Coburn Has A Point

[Townsend]

talking about this issue  on KFAQ radio's morn. show.

bingo

[Hoss]

This guy cannot be for real. I'm speechless everytime I read one.of his posts. It's like a train wreck I suppose.

[carltonplace]

I know, we'll use this instead. It would save a lot of money. It'll even go great with the rest of the buildings downtown.

That's sum funny smile raht ther Nate. Is that a tumbleweed?

Just because we are suddenly deep into austerity doesn't mean that we need to stop hoping, dreaming, planning and thinking about the future (bye bye NASA). If we are going to give up on the future then why even keep the schools open?

[Conan71]

This guy cannot be for real. I'm speechless everytime I read one.of his posts. It's like a train wreck high speed rail crash I suppose.

FIFY

[bokworker]

I told you his avatar was appropriate...

[BKDotCom]

You've apparently missed the discussion that those bridges are the same design as the I-35 bridge in Minneapolis which collapsed.  As far as the intermodal part of it being a waste, I agree to an extent.  However, if that feature is not added, it will increase costs in the future for a functional high speed rail bridge.  Like it or not, high speed rail will be an integral part of transportation in this country in the future.

Not to defend sauerkraut, but the the Minneapolis bridge definitely was definitely not of the same design as our 244 bridge

via http://www.johnweeks.com/i35w/ms16.html which has more photos

[Conan71]

Not to defend sauerkraut, but the the Minneapolis bridge definitely was definitely not of the same design as our 244 bridge

via http://www.johnweeks.com/i35w/ms16.html which has more photos

Hey, I see metal and concrete, what's different?

Okay, who started that rumor on here then, damn it?  

I'd read that on here, so I figured it must be true.  

[dbacks fan]

The story was started by kimchi.

[Red Arrow]

If the bridge is that bad and in such poor shape like they claim- why are they going to let it alone for many more years?  

That old disease, fundsarelow.

[Red Arrow]

Hey, I see metal and concrete, what's different?

Fastener stresses in the gussets.

[Red Arrow]

...and like Coburn said we have no rail system for it and by the time rail (if it ever arrives in Tulsa) comes the bridge will be old & outdated and they will have to tear it down and build a new up dated one.

It may potentially be used as part of a downtown rail circulator system to get across the river.  

It was presented today as part of the draft plan of Fast Forward's Regional Transit System Plan.

www.fastforwardplan.org

Edit:

This will take you directly to a two page handout:
http://www.fastforwardplan.org/Portals/0/Documents/072011RTSP/RTSP_Handout_2page.pdf

[TheArtist]

What makes you say that- I believe the bridge in MN was steel and much of that steel was rusty from all the road salt used in winter, this Tulsa bridge has cement supports, and like Coburn said we have no rail system for it and by the time rail (if it ever arrives in Tulsa) comes the bridge will be old & outdated and they will have to tear it down and build a new up dated one. They are just spending money out the wazoo. IMO it's more tax money down the rat hole.

Again you and Coburn apparently are thinking about intercity rail which will indeed likely be a ways out, and not inner city rail.  I believe the new bridge is an integral part of the short range, 5 year, transit plan.  The rail will serve as part of the "foundation network" downtown circulator. 

[sauerkraut]

Hey, I see metal and concrete, what's different?

Okay, who started that rumor on here then, damn it?  

I'd read that on here, so I figured it must be true.  

Yes it's totally different from the I-244 bridge, I-244 uses double cement supports, no steel, the MN bridge had alot of rust from road salt and had a totally different design with a harsh climate. The I-244 bridge was built of basic simple design no fancy frills, and it got the job done. Driving past the construction work the posts and supports of the old bridge do not look bad at all. I don't know how old the I-244 bridge is  but they were building the I-244 roadway around 1978.

[Hoss]

Yes it's totally different from the I-244 bridge, I-244 uses double cement supports, no steel, the MN bridge had alot of rust from road salt and had a totally different design with a harsh climate. The I-244 bridge was built of basic simple design no fancy frills, and it got the job done. Driving past the construction work the posts and supports of the old bridge do not look bad at all. I don't know how old the I-244 bridge is  but they were building the I-244 roadway around 1978.

Wow.  You do realize that the I-244 bridge was rated "structurally deficient" at a rating of 31, right?

"Dementia, dementia calling"...

[swake]

Yes it's totally different from the I-244 bridge, I-244 uses double cement supports, no steel, the MN bridge had alot of rust from road salt and had a totally different design with a harsh climate. The I-244 bridge was built of basic simple design no fancy frills, and it got the job done. Driving past the construction work the posts and supports of the old bridge do not look bad at all. I don't know how old the I-244 bridge is  but they were building the I-244 roadway around 1978.

I'm glad you can tell that "the posts and supports of the old bridge do not look bad at all". 

Reality is that the bridges are 43 years old and carry a lower structural deficiency rating than the bridge in MN that fell.

The bridge that is being replaced carried an overall rating of 32.1 out of 100 (structurally deficient) with a substructure (the posts and supports) rating of 4 out of 10. Which means "POOR CONDITION - advanced corrosion, deterioration, cracking or chipping. Also significant erosion of concrete bridge piers."

65,000 people a day on that bridge, but to your trained eye it's "not bad at all"

The other 244 bridge has a rating of 36.8 with substructure rating of 4 as well.

http://www2.news9.com/bridgetracker/