this is what you are dealing with when trying to "shape" the development of an area. The average idiot flows around town mathemetically by the conveinience of the access.
Also I'll clarify that I recognize this as a "want" and not a "need". But instead of saying "that area is awful, why would anyone want to drive there?", you should realize it is in its current state as a RESULT of low driveability. I couldn't guaruntee you a bridge would fix anything since there is more than one cause here (refineries, highways similar to the inner-dispersal noose) but I view West Tulsa as the greatest area of potential the city has to ease up the exodus to BA, Bixby, and beyond.
YoungTulsan wrote:
With the TCC campus on west 41st, a lot of people would use this route instead of taking the interstate.
<end clip>
Um, no. At least not in its current configuration.
Not unless you somehow fix that jog at the railroad tracks and Southwest Boulevard. To continue west on 41st, you have watch for periodic trains on the tracks, cross three lanes of traffic, go south about 100 feet on Southwest Boulevard, then right onto the 41st Street overpass.
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&q=Tulsa,+OK&ie=UTF8&z=16&ll=36.104942,-96.020186&spn=0.00768,0.021629&om=1&iwloc=addr
Traffic frequently gets backed up at this intersection, especially during rush hour and when Clinton Middle School is letting out. I see no viable way to correct this, either. I suppose a gigantic new overpass could be built, but this would necessitate tearing down the current one and somehow preserving access to Southwest Boulevard. Of course, to accomplish this, you would have to tear down some of those historic buildings in downtown Red Fork or tear down Ollie's.
With all due respect, YoungTulsan, you're advocating something despite the fact it sounds like you haven't even driven in this area.
If Tulsa east-siders attend the west-side TCC, they're going to take I-44 across the river, then take the Gilcrease Expressway that spits everyone out at West 41st Street near Berryhill. From there, you're about 1 1/2 miles from TCC.
That's going to be a heck of a lot faster and convenient than driving an imaginary, contiguous 41st Street, in which you're still going to encounter a thicket of stop signs and slow-moving local traffic.
This 41st Street Bridge sounds good in theory, but the more I think about it, the less necessary and less viable I think it is.
quote:
Originally posted by recyclemichael
Red Fork is coming back.
http://www.tulsaworld.com/NewsStory.asp?ID=061213_Ne_A10_CityC10408
I am excited and believe that we won't recognize the area in 15 years. It is going to be a wonderful development opportunity for any investor with vision and patience.
I hope so, there are a lot of great buildings in the area and the hills and trees are great. But I'm in the in the Redfork area kind of often and I don't feel it. Crystal City seems to worsen by the day and Redfork main st is nearly vacant.
As for schools, a cousin of my wife's spent a semester at Webster a couple of years ago and it was a mess of gangs and very limited class choices.
quote:
Originally posted by YoungTulsan
After reading the whole thread, I would like to add, that most of you speaking from west tulsa experience either live, or have specific business there. Of course the roads in place today get you there. But there is some fandangling you must do, due to the various disconnects. To draw random folks to the area, the connection must more or less be mindless. A mindless idiot driving around looking for something to do would never end up at 41st and elwood unless he was lost. However unfortunate it is, this is what you are dealing with when trying to "shape" the development of an area. The average idiot flows around town mathemetically by the conveinience of the access.
Also I'll clarify that I recognize this as a "want" and not a "need". But instead of saying "that area is awful, why would anyone want to drive there?", you should realize it is in its current state as a RESULT of low driveability. I couldn't guaruntee you a bridge would fix anything since there is more than one cause here (refineries, highways similar to the inner-dispersal noose) but I view West Tulsa as the greatest area of potential the city has to ease up the exodus to BA, Bixby, and beyond.
I agree, I am the perfect example of one of those mindless idiots who is constantly wandering around town, exploring, looking for things to photograph, etc. At the moment, the way the roads are on the west side, a shudder of fear and terror courses through my heart when I think of attempting a "wander around" over there. I remember stumbling across what I think was an old school and a church somewhere over in that area once, there were also some neat little neighborhoods and such. Would love to find it again. But I am afraid I will get off on some road and end up lord only knows where, trapped on some highway off to okc looking for the next exit 500 miles down the road or downtown Tulsa, or on some lonely road headed to New Mexico. I wont even go into the number of times this has happened, suffice it to say its quite frustrating and does not make for a relaxing drive at all.
Oh and the number of dead ends on that side of the river is nightmarish, you feel like a rat caught in an impossible maze. You are constantly backing up, turning around, backing up, turning around, go down one road, it dead ends, back up turn around, head down another road that dead ends. See a road or highway you want to get on, head towards it only to find the road you are on dead ends or veers off in completely the other direction. NOT FUN!
And there are such great areas on that side of town. Beautiful hills and valleys and so many areas just ripe for development.
41st where it crosses that highway would be good to be fixed somehow. Either over it or under it or something. If that is impractical, perhaps some other road addition, reconfiguration, connection, something to make it easy to see and remember how to get to 41st and back.
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
quote:
Originally posted by YoungTulsan
After reading the whole thread, I would like to add, that most of you speaking from west tulsa experience either live, or have specific business there. Of course the roads in place today get you there. But there is some fandangling you must do, due to the various disconnects. To draw random folks to the area, the connection must more or less be mindless. A mindless idiot driving around looking for something to do would never end up at 41st and elwood unless he was lost. However unfortunate it is, this is what you are dealing with when trying to "shape" the development of an area. The average idiot flows around town mathemetically by the conveinience of the access.
Also I'll clarify that I recognize this as a "want" and not a "need". But instead of saying "that area is awful, why would anyone want to drive there?", you should realize it is in its current state as a RESULT of low driveability. I couldn't guaruntee you a bridge would fix anything since there is more than one cause here (refineries, highways similar to the inner-dispersal noose) but I view West Tulsa as the greatest area of potential the city has to ease up the exodus to BA, Bixby, and beyond.
I agree, I am the perfect example of one of those mindless idiots who is constantly wandering around town, exploring, looking for things to photograph, etc. At the moment, the way the roads are on the west side, a shudder of fear and terror courses through my heart when I think of attempting a "wander around" over there. I remember stumbling across what I think was an old school and a church somewhere over in that area once, there were also some neat little neighborhoods and such. Would love to find it again. But I am afraid I will get off on some road and end up lord only knows where, trapped on some highway off to okc looking for the next exit 500 miles down the road or downtown Tulsa, or on some lonely road headed to New Mexico. I wont even go into the number of times this has happened, suffice it to say its quite frustrating and does not make for a relaxing drive at all.
Oh and the number of dead ends on that side of the river is nightmarish, you feel like a rat caught in an impossible maze. You are constantly backing up, turning around, backing up, turning around, go down one road, it dead ends, back up turn around, head down another road that dead ends. See a road or highway you want to get on, head towards it only to find the road you are on dead ends or veers off in completely the other direction. NOT FUN!
And there are such great areas on that side of town. Beautiful hills and valleys and so many areas just ripe for development.
41st where it crosses that highway would be good to be fixed somehow. Either over it or under it or something. If that is impractical, perhaps some other road addition, reconfiguration, connection, something to make it easy to see and remember how to get to 41st and back.
Sounds like you are dramatically, transportationally challenged! Thousands of Central Tulsa Soccer Club players and family find their way around that area every spring and fall. They know the short cuts, the dead ends etc. The roads in the industrial area from Union west to the river are rudimentary with no curbs and deep ditches on each side. They are crisscrosed with rough rail road crossings and constant heavy truck traffic.
That area is different from the east side of Union. Its hodgepodge designed neighborhoods but I'm sure you would agree that their layout, which follows the topography, lends to its charm. The idea of making it so easy that wandering idiots could find their way around may not be a popular solution to anyone but developers.
Also, YoungTulsan, the area is not so much warehouses as it is industrial manufacturing. That is a different story as they employ folks and have more intense usage of their sites.
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
...
Oh and the number of dead ends on that side of the river is nightmarish, you feel like a rat caught in an impossible maze. You are constantly backing up, turning around, backing up, turning around, go down one road, it dead ends, back up turn around, head down another road that dead ends. See a road or highway you want to get on, head towards it only to find the road you are on dead ends or veers off in completely the other direction. NOT FUN!
I believe that this is precisely the reason our crime rate on the westside is so low! The crooks don't know their way around!
Hey! You calling me a crook? [;)]
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
Hey! You calling me a crook? [;)]
Oooh! It did kinda sound like that, didn't it?!? Sorry! [:P]
...Or how about a toll bridge with billboards:
Agency Cancels Insurer's Ads for Bridge
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/09/nyregion/09bridge.html
Geico's gecko won't be waving to drivers at the George Washington Bridge after all.
In a swift reversal, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey said yesterday that it would halt plans to place billboards and other advertisements from Geico, the big auto insurer, at the bridge's toll plaza, tollbooths and approach roads.
The turnaround comes less than a week after the Port Authority said it had signed a two-year deal with Geico valued at $3.2 million. The advertisements would have been the first at a bridge operated by the Port Authority, which has been seeking new sources of revenue to offset its rising costs.
But reaction to the ads, some of which would have featured Geico's signature mascot, a green gecko, came quickly. Preservationists and some local officials criticized the deal, complaining that the displays would have destroyed the aesthetics of the landmark bridge. The mayor of Fort Lee, where the toll plaza is situated, said that the Port Authority might have run afoul of local laws governing the placement of signs.
But other politicians, including the State Senate president, Richard J. Codey, had more practical concerns: They said the Port Authority could have held out for more money.
"You have an incredible number of people going over the bridge," Mr. Codey said, referring to the 57 million eastbound drivers who cross the span each year. The price, he said, "seemed to be out of whack."
Mr. Codey said the Port Authority did not tell him about the sponsorship program, which was agreed upon in 2005 while he was governor. He said the details of the bidding process on the Geico contract should have been disclosed earlier.
A spokesman for Gov. Jon S. Corzine said his office planned to review the Port Authority's sponsorship program because it was approved under the previous administration. And Stephen Sigmund, a Port Authority spokesman, said the authority's top officials, including the new executive director, Anthony E. Shorris, and the chairman, Anthony Coscia, had discussed over the weekend whether to pull out of the arrangement and made their decision yesterday.
Geico said it would not contest the authority's decision to pull out of the contract, which was signed in December.
"We're sorry that they got the push back they got, but we will withdraw," said Bill Roberts, executive vice president of Geico. "We were concerned that we would be perceived badly. We want to be a good corporate citizen, but any time you do something new, it takes careful consideration."
Neil M. Cohen, the deputy speaker of the General Assembly, complained that as a regulated insurer, Geico should not have been given "prime advertising assistance by a bistate government agency."
The advertising plan "was a slippery slope that would have prompted lawsuits, caused embarrassment and driven up costs for the Port Authority in the long run," Mr. Cohen said in a statement.
One group that is sure to be disappointed is the advertising firms that were expecting to receive $800,000 for their work putting the deal together.
In backing out of the arrangement, the Port Authority said the revenue from the advertisements was not worth the hostility the plan had received.
"We misjudged the negative reaction to this," Mr. Sigmund said. That reaction, he added, "was becoming a distraction to the agency, which faces big and serious issues over the next decade."
Despite the criticism, he insisted that the deal was "competitively priced."
He said that the agency, which currently receives less than $30 million a year in these kinds of arrangements, would continue to look for new advertising and sponsorship as part of its goal of raising $100 million in such revenues.
Still, as New Jersey looks to the sale or lease of some of the state's assets to ease its financial burden, the loud and swift response to the contract with Geico was emblematic not just of the cumbersome leadership at the Port Authority, an agency with strong political allegiances to the heads of two states, but also of the broader difficulty quasi-public agencies face when trying to privatize the facilities they operate.
Indeed, the storm over the Geico ads may be just a taste of the emerging debate over Governor Corzine's exploration of whether to sell or lease state assets like the New Jersey Turnpike and the Garden State Parkway.
"If something like this of a small nature could generate such controversy, the highway privatization is sure to as well," said Martin E. Robins, the director of the Alan M. Voorhees Transportation Center at Rutgers University.
Mr. Robins added that the Port Authority was particularly vulnerable to criticism because the governors of New York and New Jersey hold immense sway at the agency.
"The state governments have a huge amount of influence, and they are not afraid to exercise it," he said. "The Port Authority is a handy punching bag."
Why does this bridge idea have much to do with Redfork? Sure 41st jumps on to Southwest Blvd for a short bit, but then it jumps off again heading straight through Redfork, past the "Gilcrease Expressway", to Berryhill, TCC West Campus, some newer expensive houses, Highway 97, Prattville, all the way past Discoveryland. 41st Street is a long stretch of road.
I'm not saying I'm for it, or necessarily against it, just that theArtist is right about 41st Street being a major east-west access road. If it were completely rebuilt from the River to Berryhill (the road is brand new from Berryhill to Prattville), we might see new uses for places like Crystal City.
Well I'm sitting at my desk looking out at W. 41st St. about a 1/4 mile or so west of the Sinclair Refinery rail spur.
My boss had mentioned this a couple of weeks ago, he'd heard it from a fellow who owns a fair amount of land in Garden City.
How likely is this to happen and how soon?
We have about 40 to 50' of parking lot between our buildings and the two lane road. So I'm guessing that with utility easements, etc. we will lose some building space.
It would also be ironic because Acme Wheel Alignment lost their old space downtown to the new arena. The would likely be affected as well with a frontage buy-out.
The bridge won't bring us any more or any less business than we have now, and wouldn't present any transportation advantages for us either since HWY 75 is just down the block.
I cant really comment on the need, since I dont go to the West side very often. But I cant certainly agree that looking at any map confirms that West Tulsa is cut off from the rest of the city. Its almost like to growth is allowed in Tulsa West of the river or North of 244.
quote:
Originally posted by PonderInc
I keep reading about the "need" for a bridge over the river at 41st on this forum. And, I'm left wondering...why?
Are we talking about another pedestrian bridge, or a bridge for automobiles?
I-44 crosses over the river at 51st, and there's a bridge at 21st. This means that the furthest you could possibly be from a river crossing is 1.5 miles. The only people who need to worry about an additional 1.5 miles are pedestrians...who can cross at 31st.
41st street is residential all the way from the River to Yale. And anyone trying to get to all the shopping east of 41st and Yale would get there faster on I-44 anyway....no need to channel traffic onto one of the most beautiful streets in town (41st between Peoria and Lewis, specifically).
Personally, I see a much greater need for pedestrian bridges over Riverside Drive than another bridge for cars over the river. I would support additional pedestrian bridges over the river...but even then, I'm not sure that 41st is the most critical location for that.
Is there something I'm missing?
Think Big for a change. In order to GROW, you need a way to conviently get to and from the destination. West Tulsa is the next big wave for growth and some can't see the forest through the trees. This may shed some light...
http://kotv.com/news/local/story/?id=120523
West Tulsa Rebirth
KOTV - 2/16/2007 9:52 AM - Updated 2/16/2007 6:08 PM
West Tulsa is well on its way to a rebirth. A group called Red Fork Main Street has applied to be part of the state's Main Street Association. If they get accepted, that will open the door to all kinds of promotions, marketing and design help. News on 6 reporter Steve Berg reports the organization wants to change people's perceptions of west Tulsa.
"We have a number of people from various parts of the city, Jenks, Owasso, Broken Arrow, that have come to stay at our inn and was just never aware of the beauty of southwest Tulsa," said Randy Pittman from the Cedar Rock Inn.
Pittman opened the Cedar Rock Inn a year-and-a-half ago. It's all rolling hills and rustic scenery, but just a mile or so to the east is the old Crystal City shopping center, probably the most visible example of West Tulsa's blight.
"Crystal City is rundown," Pittman said. "Most all the stores are vacant, boarded up."
So Pittman and other west Tulsa leaders have created Red Fork Main Street. Red Fork, in case you don't know, was once a town in the area now encompassed by West Tulsa. In fact, it was incorporated before Tulsa, and played an important role in the state's early history as a cattle trailhead, a rail stop and the site of Tulsa County's first oil well. Red Fork Main Street needed $50,000 to apply for the Main Street program; they raised $120,000 in just two weeks. The Main Street Association provides neighborhoods with expertise in landscaping, architecture, marketing and other areas that can help them lure new businesses. "They had an excellent application. Very well-written, well-funded and well-supported," said Linda Barnett with Oklahoma Main Street.
Pittman says luring restaurants to the area is high on his list.
"We are asked for suggestions on where to eat at the bed and breakfast all the time," he said. "Unfortunately right now, we're directing most everybody to Jenks, down on Peoria, or downtown." The Red Fork Main Street organization doesn't know if they're in the state's Main Street Association, but the odds look good.
If Bumgarner's HB 2559 would have passed, it would have cut the legs right out from under this Main street program.
I just think the more bridges you have, the better.
We don't need it.
Complete waste of money and resources...
quote:
Originally posted by deinstein
We don't need it.
Complete waste of money and resources...
How is a more convient route to an upcoming part of town a waste of resources? The idea is to CONNECT the city together. The west side is long OVERDUE for an overhaul. Just because the majority may live east of the river doesn't mean you shouldn't plan ahead. In order to spur growth, you need an actually route to the destination. Meandering and getting lost, to what should be a simple task, is the waste...a waste of a vital part of our city.
quote:
Originally posted by T-TownMike
quote:
Originally posted by deinstein
We don't need it.
Complete waste of money and resources...
How is a more convient route to an upcoming part of town a waste of resources? The idea is to CONNECT the city together. The west side is long OVERDUE for an overhaul. Just because the majority may live east of the river doesn't mean you shouldn't plan ahead. In order to spur growth, you need an actually route to the destination. Meandering and getting lost, to what should be a simple task, is the waste...a waste of a vital part of our city.
After reading the posts referring to the efforts to revitalize the main street in Red Fork and the new housing nearby I would be inclined to support a bridge. However, is that area is strongly in support of it? The industrial is still going to be a stumbling block and the roads just west of the river need to have the drainage ditches covered and the roads widened.
I support it to help west Tulsa as well as west bank development. There definitely needs to be work done to make it aesthetic and pedestrian-friendly.
It's a waste of money...you don't need a bridge every mile along the river. We can use the money for this bridge and work on the streets we already have, which are in borderline third world country condition in a lot of the city.
quote:
Originally posted by deinstein
It's a waste of money...you don't need a bridge every mile along the river. We can use the money for this bridge and work on the streets we already have, which are in borderline third world country condition in a lot of the city.
There is no non-highway bridge between 71st and 21st. Hardly every mile. Keep in mind that after the I-44 widening you will have limited access between I-44 and riverside.
I just have the opinion it's a waste of money and we don't need anymore bridges. Just use the I-44 bridge to cross over, it's not far out of the way at all and easy to use at the Riverside and Elwood exits. I really don't see any justification in spending that much money when you have that option.
quote:
Originally posted by deinstein
I just have the opinion it's a waste of money and we don't need anymore bridges. Just use the I-44 bridge to cross over, it's not far out of the way at all and easy to use at the Riverside and Elwood exits. I really don't see any justification in spending that much money when you have that option.
As I mentioned before, the riverside entrance exits will be replaced by access roads to peoria. To get on the I-44 bridge westbound, you will have to drive to peoria and take the turnaround. Similarly if you want to get on riverside from I-44.
Why not change that instead of building an entire bridge?
quote:
Originally posted by deinstein
Why not change that instead of building an entire bridge?
There is no room and it would go against the whole design of I-44.
Plus, the 41st bridge would have direct access to riverside drive and riverside drive west.
quote:
Originally posted by deinstein
It's a waste of money...you don't need a bridge every mile along the river. We can use the money for this bridge and work on the streets we already have, which are in borderline third world country condition in a lot of the city.
Einstein, you aren't very informed on this matter and you are coming across as a closed-minded, counter-productive, naysayer. It's never a bad idea to give more access to citizens, especially when you consider how much publicity the river is getting and the potential West Tulsa has. The idea is get more revenue from people that live WITHIN the city. West Tulsa is one of the only vast areas left that hasn't reached it's full potential. Making it more accessible helps tie in the area and incorporates the city as one. The way it is now, most AVOID West Tulsa. There's a clear, easy answer for that...poor access. How about looking for ways for the city to actually IMPROVE and getting on board with the concept? Your point is meaningless and has no merit. Your research is flawed and keeps Tulsa stagnating.
No, people avoid West Tulsa because it's full of meth labs, rail yards, industry and very polluted refineries. That's why people avoid West Tulsa. It has nothing to do with their not being a bridge at 41st St. Which would mainly be used by the industrial area there.
quote:
Originally posted by deinstein
No, people avoid West Tulsa because it's full of meth labs, rail yards, industry and very polluted refineries. That's why people avoid West Tulsa. It has nothing to do with their not being a bridge at 41st St. Which would mainly be used by the industrial area there.
Again, you are ill-informed. Take a drive out on west 41st and tell me again that's all rail yards, meth labs and industry. You are stereo-typing an entire area based on what you've seen from the highway. That's pathetic. The area is absolutely beautiful with rolling hills and heavily wooded areas with ponds and tree after tree. There are alot of brand new neighborhoods, a college campus, etc... It also runs directly into Sand Springs. There's Hell of alot more than you your perceived reality of the area. Quit pissing on the West side.
quote:
Originally posted by deinstein
No, people avoid West Tulsa because it's full of meth labs, rail yards, industry and very polluted refineries. That's why people avoid West Tulsa. It has nothing to do with their not being a bridge at 41st St. Which would mainly be used by the industrial area there.
Damn all those meth labs on the west side...whatever will we do living in such squalor?
(http://members.cox.net/tulsamini/Picture%204.png)
Let's count them, shall we? One.
PEOPLE live on the west side, just like everywhere else. We mow our grass, plant flowers, go to work every day, socialize...wow, it's pretty much like anywhere else. We have little traffic, low crime...except for that one meth lab at an apartment complex.
If a bridge at 41st street happens, it happens. I wasn't all too hip on it before, but if it brings up the area then so be it.
But please, don't judge our west of the river Tulsa. You really have no idea what you're talking about.
You're talking about west of Highway 75 though, and those people will all take highways to get to Tulsa. It's faster fr them.
I'm constantly in the area for my job. I probably use the roads there more than most people on this forum.
I'm not even sure if the new neighborhoods and TCC West campus are in Tulsa, I think they are in Berryhill officially. But I could be wrong. Those people will still use the I-244 and Highway 75 to get across the river.
Stop wasting money. You're point was development along the river. What development? Another refinery? Factory? Get real.
I drive to berryhill fairly often and I use 21st to get across the river.
You like taking the long way then.
Not really. Avery drive is 50mph and it leads straight to chandler park, which is the north end of berryhill. I-44 would be enourmously out of the way. You could drive to the west end of downtown and get on 75 for a mile if you're really that excited about highways.
<deinstein wrote:
I'm not even sure if the new neighborhoods and TCC West campus are in Tulsa, I think they are in Berryhill officially. But I could be wrong. Those people will still use the I-244 and Highway 75 to get across the river.
<end clip>
TCC is officially listed as a Tulsa address. There is no "officially" in Berryhill because it technically doesn't exist. Berryhill is a neighborhood, not a town.
With your demonstrably stupid comment about meth labs, you ought to shut up before you dig your hole deeper.
FYI, as a west-sider, I use I-44, 11th Street Bridge, 21st Street Bridge and 71st Street Bridge all about equally. Once in a while, I use the Creek Turnpike. It all depends where I'm going. There's no sense in taking a high-speed interstate when it plops you miles out of the way of your destination.
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
TCC is officially listed as a Tulsa address. There is no "officially" in Berryhill because it technically doesn't exist. Berryhill is a neighborhood, not a town.
With your demonstrably stupid comment about meth labs, you ought to shut up before you dig your hole deeper.
FYI, as a west-sider, I use I-44, 11th Street Bridge, 21st Street Bridge and 71st Street Bridge all about equally. Once in a while, I use the Creek Turnpike. It all depends where I'm going. There's no sense in taking a high-speed interstate when it plops you miles out of the way of your destination.
RWARN, representin' the west side..
(http://www.avatarrecords.com/records/artists/PlanetAsia/img/westside.jpg)
My comment was summing up the viewpoints people had of West Tulsa, debunking the reason people not going over there is because there isn't a bridge at 41st St. It's there perception that West Tulsa is meth, pollution and nasty.
If it was just a perception, why were you so intent on repeating it without that caveat in your statement?
quote:
Originally posted by deinstein
My comment was summing up the viewpoints people had of West Tulsa, debunking the reason people not going over there is because there isn't a bridge at 41st St. It's there perception that West Tulsa is meth, pollution and nasty.
What amazes me is that there is a "perception" that everywhere, not in one's own neighborhood, is crime-ridden, smells and is just "yucky." It's like we have "the grass is always brown on the other side of the fence" syndrome. I grew up that way and eventually figured out that it would deny the laws of physics for everywhere else to be THAT bad.
As deinstein notes, perception of west tulsa is an issue. I'd place good money that a good part of the population of Tulsa doesn't know that Tulsa extends west of the river. If a 41st bridge was built, as well as west bank redevelopment in the area, it would go far to counter this.
West bank development alongside industry zones and oil refineries? Yeah, great idea.
[}:)]
quote:
Originally posted by deinstein
West bank development alongside industry zones and oil refineries? Yeah, great idea.
[}:)]
Keep in mind that building south of 41st was considered just as dumb a few years ago. Still considered that way by some.
I mean...do you want to change that entire area from industrial to retail/residential? I'm confused on how you're going to develop the area otherwise. I also don't get why people think the river needs to be developed. It's not the Columbia River or Russian River...it's muddy, half empty and polluted. But, it's up to you guys...
quote:
Originally posted by deinstein
I mean...do you want to change that entire area from industrial to retail/residential? I'm confused on how you're going to develop the area otherwise. I also don't get why people think the river needs to be developed. It's not the Columbia River or Russian River...it's muddy, half empty and polluted. But, it's up to you guys...
It's been well stated that priority #1 is getting water in the river. To do otherwise would be stupid. OKC has spent millions making two rivers (one river and a canal) and we won't even bother watering ours. River-facing development (the refineries are only in one area and that is north of most proposed developments) will be very popular. If you build an apartment facing a river with water in it, you won't be able to charge too much.
quote:
Originally posted by deinstein
I mean...do you want to change that entire area from industrial to retail/residential? I'm confused on how you're going to develop the area otherwise. I also don't get why people think the river needs to be developed. It's not the Columbia River or Russian River...it's muddy, half empty and polluted. But, it's up to you guys...
Well, you got one thing right. Its not the Columbia or the Russian. The rest you're wrong. Its empty half the time which is an important distinction. It could be half full all the time with a little work. And what particular pollution are you referring to? Typical native remarks unsupported by reality.
Is there anything in Tulsa's plans that you're happy with?
quote:
Originally posted by deinstein
I mean...do you want to change that entire area from industrial to retail/residential? I'm confused on how you're going to develop the area otherwise. I also don't get why people think the river needs to be developed. It's not the Columbia River or Russian River...it's muddy, half empty and polluted. But, it's up to you guys...
One thing to keep in mind when talking about massive infrastructure like bridges is that you don't plan 1 year out or 5 years out, but 50 years out. With better access, the west side along 41st Street might very well develop differently than its historic pattern over the next 2 generations.
When the Broken Arrow Expressway opened in 1969, the city of BA had about 10,000 residents.
Refinery dumping, city waste, outright litter on the banks...you know there is a lot of pollution there and not much effort compared to other places is there to clean it up. It's a cess pool.
And I'm all for progressing Tulsa, but it sure as well isn't going...'OH MAN, A RIVER! Uh, BIG BODY OF WATER...LET'S DEVELOP IT!' or...'YEAH, AN ARENA...LIKE THE FORD CENTER!'...OR...'OKLAHOMA CITY IS THE BEST CITY EVER, LET'S COPY THEM!'
How about...
-More biking lanes.
-Better education.
-Better/More maintained roads.
-More sidewalks.
-Better planned streets.
-More trails.
-Less highways.
-Oh yeah, better education.
-Developing land already there to be developed.
-More trees.
-Maintaining historical areas/sites.
-More money to the arts.
Seriously...a bridge at 41st Street? Give me a break...and development along a dirty river?
And stop trying to fill it up. Let it take it's natural course unless you absolutely have to build a dam for energy reasons. Jesus, people.
quote:
Originally posted by deinstein
Refinery dumping, city waste, outright litter on the banks...you know there is a lot of pollution there and not much effort compared to other places is there to clean it up. It's a cess pool.
And I'm all for progressing Tulsa, but it sure as well isn't going...'OH MAN, A RIVER! Uh, BIG BODY OF WATER...LET'S DEVELOP IT!' or...'YEAH, AN ARENA...LIKE THE FORD CENTER!'...OR...'OKLAHOMA CITY IS THE BEST CITY EVER, LET'S COPY THEM!'
How about...
-More biking lanes.
-Better education.
-Better/More maintained roads.
-More sidewalks.
-Better planned streets.
-More trails.
-Less highways.
-Oh yeah, better education.
-Developing land already there to be developed.
-More trees.
-Maintaining historical areas/sites.
-More money to the arts.
Seriously...a bridge at 41st Street? Give me a break...and development along a dirty river?
And stop trying to fill it up. Let it take it's natural course unless you absolutely have to build a dam for energy reasons. Jesus, people.
I'm about as critical of this berg(sp?) as anyone here. In fact, I'm looking for employment outside of the state I've lived in for my whole life. But I know bs when I read it. Your vitriol is hiding the fact that you're just yelling out stuff right and left with out anything to back up your remarks. If our river is so polluted and hideous why hasn't it been listed on EPA's list? Too busy with the chat piles? You ever been to a cesspool? This is not even close. What cities are you comparing our river to btw. Hey, Einstein, what is it that the refineries are dumping into the river? Please share. RecycleMichael meets with them pretty regularly and can share with them what you know. But I'm guessing its just throw the firebomb, don't talk details, eh?
So you don't like the arena, you don't like the river, you don't want downtown development if it includes WalMart, and on and on. My, my. Kind of picky. Oh yeah, you like bike paths, art and education, good roads, history. All the stuff every city our size has. From my travels they all pretty much have the same problems to solve too. Including bad roads.
All those things aren't paid for with ad valorem taxes alone. You need new business growth and development to fund increased consumer purchasing to collect increased taxes. To get that business growth you have to appeal to new businesses with something interesting to go with your education and bike paths. That is what this community is trying to do.
I you want to just live in a well run community with good roads and lots of well educated joggers and no entertainment, I suggest you move to a smaller town away from a river and out of the midwest. Avoid anything with industrial capacity, or much diversity of opinion. May I suggest Roswell NM? Provo UT? Cause you sure ain't going to be happy here.
http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2006/December/06_enrd_832.html
And I have just as much of a right to be picky about what goes in my area of Tulsa as anyone else. I also have a right to say, that's a bad idea...if we are wasting money on a bridge. And I'm pretty sure giving money to the arts supports entertainment.
I also find it funny I'm picky for not wanting to waste money on a bridge we don't need. An arena with no planned events and no professional teams. And god forgive me, I don't want a Wal-Mart downtown.
Maybe you're just to easy to sell something to and you don't take enough pride in your city to make it a better place by choosing wisely.
quote:
Originally posted by deinstein
http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2006/December/06_enrd_832.html
That's it?! That's the major pollution dumping you're basing your remarks on? Jeez, man. That doesn't make for a polluted river. When you say polluted people conjure up images of oil spills, toxic chemicals and burning rivers. This is hardly that. This is an isolated event that was punished. Happens in industry all over the country. You should be encouraged that there is testing and they were caught.
Do you know how many gallons of river flowed by that plant each year? Research that then divide it by the treated wastewater that came out of that plant.
quote:
Originally posted by deinstein
And I have just as much of a right to be picky about what goes in my area of Tulsa as anyone else. I also have a right to say, that's a bad idea...if we are wasting money on a bridge. And I'm pretty sure giving money to the arts supports entertainment.
I also find it funny I'm picky for not wanting to waste money on a bridge we don't need. An arena with no planned events and no professional teams. And god forgive me, I don't want a Wal-Mart downtown.
Maybe you're just to easy to sell something to and you don't take enough pride in your city to make it a better place by choosing wisely.
Don't let the facts or the opinions of those who live in the area and who are familiar with urban planning get in your way D. If you check back towards the start of this thread I would have agreed with you. But the case has been made.
No one is questioning your right to be a closed minded, elitist, nimby. Consider this. In a city of 3/4million or so, about 20% of them have had the higher education that you are priviledged to have received(I'm assuming). The other 80%? They don't care for opera, the arts, or running along the river. For some real fun, figure out just what percentage of taxpayers will actually use any of these paths in a given year. They work what you would call menial jobs, they shop WalMart and they pay taxes. Your interest in a developed downtown with walkable neighborhoods and sophisticated small retail shops under stylish lofts means nothing to them. They live in the burbs. They pay taxes, in the burbs. And they are no more or less important than you. Its not all about you, your good taste, your good education.
Apparently, the only arena you would approve of would already be booked in advance. The only stadium worth building is for a professional team with a big following. Good luck with that mindset. BTW, I'm sure every evangelical within 4 states is eyeing our arena as the place to be when the world ends. If ya gotta go, why not go iconic! Big money there.
Way to double our cities population, then stereotype everyone (including me) and be absolutely wrong. Then top it off by basically saying we should keep our standards low, because they are obviously working, right?
Don't bother, waterboy. Einstein has proven to be factually challenged.
Yeah, check out his response when I debunked his opinion the Arkansas River wasn't polluted by refineries. No facts there, well...besides a government source.
QuoteOriginally posted by deinstein
Yeah, check out his response when I debunked his opinion the Arkansas River wasn't polluted by refineries. No facts there, well...besides a government source.
[/quote
You are such a dunce. One refinery was penalized for hiding releases that were in excess of permitted. And you jump to refineries (plural) and pollution? Then use that to say the river shouldn't be developed? Yeah, you smacked me good young'un.
Okay, here's your pollution. In one day Sinclair was alleged to have released 1million gallons of wastewater that wasn't adequately treated. It had oil and wax in it. They did this for two years. That sounds like a lot to you I'm sure. But put it in perspective. It was water, oil and wax that mixed with the river water. That water then diluted the discharge and moved it on downstream.
Here's how much it was diluted. I don't know the capacity of the river at that time but I know the typical releases. Lets assume that the dam was releasing 10,000 cfs. Thats cubic feet per second and that would be a low average for the year. A cubic foot of water is .13368 gallon so that 1 million gallons is 133,680cubic feet of untreated waste water.
But it is going into a river that is running 10,000 cubic feet every second. In a day that would be 864,000,000 cubic feet of water and that doesn't include what was already in the river! That amounts to .00015% of the river or about 1 cubic foot of untreated wastewater for every 6,463 cubic foot of river each day.
Now, Sinclair knows better, and they deserved to be penalized. But is that enough to call the river polluted and unsuited for development David?
As I see it one can never have too many bridges across a river.
The "Private Sector" aka "The Wealthy People of Tulsa" are developing the west side of the river. The bridges will connect their west side developement to the east side.
This has nothing to do with "kindness to the people of Tulsa" it instead has everything to do with the people of Tulsa footing the bill to help the rich get richer.
They have already purchased the land on the west side for developement. DOH.
I am not against them developing anything - I just am tired of being lied to and mislead by these people.
$111 million is a drop in the bucket compared to what it's really going to cost to build.
We passed the 4th of a cent tax to provide people with a lot of high paying jobs. I don't think they will pass it to build bridges that are not nessesary.
quote:
Originally posted by Sangria
The "Private Sector" aka "The Wealthy People of Tulsa" are developing the west side of the river. The bridges will connect their west side developement to the east side.
This has nothing to do with "kindness to the people of Tulsa" it instead has everything to do with the people of Tulsa footing the bill to help the rich get richer.
They have already purchased the land on the west side for developement. DOH.
I am not against them developing anything - I just am tired of being lied to and mislead by these people.
$111 million is a drop in the bucket compared to what it's really going to cost to build.
We passed the 4th of a cent tax to provide people with a lot of high paying jobs. I don't think they will pass it to build bridges that are not nessesary.
If you know of some wealthy development on the west bank at 41st, then you have info no-one else has.
The west side is the neglected red-headed stepchild of Tulsa and calling a bridge connecting them to the rest of Tulsa as being elitist is laughable.
I wish they could do a double-decker bridge. 1 lane each way for vehicles on top, pedestrian underneath.
The soccer field, PSO power plant and rainbow concrete seem to be the key properties for west bank development.
quote:
Originally posted by Sangria
The "Private Sector" aka "The Wealthy People of Tulsa" are developing the west side of the river. The bridges will connect their west side developement to the east side.
This has nothing to do with "kindness to the people of Tulsa" it instead has everything to do with the people of Tulsa footing the bill to help the rich get richer.
They have already purchased the land on the west side for developement. DOH.
I am not against them developing anything - I just am tired of being lied to and mislead by these people.
$111 million is a drop in the bucket compared to what it's really going to cost to build.
We passed the 4th of a cent tax to provide people with a lot of high paying jobs. I don't think they will pass it to build bridges that are not nessesary.
Here, I will tell ya the truth. I want this deal to pass because I am going to get richer on it too. Oh, I know some people think thats a horrible thing to do, but oh well. Though I am "cash poor" I try to live a rich life. I love getting out and enjoying different activities. I can't wait to have more places to go, some different things to do all at wonderful facilities in a great environment. This will help make me rich indeed. And all our children will get to inherit this wealth. Everyone that comes to town will get to prosper in it.
quote:
Originally posted by TulsaMINI
There has been talk of "Lookout Mountain Estates". A 41st street bridge would be convenient for that area.
Personally, I still don't want it because W 41st is pretty much a racetrack already. A bridge would make it worse.
People are in a hurry because they have to go all the way down to I-44 in order to get anywhere
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
quote:
Originally posted by Sangria
The "Private Sector" aka "The Wealthy People of Tulsa" are developing the west side of the river. The bridges will connect their west side developement to the east side.
This has nothing to do with "kindness to the people of Tulsa" it instead has everything to do with the people of Tulsa footing the bill to help the rich get richer.
They have already purchased the land on the west side for developement. DOH.
I am not against them developing anything - I just am tired of being lied to and mislead by these people.
$111 million is a drop in the bucket compared to what it's really going to cost to build.
We passed the 4th of a cent tax to provide people with a lot of high paying jobs. I don't think they will pass it to build bridges that are not nessesary.
Here, I will tell ya the truth. I want this deal to pass because I am going to get richer on it too. Oh, I know some people think thats a horrible thing to do, but oh well. Though I am "cash poor" I try to live a rich life. I love getting out and enjoying different activities. I can't wait to have more places to go, some different things to do all at wonderful facilities in a great environment. This will help make me rich indeed. And all our children will get to inherit this wealth. Everyone that comes to town will get to prosper in it.
Everyone will prosper in it. That's a bold statement. Artist is a smart and srewd bidnez man. I would be singing the praises of this plan put forward by wealthy potential patrons, too. What's the saying- don't s#*t where you eat? Just don't try to wear it as a badge of integrity and always remember that you will always be nothing more than the help to them.
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
Just took a look at google earth, it almost seems as though someone was purposely trying to disconnect west Tulsa from the east.
whats wrong with that? I say cede west tulsa to sand springs.
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
Okay, here's your pollution. In one day Sinclair was alleged to have released 1million gallons of wastewater that wasn't adequately treated. It had oil and wax in it. They did this for two years. That sounds like a lot to you I'm sure. But put it in perspective. It was water, oil and wax that mixed with the river water. That water then diluted the discharge and moved it on downstream.
Here's how much it was diluted. I don't know the capacity of the river at that time but I know the typical releases. Lets assume that the dam was releasing 10,000 cfs. Thats cubic feet per second and that would be a low average for the year. A cubic foot of water is .13368 gallon so that 1 million gallons is 133,680cubic feet of untreated waste water.
But it is going into a river that is running 10,000 cubic feet every second. In a day that would be 864,000,000 cubic feet of water and that doesn't include what was already in the river! That amounts to .00015% of the river or about 1 cubic foot of untreated wastewater for every 6,463 cubic foot of river each day.
Now, Sinclair knows better, and they deserved to be penalized. But is that enough to call the river polluted and unsuited for development David?
I thought there was something wrong with your math...turns out, there is. You're off by a factor of 56. A cubic foot of water contains 7.48 gallons. Still, your 1M gallons remains 133,680 cubic feet, but it's unclear how you got there.
Ref: WikiPedia Info (//%22http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_cubic_feet_are_in_a_gallon%22)
I also thought a 10,000 cfs flowrate as an average was quite high. During recent releases 30,000-36,000 cfs was common, yet only about half of the potential max release, I think. But, average per hour over all days, all year would be much lower. I'd _guess_ an average hourly flow rate would be under 5,000 cfm. But, I have no reference to validate. And, recent rains are by no means considered norm.
In any case, I'd hate to get a glass full of whatever Sinclair dumped since wax and oil doesn't mix with water at all, thus does not dilute.
If ninty-nine out of hundred glass fulls were perfectly clean, the hundreth one still kills you.
[Note: Edited "cfm" to "cfs"]
quote:
Originally posted by TulsaMINI
There has been talk of "Lookout Mountain Estates". A 41st street bridge would be convenient for that area.
Personally, I still don't want it because W 41st is pretty much a racetrack already. A bridge would make it worse.
I think there are people in Red Fork that would like to improve the area, and it may be that a bridge would help. To me, another footbridge is a clear benefit; you can't have too many of those crossings in a river park, as it will provide continuity and alternative routing options for foot, bike and skating traffic. It would also connect and therefore expand any walking/biking/skating community that develops near the river parks, which would be good. I agree that a bridge for autos could add to traffic problems on 41st street. It could also lead to calls for expansion of 41st and Riverside if the bridge accommodates much traffic. I would probably only support an auto bridge if it combined two lanes (one each way) for cars with wide sidewalks and biking paths on each side. It would have to be a neighborhood bridge that really brings together the two communities on each side of the Arkansas and sort of be an attraction in itself, with space for artists and musicians. Sounds quaint (and very unlikely to happen), but that's the only type of auto bridge I would support.
This 41st Street bridge for auto and pedestrian traffic should be built, by the City. Since it's wholly a City of Tulsa placement, it would seem a City of Tulsa deal, rather than County. It is also needed to a much higher degree than the south Yale bridge, so should be a higher priority.
I'm wholly against a pedestrian only bridge, either at 41st or 61st. These should be removed from the current plan.
And, I'm against this SALES tax by the County. The funding issue needs resolution, but the County will get none of my support for this method of funding.
How easy it would be to have a 41st Street Auto/Ped Bridge as a single ballot item CITY BOND issue. We just need quotes, so issue an RFQ for bridge only.
quote:
Originally posted by akupetsky
quote:
Originally posted by TulsaMINI
There has been talk of "Lookout Mountain Estates". A 41st street bridge would be convenient for that area.
Personally, I still don't want it because W 41st is pretty much a racetrack already. A bridge would make it worse.
I think there are people in Red Fork that would like to improve the area, and it may be that a bridge would help. To me, another footbridge is a clear benefit; you can't have too many of those crossings in a river park, as it will provide continuity and alternative routing options for foot, bike and skating traffic. It would also connect and therefore expand any walking/biking/skating community that develops near the river parks, which would be good. I agree that a bridge for autos could add to traffic problems on 41st street. It could also lead to calls for expansion of 41st and Riverside if the bridge accommodates much traffic. I would probably only support an auto bridge if it combined two lanes (one each way) for cars with wide sidewalks and biking paths on each side. It would have to be a neighborhood bridge that really brings together the two communities on each side of the Arkansas and sort of be an attraction in itself, with space for artists and musicians. Sounds quaint (and very unlikely to happen), but that's the only type of auto bridge I would support.
Employing the lost and forgotten art of compromise and true thinking outside the box to come up with a solution that everyone can be comfortable with? That's practically a guarantee it'll never happen. It's sounds like a great idea to me, though.
quote:
Originally posted by deinstein
I mean...do you want to change that entire area from industrial to retail/residential? I'm confused on how you're going to develop the area otherwise. I also don't get why people think the river needs to be developed. It's not the Columbia River or Russian River...it's muddy, half empty and polluted. But, it's up to you guys...
Ah, the Russian River, now that brings back some memories(barely). Sorry to wax nostalgic, let's get back to ripping each others throats out.
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
This 41st Street bridge for auto and pedestrian traffic should be built, by the City. Since it's wholly a City of Tulsa placement, it would seem a City of Tulsa deal, rather than County. It is also needed to a much higher degree than the south Yale bridge, so should be a higher priority.
I'm wholly against a pedestrian only bridge, either at 41st or 61st. These should be removed from the current plan.
And, I'm against this SALES tax by the County. The funding issue needs resolution, but the County will get none of my support for this method of funding.
How easy it would be to have a 41st Street Auto/Ped Bridge as a single ballot item CITY BOND issue. We just need quotes, so issue an RFQ for bridge only.
Well, there is not a road on the west side of the river at 61st, but there is a trail and Turkey Mountain...
Turkey Mountain needs to be developed.
Also, Musicians and artists have nothing to do with a frigging street across the river. What the hell is wrong with you helmuts? Infrastructure is about giving people easy access around the economy. Not about the liberal arts.
We need to increase our tax base, and West Tulsa has a plethora of lowly populated land which could be turned into densely populated and/or revenue generating retail space. It is one of the final frontiers of growth for the City of Tulsa, since we are boxed in by Broken Arrow, Bixby, Jenks, Sand Springs, and Owasso.
quote:
Originally posted by YoungTulsan
Turkey Mountain needs to be developed.
Also, Musicians and artists have nothing to do with a frigging street across the river. What the hell is wrong with you helmuts? Infrastructure is about giving people easy access around the economy. Not about the liberal arts.
We need to increase our tax base, and West Tulsa has a plethora of lowly populated land which could be turned into densely populated and/or revenue generating retail space. It is one of the final frontiers of growth for the City of Tulsa, since we are boxed in by Broken Arrow, Bixby, Jenks, Sand Springs, and Owasso.
Turkey Mountain was donated to the City of Tulsa on the SOLE condition that it never be developed, i.e., remain a wildlife refuge. The donor would surely be upset over the amount of development which has already occurred there (water tower, which was built broken and now not even used).
But, a 41st Street Auto/Ped Bridge would allow development of many of those other open areas, thus increasing our tax base, which would be good.
Who DONATED a mountain to Tulsa? A person, or a city? Tribe? Someone who had territorial rights to it I suppose?
But either way, hard to imagine someone DONATING a MOUNTAIN :)
I say develop it, theres plenty of wilderness out there :)
I personally won't use a 41st St. auto bridge to get to and from work, though I might use it to go get lunch on Brookside or to venture out on sales calls in the near area. Personally, I'd hate to see them knock out the 41st street park on the east side and create some sort of traffic monolith to get cars on and off without creating havoc on Riverside Dr.
There is really nothing to develop on the west side of the river from 31st to roughly north of the 71st St. bridge. PSO won't cede that property any time soon, not even God has the kind of money it would take to clean up Sinclair, and there are water works plants on either side of I-44 which is where the trails logically stop now. I don't believe the area along Turkey mountain leaves any space for trails or other development even if there weren't some sort of covenant attached to the donation of that land.
Sinclair and Rainbow concrete (at 41st & Elwood) have both recently been investing in their operations, so I don't see either being willing to sell at a price which would make sense. There are also other industrial businesses which are good for the west side that I don't see moving off anywhere else in the near future.
The next opportunity along the west side for development is the old **** farm at the 71st St. bridge, but I don't know how soon that area can be ripe (excuse the pun) for development.
quote:
Originally posted by YoungTulsan
Turkey Mountain needs to be developed.
Also, Musicians and artists have nothing to do with a frigging street across the river. What the hell is wrong with you helmuts? Infrastructure is about giving people easy access around the economy. Not about the liberal arts.
We need to increase our tax base, and West Tulsa has a plethora of lowly populated land which could be turned into densely populated and/or revenue generating retail space. It is one of the final frontiers of growth for the City of Tulsa, since we are boxed in by Broken Arrow, Bixby, Jenks, Sand Springs, and Owasso.
Well, now, I think developing Turkey Mountain is a great idea. My kids can just go hiking at the Woodland Hills Mall. It's safer there anyway - safe from the heat and pollution caused by overdevelopment to the South and East and a downtown that is paved over with concrete buildings and parking lots but no real infill development. I think you may be kidding, but you present a great opportunity to remind people that development, while based on economic supply and demand, cannot be left to occur solely as supply and demand dictate. The market cannot ensure that the community in which we live is an attractive place to live. Many people in Tulsa believe this, which always makes development that doesn't take community preferences into account very difficult and time consuming. So, when you say that development and infrastructure is not about arts and music or touchy/feely things like that, you are just singing the tune (or painting the picture, take your pick) of a segment of the population that has had very little success making Tulsa the world-class city that it should be. (Now, I'm not sure what "helmut" means, but if it means someone who wants to keep a lid on traditional black/white views of development and looking for a new approach, I'll take it.)