South Tulsa Bridge Update

[Bat Bat]

I received the following email last night from the South Tulsa Citizens Coalition.

Dear STCC Supporter -

At a press conference this afternoon, Muscogee (Creek) Nation Principal Chief A.D. Ellis confirmed that the Creek Nation plans to construct a bridge near 121st and Yale Avenue.  Chief Ellis said their application to place the land into trust will be filed with the Bureau of Indian Affairs within 3 months. See http://www.tulsaworld.com/site/printerfriendlystory.aspx?articleid=20090820_11_0_Muscog757885

In addition to Chief Ellis' oral confirmation about the Creek Nation's plans for a bridge, the STCC has obtained a conceptual drawing of the Creek Nation's plans for the bridge.  Based on this drawing, the Creek Nation plans to construct a bridge that will connect on the south side of the Arkansas River near 131st St. and Yale Pl. and extend to the north side of the Arkansas River landing on a 121st St. between Yale Ave. and Sheridan Ave.  The drawing does not show any infrastructure improvements that the Creek Nation plans for the City of Tulsa's streets and intersections. 

As was the case with the Cities of Jenks and Bixby, the Creek Nation has decided to create these plans, purchase the land and begin the trust application process all unilaterally without consulting either the City of Tulsa or the abutting neighborhoods and homeowners.  Further, the Creek Nation has taken these steps despite the January 22, 2008 Oklahoma Supreme Court ruling that the bridge cannot be built without the City of Tulsa's participation and consent.  It is unfortunate that the Creek Nation failed to even attempt to reach a cooperative agreement with the City of Tulsa or abutting neighborhoods and homeowners before proceeding down this path.

The STCC has been entrenched in the bridge issue for almost 5 years.  It has been a rollercoaster ride with many ups, downs and twists along the way, and by Chief Ellis' comments today the ride is not yet over.  So, please buckle up and know that the STCC is prepared to fight a vigorous legal and political battle no matter the adversary until the bridge is planned and constructed in responsible way that does not detrimentally affect the City of Tulsa.

The STCC will do its best to keep you abreast of any new developments.  As always, we thank you for your support.

South Tulsa Citizens Coalition
www.movethatbridge.com

[cannon_fodder]

Someone enlighten me:

Why do various people want to build this bridge so badly?  Private companies.  Jenks/Bixby.  And now an Indian Nation.

Why do various people not want this bridge to be built so badly?  The City of Tulsa.  Neighborhoods in South Tulsa. 

[Bat Bat]

The developers / Bixby / Jenks / Indians want the bridge because they are going to make it a toll bridge and keep the profits from the bridge.  I think a couple of years back a bond company issued a report that had the profits in the $500 million + range (however I think this was over a period of 50 years or something like that).

The City of Tulsa / neighbors don't want the bridge until someone comes up with a plan and the money to widen the streets and intersections that will be affected by the increased traffice from the bridge.

That's my take in a nutshell.

[swake]

I wouldn't think that the Oklahoma Supreme Court ruling would have any standing with the Creek Nation. What's more, when/if the land on the Tulsa side of the river is place into trust, that land won't be IN Tulsa anymore, it will be federal land in the Creek Nation on both sides of the river. The Creek Nation can build roads and bridges all it wants on own it's own trust land.

The city has a losing hand, at best they can slow the placement of this land into trust. It's time to make the best deal possible. See if the Creek Nation will make a deal where the city agrees not to fight this land or the land further north across from the casino being placed into trust in exchange for some infrastructure money.

[Townsend]

The city has a losing hand, at best they can slow the placement of this land into trust. It's time to make the best deal possible. See if the Creek Nation will make a deal where the city agrees not to fight this land or the land further north across from the casino being placed into trust in exchange for some infrastructure money.

I was under the impression the city of Tulsa can refuse connection to it's streets from the bridge if it's built.

Did I misunderstand?

[waterboy]

I was under the impression the city of Tulsa can refuse connection to it's streets from the bridge if it's built.

Did I misunderstand?

And they should refuse connection. The key word here is unilateral.

Swake, when did you become such a Jenks COC booster?

[HazMatCFO]

Tulsa has zero interest in helping make Jenks or Bixby more prosperous while it goes broke. I suspect if the bridge owners give the City of Tulsa a larger slice of the profits on the tolls, something will get done.

[sgrizzle]

The connecting point proposed is not great and it is 3 miles from a road larger than two lanes. Tulsa is mainly concerned with getting the roads in the area ready for the traffic and also trying to force the bridge to be build in such a way that cars are forced to riverside.

[swake]

And they should refuse connection. The key word here is unilateral.

Swake, when did you become such a Jenks COC booster?

Waterboy, I didn't really comment on if I was for or against the bridge, I commented on the reality of the situation and what the city should do. And no, I don't think the City of Tulsa can block off the bridge if the land is placed into the trust anymore than Tulsa could build a wall on the 96th street bridge blocking access into Jenks. Owasso would have walled off north Tulsa years ago if they could have.

As for your Jenks COC crack, first off, I live in Jenks, though not in an area that would be served by this bridge.

Second, I am in favor of this bridge, and Tulsans should be too. This isn't going to funnel prosperity out of Tulsa, it's going to improve access to Tulsa for people that live in south Jenks and in Bixby. The bridge will mean that the residents in this area will be more likely to travel into Tulsa to shop. Leave them cut off and they will shop in Jenks, Glenpool and Bixby. This is a net gain for Tulsa, not a loss. The bridge actually will help Tulsa's sales tax situation.

Third, the arguments against the bridge are often nonsensical and self serving for a group of very wealthy homeowners that don't want more traffic or the streets developed in their area.  Despite the bridge, Yale, 121st and Riverside all being designated as future 4 lane major arterial streets in city and regional planning. The idea that the bridge is going to "suck prosperity" out of Tulsa is ridiculous. The idea that kids at Jenks South East Elementary could be killed by trucks barreling down Yale is really ridiculous.
 
Jenks and Tulsa should have built this bridge together, split the income and used it to develop the streets and river in the area. But thanks to the south Tulsa homeowners group and Tulsa's worthless city council we are way past that now. I agree with Grizzle about the preferable connection being to riverside than to 121st, but the site is where it is at this point. Tulsa should negotiate for some money to help improve the intersections and install stoplights in at 111th and Sheridan, 101st and Riverside and to widen Yale from 96th to 111th with a stoplights at 111th and 121st.

[MDepr2007]

As Mayor , Dewey would allow the bridge and then get them to use pikepass for the tolls

[Bat Bat]

The process the Creeks must go through to build the bridge is (1) have the BIA accept the land into federal trust (a 3 to 5 year process), (2) get the Corps of Engineers to approve the location and construction of the bridge (a 2 to 3 year process), and (3) actually build the bridge (another 2 year or so process).  So, at best, it will actually be at least 7 years before the bridge is constructed.

If the BIA accepts the land into federal trust for the Creeks, then the City of Tulsa has little it can do at that point in time.  However, the BIA first has to accept the land into federal trust and there are a many a slip between a cup and lip before that takes place.  There are numerous requirements that the Creeks must meet before the BIA will do this and then it really is up to the BIA at that point in time.  I personally don't think it is a slam dunk for the Creeks by any means.

As to imroving acces between Bixby, Jenks and Tulsa, I don't think anyone disputes that a new bridge would increase access between those cities.  I however do dispute that this one bridge will mean a huge influx of  residents to travel into Tulsa for the sole purpose of shopping.  Will there be negligible influx?  Yes.  Will there be such influx as to skew the City of Tulsa's sales tax in a positive direction?  No.  The residents of Bixby and Jenks already buy most of their products in Tulsa on their way to and from home and work or when they are in Tulsa for other purposes.

As to the point about a group of very wealthy nonsensical homeowners, to me these homeowners are concerned about where the money is going to come from to improve the streets when the bridge is built.  I don't think that is nonsensical.  I actually appreciate them spending their own money to watch out for Tulsa's interest.  I don't think this bridge will suck the prosperity out of Tulsa and I haven't heard the homeowners make that argument.  As for the school near 101st and Yale, I have driven down by the school and think there is a legitimate public safety concern for the children and parents.  

As to who should build the bridge, I agree that Bixby / Jenks / Tulsa should have built the bridge togher and all of the profits should have gone to street improvements and after all of the streets had been improved they could have split the profits.  However, based on what I read in the paper, that was never an option.  Bixby and Jenks had a contract with the private investors where the private investers kept 80% of the profits.  Bixby and Jenks didn't have enough of the pie to offer the City of Tulsa any meaningful amount and the private investors wouldn't give up any of their share.  

I agree that the better connection point is Riverside.

I disagree that the just because the Creeks bought some land that the connection point is now set in stone.  

I also disagree that the City of Tulsa should negotiate and settle with only a few streets and intersections improved.  The City of Tulsa and the homeowners group can cause the Creeks a lot of trouble and headaches over a 7 year bridge building process.  And mind you that this is in no way a slam dunk for the Creeks that the BIA will accept the land into trust or that the Corps of Engineers will approve the construciton of a bridge at that location.  

I think the Creeks should make the connection point Riverside and I think that if the Creeks are going to build the bridge, if the Creeks are going to make the bridge a toll bridge and if the Creeks are going to receive all of the profits from the bridge, then the Creeks should have to pay for "all" of the street improvements that result from the bridge.

[MacGyver]

...  The bridge will mean that the residents in this area will be more likely to travel into Tulsa to shop. Leave them cut off and they will shop in Jenks, Glenpool and Bixby. This is a net gain for Tulsa, not a loss. The bridge actually will help Tulsa's sales tax situation.

swake,

I'm trying to understand this line of thinking. 

What shopping is there in Deep South Tulsa?  I can think of some strip malls, essentially convenience shopping, but no destination shopping areas, like Woodland Hills, Promenade, Tulsa Hills, Utica Square - my apologies to midtown for including the last example with others - that might be best reached by taking 75, the Creek Turnpike, or going up Memorial.   

Where is it south of the Creek Turnpike that these people from Bixby and Jenks are going? 

Otherwise this bridge means that Yale becomes an artery to the Creek and way for people in west Bixby and Jenks to get to the Bixby's new shopping on Memorial.

MG

[waterboy]

The details of the location of the bridge, and its resulting impact on area streets and neighborhoods is best determined by those who live in that area. I am only slightly aware of those considerations having spent my life in midtown. However, I worked in the areas described, putting 30000 miles on a car in a year travelling those roads, so I am comfortable in saying that there is opportunity for increased commerce for both sides of the river should a bridge be built. I also know that the existing arterial roads in the area are mostly two lane, no curbs, open ditches, few left turn lanes, congested at peak travel periods and will need to be upgraded.

I never said that Tulsa should build walls between communities. That was a stretch of your own imagination. But effectively ignoring upgrades to surrounding roads that connect to a bridge someone else builds, for purposes not entirely agreed upon, with the hubris that the Creeks display..... is not farfetched. So far this bridge connection has been proposed by private investors for private gain on public properties or has been proposed by another nation who will usurp public lands by using bureacratic devices for essentially- private investment for private gain. Thats it isn't it? Tulsa is just the host in both scenarios and we're expected to just pony up our taxes and improve the surrounding roads to make sure that one of these parties is enriched.

Of course, the argument proffered is that Tulsa will benefit as well from the increased commerce. That has merit to me. Not that it will increase commerce for Tulsa, but more likely that if we don't allow the bridge, then by default each of these communities will be forced to focus their attention to growing and improving their own cities (such a tragedy, eh?) with the amenities they so covet in Tulsa. Our commerce could diminish. Tulsa then suffers the same outcome predicted that the bridge would suck business and taxes out of the city. In effect, either way offers Tulsa very little to gain. Only, one way costs us less outlay in taxes.

So the key issue to me is not the bridge, but who gets to build it, operate it, maintain it and profit from it. If Tulsa doesn't get to be in at the start and be part of the consortium, then screw the others. We end up with less outlay and the same outcome.

[Wilbur]

Where is it south of the Creek Turnpike that these people from Bixby and Jenks are going? 

I think the bigger issue for STCC is, people south of the Creek Turnpike bought homes (expensive ones at that) believing, and rightfully so, that the roads south of the Creek Turnpike would not turn into a Memorial.  It was a belief that, there was no destination headed north/south to require larger roads because the river would stop any natural high traffic route.  People try to believe in the master plan for roads and, when one looks, nothing is in place for the bridge.

Now, some private folks come along, build a bridge, which puts the requirement on the city to build bigger roads to handle the traffic, which causes home values to plummet, and all to no fault of the home owner.

There is no property south of the Creek Turnpike to build large shopping areas.  That is exactly why these people bought homes in these areas.

[Red Arrow]

My 2 cents worth.  Some thoughts have already been presented by others.  Disclaimer, I live a little east of Memorial, south of 111th.

South Tulsa Citizens Coalition doesn't want a bridge, period.  I can't say as I blame them but too bad.  When our family moved here in 1971,  my parents wanted to be a bit out in the country but not quite the boonies.  Memorial was 2 lanes south of the RR tracks at 41st and Memorial.  It didn't matter because there was nothing here.  If the rest of the area had been developed with large lots instead of 5 houses per acre, Memorial wouldn't need to be 6 lanes.  People wanting a more dense environment could have stayed in  mid-town Tulsa.  Moving along, Yale is a major arterial.  Even without a bridge, traffic is going to get worse as drivers avoid Memorial as long as possible (121st and Sheridan or Yale or along Delaware to 121st). Count me as one of those drivers. I do not take the Creek home from Jenks because Memorial is so crowded at the busy at the rush 1/2 hour.  If/when a bridge is built, it needs easy access to both Delaware/121st and Yale.  I go along with the theory that if no bridge is built, shopping opportunities south of the river will be built.  The argument that the drivers living south of the river already buy in Tulsa is time limited.  Building a bridge to Yale/Delaware will reduce the requirements to continually widen Peoria and Memorial.  This falls in line with some of the ideas presented here for more 1/2 mile through streets. People living south of the river will gladly pay a toll.  A co-worker lives there and said that "the bridge" would save him 7 miles each way to work.  I know the mid-towners will say so what, he should live north of the river.  Folks south of the river want better access to places on Yale.  Access to St Francis hospital is a real issue.  Access to Promenade at 41st and Yale (and possibly Utica Square) would be better served by Yale than Delaware or Memorial.  No one here is going to stop the development south of the river.  Cutting them off is not going to help Tulsa  at all. Half of  the "Bixby" shopping along Memorial between 101st and 111th is actually Tulsa on the west side of the road.

The semi-rich folks near Yale need to realize they will eventually get screwed just like the rest of us.  The really rich folks actually live along Knoxville, I believe.  Tulsa needs to get involved with this bridge to get some revenue to improve Yale and Delaware.  There is no question that these roads need to be improved. Tulsa needs to not stick its head in the sand on this issue.