South Tulsa Bridge Update

[swake]

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

People are will to travel for "destination" shopping and the bridge likely would not change the use of those areas. But it is the shopping areas at 101st/91st and Yale, 101st and Sheridan, 96th and Riverside and 81st and Lewis that would benefit.

Here's what will happen over the next 10-15 years if the bridge isn't built, 151st Street, which is already a 4 lane highway between Glenpool and Bixby will become the next 71st Street type corridor, and if that happens like the Smith Farm area in Owasso, it WILL suck sales taxes out of Tulsa. 151st will probably happen anyway, but the bridge would slow it greatly.

[MDepr2007]

People are will to travel for "destination" shopping and the bridge likely would not change the use of those areas. But it is the shopping areas at 101st/91st and Yale, 101st and Sheridan, 96th and Riverside and 81st and Lewis that would benefit.

Here's what will happen over the next 10-15 years if the bridge isn't built, 151st Street, which is already a 4 lane highway between Glenpool and Bixby will become the next 71st Street type corridor, and if that happens like the Smith Farm area in Owasso, it WILL suck sales taxes out of Tulsa. 151st will probably happen anyway, but the bridge would slow it greatly.

I would think people would use the bridge to leave Tulsa for shopping on 151st if it's developed. With the bridge they can count on more traffic going south, thus justifying building a center south of the river.

[HazMatCFO]

Plenty of open space to build a "destination" shopping center in the area south of 121st, east of Yale and west of Sheridan. In Tulsa city limits and would be a great sales tax opportunity for the city by getting Bixby and Jenks residents to shop there instead of a development south of the river.

To ease traffic worries, expand Riverside / 121st street to a 4 lane road or possibly 6 from Creek Turnpike to Memorial. If provided a a good road from the proposed bridge exit North of the river to the Creek via Riverside, I suspect more drivers would take that route instead of straight north on Yale. Especially if they're going to downtown via Creek to Highway 75.

Yale would still need to be widened to avoid congestion for the locals, but it's going to need to be expanded someday anyway. Why not strike a deal to get the toll bridge revenue to help offset some of the cost?

A compromise should be reached for the good of all and move forward. It's sad to see powerplays and fear the other side is going to make money get in the way of a bridge that will be good for all involved.

[Red Arrow]

Plenty of open space to build a "destination" shopping center in the area south of 121st, east of Yale and west of Sheridan.

To ease traffic worries, expand Riverside / 121st street to a 4 lane road or possibly 6 from Creek Turnpike to Memorial. If provided a a good road from the proposed bridge exit North of the river to the Creek via Riverside, I suspect more drivers would take that route instead of straight north on Yale. Especially if they're going to downtown via Creek to Highway 75.

Not building a bridge will practically guarantee commercial development along 151st.

One of the reasons there is still open space south of 121st is the possibility of it getting really wet.  Can I interest you in some water front property near the Everglades?

Straight north on Yale is the best bet for getting on the Creek, assuming Yale is properly improved.  Traffic at Riverside and the Creek Tpk and 101st is already a mess.  We need to relieve some of the congestion by providing alternate routes, not just always expanding existing routes.  Improving Delaware/Riverside will probably not cause drivers to take the Creek to 75 to go downtown.  It will probably cause them to stay on (free) Riverside.  If you send them north on Yale, they will most likely get on the turnpike to either Riverside or 75, depending on what part of downtown they want to go to.  People living along Yale will invent all kinds of possibilities to say no one wants to go on Yale.  I used to think the same about Memorial.  Yale will happen. Maybe not in the next year or two but it will happen.

[godboko71]

Part of the problem with he bridge, no one wants to include the City of Tulsa, no one wants to share revenue from the bridge to help offset the long term costs of maintaining the roads the bridge will connect to.

That would most likely be why thus far the leadership in the City of Tulsa has not been interested in the bridge. So instead of these cities working out a deal they ran to the Indians to get the land in a trust.

Personally I happen to agree with both sides, in the long run Tulsa will make the money to maintain the roads and the infrastructure, I also happen to think its silly to say the homeowners 100% don't want a bridge, what they want is to help dictate where it goes. I also see the homeowners side though, no one asked there input, no one on the other side of the river seems to care for the impact on there neighborhoods. Working with the homeowners and the City of Tulsa would mean the bridge could move forward and satisfy more people, and could be a "bridge" to better working relationships between the burbs and the City of Tulsa.

No party in this situation has handled this perfectly, but there is still time to work this out and make it right.

[da dawg]

Red Arrow-
I guess if I post this enough then everyone will understand that the STCC is NOT against the bridge...period.  That is why the name and website is and always has been movethatbridge.com not stopthatbridge...but movethatbridge. 
The STCC tried to work with the initial investors, IVI, County Commissioner Bob Dick and Clay Bird in 2005 but were laughed at and told this bridge was going in at Yale and there was nothing to be done about it so get used to it. We know where that got them.  Had they not been their cocky selves...this bridge would be built right now. Oh well.... that's what happens when you get all high and mighty.
The STCC has a group of 5000+ members from all parts of Tulsa and is extremely organized. It's not just a small group of "rich" South Tulsa homeowners with nothing to do. It is a group of well educated people who care about Tulsa and especially what happens financially for this city. The way this bridge is being shoved down the throats of ALL citizens of Tulsa is just wrong. 

[waterboy]

I agree. This is not about a bridge, but about the attitude and the arrogance of some key players. First trying to privatize it under the radar and without input from the surrounding areas. Then getting a tribe involved so they could leverage power using their special relationship with the federal govt. It just pissed people off.

[MacGyver]

People are will to travel for "destination" shopping and the bridge likely would not change the use of those areas. But it is the shopping areas at 101st/91st and Yale, 101st and Sheridan, 96th and Riverside and 81st and Lewis that would benefit.

Here's what will happen over the next 10-15 years if the bridge isn't built, 151st Street, which is already a 4 lane highway between Glenpool and Bixby will become the next 71st Street type corridor, and if that happens like the Smith Farm area in Owasso, it WILL suck sales taxes out of Tulsa. 151st will probably happen anyway, but the bridge would slow it greatly.

Thanks for your response, but the question still stands:  what shopping is there is deep south Tulsa that Bixby/Jenks residents are not going to have closer to them.  My sense is this is mostly strip mall development without any particular unique attraction.  Bixby and Jenks has and will have more strip malls.  I like the Bistro and the other businesses down there but I don't see anyone from Bixby/Jenks going there more often because of a Yale bridge.

I am in violent agreement with you that without any change in traffic flow, 151st or another corridor will develop like Owasso has and bleed Tulsa tax rolls further, but I just don't see the proposed Yale bridge as anything but arterial access for people that bought homes (too) far out and trucks full of toilet paper.

MG

[Red Arrow]

Red Arrow-
I guess if I post this enough then everyone will understand that the STCC is NOT against the bridge...period.  That is why the name and website is and always has been movethatbridge.com not stopthatbridge...but movethatbridge. 
The STCC tried to work with the initial investors, IVI, County Commissioner Bob Dick and Clay Bird in 2005 but were laughed at and told this bridge was going in at Yale and there was nothing to be done about it so get used to it. We know where that got them.  Had they not been their cocky selves...this bridge would be built right now. Oh well.... that's what happens when you get all high and mighty.
The STCC has a group of 5000+ members from all parts of Tulsa and is extremely organized. It's not just a small group of "rich" South Tulsa homeowners with nothing to do. It is a group of well educated people who care about Tulsa and especially what happens financially for this city. The way this bridge is being shoved down the throats of ALL citizens of Tulsa is just wrong. 

I agree that "the bridge" has been thrust down the throats of several but not ALL Tulsans and I disagree with the politics that have been used so far.  I have also never seen anything from STCC that the primary approach to Yale would be acceptable if Yale were properly improved.  It has always been OK as long as it's not in your back yard. Move the traffic to Delaware.  I would have liked either Sheridan or Mingo to be the major highway to Bixby to at least 121st St. Naming a website movethatbridge.com vs. stopthatbridge.com is nothing more than clever marketing.  This may well turn into the rich folks along Yale vs the rich folks along Delaware. Maybe you can work together and move the traffic to Sheridan.  Oops! got some rich folks at 101st and Sheridan.  Guess that won't work either.  I do not buy into the theory that a bridge will suck Tulsa dry on sales tax.  Hey, I live just east of Memorial.  I can relate to not wanting Yale any more congested than it is.  I really liked it when Memorial was 2 lanes of mostly a country drive south of 51st Street.  My parents were told that Memorial would develop and guess what, it did.  Yale is a 1 mile arterial.  It will develop.  5000+ people out of of all of Tulsa, wow! What's the population of Tulsa?  Educated...thanks for the insult.  I have a Masters degree in Engineering.  I guess I'm STUPID because I disagree with STCC.  Get real and demand reasonable improvements to Yale and Delaware as part of any bridge program, not just to take it somewhere else.  You might get more positive results.   Property setbacks are already as wide as 4 or more lanes on Yale south of the Creek Turnpike.  Must be some kind of plan there.  All the dirt work won't be cheap but no one needs to sell their house to the street development.  The biggest problem to improving Yale is the hill between 81st and 91st. The grade would also be the biggest hinderance to installing light rail (or real trolleys) along Yale.

[Red Arrow]

I just don't see the proposed Yale bridge as anything but arterial access for people that bought homes (too) far out and trucks full of toilet paper.

MG

I have no problem with "Trucks Prohibited Except for Local Delivery".

[Red Arrow]

I agree. This is not about a bridge, but about the attitude and the arrogance of some key players.

On both sides.

[Bat Bat]

On the first bridge agreement between Tulsa County and the private investors, Tulsa County terminated the agreement with the private investors once it came to light that the terms of the agreement had been agreed to by Bob Dick behind closed doors and were not in the best interest of Tulsa County.  I believe in their first lawsuit the STCC proved numerous violations of the open meeting act by Bob Dick and the private investors. 

On the second bridge agreement between Jenks / Bixby and the private investors, the Oklahoma Supreme Court ruled that such agreement was illegal.

I don't see a problem with a citizen group using their own money and clout to invalidate two illegal agreements.  As a matter of fact, I appreciate them watching out for my tax dollars.

[Conan71]

On the first bridge agreement between Tulsa County and the private investors, Tulsa County terminated the agreement with the private investors once it came to light that the terms of the agreement had been agreed to by Bob Dick behind closed doors and were not in the best interest of Tulsa County.  I believe in their first lawsuit the STCC proved numerous violations of the open meeting act by Bob Dick and the private investors. 

On the second bridge agreement between Jenks / Bixby and the private investors, the Oklahoma Supreme Court ruled that such agreement was illegal.

I don't see a problem with a citizen group using their own money and clout to invalidate two illegal agreements.  As a matter of fact, I appreciate them watching out for my tax dollars.

Ahh, yes.  Dirty Bob.

[T-Town Now]

What bothers me the most is that the south Tulsa neighborhoods that will be impacted by this bridge aren't being included, nor is the City of Tulsa. The roads out there are not safe for increased levels of traffic, and with so many bad streets in Tulsa, I don't know when there will be time or money to improve them, much less maintain them.

I think Tulsa should just tell the Creek Nation that if they want to build the bridge, that's fine. Tulsa will just barricade its streets on this side of the bridge, preventing access. Our very own "bridge to nowhere."

People should consider this agressive tactic on the part of Creek Nation, and stop supporting their businesses around town. I especially feel bad for the people who live in the area, since they've been fighting this for so long now. No one seems to consider them at all.

[RecycleMichael]

How is this bridge not the most important issue in next month's primary election?

This topic has everything...rich developers, regionalism, tribal involvement, unfunded capital needs, citizen activism, public safety...

The Tulsa World ran a big feature story on this City Council race in yesterday's (Sunday's) Tulsa World. Where was this question?

What are the City Council candidates position on this issue?

What are the positions of the Mayor candidates?