South Tulsa Bridge Update

[Red Arrow]

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.

Not blind, unable to stop it.

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.

My parents wanted a big lot, about an acre.  They also wanted a good school for my sister who was starting 9th grade.  We got the big lot.  My sister said 9th grade in Bixby was like 8th grade in suburban Phila, PA. There was even a bit of 7th grade thrown in.  She was here last week visiting so I asked her about it.  She said she was unchallenged and bored to death.  That was in the early 70s.  If Bixby was supposed to be good, I'm glad my parents didn't move into a TPS district.

[Red Arrow]

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

 
Berlin Wall? 

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.

The concept of long commute times to prevent migration to the suburbs has worked so well in southern California.

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 affordable housing.

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.

Make Bixby and Jenks share the cost for improvements to Yale and Delaware.

[Red Arrow]

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?

There is not much retail along 151st at the moment.  Most of those folks south of the river spend money in Tulsa. (The west side of Memorial between 101st and 111th is Tulsa, not Bixby.  The east side is Bixby.)  Keep it inconvenient to get to Tulsa and you guarantee retail development south of the river.  Good for Bixby/Jenks.  Not so good for Tulsa.

[Red Arrow]

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...

Northbound Memorial frequently backs up 1/2 mile around noon on Saturdays and Sundays.  If I want to go to Riverside/Jones Airport (by Jenks but actually in Tulsa) around that time, I check traffic.  I used to go across 121st to Delaware but with all the soccer fields even that is a mess.  I will sometimes go south to 151st and across to Peoria/Elm rather than the 2 miles north to the Creek Turnpike.  If I need to take stuff to the MET Recycling in Bixby, the choice is easy.

[davideinstein]

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?

It's not hostility. South Tulsa has ruined this city. Time to confront it.

[Red Arrow]

It's not hostility. South Tulsa has ruined this city. Time to confront it.

Give everything south of 31st St to Jenks, Bixby, and Broken Arrow.  Since it is such a drain on Tulsa, Tulsa should be glad to get rid of it.

[davideinstein]

Give everything south of 31st St to Jenks, Bixby, and Broken Arrow.  Since it is such a drain on Tulsa, Tulsa should be glad to get rid of it.

That's the exact mindset that ruined it.

[Red Arrow]

That's the exact mindset that ruined it.

Now that it is ruined, why keep it?

[cannon_fodder]

The concept of long commute times to prevent migration to the suburbs has worked so well in southern California.
. . .
Make Bixby and Jenks share the cost for improvements to Yale and Delaware.

It is simply a fact that longer commute times increases demand for housing closer in. There are, of course, exceptions to every rule. Though in Los Angeles the average rent  downtown is about the same as Bel Air (Los Angeles is a poor example of about anything concerning logical development anyway. A coastal city with a downtown NOT on the beach, wealthy beach communities, and a relative cheap zone in between...).  It is a truism in urban planning that freeways created fast and easy access to cheaper suburbs, helping eliminate demand for older inner neighborhoods and creating the sprawl that America has enjoyed since the 1960s.

The developers who want to sell all those lots across the river should pay. Of course, they never will. But those are the only people really standing to profit from this bridge.

[Vision 2025]

 

Make Bixby and Jenks share the cost for improvements to Yale and Delaware.

Since both communities listed are sales tax donor communities, do you propose they then should share in the sales tax generated by their residents from purchases made in Tulsa?

[Ibanez]

It is simply a fact that longer commute times increases demand for housing closer in. There are, of course, exceptions to every rule. Though in Los Angeles the average rent  downtown is about the same as Bel Air (Los Angeles is a poor example of about anything concerning logical development anyway. A coastal city with a downtown NOT on the beach, wealthy beach communities, and a relative cheap zone in between...).  It is a truism in urban planning that freeways created fast and easy access to cheaper suburbs, helping eliminate demand for older inner neighborhoods and creating the sprawl that America has enjoyed since the 1960s.

The developers who want to sell all those lots across the river should pay. Of course, they never will. But those are the only people really standing to profit from this bridge.

You know, this argument is funny to me. We aren't talking about a P&L statement here, we are talking about a quality of life issue. We all profess to want a better quality of life for the residents of the area, or at least I think we are. Maybe we are just talking about quality of life for Tulsans and not the citizens of the surrounding communities.

Another route across the river would decrease commute times which, in my opinion, provides a better quality of life as it leads to less time sitting in a vehicle stuck in traffic. I also think it improves quality of life by providing for increased public safety as it gives emergency vehicles another route to respond via which should decrease response times. I know I keep saying it, but I am very concerned that sometime soon a person is going to die due to a traffic backup caused by only having one convenient route across the river into/out of Bixby.

[AquaMan]

Not blind, unable to stop it.

I mean city officials from both areas were blind to what the repercussions of not planning for that growth would mean. They were too busy squabbling over other issues unrelated to serving their constituents.

That a bridge is needed is a no brainer. You don't ignore a communities needs because it didn't happen to grow the way you wanted it too. I have heard that argument by city planners in the past, only to be recognized as folly later when it became more expensive to build. Case in point was 15th and Utica. It was often argued that by keeping the intersection crowded and slow that it would decrease traffic. It didn't. They later added turn lanes.

Maybe that's why we have this infernal backwards/slanted parking cropping up around here.

[cannon_fodder]

You know, this argument is funny to me. We aren't talking about a P&L statement here, we are talking about a quality of life issue. We all profess to want a better quality of life for the residents of the area, or at least I think we are. Maybe we are just talking about quality of life for Tulsan's and not the citizens of the surrounding communities.

If you want the quality of life that comes with living in Tulsa... live in Tulsa. As a resident of Tulsa, why do I want to pay for a bridge so Bixby residents can enjoy a better quality of life? Of course I want a nicer metro area. But not at the expense of Tulsa. On many levels, we ARE talking about Tulsa's P&L.

Another route across the river would decrease commute times which, in my opinion, provides a better quality of life as it leads to less time sitting in a vehicle stuck in traffic.

For Bixby/Jenks residents. This bridge will not increase the quality of life for Tulsa residents, so why would Tulsa want to pay for the bridge or for the other needed infrastructure?

I also think it improves quality of life by providing for increased public safety as it gives emergency vehicles another route to respond via which should decrease response times. I know I keep saying it, but I am very concerned that sometime soon a person is going to die due to a traffic backup caused by only having one convenient route across the river into/out of Bixby.

First, this is anecdotal. I have not heard there is a significant problem with response times to Bixby, Jenks, etc. Second, if there is a safety issue in these communities - it seems that would factor into the decision to move there and be a problem that the community should solve. Pockets of Tulsa have crime problems, is Bixby building infrastructure to help Tulsa with those areas? Of course not.
- - -

The sales tax argument is sound. If adding this bridge would contribute to Tulsa sales tax base more than it would detract from the resident/property tax base, it could be an economically sound decision. But there isn't commercial in that area.  So I remain dubious.

Plus, Bixby is tax rich. They have 53mil in revenue and 19k residents (To Tulsa's 400k residents and 700mil revenue).  So it seems Bixby is sniping sales tax revenue, not donating it (or their residents are just really, really heavily taxed). 
- - -

Here's the deal:

Tulsa is in competition with the suburbs. I know the METRO Tulsa Chamber doesn't like to mention it, but there is only so much development that the metro will support. For a time Tulsa was happy to sprawl east, then south. Then Broken Arrow boomed. Then Owasso. Now Jenks/bixby. For a long time Tulsa didn't really seem to care, we are the big city... let the suburbs do as they please. Unfortunately, we lost a ton of tax base. We lost a ton of density. We have been fairly stagnant city for nearly a generation now. That makes new development harder, that makes big ideas harder, it makes maintaining the sprawl that we acquired harder.

While we do share a lot of common interests with our entire metro and region and we do need to work together on lots of things (it isn't a zero sum game) - but Tulsa needs to realize that our interests are not always aligned. Having nice suburbs and bedroom communities can add to a city. But if they are at the expense of the City, they can also replace it.   

The Tulsa residents of the area don't want the bridge. Tulsa residents aren't likely to use the bridge. It won't add to the quality of life for Tulsa residents. Why does Tulsa want to pay for a bridge and/or related infrastructure to add to the quality of life and further development of Bixby?

I certainly get why Bixby wants to do it...

[TheArtist]

Some of my favorite cities have "Green Belts" and areas where there is very low density, rural/country farm type development.  This acts to contain sprawl and increase density.  If you have good development guidelines for good infill you can create a really good quality of life.  Its very nice to live in an area that has good quality urban spaces and right nearby, beautiful rural/country space.  What we have here is mostly bleh, more and more sprawl that is neither city nor country that goes on forever.

I think the river and the parks around it could kind of sort of act as a little bit of a green belt for our city and adding more bridges to the suburbs cuts through the green belt and decreases any benefit it could have.   

[Ibanez]

Find me a spot in Tulsa where I can have an acreage, 20+, large enough to support a garden where we can grow all our own vegetables, have an orchard of 24 various fruit trees as well as blackberries, raspberries and blueberries planted that supply a large portion of our fresh fruit, where I can raise chickens, rabbits and where my wife can keep her horses. Somewhere I can have a berm built and target practice when I feel like it. Find me something that fits all those requirements and I might consider it.

As for the public safety issue. I have heard, though I do not have proof, that the Bixby FD have/had a rule where the stations on the two sides of the river were required to only respond to calls on their side of the river so that both crews would not end up on one side of the river or the other and be "trapped" there in case an accident happened on the bridge that prevented them from getting back across to another call. Again, I have nothing in writing, just what I have heard. It may not even be true any longer as that was 10+ years ago and due to growth my bet is they likely must respond to calls on both sides of the river. Still, it goes to my point that having a second route across the river is a public safety issue.

How would a bridge improve quality of life for Tulsans? Perhaps at some point those Tulsans might need to attend a sports tournament in Bixby or Jenks. Maybe they want to visit Carmichael's during the fall to buy pumpkins or take their children to the petting zoo. Perhaps they would even consider crossing the river during a bike ride, a run, etc.....