TulsaNow will host a forum on the river proposal next Tues, Sept 18 at the OSU-Tulsa Auditorium. Doors open at 6:00 pm. Event starts at 6:30.
Audience members will get to submit questions to the panelists. We want to extend that opportunity to everyone on our online forum, as well.
If you have questions related to the issue (for either the "pro" or the "con" people), please let us know. You can post them on this thread, or email them to us at info@tulsanow.org.
This will be a terrific chance to hear speakers from BOTH sides of the debate. Jean Letcher, River Yes campaign director, and Gaylon Pinc, Environmental Manager for PMg will speak in support of the river proposal. City Councilor, John Eagleton, and Colin Tawney will speak in opposition to the plan. Ken Busby, Executive Director of the Arts and Humanities Council of Tulsa will be the moderator.
Thanks for participating, and we'll see you at the forum on Sept 18th!
Sarah Kobos, President, TulsaNow
Rumor has it that more questions for the "con" side might be needed. Some are against the plan because of the tax, some because of the dams,...
Some Questions if they are against the tax...
Do you think there should ever be more dams in the river or that the Zink Dam should be improved?
follow up question...
Its been said that river development should be done by the private sector. Do you think that private developers will build dams in our river? And if so, Can you give us some examples where this has been done previously?
If they are not against dams period...
What funding mechanism would you use to pay for any dams?
Many point out that 2025 was paying for the dams. And that there should be enough money collected under the 2025 tax to pay for the extra costs resulting from federal monies not being available, bad cost estimates etc. If this new tax fails, Will you commit to getting those dams funded with the 2025 tax?
Will the dams have to be the same cheaper Zink Lake designs as originally intended? Or will something along the very different and improved designs proposed in this plan be pushed for?
or
The dam designs as envisioned in 2025 were very different than the dam designs envisioned now. Should we do the old dam designs as intended or the new ones?
Would the living river concept be financed under 2025 or would that not be able to be done? How about the larger Sand Springs dam that will enable water to flow more often during the day?
Anywhoo thats a start. Its sci-fi Friday, my shows are starting, have to go. [:D]
quote:
Originally posted by PonderInc
TulsaNow will host a forum on the river proposal next Tues, Sept 18 at the OSU-Tulsa Auditorium. Doors open at 6:00 pm. Event starts at 6:30.
Audience members will get to submit questions to the panelists. We want to extend that opportunity to everyone on our online forum, as well.
If you have questions related to the issue (for either the "pro" or the "con" people), please let us know. You can post them on this thread, or email them to us at info@tulsanow.org.
This will be a terrific chance to hear speakers from BOTH sides of the debate. Jean Letcher, River Yes campaign director, and Gaylon Pinc, Environmental Manager for PMg will speak in support of the river proposal. City Councilor, John Eagleton, and Colin Tawney will speak in opposition to the plan. Ken Busby, Executive Director of the Arts and Humanities Council of Tulsa will be the moderator.
Thanks for participating, and we'll see you at the forum on Sept 18th!
Sarah Kobos, President, TulsaNow
Okay, here's a VERY basic question:
Mr. Ken Busby, Executive Director of the Arts and Humanities Council of Tulsa, will be the Moderator of next Tuesday's Forum a.k.a. "debate".
If a debate moderator shows overt signs of bias, should he be replaced?
Mr. Busby has
TWO Our River Yes campaign signs planted in his south Tulsa yard.....
Isn't this overt BIAS??
Give it up Bear.
Please don't try to knock every thread off track by conspiracy, paranoia and unfounded personal attacks.
Back on track...
Here is a question that I propose be asked of the vote no duo.
"Every time we come up with a plan to develop the river, people come out and say not now. Why not now, and if not now, when?"
Here is a question for the vote yes couple.
"It all seems so rushed. The arena isn't even done and the county is asking for more money. Why the hurry?"
quote:
Originally posted by recyclemichael
Give it up Bear.
Please don't try to knock every thread off track by conspiracy, paranoia and unfounded personal attacks.
Back on track...
Here is a question that I propose be asked of the vote no duo.
"Every time we come up with a plan to develop the river, people come out and say not now. Why not now, and if not now, when?"
Here is a question for the vote yes couple.
"It all seems so rushed. The arena isn't even done and the county is asking for more money. Why the hurry?"
The
Vote YES to Higher Kaiser River Taxes yard signs are a fact.
The two signs are firmly implanted in Mr. Busby's front yard in a nice south Tulsa neighborhood.
It's not paranoia. It may not be a giant conspiracy, but it is part of a large Favors-Trading Clique that trades favors:
"You support my tax increase, and I'll support yours."
And the local citizenry pays for it ALL.
And, Mr. Busby is one of the Favors-Traders. His livelihood depends on the good graces of the ruling Oligarch Families.
Otherwise, he's toast in a nano-second.
[:O]
Isn't Mr. Busby the guy who received a $60,000 fee from the City of Tulsa/City Council to do the first phase of the Great Plains Airline/TAA/TAIT Investigation?
IIRC, he had to step down due to conflicts of interest then. Not sure if the fee was returned, but never heard so.
UPDATE: Appears this was a "Wilson" Busby, not Ken Busby. Or, are they domestic partners, the one in same, or not affiliated with each other at all?
Here's a purely hypothetical question - if, say, Collinsville decided to build a series of dams, trails, and pedestrian attractions along Black Jack Creek, stretching from downtown toward the scenic and historical rendering plant, would the pro-river-tax group vote to tax themselves to build Collinsville's park?
Or am I out of my mind?
quote:
Originally posted by Ed W
Here's a purely hypothetical question - if, say, Collinsville decided to build a series of dams, trails, and pedestrian attractions along Black Jack Creek, stretching from downtown toward the scenic and historical rendering plant, would the pro-river-tax group vote to tax themselves to build Collinsville's park?
Or am I out of my mind?
Oh sure, Kitty'd be all for it. Remember, if it helps Collinsville, it helps us all. But, she'd have to choose the contractors.
"Did the County propose to construct two low water dams and improve Zink Lake dam in Vision2025 and promise to complete ALL Vision2025 projects even if it required collection overages to do so?"
quote:
Its been said that river development should be done by the private sector. Do you think that private developers will build dams in our river? And if so, Can you give us some examples where this has been done previously?
The answer is yes. The existing Zink Lake Dam was built by the private sector.
quote:
Will the dams have to be the same cheaper Zink Lake designs as originally intended?
No intent was specified, just that two dams would be built at the locations determined by INCOG's Arkansas River Corridor Master Plan. The designs were dependent upon these locations and, thus, any design would have been premature.
Now that they have the locations, and now the 'dreams' defined, let V2025 build them.
Or, at least work within a budget. These dams have more than doubled in cost due simply to overachieving.
Another question:
"Zink Lake dam, if constructed in today's dollars would cost about $8 Million. What justification is there for spending almost four times that amount for each of two new dams?"
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
Isn't Mr. Busby the guy who received a $60,000 fee from the City of Tulsa/City Council to do the first phase of the Great Plains Airline/TAA/TAIT Investigation?
IIRC, he had to step down due to conflicts of interest then. Not sure if the fee was returned, but never heard so.
UPDATE: Appears this was a "Wilson" Busby, not Ken Busby. Or, are they domestic partners, the one in same, or not affiliated with each other at all?
No relation...no connection between the two at all.
Why would you post such incorrect information? What you did was horribly improper, Wrinkle.
If you don't apologize to all of us on this forum, I will discount your opinion forever. You are no better than a gossip magazine if you don't.
quote:
Originally posted by recyclemichael
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
Isn't Mr. Busby the guy who received a $60,000 fee from the City of Tulsa/City Council to do the first phase of the Great Plains Airline/TAA/TAIT Investigation?
IIRC, he had to step down due to conflicts of interest then. Not sure if the fee was returned, but never heard so.
UPDATE: Appears this was a "Wilson" Busby, not Ken Busby. Or, are they domestic partners, the one in same, or not affiliated with each other at all?
No relation...no connection between the two at all.
Why would you post such incorrect information? What you did was horribly improper, Wrinkle.
If you don't apologize to all of us on this forum, I will discount your opinion forever. You are no better than a gossip magazine if you don't.
The above incident is true. I updated with information regarding the potential of them not being the same Busby and asked for clarification which you have provided. Thanks. I have nothing for which to apologize.
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
quote:
Its been said that river development should be done by the private sector. Do you think that private developers will build dams in our river? And if so, Can you give us some examples where this has been done previously?
The answer is yes. The existing Zink Lake Dam was built by the private sector.
It was paid for by the private sector in exchange for land owned by the city, so the city still paid for it.
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
quote:
Its been said that river development should be done by the private sector. Do you think that private developers will build dams in our river? And if so, Can you give us some examples where this has been done previously?
The answer is yes. The existing Zink Lake Dam was built by the private sector.
It was paid for by the private sector in exchange for land owned by the city, so the city still paid for it.
If you wish to get into technicalities, the dam was donated to the City of Tulsa by the private developer who built it. The City reciprocated with three prime tracts of real estate as a sign of their appreciation.
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
The above incident is true. I updated with information regarding the potential of them not being the same Busby and asked for clarification which you have provided. Thanks. I have nothing for which to apologize.[/quote]
You think it is ok to write completely false information about someone, incorrectly linking them to a public scandal, just because you notice that they have the same last name?
You probably think everybody named Simpson killed their ex-wife.
quote:
Originally posted by recyclemichael
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
The above incident is true. I updated with information regarding the potential of them not being the same Busby and asked for clarification which you have provided. Thanks. I have nothing for which to apologize.
You think it is ok to write completely false information about someone, incorrectly linking them to a public scandal, just because you notice that they have the same last name?
You probably think everybody named Simpson killed their ex-wife.
[/quote]
I didn't write false information about anyone.
If someone said a lady named Taylor murdered her husband, who would you first think of?
I asked a question.
A public figure in Tulsa named Busby rang a bell. How many more Busby's do we have in public life living in Tulsa?
I clearified, you answered. End of case.
1) How solid are the cost estimates? I voted in favor of vision 2025 but some of the projects I favored have been cut or diminished for additional funding for the arena. Are their built in margins or other safeties to assure this will not happen again?
2) Where did the 9,000 new jobs number come from? Assuming no new industrial buildings are going in along the river, it would take 90 large restaurants or mid sized retailers to make 9,000 jobs.
3) Recently questions have been raised about the environmental impact study, what steps will this project take to protect the fish stocks and other wildlife in, on, and along the river?
4) Is there any indication that the private donors would contribute to a more limited proposal should the grander funding scheme fail?
5) If this funding scheme fails, is the city willing to try funding alternatives?
How about this one:
'During the last 4 to fix campaign many people opposed to that tax were asking the county to "Do the River First". Now that there is a plan for the river this same contingent is asking the county to "Repair our Streets First". Does this contigent really want better streets first or would they find some reason to oppose a street plan as well?'
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
Another question:
"Zink Lake dam, if constructed in today's dollars would cost about $8 Million. What justification is there for spending almost four times that amount for each of two new dams?"
That is factually incorrect. It cost $8M to build 10years ago.
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
Another question:
"Zink Lake dam, if constructed in today's dollars would cost about $8 Million. What justification is there for spending almost four times that amount for each of two new dams?"
That is factually incorrect. It cost $8M to build 10years ago.
Zink Lake dam was built in 1983 for a cost of $4 Million.
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
Zink Lake dam was built in 1983 for a cost of $4 Million.
quote:
From TulsaWorld.com
1983 Zink Lake
A 1979 sales tax election to fund this project failed.
So in 1981, Tulsa's then-Mayor Jim Inhofe took another approach.
The Tulsa Urban Renewal Authority sold land along the west bank of the river and at 61st Street and Riverside Drive to Lincoln Property Co.
The city used the proceeds from those sales, investment revenue and private donations to pay for the $8 million dam and related projects.
The dam is named after John Steele Zink, whose family foundation was a major private contributor to the project.
$8M for the dam, plus likely more for the pedestrian bridge, shoreline enhancements, etc. in 1983 money.
1. Do we have any specifics on how the private/donated money will be spent? e.g., where will the gathering places be, how much will be spent per gathering places, will the donators have final say in what they will look like, etc....
2. Why was the 41st auto bridge dropped from the plan, and will it be possible to add later?
3. Land acquisition: How was the $54 million number derived? Was specific land identified, and if so, which land? What guarantees do we have over which lands will be acquired, and how that land will be used?
4. $54 million (or there abouts) seems awfully high for "maintainance". What sort of maintainance? Who will decide how/when the money will be spent?
5. What is intended for the "downtown connectors"?
quote:
Originally posted by pmcalk
1. Do we have any specifics on how the private/donated money will be spent? e.g., where will the gathering places be, how much will be spent per gathering places, will the donators have final say in what they will look like, etc....
2. Why was the 41st auto bridge dropped from the plan, and will it be possible to add later?
3. Land acquisition: How was the $54 million number derived? Was specific land identified, and if so, which land? What guarantees do we have over which lands will be acquired, and how that land will be used?
4. $54 million (or there abouts) seems awfully high for "maintainance". What sort of maintainance? Who will decide how/when the money will be spent?
5. What is intended for the "downtown connectors"?
I asked about "downtown connectors" and if that included making Houston, Denver or Boulder wider than they are today or some sort of mass transit along these streets. The answer was "No, the connector idea would consist of direction markers, gateways and lighting"
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
quote:
Its been said that river development should be done by the private sector. Do you think that private developers will build dams in our river? And if so, Can you give us some examples where this has been done previously?
The answer is yes. The existing Zink Lake Dam was built by the private sector.
NO. Zink was built with predominately public funds generated by the SALE of public property to the private sector.
quote:
Originally posted by carltonplace
quote:
Originally posted by pmcalk
1. Do we have any specifics on how the private/donated money will be spent? e.g., where will the gathering places be, how much will be spent per gathering places, will the donators have final say in what they will look like, etc....
2. Why was the 41st auto bridge dropped from the plan, and will it be possible to add later?
3. Land acquisition: How was the $54 million number derived? Was specific land identified, and if so, which land? What guarantees do we have over which lands will be acquired, and how that land will be used?
4. $54 million (or there abouts) seems awfully high for "maintainance". What sort of maintainance? Who will decide how/when the money will be spent?
5. What is intended for the "downtown connectors"?
I asked about "downtown connectors" and if that included making Houston, Denver or Boulder wider than they are today or some sort of mass transit along these streets. The answer was "No, the connector idea would consist of direction markers, gateways and lighting"
Wow. $15mm for direction markers, "gateways" (??????), and lighting. So we get some big yellow signs with arrows, or green & white ones with "river" and an arrow, more streetlights that we can't afford to keep lit. How quaint.
I think I'll start a new firm specializing in direction markers, gateways, and lighting unless the fix is already in for someone else. Sounds like a good gig.
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
quote:
Will the dams have to be the same cheaper Zink Lake designs as originally intended?
No intent was specified, just that two dams would be built at the locations determined by INCOG's Arkansas River Corridor Master Plan. The designs were dependent upon these locations and, thus, any design would have been premature.
Now that they have the locations, and now the 'dreams' defined, let V2025 build them.
Or, at least work within a budget. These dams have more than doubled in cost due simply to overachieving.
There had to be some intent because even with the matching funds and cost overages estimates the sums they were hoping to eventually get still wouldnt come close to building a dam like the one proposed for Sand Springs. The new Sand Springs design will be taller and have controllable release gates to allow for water to flow during the day. There is no way you can look at what they were hoping to get and then look at the amount these new dam designs will cost and think that they intended anything like these new dams.
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
Zink Lake dam was built in 1983 for a cost of $4 Million.
quote:
From TulsaWorld.com
1983 Zink Lake
A 1979 sales tax election to fund this project failed.
So in 1981, Tulsa's then-Mayor Jim Inhofe took another approach.
The Tulsa Urban Renewal Authority sold land along the west bank of the river and at 61st Street and Riverside Drive to Lincoln Property Co.
The city used the proceeds from those sales, investment revenue and private donations to pay for the $8 million dam and related projects.
The dam is named after John Steele Zink, whose family foundation was a major private contributor to the project.
$8M for the dam, plus likely more for the pedestrian bridge, shoreline enhancements, etc. in 1983 money.
You're mistating what you read.
$8 Million total for "dam and related projects"
That's $4 Million for dam + $4 Million for related projects, in 1983 money. Though, in truth, I don't recall any 'related projects', just the $4 Million dam, unless they're counting some financing of some sort. But, the City did not pay any monies, just contributed land. At least, that's what was said then. Ostensibly, the land was already in City stock at the time. However, I find that a bit questionable, especially for the tract at Riverside and Denver.
Since the entire project was a 'private' development, citizens weren't really consulted much about it then. It wasn't as the World is stating it in yesterday's article, where the City actually paid for it. The dam was donated to the City. The City reciprocated with the 3 land tracts (not two).
Additional monies were spent from the 3rd penny for the road reconfiguration around 21st, the public works building, fountains, et al around 1997. That's probably the $10M you're remembering.
IAC, $4 Million in 1983 inflated to today's dollars would be just over $8 Million.
quote:
Originally posted by Vision 2025
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
quote:
Its been said that river development should be done by the private sector. Do you think that private developers will build dams in our river? And if so, Can you give us some examples where this has been done previously?
The answer is yes. The existing Zink Lake Dam was built by the private sector.
NO. Zink was built with predominately public funds generated by the SALE of public property to the private sector.
This would be revisionist history.
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
quote:
Will the dams have to be the same cheaper Zink Lake designs as originally intended?
No intent was specified, just that two dams would be built at the locations determined by INCOG's Arkansas River Corridor Master Plan. The designs were dependent upon these locations and, thus, any design would have been premature.
Now that they have the locations, and now the 'dreams' defined, let V2025 build them.
Or, at least work within a budget. These dams have more than doubled in cost due simply to overachieving.
There had to be some intent because even with the matching funds and cost overages estimates the sums they were hoping to eventually get still wouldnt come close to building a dam like the one proposed for Sand Springs. The new Sand Springs design will be taller and have controllable release gates to allow for water to flow during the day. There is no way you can look at what they were hoping to get and then look at the amount these new dam designs will cost and think that they intended anything like these new dams.
That's because the current 'plan' contains dam and channel projects from 'The Channels' rather than INCOG's Arkansas River Corridor Master Plan.
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
quote:
Will the dams have to be the same cheaper Zink Lake designs as originally intended?
No intent was specified, just that two dams would be built at the locations determined by INCOG's Arkansas River Corridor Master Plan. The designs were dependent upon these locations and, thus, any design would have been premature.
Now that they have the locations, and now the 'dreams' defined, let V2025 build them.
Or, at least work within a budget. These dams have more than doubled in cost due simply to overachieving.
There had to be some intent because even with the matching funds and cost overages estimates the sums they were hoping to eventually get still wouldnt come close to building a dam like the one proposed for Sand Springs. The new Sand Springs design will be taller and have controllable release gates to allow for water to flow during the day. There is no way you can look at what they were hoping to get and then look at the amount these new dam designs will cost and think that they intended anything like these new dams.
That's because the current 'plan' contains dam and channel projects from 'The Channels' rather than INCOG's Arkansas River Corridor Master Plan.
Channels:
increase size of existing low water dam, create artificial island between 21st and 31st.
Current:
Build new dams at sand springs and jenks. Discard plans for further dams, dredge out channel throughout midtown area.
Yeah, same thing.
Question: how much did it cost to build the Bricktown improvements (including the canal)? How much did it cost to build the Oklahoma River improvements?
What surrounding communities around OKC refused to participate?
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
Question: how much did it cost to build the Bricktown improvements (including the canal)? How much did it cost to build the Oklahoma River improvements?
What surrounding communities around OKC refused to participate?
MAPS is a city tax, not a county tax. They don't compare.
quote:
Originally posted by Double A
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
Question: how much did it cost to build the Bricktown improvements (including the canal)? How much did it cost to build the Oklahoma River improvements?
What surrounding communities around OKC refused to participate?
MAPS is a city tax, not a county tax. They don't compare.
The suburbs around okc give a rats ___ about the city as well, unlike Tulsa.
Sorry... this is a two part question..
In light of the recent catastrophic bridge collapse in Minnesota, wouldn't it be better use of County funds to repair the bridges listed as having serious structural issues, than to fund playgrounds and frivolities on the River...?
In Tulsa County that is.
If this tax increase is designed to bolster "Sales Tax" revenue... so that we can do the major infrastructure repairs.
Would you say we are about 7 years out on being able to commence these structural repairs.
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
quote:
Will the dams have to be the same cheaper Zink Lake designs as originally intended?
No intent was specified, just that two dams would be built at the locations determined by INCOG's Arkansas River Corridor Master Plan. The designs were dependent upon these locations and, thus, any design would have been premature.
Now that they have the locations, and now the 'dreams' defined, let V2025 build them.
Or, at least work within a budget. These dams have more than doubled in cost due simply to overachieving.
There had to be some intent because even with the matching funds and cost overages estimates the sums they were hoping to eventually get still wouldnt come close to building a dam like the one proposed for Sand Springs. The new Sand Springs design will be taller and have controllable release gates to allow for water to flow during the day. There is no way you can look at what they were hoping to get and then look at the amount these new dam designs will cost and think that they intended anything like these new dams.
That's because the current 'plan' contains dam and channel projects from 'The Channels' rather than INCOG's Arkansas River Corridor Master Plan.
Channels:
increase size of existing low water dam, create artificial island between 21st and 31st.
Current:
Build new dams at sand springs and jenks. Discard plans for further dams, dredge out channel throughout midtown area.
Yeah, same thing.
The current plan extracts the "Living River" component of "The Channels" plan, even if it MUST be modified somewhat to exclude the impounded river to Sand Springs and the Island.
This requires raising the level of Zink Lake by approximately two feet and using the Sand Springs dam retention as a moderator. Then the 500-foot wide channel from Zink dam to Jenks dam to provide constant water flow (i.e. "Living" part of river).
This does not conform with INCOG's Arkansas River Corridor Master Plan which calls only for two additional, similar dams for Jenks and Sand Springs, and no channelization. Though, the SS dam would need to be taller to allow some moderation of flow.
Now, let's speak more about the "discard plans for further dams" part.
Here's something I hadn't heard before. The article is dated July 2006:
quote:
"Fisheries biologists from the Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation made an all-too-familiar discovery recently. While conducting research on striped bass in the Arkansas River, zebra mussels were found below Zink Dam in Tulsa. With the recent discovery of zebra mussels in Sooner and Skiatook lakes, this makes the third new location for zebra mussels this summer."
The source is HERE (//%22http://www.backwoodsbound.com/zznewv07i07.html%22)
So, I guess the question would be, "What effect will Zebra Mussels have on these projects?"
quote:
Originally posted by Double A
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
Question: how much did it cost to build the Bricktown improvements (including the canal)? How much did it cost to build the Oklahoma River improvements?
What surrounding communities around OKC refused to participate?
MAPS is a city tax, not a county tax. They don't compare.
That's naive. Everyone compares Bricktown/Oklahoma river development to our river development. I want to compare the cost of OKC development to ours as well as the benefits derived. They faced the same arguments that we are facing and overcame them. Are you afraid of that comparison?
Not to mention, as I have stated before, the city of OKC is larger than Tulsa County.
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
quote:
Originally posted by Double A
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
Question: how much did it cost to build the Bricktown improvements (including the canal)? How much did it cost to build the Oklahoma River improvements?
What surrounding communities around OKC refused to participate?
MAPS is a city tax, not a county tax. They don't compare.
That's naive. Everyone compares Bricktown/Oklahoma river development to our river development. I want to compare the cost of OKC development to ours as well as the benefits derived. They faced the same arguments that we are facing and overcame them. Are you afraid of that comparison?
I think he's just saying the funding mechanism doesn't compare. There has to be a MAPS web site which would have the info. I've got a lot on my plate right now, otherwise I'd look it up myself.
The INCOG design on the gates for these dams is the SAME laydown gate that also never worked at Zink - despite all protestation that it isn't --so the only actual difference is in the IDEA that there will be passage built into the structures and a slope to the downstream side to alleviate the drowning machine effect of drop weir dams. The gates only real structural difference is that they would be wider and that they would open them during the months of March through May to allow migrating fish to pass -- as I recall this was also the promise when Zink was constructed -- basically we STILL will be getting the same dams sans a drop weir -- aren't we ALREADY spending millions to remove sand and silt from behind Zink -- I don't believe for one minute they will operate any new "ponds" as promised. Once filled these ponds will be kept at a constant level for one reason or the other -- too many unanswered questions for my liking -- IF it could be shown by relevant studies and the gates opening during those months written into law then I MIGHT get behind this.
Question: Mass transit could be used to link the many proposed redevelopment areas along this linear corridor, enhancing the potential for efficient, less car-dependent, growth, especially between a revitalizing downtown and a booming Jenks.
With rising gas prices and mounting costs for road maintenance, some feel that we should take this opportunity to rethink the way we develop in the Tulsa region. Can we build in ways that aren't quite so car dependent?
There has been virtually no talk about mass transit in the run up to this bond issue, and as far as I can see, mass transit is not a priority. Was there a conscious decision to exclude mass transit from this vote? Was it an accidental oversight? Are there things in this bond that I haven't heard about? -- CL, Tulsa
quote:
Originally posted by Chicken Little
Question: Mass transit could be used to link the many proposed redevelopment areas along this linear corridor, enhancing the potential for efficient, less car-dependent, growth, especially between a revitalizing downtown and a booming Jenks.
With rising gas prices and mounting costs for road maintenance, some feel that we shold take this opportunity to rethink the way we develop in the Tulsa region. Can we build in ways that aren't quite so car dependent?
There has been virtually no talk about mass transit in the run up to this bond issue, and as far as I can see, mass transit is not a priority. Was there a conscious decision to exclude mass transit from this vote? Was it an accidental oversight? Are there things in this bond that I haven't heard about?
Good question. I hope it makes it to the forum tonight so the "yes" people can shine some light on it.
It might be a loaded question. If you look at the Corridor Plan, the BNSF line runs right down the west bank, connecting Jenks to downtown. It goes right through the planned redevelopment areas. It's a perfect alignment, and I don't think it's heavily used for freight. There's been no mention of this other than a few odd comments on this board...and nothing in the vote, so far as I know. It's bummng me out.
My fear is, if we blow this opportunity to think big, we'll end up with a bunch of parking lots and strip malls all along the River. And if we do that, we'll end up having to build a massive new Riverside Drive on the west to support them.
So, if you set the bar too low, we could end up reaching it. And if we reach it, we could end up with a mess that is not easy to fix. Sort of a self-fulfilling prophecy for those who lack vision.
quote:
Originally posted by Chicken Little
It might be a loaded question. If you look at the Corridor Plan, the BNSF line runs right down the west bank, connecting Jenks to downtown. It goes right through the planned redevelopment areas. It's a perfect alignment, and I don't think it's heavily used for freight. There's been no mention of this other than a few odd comments on this board...and nothing in the vote, so far as I know. It's bummng me out.
My fear is, if we blow this opportunity to think big, we'll end up with a bunch of parking lots and strip malls all along the River. And if we do that, we'll end up having to build a massive new Riverside Drive on the west to support them.
So, if you set the bar too low, we could end up reaching it. And if we reach it, we could end up with a mess that is not easy to fix. Sort of a self-fulfilling prophecy for those who lack vision.
I can't say for certain, but I believe that is primarily a "spotter" line used for shuttling rail cars around the refinery and other industries in the 41st & Elwood area. You are correct, that would be a great use of existing transportation infrastructure to get from the Jenks area to the Tulsa part of the development.
^It's the result of so many non-connected plans. We've got a transportation plan that includes mass transportation along the west bank of the river, but the river plan does not seem to dovetail that plan. We also have the RedFork mainstreet program, and the Brookside plan, yet they all seem complete separate from eachother. I am still wondering about the downtown connectors, and how that plays with the downtown plan. I am not saying its a bad plan, but I just worry that no one looks at the bigger picture. My greatest hope is that the new comp plan will somehow tie everything together.
quote:
Originally posted by pmcalk
^It's the result of so many non-connected plans. We've got a transportation plan that includes mass transportation along the west bank of the river, but the river plan does not seem to dovetail that plan. We also have the RedFork mainstreet program, and the Brookside plan, yet they all seem complete separate from eachother. I am still wondering about the downtown connectors, and how that plays with the downtown plan. I am not saying its a bad plan, but I just worry that no one looks at the bigger picture. My greatest hope is that the new comp plan will somehow tie everything together.
There may be some disconnection in some of the planning efforts here in Tulsa, pmcalk, but the River Plan and Mass Transportation planning effort we are currently undergoing is not one of them. I promise.