Tulsa firm designing low water dams.

[Vision 2025]

quote:Originally posted by SXSW

quote:Originally posted by Vision 2025

quote:Originally posted by SXSW

I just don't understand why OKC was able to include locks with their low water dams (and thus create a navigable river through the city) while we are not.  Of course I'm not an Arkansas River expert and the Arkansas and Oklahoma Rivers are very different.  However when I drive over the Okla. River in OKC and see riverboats using the locks I wonder why the same thing couldn't happen in Tulsa with a larger, more scenic river with actual attractions along the banks??

I can understand your frustration.  There are many differences between the two rivers.  One huge difference is that here in Tulsa we have several federally endangered species that were not present in the previously brush-hogged Oklahoma River lakes corridor.  In addition we have multiple industrial and municipal discharge sources that work well in moving water but would not bode well in a series of constant shallow pool lakes.  

Remember, these projects are (potentially) the first of many possible projects along and in the river as identified in the Arkansas River Corridor Master Plan and hopefully as it becomes feasible additional projects and enhancements can be added.

I understand we have more issues than the Oklahoma River, I figured as much.  However similar large rivers like the Missouri and Ohio have low water dams that allow navigation on the river, and I'm sure they have the same issues with endangered species and industrial discharge.  Wouldn't the dams already be designed to keep water flowing, even at low levels?  I don't see how having a lock on one side (the deeper, rockier west bank most likely) would greatly affect the dam or the river.

Question:  Are you wanting to lock through so you can float down or be able to run both directions?

[SXSW]

Creating the ability for small boats and potentially a river ferry to go from each "lake" to the next (up and down) would be the goal of the locks.  In Omaha, Pittsburgh, Louisville, and other inland river cities people keep their small boats at marinas on the river and use the river as an urban recreational lake.  I don't see why we couldn't do that in Tulsa if the water level was sufficient behind the dams and there were locks so that you could go from, say, Bixby to Sand Springs.  

It would be amazing if you could one day go from Tulsa to the Kerr navigation system at Muskogee but in the mean time it would be good to be able to boat in the city.  I'm not sure how deep it would require the river to be but probably somewhere from 8-10 ft.

Waterboy seems to know more about the river than anyone on here, maybe he can provide some wisdom on the issue of locks...

[Gaspar]

I'm glad to see the progress.  

CH2M is not a Tulsa company.  They are an international company who's United States home office is in Englewood Colorado.  

They have an office at 502 S. Main Street in Tulsa where they get their mail.  They also have post office boxes in nearly every city with a population over 300,000.  

Tulsa World should know that!

They are a very good firm with lots of similar projects all over the world.  This will be another good low water dam project for them.  I hope we get a spot on the wall in their London office! [:I]

[waterboy]

quote:Originally posted by SXSW

Creating the ability for small boats and potentially a river ferry to go from each "lake" to the next (up and down) would be the goal of the locks.  In Omaha, Pittsburgh, Louisville, and other inland river cities people keep their small boats at marinas on the river and use the river as an urban recreational lake.  I don't see why we couldn't do that in Tulsa if the water level was sufficient behind the dams and there were locks so that you could go from, say, Bixby to Sand Springs.  

It would be amazing if you could one day go from Tulsa to the Kerr navigation system at Muskogee but in the mean time it would be good to be able to boat in the city.  I'm not sure how deep it would require the river to be but probably somewhere from 8-10 ft.

Waterboy seems to know more about the river than anyone on here, maybe he can provide some wisdom on the issue of locks...

I have spent time talking with Mr. V2025. He has great technical knowledge about the river. Worked on construction of the Zink Dam so he knows where the bones are buried. However, we learned about this river in different ways! I don't know what depth would be required at the lock, I assume it would depend on the design, but as far as navigability for small ferries or excursion boats using poly logs as floatation, you could make it upstream from Zink Lake to Sand Springs with a depth of 3ft at the 11th street bridge. I know, I've done it with a 30ft long tri-toon and an inboard/outboard setup. With a little help from a hover cushion you could do it with a lot less.

[SXSW]

quote:Originally posted by waterboy

quote:Originally posted by SXSW

Creating the ability for small boats and potentially a river ferry to go from each "lake" to the next (up and down) would be the goal of the locks.  In Omaha, Pittsburgh, Louisville, and other inland river cities people keep their small boats at marinas on the river and use the river as an urban recreational lake.  I don't see why we couldn't do that in Tulsa if the water level was sufficient behind the dams and there were locks so that you could go from, say, Bixby to Sand Springs.  

It would be amazing if you could one day go from Tulsa to the Kerr navigation system at Muskogee but in the mean time it would be good to be able to boat in the city.  I'm not sure how deep it would require the river to be but probably somewhere from 8-10 ft.

Waterboy seems to know more about the river than anyone on here, maybe he can provide some wisdom on the issue of locks...

I have spent time talking with Mr. V2025. He has great technical knowledge about the river. Worked on construction of the Zink Dam so he knows where the bones are buried. However, we learned about this river in different ways! I don't know what depth would be required at the lock, I assume it would depend on the design, but as far as navigability for small ferries or excursion boats using poly logs as floatation, you could make it upstream from Zink Lake to Sand Springs with a depth of 3ft at the 11th street bridge. I know, I've done it with a 30ft long tri-toon and an inboard/outboard setup. With a little help from a hover cushion you could do it with a lot less.

Surely we can get at least 6' in the channel at all times (except extreme drought)?  That would allow most small motorboats and cruisers.

Low water dams with locks on the west bank and then a spillway that more resembles at natural waterfall would be great.  Something like St. Anthony's Lock/Dam in Minneapolis on a smaller scale:

[TheArtist]

You might be able to have a ferry that goes from Zink to Sand Springs but it would take one heck of a dam to put enough water in the river from Jenks up to Zink. If your wanting some sort of viable transportation from Jenks to Tulsa and SS, rail would be cheaper. Otherwise these locks would be purely recreational. Right?  BTW, What would be the  typical cost of a lock for a dam like these anyway?

[waterboy]

quote:Originally posted by TheArtist

You might be able to have a ferry that goes from Zink to Sand Springs but it would take one heck of a dam to put enough water in the river from Jenks up to Zink. If your wanting some sort of viable transportation from Jenks to Tulsa and SS, rail would be cheaper. Otherwise these locks would be purely recreational. Right?  BTW, What would be the  typical cost of a lock for a dam like these anyway?

How do you figure that? If the dam at Jenks is as proposed it will back up water to at least I-44. At 4500cfs there is plenty of water between I-44 and Zink Lake. 75% of the last decade, the water has exceeded that level between 6pm and 2am which is when it most likely would transport riders.  

Viable transportation? You mean replacing Riverside commuter traffic? No, of course not.  But once again you look at it as utilitarian value and compare it to rail which is odd because there is no real need for dams on this river at all except to create watery visions and promote commercial river bank development. Actually, considering the cost of fuel, maintenance and railbed improvements hot air balloons and dirigibles would be cheaper than rail. Cost? The whole thing is too costly for utilitarian value.

[TheArtist]

quote:Originally posted by waterboy

quote:Originally posted by TheArtist

You might be able to have a ferry that goes from Zink to Sand Springs but it would take one heck of a dam to put enough water in the river from Jenks up to Zink. If your wanting some sort of viable transportation from Jenks to Tulsa and SS, rail would be cheaper. Otherwise these locks would be purely recreational. Right?  BTW, What would be the  typical cost of a lock for a dam like these anyway?

How do you figure that? If the dam at Jenks is as proposed it will back up water to at least I-44. At 4500cfs there is plenty of water between I-44 and Zink Lake. 75% of the last decade, the water has exceeded that level between 6pm and 2am which is when it most likely would transport riders.  

Viable transportation? You mean replacing Riverside commuter traffic? No, of course not.  But once again you look at it as utilitarian value and compare it to rail which is odd because there is no real need for dams on this river at all except to create watery visions and promote commercial river bank development. Actually, considering the cost of fuel, maintenance and railbed improvements hot air balloons and dirigibles would be cheaper than rail. Cost? The whole thing is too costly for utilitarian value.

But how much MORE is it going to cost? We both can agree we want water in the river, and that we will get. You and perhaps some others want locks for recreational purposes. I and some others may want other things, like real bathrooms, bleachers, etc at the V-ball courts. There are things you use that you think are important, there are things I use and that I think are important. Just curious how much yours will cost? What are we asking for here? Could be millions to tens of millions for all I know. That could do a looot of other things along the river which far more people would use.

[SXSW]

Of course rail is still the best option for mass commuter transit in the river valley (Bixby, Jenks, Tulsa, Sand Springs).  However for recreational and tourism purposes the locks could be very beneficial.  Multiple hour ferries could potentially run on weekends between Sand Springs, downtown (by the River's Edge or by the Rt. 66 Museum), the QuikTrip park at 41st, the Creek Casino, Riverwalk Crossing, the Aquarium, and eventually the River District.  Water taxis could run between the Jenks/South Tulsa river attractions so people could spend a day on the river without having to drive to the fairly spread-out attractions.  

For recreational purposes people could keep their boats on the river at a marina (maybe in the cove at the west bank festival park?) or you could rent a boat, kayak, or canoe.  I know I would consider moving my boat from Grand Lake to Tulsa if I could cruise down the river from Bixby to Sand Springs.  The river is already wide enough to be a small lake, all it needs now is to be constantly filled with water and a way to get from each pool to the next via locks.  I think there could potentially be a big market for Tulsans keeping their small motorboats on the river either just for recreation or fishing.  It gives you something else to do recreation-wise right in the city limits, something that could set Tulsa apart...

And I'm not sure about additional cost, but I believe it would be worth it in the LONG RUN.  A quote from OKC's former mayor Ron Norick:

And as for his prior role as mayor, Norick noted, "In the early days of the MAPS program, I recall some substantial debate as to the need to install locks in the two upstream dams. Today, with the official launch of Oklahoma River Cruises, it is pretty clear the city council chose wisely back then."

[waterboy]

I am pessimistic about any development of boating uses on the river. First off I don't relish private users docking their powerboats on it. We don't have the mentality for that kind of use. We don't have the administrative infrastructure. Issues of policing, licensing, safety, ecology, pollution, testing, even ownership of the river remain unresolved. As long as its easier and cheaper to ignore its usage thats what will happen. Human powered craft, perhaps, but as long as landlubber attitudes prevail here there will be no development of water activities.

Ask an engineer Artist. The cost must not be too prohibitive as OKC and tons of other communities have provided them. Of course they may not have as many bathrooms I guess. How much MORE will it cost for bathrooms, bleachers and volleyball courts? You know, those amenities so in demand by the homeless and deviates they attract?[] We can put bathrooms, bleachers and v-ball courts in any park in Tulsa, why is it so important along the river when all the great new shopping, casinos and restaurant/bars will provide them?

We both know you don't particularly care for water activities. Your remarks are akin to me asking why we spend so much public money on art museums and theatre cause so few of us visit them. This may not be your thread to comment on.

[Vision 2025]

quote:Originally posted by waterboy

quote:Originally posted by TheArtist

You might be able to have a ferry that goes from Zink to Sand Springs but it would take one heck of a dam to put enough water in the river from Jenks up to Zink. If your wanting some sort of viable transportation from Jenks to Tulsa and SS, rail would be cheaper. Otherwise these locks would be purely recreational. Right?  BTW, What would be the  typical cost of a lock for a dam like these anyway?

How do you figure that? If the dam at Jenks is as proposed it will back up water to at least I-44. At 4500cfs there is plenty of water between I-44 and Zink Lake. 75% of the last decade, the water has exceeded that level between 6pm and 2am which is when it most likely would transport riders.  

Viable transportation? You mean replacing Riverside commuter traffic? No, of course not.  But once again you look at it as utilitarian value and compare it to rail which is odd because there is no real need for dams on this river at all except to create watery visions and promote commercial river bank development. Actually, considering the cost of fuel, maintenance and railbed improvements hot air balloons and dirigibles would be cheaper than rail. Cost? The whole thing is too costly for utilitarian value.

The dam at Jenks will likely back water to just above 81st street, At this time it is not possible to go all the way to 51st both for hydraulic (although the use of flash boards on this structure also is an option and would accomplish that result and could easily be added in the future) and water quality concerns related to the discharge from the City's South Side WWTP.

Interesting discussion; unfortunately, much of what you are describing with a boat channel (sans locks which are quite expensive, I would venture the one in the photo might be 5-8 million per location with that approach flume) was included the living river concept (although not at that deep) that was in the defeated river proposal but is not in the reduced plan at this time but could easily be added in the future if funds become available and the desire is there.  

The dam in the photo is a good looking step weir, and is one of the design types that will be further evaluated although we are leaning (but not set) towards a more roughed type of structure.

We are beginning the scoping process and I anticipate including public refresher (likely meetings) program on the proposed improvements and to solicit fresh comments and floggings[].

[SXSW]

I'd be pleased, if locks are not to be included with this set of dams, to at least build them with their future addition in mind.  That could mean leaving one area where the future lock system could be installed, and it would be easier and more cost-effective than if we left it out completely.

And the southside water WWTP you mentioned, is that the facility by I-44 or the one by 71st?  It seems both are somehow connected to wastewater, and that both are sources of the "smell" people lament about it along the river.  Any way that "smell" could be lessened, or the facilities moved in the future?

[TheArtist]

quote:Originally posted by waterboy

I am pessimistic about any development of boating uses on the river. First off I don't relish private users docking their powerboats on it. We don't have the mentality for that kind of use. We don't have the administrative infrastructure. Issues of policing, licensing, safety, ecology, pollution, testing, even ownership of the river remain unresolved. As long as its easier and cheaper to ignore its usage thats what will happen. Human powered craft, perhaps, but as long as landlubber attitudes prevail here there will be no development of water activities.

Ask an engineer Artist. The cost must not be too prohibitive as OKC and tons of other communities have provided them. Of course they may not have as many bathrooms I guess. How much MORE will it cost for bathrooms, bleachers and volleyball courts? You know, those amenities so in demand by the homeless and deviates they attract?[] We can put bathrooms, bleachers and v-ball courts in any park in Tulsa, why is it so important along the river when all the great new shopping, casinos and restaurant/bars will provide them?

We both know you don't particularly care for water activities. Your remarks are akin to me asking why we spend so much public money on art museums and theatre cause so few of us visit them. This may not be your thread to comment on.

There isnt going to be any shopping or casinos at the 71st Vball courts. Those courts are used all the time, just about every day in the spring and summer there are people out there using them. On busy days it easily numbers in the hundreds. When I used to get weekly teams started with friends (havent been able to this year with the project I am working on) my friends alone would take up to 4 nets, sometimes more, thats 8 teams of 6 plus people on the sidelines. Then there were always other groups out there to boot. Its probably one of the most used sections of the park, period. There are like 3 little picnic tables and a couple porta potties. They also have large events there like the Sand Blazer Volley Ball Tournaments. BTW I bet more people use the Vball courts there, and the art museums and theaters, than use those boats.  The number of people in town that will use those things per dollar, is much better than the number of people who would use the locks per dollar. You would get a lot more bang for your buck, a lot more people using the Vball facilities, and appreciating it, than would use the locks, especially dollar per dollar. For 1  million you could probably get some great vball facilities which would serve more people than 4 or 5 million would for locks. Your always crying and *****ing about what you want, what you think is soooo important and expecting everyone to "jump on board", yet you dont give a crap and think as being stupid what others want or their opinions on the matter.

[waterboy]

quote:Originally posted by TheArtist

quote:Originally posted by waterboy

I am pessimistic about any development of boating uses on the river. First off I don't relish private users docking their powerboats on it. We don't have the mentality for that kind of use. We don't have the administrative infrastructure. Issues of policing, licensing, safety, ecology, pollution, testing, even ownership of the river remain unresolved. As long as its easier and cheaper to ignore its usage thats what will happen. Human powered craft, perhaps, but as long as landlubber attitudes prevail here there will be no development of water activities.

Ask an engineer Artist. The cost must not be too prohibitive as OKC and tons of other communities have provided them. Of course they may not have as many bathrooms I guess. How much MORE will it cost for bathrooms, bleachers and volleyball courts? You know, those amenities so in demand by the homeless and deviates they attract?[] We can put bathrooms, bleachers and v-ball courts in any park in Tulsa, why is it so important along the river when all the great new shopping, casinos and restaurant/bars will provide them?

We both know you don't particularly care for water activities. Your remarks are akin to me asking why we spend so much public money on art museums and theatre cause so few of us visit them. This may not be your thread to comment on.

There isnt going to be any shopping or casinos at the 71st Vball courts. Those courts are used all the time, just about every day in the spring and summer there are people out there using them. On busy days it easily numbers in the hundreds. When I used to get weekly teams started with friends (havent been able to this year with the project I am working on) my friends alone would take up to 4 nets, sometimes more, thats 8 teams of 6 plus people on the sidelines. Then there were always other groups out there to boot. Its probably one of the most used sections of the park, period. There are like 3 little picnic tables and a couple porta potties. They also have large events there like the Sand Blazer Volley Ball Tournaments. BTW I bet more people use the Vball courts there, and the art museums and theaters, than use those boats.  The number of people in town that will use those things per dollar, is much better than the number of people who would use the locks per dollar. You would get a lot more bang for your buck, a lot more people using the Vball facilities, and appreciating it, than would use the locks, especially dollar per dollar. For 1  million you could probably get some great vball facilities which would serve more people than 4 or 5 million would for locks. Your always crying and *****ing about what you want, what you think is soooo important and expecting everyone to "jump on board", yet you dont give a crap and think as being stupid what others want or their opinions on the matter.

Well I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings. Maybe not. Your remarks are just surprising to me. Yeah, Sand Volleyball...its hot. Everyone's doing it. We can't build those courts fast enough. Maybe you could talk Kaiser into giving you guys some real bathrooms and showers.  

Here's a little insight. I talk about what I know something about, am passionate about and I can gain enjoyment from enlightening others about. There are many threads I don't participate in because of the lack of one or more of those elements. It keeps me from comparing sand volleyball to river development issues. When I err in that general principal it doesn't take long for someone to make it clear to me.

BTW, I didn't start this thread nor was I the first to note how shortsighted building dams without provision for interconnectability is.

edit: I've played sand volleyball and I love volleyball in general. I wouldn't disparage it or make recommendations other than ask Kaiser for help. But you have no problem suggesting that the Sand Springs dam be as big as possible to make sure that water is available for the downstream impoundments even though I doubt you have ever been on the upper stretches of the river to see the ecological destruction it will cause, the habitats it will change, the wildlife it will impact. Just so you can have a pretty canvas as a background for Jenks development. Think about it.

And don't talk naughty anymore...

[cannon_fodder]

If we are going for economical ways to spruce up the community, the river dams are a really dumb way of doing it.  Public art is also a huge waste of resources from an economical perspective.  For the art budget of the BOk Center we could have painted tons of overpasses to look pretty.  Done fake brick medians on several streets and horde of other economical projects.

But sometimes, the most economical is not the best choice.  If we spend $60,000,000 on dams and locks would only cost only a little additional - we'd be fools not to find a way to fund them.  I don't know the practicality of it (2025 knows his stuff, I didn't believe him previously and looked the things he was saying up and he is nuts on), but if it is really a simple matter it would sure be fun to sail from Keystone to River Walk.

Certainly worth looking in to.  If, as 2025 suggested, it is simply not practical or the effect will be very limited.  Then don't bother.

But, in any event - I'd love to see better river access.  Let me get out there in my flat bottom boat and toss a rod.  Maybe a ferry for Oktoberfest.  Paddle boat rental.  SOMETHING!

Again, I'm not sure what is possible.  But we are spending well over $100,000,000.00 on the dams, river trails, and renovating river parks... I think trying to utilize the actual river for something other than scenery at those prices is a wise move.