South Tulsa Bridge Update

[Red Arrow]

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.

Be part of the plan, get some of the toll money as a condition of building the bridge.

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."

Bad Attidude.  The burbs could say fine, stay in self-sufficient Tulsa, keep out of our town.  We're not letting any supply trucks through.  Start the Tulsa Airlift modeled after the Berlin Airlift after WWII.

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.

That's the problem, they have been fighting it rather than trying to come to an equitable solution. Some of them may have been misinformed by their Realtors much like many folks along the 96th St corridor (Creek Tpk) were. 

Buy next to an airport, expect airplane noise.
Buy next to the fairgrounds, expect noise and congestion. (The neighbors did manage to kill car racing there.)
Buy next to an identified arterial, expect some day it will be developed.

Edit to change color.  I forgot orange is difficult to read in the quote portion.

[jtcrissup]

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

What, and ignore the MOST important item facing our city - installing a creationism exhibit at the zoo?

Seriously though, I agree...this has big ramifications for the region and I have mixed feelings about it.  Would be nice for the candidates to address their thoughts and what their plan of action would be to address this.

[Bat Bat]

I simply don't see it the way you do Red Arrow.  My responses are below in Red.


T-Town said:  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.

Red Arrow responded:  Be part of the plan, get some of the toll money as a condition of building the bridge.

Bat Bat response:  I agree with T-Town.  Be part of the plan Red Arrow?  The private investors didn't want to give any money to the City of Tulsa.  Bixby / Jenks only wanted to give 10% to the City of Tulsa.  It is going to take a lot more than 10% of the profits to pay for the needed street improvements.  I think the City of Tulsa and the homeowners are willing to be a part of the plan, but so far neither the private investors, Bixby / Jenks nor the Creeks have wanted to include them in the plan.            


T-Town said:  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."

Red Arrow responded:  Bad Attidude.  The burbs could say fine, stay in self-sufficient Tulsa, keep out of our town.  We're not letting any supply trucks through.  Start the Tulsa Airlift modeled after the Berlin Airlift after WWII.

Bat Bat response:  Bad Attitude?  The City of Tulsa has estimated infrastructure improvements necessary to handle the projected bridge traffic at somewhere around $80 million.  Was it a bad attitude on the private investors part when they wanted to build the bridge, keep all of the profits for themselves and not give the City of Tulsa a dime?  Oh, that's right that wasn't a bad attitude that was just illegal.  Was it a bad attitude on Bixby / Jenks' part when they wanted to build the bridge with the private investors and not include the City of Tulsa in any negotiation and late in the game only offer to give them 10%?  Oh, that's right that was not a bad attitude that was just illegal.  Now, is it a bad attitude on the Creek's part to attempt to put the land in trust for the sole purpose of not having to comply with the City of Tulsa's laws?  the law of the State?  Or without even discussing the bridge situation with the City of Tulsa or the near by residents?  Bad attitude Red Arrow?  I think you need to reexamine the situation.

T-Town said:  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.

Red Arrow responded:  That's the problem, they have been fighting it rather than trying to come to an equitable solution. Some of them may have been misinformed by their Realtors much like many folks along the 96th St corridor (Creek Tpk) were. 

Buy next to an airport, expect airplane noise.
Buy next to the fairgrounds, expect noise and congestion. (The neighbors did manage to kill car racing there.)
Buy next to an identified arterial, expect some day it will be developed.

Bat Bat response:  The private investors, Bixby / Jenks and now the Creeks have been fighting it rather than trying to come to an equitable solution. The private investors offer the City of Tulsa not one dime to compensate them for street improvements.  Is that equitable?  In the last minute of the fourth quarter, Bixby/ Jenks offered the City of Tulsa 10% of the profits?  So, the City of Tulsa fronts $80 million infrastructure and Bixby / Jenks offer them 10% of the profit.  Is that equitable?  So far, the Creeks have not offerred the City of Tulsa squat for street improvements.  The Creeks haven't even contacted the City of Tulsa for a discussion.  All the Creeks want to do is use the federal trust laws to get around having to deal with the City of Tulsa.  Is that equitable?   

As for your examples, I don't think anyone is complaning about living next to an identified arterial and I certainly don't think they are complaining about it being developed.  I think they are complaining about the fact that it isn't reasonable to dump 24,000 cars per day onto a two lane road that is already conjested with ditches and no stop lights.  I think they are complaining about the fact that there is no money to improve these streets in the foreseeable future. 

[swake]

I simply don't see it the way you do Red Arrow.  My responses are below in Red.


T-Town said:  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.

Red Arrow responded:  Be part of the plan, get some of the toll money as a condition of building the bridge.

Bat Bat response:  I agree with T-Town.  Be part of the plan Red Arrow?  The private investors didn't want to give any money to the City of Tulsa.  Bixby / Jenks only wanted to give 10% to the City of Tulsa.  It is going to take a lot more than 10% of the profits to pay for the needed street improvements.  I think the City of Tulsa and the homeowners are willing to be a part of the plan, but so far neither the private investors, Bixby / Jenks nor the Creeks have wanted to include them in the plan.            


T-Town said:  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."

Red Arrow responded:  Bad Attidude.  The burbs could say fine, stay in self-sufficient Tulsa, keep out of our town.  We're not letting any supply trucks through.  Start the Tulsa Airlift modeled after the Berlin Airlift after WWII.

Bat Bat response:  Bad Attitude?  The City of Tulsa has estimated infrastructure improvements necessary to handle the projected bridge traffic at somewhere around $80 million.  Was it a bad attitude on the private investors part when they wanted to build the bridge, keep all of the profits for themselves and not give the City of Tulsa a dime?  Oh, that's right that wasn't a bad attitude that was just illegal.  Was it a bad attitude on Bixby / Jenks' part when they wanted to build the bridge with the private investors and not include the City of Tulsa in any negotiation and late in the game only offer to give them 10%?  Oh, that's right that was not a bad attitude that was just illegal.  Now, is it a bad attitude on the Creek's part to attempt to put the land in trust for the sole purpose of not having to comply with the City of Tulsa's laws?  the law of the State?  Or without even discussing the bridge situation with the City of Tulsa or the near by residents?  Bad attitude Red Arrow?  I think you need to reexamine the situation.

T-Town said:  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.

Red Arrow responded:  That's the problem, they have been fighting it rather than trying to come to an equitable solution. Some of them may have been misinformed by their Realtors much like many folks along the 96th St corridor (Creek Tpk) were. 

Buy next to an airport, expect airplane noise.
Buy next to the fairgrounds, expect noise and congestion. (The neighbors did manage to kill car racing there.)
Buy next to an identified arterial, expect some day it will be developed.

Bat Bat response:  The private investors, Bixby / Jenks and now the Creeks have been fighting it rather than trying to come to an equitable solution. The private investors offer the City of Tulsa not one dime to compensate them for street improvements.  Is that equitable?  In the last minute of the fourth quarter, Bixby/ Jenks offered the City of Tulsa 10% of the profits?  So, the City of Tulsa fronts $80 million infrastructure and Bixby / Jenks offer them 10% of the profit.  Is that equitable?  So far, the Creeks have not offerred the City of Tulsa squat for street improvements.  The Creeks haven't even contacted the City of Tulsa for a discussion.  All the Creeks want to do is use the federal trust laws to get around having to deal with the City of Tulsa.  Is that equitable?   

As for your examples, I don't think anyone is complaning about living next to an identified arterial and I certainly don't think they are complaining about it being developed.  I think they are complaining about the fact that it isn't reasonable to dump 24,000 cars per day onto a two lane road that is already conjested with ditches and no stop lights.  I think they are complaining about the fact that there is no money to improve these streets in the foreseeable future. 

Can you find me any proposal or counter offer the city has made to any group on this at all?

[Bat Bat]

No.  I don't think the City of Tulsa has made any propsal or counteroffer to either the private investors, Bixby / Jenks or the Creeks. 

[sgrizzle]

What, and ignore the MOST important item facing our city - installing a creationism exhibit at the zoo?

Seriously though, I agree...this has big ramifications for the region and I have mixed feelings about it.  Would be nice for the candidates to address their thoughts and what their plan of action would be to address this.

I seem to get asked daily. What do you wanna know?

[swake]

And the $80 million quote shows that this is NOT about improvements or "moving" the bridge. The bridge is projected to have 7,000 cars a day that could disperse in three directions. 7,000 cars a day is in no way an $80 million load on capacity in the area.

Vision 2025 just widened two and half miles of 61st Street for $13.5 million dollars and construction costs are falling. $80 million would have to be something like the amount of money needed to widen Yale to four lanes from 96th to 121st and Riverside to 4 lanes from 101st to 121st and widen 121st from Riverside to Memorial and probably have $30 - $40 million left over. And that's taking the capacity of each of those streets to 30-40,000 cars per day to solve 7,000 additional cars for all of them combined.

$80 million is a figure so far out of reality as to be about stopping the project altogether. That has to be the amount it would cost to improve everything south of the Turnpike in Tulsa.

[T-Town Now]

Red Arrow wrote:
Bad Attidude.  The burbs could say fine, stay in self-sufficient Tulsa, keep out of our town.  We're not letting any supply trucks through.  Start the Tulsa Airlift modeled after the Berlin Airlift after WWII.

The burbs have nothing to offer without Tulsa. What company is going to relocate to Broken Arrow if Tulsa weren't in the picture? Broken Arrow is just concrete and strip shopping centers. That's it. Neighborhoods adjacent to the new PAC have no curbs and open gulleys running along the streets.

Jenks? Owasso? What do any of these little burbs have to offer without Tulsa? How many live there, but depend on their livelihood due to jobs in Tulsa?

I think Jenks and Bixby have the bad attitude. They think it's OK to steal our ball team, our tax revenues, and then want a hand out from Tulsa taxpayers, too. No thanks.

[FOTD]

The burbs have nothing to offer without Tulsa. What company is going to relocate to Broken Arrow if Tulsa weren't in the picture? Broken Arrow is just concrete and strip shopping centers. That's it. Neighborhoods adjacent to the new PAC have no curbs and open gulleys running along the streets.

Jenks? Owasso? What do any of these little burbs have to offer without Tulsa? How many live there, but depend on their livelihood due to jobs in Tulsa?

I think Jenks and Bixby have the bad attitude. They think it's OK to steal our ball team, our tax revenues, and then want a hand out from Tulsa taxpayers, too. No thanks.

[Bat Bat]

And the $80 million quote shows that this is NOT about improvements or "moving" the bridge. The bridge is projected to have 7,000 cars a day that could disperse in three directions. 7,000 cars a day is in no way an $80 million load on capacity in the area.

Vision 2025 just widened two and half miles of 61st Street for $13.5 million dollars and construction costs are falling. $80 million would have to be something like the amount of money needed to widen Yale to four lanes from 96th to 121st and Riverside to 4 lanes from 101st to 121st and widen 121st from Riverside to Memorial and probably have $30 - $40 million left over. And that's taking the capacity of each of those streets to 30-40,000 cars per day to solve 7,000 additional cars for all of them combined.

$80 million is a figure so far out of reality as to be about stopping the project altogether. That has to be the amount it would cost to improve everything south of the Turnpike in Tulsa.

That sounds like exactly what needs to be widened to me.  And let's not forget that the traffic projections are now five years old and they started at 7,000+ and went up to 24,000 vehicles per day.  So let widen Yale to four lanes from 96th to 121st; Riverside to 4 lanes from 101st to 121st; 121st St. from Riverside to Sheridan (Sheridan to Memorial has already been widened).  Don't forget the intersections as well.  If you can do all of that and have $30 to $40 million left over, please call the Creeks and tell them we have come up with a deal.  They pay for all of the infrastructure for $40 million (your number) and then they can put in their bridge.

Oh darnet, I forgot that they now have to work with the County to compensate them for their lost property tax and the City again to compsate them for their lost sales tax revenue for all of the development they are going to put around the bridge.

Oh, I forgot again.  Development around the bridge.  I guess those traffice projection number are just going to keep going higher and higher.

[Red Arrow]

I simply don't see it the way you do Red Arrow.  My responses are below in Red.

I didn't expect you would. At least we are both staying civil.   We're going to run out of colors.


T-Town said:  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.

Red Arrow responded:  Be part of the plan, get some of the toll money as a condition of building the bridge.

Bat Bat response:  I agree with T-Town.  Be part of the plan Red Arrow?  The private investors didn't want to give any money to the City of Tulsa.  Bixby / Jenks only wanted to give 10% to the City of Tulsa.  It is going to take a lot more than 10% of the profits to pay for the needed street improvements.  I think the City of Tulsa and the homeowners are willing to be a part of the plan, but so far neither the private investors, Bixby / Jenks nor the Creeks have wanted to include them in the plan.    

I used the term "plan" generically.  Of course the investors wanted to keep all the profit.  The only responses I heard were "no" and to "move the bridge" away from "my yard".  I only have the media and this forum as information sources but I never heard a counter offer/demand from Tulsa to require the investors to improve Yale, 121st, or Delaware.   I agree that a for profit bridge should be required to contribute to improvements to Yale all the way to the turnpike and to 121st from Sheridan to Delaware and up to 101st.  (121st is already 5 lanes between Sheridan and Memorial.  I don't know how it was funded but doubt Bixby picked up the whole tab.)  There are probably improvements that will be needed south of the river too.   The only plan that I have heard the homeowners willing to support is to move the bridge.  


T-Town said:  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."

Red Arrow responded:  Bad Attidude.  The burbs could say fine, stay in self-sufficient Tulsa, keep out of our town.  We're not letting any supply trucks through.  Start the Tulsa Airlift modeled after the Berlin Airlift after WWII.

Bat Bat response:  Bad Attitude?  The City of Tulsa has estimated infrastructure improvements necessary to handle the projected bridge traffic at somewhere around $80 million.  Was it a bad attitude on the private investors part when they wanted to build the bridge, keep all of the profits for themselves and not give the City of Tulsa a dime?  Oh, that's right that wasn't a bad attitude that was just illegal.  Was it a bad attitude on Bixby / Jenks' part when they wanted to build the bridge with the private investors and not include the City of Tulsa in any negotiation and late in the game only offer to give them 10%?  Oh, that's right that was not a bad attitude that was just illegal.  Now, is it a bad attitude on the Creek's part to attempt to put the land in trust for the sole purpose of not having to comply with the City of Tulsa's laws?  the law of the State?  Or without even discussing the bridge situation with the City of Tulsa or the near by residents?  Bad attitude Red Arrow?  I think you need to reexamine the situation.

I do get a bit tired of the frequent references to shutting the burbs off and not allowing anyone without a Tulsa utility bill to drive on Tulsa streets.  I will not deny some bad attitude on the several attempts to build a bridge by the potential builders. 

T-Town said:  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.

Red Arrow responded:  That's the problem, they have been fighting it rather than trying to come to an equitable solution. Some of them may have been misinformed by their Realtors much like many folks along the 96th St corridor (Creek Tpk) were. 

Buy next to an airport, expect airplane noise.
Buy next to the fairgrounds, expect noise and congestion. (The neighbors did manage to kill car racing there.)
Buy next to an identified arterial, expect some day it will be developed.

Bat Bat response:  The private investors, Bixby / Jenks and now the Creeks have been fighting it rather than trying to come to an equitable solution. The private investors offer the City of Tulsa not one dime to compensate them for street improvements.  Is that equitable?  In the last minute of the fourth quarter, Bixby/ Jenks offered the City of Tulsa 10% of the profits?  So, the City of Tulsa fronts $80 million infrastructure and Bixby / Jenks offer them 10% of the profit.  Is that equitable?  So far, the Creeks have not offerred the City of Tulsa squat for street improvements.  The Creeks haven't even contacted the City of Tulsa for a discussion.  All the Creeks want to do is use the federal trust laws to get around having to deal with the City of Tulsa.  Is that equitable? 

The COT rolled over and played dead. The only equitable solution offered by COT was to say no.  Why did COT and STCC not launch a plan to get some money from the investors in exchange for cooperation?  So far my impression is that COT and STCC want very much NOT to negotiate.  Negotiations would not be easy but probably not impossible.  I forget what the predicted profits were.  Without that, it is impossible to say what percentage is equitable.   COT is not going to get any money by saying no bridge.


As for your examples, I don't think anyone is complaning about living next to an identified arterial and I certainly don't think they are complaining about it being developed.  I think they are complaining about the fact that it isn't reasonable to dump 24,000 cars per day onto a two lane road that is already conjested with ditches and no stop lights.  I think they are complaining about the fact that there is no money to improve these streets in the foreseeable future. 

I think they are complaining about developing a designated arterial into an actual arterial, money being available or not.  With all the development going in on the flood plane (oops, valuable home sites along 121st), those roads are going to be more crowded anyway. I have nearly 40 yrs of evidence living near Memorial that says so. Not building transportation infrastructure does not stop housing development.  Developers are doing the high density (for single family homes) building that will require more and wider roads since meaningful public transit won't happen in the foreseeable future.

[Bat Bat]

Red Arrow, you made more sense to me that last time around.  I agree that the City of Tulsa has not come to the table.  However, I don't think they have been asked to come to the table.  Here is what I "think" happened.  I'm not 100% sure but this is my impression.

Round 1:  Private investors signed agreement with Tulsa County.  Private investors did not ask COT to the table.  STCC asked private investors and Tulsa County to table.  Private investors / Tulsa County came up with no concessions and told STCC to go home and be quiet.  STCC sued.  Tulsa County terminated agreement. 

Round 2:  PI signed agreement with Bixby / Jenks.  None of them asked the COT to  the table.  They all asked STCC to table.  They offerred a concession to put the bridge on 121st between Yale and Riverside.  STCC asked for money for street improvements but PI / Bixby / Jenks said no.  STCC sued.  (I'm not really clear on this part, but at some point late into STCC's lawsuit Jenks offered COT 10% of profits).  Oklahoma Supreme Court said agreement was illegal and void.

Round 3:  Creeks have bought land around 121st between Sheridan and Yale.  Creeks have said they plan to put a bridge on the land.  According to STCC, the Creeks have developed plans for the bridge already.  Creeks are in the process of applying to put the land in trust.  Creeks have not asked COT to the table.

Maybe I am just ignorant on the subject and everybody asked COT to the table numerous times and they wouldn't come.  If so, shame on them.  But I just don't think that is what happened.

I personally think the person (entity) developing the land should get all of the players to the table.  As of right now, that is the Creeks and I don't think they have asked either COT of the STCC to the table. 

From a pure perspective on getting the bridge built.  I think the best bet of getting the bridge built was between Bixby / Jenks / Tulsa (no private investors).  I think they could have come up with a reasonable infrastructure plan with the profits from the toll bridge paying for those infrastructure improvements.  I also think they could have agreed on an acceptable location.  But for whatever reason that did not happen.

I think adding the Creeks into the mix adds all of these other arguments about lost property and sales tax and I don't know if COT and Tulsa County will give up on those arguments. 




   

[Red Arrow]

From a pure perspective on getting the bridge built.  I think the best bet of getting the bridge built was between Bixby / Jenks / Tulsa (no private investors).  I think they could have come up with a reasonable infrastructure plan with the profits from the toll bridge paying for those infrastructure improvements.  I also think they could have agreed on an acceptable location.  But for whatever reason that did not happen.

I agree that B/J/T working together is the best option.  They would be required to make enough "profit" to pay bonds etc but not to make profits above the interest on the bonds.  I believe government bonds can often have tax advantages to the holders making the interest paid occur at a lower rate.  I'll probably get bashed by someone here but I think the infrastructure is one of the things the government should provide.  Tolls are not nice but are an acceptable way to pay for specific infrastructure.  A universal "Pikepass" would be nice for out of state use as more and more roads become toll roads.  I've heard there are only a few, maybe one, companies making the equipment.  A little (glad I don't have to write it) software change is all that should be required.

[HDPokeFan]

I think the bridge is a bad idea.  But it is horrible idea if traffic is planned to be funneled down Yale.  There is no infrastructure from the Creek Turnpike to 121st to support the incremental traffic due to the bridge.

Although I still do like like the idea, a connection to Riverside Drive makes tons more sense.  On Yale you have to go past an elementary school and a stop light at 101st and then go another 6 blocks to get to the Creek Turnpike -- and basically little other commerical development.  On Riverside there is no school and no stoplight at 101st. Plus the Creek is right at 101st and you are very close to all the commerical establishments at 96th and Riverside.

All that said the Creek Tribe made an end run on the land.  I hope the government is successful in stopping the land being placed in a trust.  That should not be allowed.

[Red Arrow]

I think the bridge is a bad idea.  But it is horrible idea if traffic is planned to be funneled down Yale. 

There is no infrastructure from the Creek Turnpike to 121st to support the incremental traffic due to the bridge.  
Gee, no kidding?  Yale needs to be improved, bridge or no bridge.  Part of any bridge project needs to include improvements to both Yale and Delaware/Riverside.  I know the programs so far have just dumped that on Tulsa but I agree that is wrong.

Although I still do like like the idea, a connection to Riverside Drive makes tons more sense.
You must live on Yale or close to Yale.   

On Yale you have to go past an elementary school and a stop light at 101st and then go another 6 blocks to get to the Creek Turnpike -- and basically little other commerical development. 
If one stop light and a fenced in school yard are the best you can come up with, move on to something else.  In fact, the lack of a lot of commercial development makes Yale comparable  to your preference for Delaware/Riverside. The small strip of stores behind the bank on the NE corner of 101st and Yale will be glad to know there is nothing commercial there.  After the turnpike, there is little commercial development until you get to 91st, an additional 1/2 mile of 6 lane road.  The hill between 91st and 81st must be blocking your view of commercial activity at 81st.  (Ever get that far north? That used to be my favorite hill in Tulsa before they "improved" it. That only works if you like twisty country roads.)  One more mile and you have access to 71st St going east or west. One more mile and you have a Hospital, the big pink one and the other supporting medical facilities.  A little farther and there is LaFortune Park.  There are some other commercial opportunities that may or may not matter until you get to..... The Fairgrounds at ....21st & Yale.  

On Riverside there is no school and no stoplight at 101st. Plus the Creek is right at 101st and you are very close to all the commerical establishments at 96th and Riverside.
There are some big new homes that will probably be needed to be destroyed to widen Delaware and not build bridge all the way to 101st.  Delaware is also a two lane road. I expect that within a year or so there will be a few accidents at the entrances to the housing.  Then the stop lights will soon follow along with another speed limit reduction.  The only thing new is the  2 lane bridge at about where 111th would be.  Please try that route in the morning to get on the turnpike during the week during the Jenks school year.  I don't think you will like it now. It will get worse with the development on 121st, even without the bridge. Drivers going east on the turnpike will probably not go west first to get on by 101st and Delaware.   I don't consider that a viable route as it presently is for "the bridge" without the same kind of improvements needed for Yale.  Short story, the bridge, any bridge, needs to contribute to the improvements on BOTH Delaware and Yale in order to prevent them from becoming a parking lot. Both roads offer potential destinations for shoppers.  Drivers are already using Yale to go to and from Bixby to avoid Memorial as far south as possible.  Peoria/Elm and Elwood into Jenks are also packed, causing people to cross the river on Memorial and scatter from there.  Note to transit fans:  I would support a (real) trolley across the bridge that would connect to downtown if enough of the folks living south of the river actually work downtown.

All that said the Creek Tribe made an end run on the land.  I hope the government is successful in stopping the land being placed in a trust.  That should not be allowed.
I agree the Creek Tribe deal is a dirty deal.  Maybe if Tulsa were to initiate meaningful talks with Jenks and Bixby to put in a bridge that would work for everyone (as much as possible) there wouldn't be a potential prize there for private investors or the Creeks.  Whether you agree with the development south of the river doesn't matter any more than my disagreement with the housing and commercial development along Sheridan, Memorial, and Mingo. It's there and the people there are willing to pay a toll to cross a bridge for better access to Tulsa.