South Tulsa Bridge Update

[TheArtist]

I wish they would just build the damn thing! Traffic on the bridge in the mornings and evenings is ridiculous. There have been many times that at 7:20 in the morning that Northbound traffic is backed up all the way to 151st and in the evenings from around 4:45 to 5:30 Southbound traffic can be backed up all the way to 131st. I have even seen it stretch back all the way to 121st on some evenings. It is frustrating and dangerous as there have been more than one occasion when I have seen an emergency vehicle slowed down or totally stopped due to the traffic. One day someone is going to die because fire/EMSA could not respond to an emergency in a timely manner.

Transit?

[cannon_fodder]

I wish they would just build the damn thing! Traffic on the bridge in the mornings and evenings is ridiculous.

Frankly... what's in it for Tulsa?  The ability to quickly get out of Tulsa to live and spend your money in a suburb isn't really helpful. Having to increase the width and traffic upon south Tulsa roads isn't really helpful. Spending money we don't have on a bridge we don't want isn't really helpful.

If you live on 151st street, and work at 5th street on the other side of a river - expect traffic. It isn't a "problem" at that point. It's just traffic.  It isn't a god given right to live wherever you want and not have to deal with traffic to go where ever you want.

/sorry for the hostility. But seriously, why would Tulsa want this bridge?

[swake]

Frankly... what's in it for Tulsa?  The ability to quickly get out of Tulsa to live and spend your money in a suburb isn't really helpful. Having to increase the width and traffic upon south Tulsa roads isn't really helpful. Spending money we don't have on a bridge we don't want isn't really helpful.

If you live on 151st street, and work at 5th street on the other side of a river - expect traffic. It isn't a "problem" at that point. It's just traffic.  It isn't a god given right to live wherever you want and not have to deal with traffic to go where ever you want.

/sorry for the hostility. But seriously, why would Tulsa want this bridge?

Because it helps people that live outside the city into the city to  spend money and generate sales tax. These people live in Bixby mostly and therefore use Bixby services, Tulsa would like them to spend as much money as possible in Tulsa.

[Ibanez]

Transit?

That would likely help for some, but not all. Many people are like me and have jobs that require travelling between different work sites during the day. On any given day I may be in Tulsa, BA, Owasso, Skiatook, Bartlesville, Sapulpa, etc.. so I need my own vehicle to get to those places and back to my central work location.

[Ibanez]

Growth for growth's sake rearing it's ugly head.

I have lived where I do, multiple acres South of anywhere, for nearly 20 years. I see your point about the growth of the suburbs, even then I don't necessarily think it is growth for growths sake. A lot of people I know have moved to those suburbs for the better schools or because they no longer felt safe living in midtown or other older areas of Tulsa. The school issue especially tends to drive people I know to the suburbs as TPS has a poor reputation and they don't want their kids attending what they perceive as failing schools. I have heard time after time from the majority of them that they would have liked to stay where they were, but didn't feel it was best for their children and family to do so.

[Ibanez]

Frankly... what's in it for Tulsa?  The ability to quickly get out of Tulsa to live and spend your money in a suburb isn't really helpful. Having to increase the width and traffic upon south Tulsa roads isn't really helpful. Spending money we don't have on a bridge we don't want isn't really helpful.

If you live on 151st street, and work at 5th street on the other side of a river - expect traffic. It isn't a "problem" at that point. It's just traffic.  It isn't a god given right to live wherever you want and not have to deal with traffic to go where ever you want.

/sorry for the hostility. But seriously, why would Tulsa want this bridge?

Well, you could always follow the Trump Doctrine and have a wall put up around Tulsa to keep those damn suburbanites out. Maybe you can even find a way for the suburbs to pay for it.

[rebound]

Because it helps people that live outside the city into the city to  spend money and generate sales tax. These people live in Bixby mostly and therefore use Bixby services, Tulsa would like them to spend as much money as possible in Tulsa.

Help me out, because I don't live down that way, but isn't the traffic mostly a rush-hour issue?  (We had the same thing to/from Owasso,  most of the time it was fine, except high work-transit times.)   My point on this is that Those "outside" people work in Tulsa, but choose to live elsewhere, and the bridge makes it a hassle.   Which, depending upon your point of view is a bad or good thing.  But as for "spend as much money as possible in Tulsa", they will do that or (or not) regardless, because the transit issues don't exist on weekends and later evenings, which is when their disposable dollars are spent.

TLDR,  it's only the work transit that is the hassle, not recreational, and so recreational spending isn't affect much either way.

[Ibanez]

Help me out, because I don't live down that way, but isn't the traffic mostly a rush-hour issue?  (We had the same thing to/from Owasso,  most of the time it was fine, except high work-transit times.)   My point on this is that Those "outside" people work in Tulsa, but choose to live elsewhere, and the bridge makes it a hassle.   Which, depending upon your point of view is a bad or good thing.  But as for "spend as much money as possible in Tulsa", they will do that or (or not) regardless, because the transit issues don't exist on weekends and later evenings, which is when their disposable dollars are spent.

TLDR,  it's only the work transit that is the hassle, not recreational, and so recreational spending isn't affect much either way.

Actually the traffic is pretty bad outside of "rush hour" as well. I had to run to Lowe's on Saturday afternoon and traffic in both directions from 151st to 131st was a nitemare. I think there was something going on at the sports complex in Bixby that was adding to the congestion that day. The thing I worry most about is the heavy traffic, especially when there is an accident on the bridge, keeping an emergency vehicle from being able to respond to something in a timely manner.

I also think a big part of the problem with that stretch of Memorial, really going as far North as 101st, is the timing of the traffic signals. Their timing really seems to be causing traffic to stack up. On the South side oft the bridge traffic in the last few weeks has really stacked up since Bixby put in a new light at 146th. They now have lights at 151st, 148th and 146th and the sync between them is terrible.

[Weatherdemon]

Help me out, because I don't live down that way, but isn't the traffic mostly a rush-hour issue?  (We had the same thing to/from Owasso,  most of the time it was fine, except high work-transit times.)   My point on this is that Those "outside" people work in Tulsa, but choose to live elsewhere, and the bridge makes it a hassle.   Which, depending upon your point of view is a bad or good thing.  But as for "spend as much money as possible in Tulsa", they will do that or (or not) regardless, because the transit issues don't exist on weekends and later evenings, which is when their disposable dollars are spent.

TLDR,  it's only the work transit that is the hassle, not recreational, and so recreational spending isn't affect much either way.

So I take you never drive into Bixby via Memorial (The only way from Tulsa outside of HWY75 to 151st St).

Traffic is backed up at 9PM on Tuesday, at 8AM on Saturday, it just s matter of will it be 15 minutes to go 4 miles or 40 minutes.

If the bridge is built, it will be used and provide an alternative route to and from Bixby. Do that or extended the Creek Turnpike and dump off on the south side of the river somewhere...

[cannon_fodder]

Well, you could always follow the Trump Doctrine and have a wall put up around Tulsa to keep those damn suburbanites out. Maybe you can even find a way for the suburbs to pay for it.

No. I don't want to keep you out. I want to keep you IN!

Making access to the suburbs easier encourages outflow from the city and lowers Tulsa's population and property values. If you can get a $100k house 10 minutes away in Bixby or you have to buy a smaller $200k house in Tulsa, its easy to say "screw it, I will just live in the burbs." Then we need more lanes of highways so those people don't get delayed as more people move to Bixby. See, e.g., cities across the United States stagnating when commuter highways like the BA, 75, and 169 made such exoduses easy. When it takes you 40 minutes to get there, and 40 minutes to get into town to do anything, the equation changes.

Then people who want acreages, to have horses, or other reasons live out that far and density increases, land is utilized, property values rise, etc.  It certainly sucks for the suburbs, but on many levels it doesn't help Tulsa to make it easy for someone to zip out of Tulsa as fast as possible.  And that ignores the unsustainable cost of sprawl. More police, more fire stations, more power lines, more sewers, more road miles per person. There's a reason why suburbs general operate on the build and abandon model, they don't cash flow. There will be exceptions, but in general the new "place to be" will be somewhere else in 30 years and the middle class housing blocks in Broken Arrow will be run down rentals.

There are many reasons TPS went downhill. Sprawl is very high on that list - breaking apart the richest parts of the city to have their own districts, removal of tax base, decrease of population density, etc. etc. etc. It becomes a self fulfilling prophecy.

So I understand wanting a bridge to get home faster. But Tulsa would have to spend a bunch of money improving infrastructure to allow Jenks residents access to their suburban housing. And of course, the real reason for wanting the bridge: the area the bridge leads to is largely undeveloped. Dozens of new subdivisions could go in there. Then we could build a bigger bridge and expand our roads further so more people could live in Jenks!

A good thing for Jenks and for developers, but it is of minimal value to Tulsa.

[swake]

No. I don't want to keep you out. I want to keep you IN!

Making access to the suburbs easier encourages outflow from the city and lowers Tulsa's population and property values. If you can get a $100k house 10 minutes away in Bixby or you have to buy a smaller $200k house in Tulsa, its easy to say "screw it, I will just live in the burbs." Then we need more lanes of highways so those people don't get delayed as more people move to Bixby. See, e.g., cities across the United States stagnating when commuter highways like the BA, 75, and 169 made such exoduses easy. When it takes you 40 minutes to get there, and 40 minutes to get into town to do anything, the equation changes.

Then people who want acreages, to have horses, or other reasons live out that far and density increases, land is utilized, property values rise, etc.  It certainly sucks for the suburbs, but on many levels it doesn't help Tulsa to make it easy for someone to zip out of Tulsa as fast as possible.  And that ignores the unsustainable cost of sprawl. More police, more fire stations, more power lines, more sewers, more road miles per person. There's a reason why suburbs general operate on the build and abandon model, they don't cash flow. There will be exceptions, but in general the new "place to be" will be somewhere else in 30 years and the middle class housing blocks in Broken Arrow will be run down rentals.

There are many reasons TPS went downhill. Sprawl is very high on that list - breaking apart the richest parts of the city to have their own districts, removal of tax base, decrease of population density, etc. etc. etc. It becomes a self fulfilling prophecy.

So I understand wanting a bridge to get home faster. But Tulsa would have to spend a bunch of money improving infrastructure to allow Jenks residents access to their suburban housing. And of course, the real reason for wanting the bridge: the area the bridge leads to is largely undeveloped. Dozens of new subdivisions could go in there. Then we could build a bigger bridge and expand our roads further so more people could live in Jenks!

A good thing for Jenks and for developers, but it is of minimal value to Tulsa.

I know the bridge technically connects to Jenks, but it would only serve a tiny portion of Jenks residents. This is really about Bixby. This bridge would actually increase traffic on Riverside which would negatively impact access from Jenks to Tulsa on the 71st St bridge, the Jenks Main St/96th St bridge and the Creek Turnpike bridges if you are exiting at Riverside. Traffic is already bad enough along south Riverside. Both the 71st St and 96th St bridges already are badly backed up at rush hour. Adding an outlet mall along The Creek Turnpike is going to make things that much worse.

[AquaMan]

I understand Cannon's sentiment but we must be pragmatic.  I opposed the bridge because it was going to be a private toll bridge. Truth is we can't just let our suburbs suffer when good planning would have ameliorated the problem. That bridge should have been built 10 years before it became such a tie up. I was working that area back then when 106th and Memorial was some kind of farm/ranch land. One cul-de-sac with a physicians office. You'd have to have been blind not to see what was happening.

The school argument is lame though. Bixby, BA, Sand Springs, Owasso and even the vaunted Jenks systems are not that good. The real reason for that sprawl is economics and a tinge of class differences. The areas were sprawling way before the school systems improved.

[Breadburner]

There are plenty of other projects around town that should get priority before this.....

[heironymouspasparagus]

I have lived where I do, multiple acres South of anywhere, for nearly 20 years. I see your point about the growth of the suburbs, even then I don't necessarily think it is growth for growths sake. A lot of people I know have moved to those suburbs for the better schools or because they no longer felt safe living in midtown or other older areas of Tulsa. The school issue especially tends to drive people I know to the suburbs as TPS has a poor reputation and they don't want their kids attending what they perceive as failing schools. I have heard time after time from the majority of them that they would have liked to stay where they were, but didn't feel it was best for their children and family to do so.

Growth for Growth's sake is the sound bite version and is the reality.  People go visit quaint, rural areas that have a look and feel that they think they like, so decide to go there.  And drag ALL the carp with them that they say they want to get away from.  (How many HOA's are there south of the river in Bixby now...?) 

And it started before there were schools or all the other pieces required to accommodate the inrush.  Bixby, Owasso, Broken Arrow, Jenks - all the small towns that see explosive growth.   Now, yes, it has become a self-sustaining growth thing well after the fact of starting the expenditure to build schools and infrastructure.  A huge component of it is 'keeping up with the Jone's.'  My friend lives in a McMansion out in the suburbs, so I must too. 

All promoted and encouraged by the triangle of enablement - realtors, builders, and property tax entities. 

And I am not attacking you - but 20 years is short time - actually well after the first waves of this.  I worked with a couple of people who got into the neighborhood where Red Arrow lives back in the 60's - and I think those acreages were actually developed sometime in the 50's.  That's how long north Bixby has been at it. 

[Red Arrow]

Transit?

I believe one of the transit plans included a park and ride lot near 121st and Memorial.  That would be close to a lot of people.  Whether or not enough of them would go where transit would go is up to the experts.  That would not eliminate the need for a bridge for the folks south of the river.  Maybe the bridge could be built with room for light rail.  (I know, dreaming again.)

It would take a LOT of buses or trolleys to significantly reduce traffic on our little stretch of Memorial.  Transit would be as slow as traffic without dedicated lanes or ROW for rail.  It would be nice to be able to get downtown without using my car.  Time and money to travel by transit would have to be competitive with a car though.  Judging from the last time I saw parking fees near the BOK Center during an event, the money shouldn't be too difficult.