A Critical Look at the Proposed Arkansas River Infrastructure Development

[sgrizzle]

Just out of curiosity....    Why did it only cost Wichita $12M to build its dam and the Tulsa dams cost 20 times that?

As of a May article, the cost was $200M to rebuild the Zink Dam including a whitewater area and island, and add 3 brand new dams. There is also bank work, access points, and additional cost to save the water features near the Zink dam. The final plan may be $150M for Zink, midtown, and South Tulsa/Jenks with Tulsa only floating part of the latter dam.

[dbacksfan 2.0]

Just out of curiosity....    Why did it only cost Wichita $12M to build its dam and the Tulsa dams cost 20 times that?

The two dams in Wichita are just under 300' across for each off them, Zink is just over 1000' from the west bank to the area before you get to the fountain.

[rdj]

Valid points, all.  This forum is a great place to have these conversations.  I love how everyone is civil with well thought out arguments.

That said, I'll have to agree to disagree on the main point.  I definitely agree that commercial or even residential development along River Parks would be a disaster - that should remain green space.  But green space flowing next to a full river is x10 more iconic than green space next to a dry riverbed.

Done right, water in the river is revolutionary.  That's the kind of project a century later that is still paying dividends when we're all dead.  Everything else is great and important too, but the river is the big one.  

Lastly, most of the benefits of planning outside of downtown are localized to the host neighborhood.  But the river is a truly city-wide asset.  The poorest residents of Turley have just as valid a claim to the riverfront as the wealthiest families in Maple Ridge.  A place where everyone can go in the summer, sneak a beer in a koozie, and watch the sun go down with the skyline behind them.    

That's a nice PR spin about it being a community asset, but folks in Turley are more concerned with putting food on the table than sneaking beers onto the riverbank and watching the sun go down.  First, many would struggle with transportation to even get there.

Does the river go across a large portion of town?  Yes.  Is the river an asset the entire community enjoys?  No and won't ever be.

[rebound]

That's a nice PR spin about it being a community asset, but folks in Turley are more concerned with putting food on the table than sneaking beers onto the riverbank and watching the sun go down.  First, many would struggle with transportation to even get there.

Does the river go across a large portion of town?  Yes.  Is the river an asset the entire community enjoys?  No and won't ever be.

This is a false argument.  Under your definition, nothing would be an asset for the entire community.  Large public green spaces, and related (River Parks, Gathering Place, etc, the River if were further enhanced) are the very definition of assets that benefit the entire community. 

[rdj]

This is a false argument.  Under your definition, nothing would be an asset for the entire community.  Large public green spaces, and related (River Parks, Gathering Place, etc, the River if were further enhanced) are the very definition of assets that benefit the entire community.  

You didn't read my post or his post for full comprehension.  There is a difference in benefit and enjoyment.  

Do I believe water in the river provides a benefit to the community?  Yes.  Do I believe it benefits the entire community?  This ROI for the entire community hasn't been proven yet, in my opinion.  The sales tax revenue, which drives our general operating fund, may see an indirect benefit, but not a direct benefit.  This is illustrated in several posts in this thread.  The one piece of that that could change would be if the development community felt already developed land was valuable enough to buy and re-develop.

To assert that the entire community enjoys water in the river is the false argument.  Of the 400M+ in the city of limits I would guess less then 25% have spent time in Riverparks in the twelve months preceding construction of The Gathering Place.  Do I think this number will increase greatly with the completion of the project, yes, but not to the point of the entire community enjoying the area.

My personal opinion is investing heavily in mass transit is a much greater benefit to the community and will be enjoyed by a much greater spectrum of people than water in the river.

[rebound]

You didn't read my post or his post for full comprehension.  There is a difference in benefit and enjoyment.  

Do I believe water in the river provides a benefit to the community?  Yes.  Do I believe it benefits the entire community?  This ROI for the entire community hasn't been proven yet, in my opinion.  The sales tax revenue, which drives our general operating fund, may see an indirect benefit, but not a direct benefit.  This is illustrated in several posts in this thread.  The one piece of that that could change would be if the development community felt already developed land was valuable enough to buy and re-develop.

To assert that the entire community enjoys water in the river is the false argument.  Of the 400M+ in the city of limits I would guess less then 25% have spent time in Riverparks in the twelve months preceding construction of The Gathering Place.  Do I think this number will increase greatly with the completion of the project, yes, but not to the point of the entire community enjoying the area.

My personal opinion is investing heavily in mass transit is a much greater benefit to the community and will be enjoyed by a much greater spectrum of people than water in the river.

OK, I get that. 

In terms of enjoyment, you are right, there will no doubt be a considerable percentage (perhaps, unfortunately, even a majority) of people in the Tulsa area that do not actively use the river, river parks, or even the Gathering Place once it is finished.  This is also true for just about every amenity in the city.  You specifically call out mass transit, and while I am in favor of developing better public transit solutions for Tulsa, the percentage of use of public transit versus enjoyment of the river and river-centric activities, is debatable.  (If we take your 25% figure for river parks - which may not be right but fine for discussion - do you think that 25% of the populace will use public transportation?  I don't.)

But my bigger issue is with your use of benefit in purely monetary terms.  A public-good type project, like the dams, or the Gathering Place, or mass transit, etc, doesn't have to have (or at least should not have to have) a specific ROI.  There are "greater good" considerations that must be factored in as well.  I actually would hate to see "development" along the river, as has been suggested by some here on the forum.  Instead, I'd like to see end-to-end parks all along the river.  A huge green space, with water in the river, that is so amazing that it does actually pull in people from the surrounding communities, and is a significant amenity factor in recruiting businesses and people to our city.  That's probably not going to happen, but a guy can dream, right?

Having said that, I agree that the overall price tag for the dams is very high and it probably makes more practical sense to repair Zink for now, and see what happens there first.  But I also think that looking at a hard ROI, for this or any other public works project, will only yield pragmatic and small-scale development and is not the way to get transformational change. 

[carltonplace]

I'm at the point where I feel we need to either fix or remove Zink dam so it stops killing people but other than that I've lost all personal need to see water in the river. The price tag is just too high and I feel that other projects offer an actual ROI and not just a pleasing aesthetic.

[DTowner]

The proponents of the dams made REI a big issue when they claimed in vague terms that a lot of development will result from putting water in river.  As the public has reasonably asked for more details to support those claims, the claims don't seem be holding up very well.

[rdj]

OK, I get that. 

In terms of enjoyment, you are right, there will no doubt be a considerable percentage (perhaps, unfortunately, even a majority) of people in the Tulsa area that do not actively use the river, river parks, or even the Gathering Place once it is finished.  This is also true for just about every amenity in the city.  You specifically call out mass transit, and while I am in favor of developing better public transit solutions for Tulsa, the percentage of use of public transit versus enjoyment of the river and river-centric activities, is debatable.  (If we take your 25% figure for river parks - which may not be right but fine for discussion - do you think that 25% of the populace will use public transportation?  I don't.)

But my bigger issue is with your use of benefit in purely monetary terms.  A public-good type project, like the dams, or the Gathering Place, or mass transit, etc, doesn't have to have (or at least should not have to have) a specific ROI.  There are "greater good" considerations that must be factored in as well.  I actually would hate to see "development" along the river, as has been suggested by some here on the forum.  Instead, I'd like to see end-to-end parks all along the river.  A huge green space, with water in the river, that is so amazing that it does actually pull in people from the surrounding communities, and is a significant amenity factor in recruiting businesses and people to our city.  That's probably not going to happen, but a guy can dream, right?

Having said that, I agree that the overall price tag for the dams is very high and it probably makes more practical sense to repair Zink for now, and see what happens there first.  But I also think that looking at a hard ROI, for this or any other public works project, will only yield pragmatic and small-scale development and is not the way to get transformational change. 

I can't deny your point of the benefit being greater than monetary.  However, is the overall benefit greater than other projects, such as transit or lowering the IDL?

I believe a "big city" transit system would lead to a transformation, to use your word, of our community.  A legitimate, large scale transit system, my preference would be a heavy investment in light rail, would allow for greater access to jobs by those who need that access the most, would encourage density and development along the transit nodes and would ultimately lessen the need for road and bridge maintenance.  In my opinion the true economic development that would occur as a result could raise the tax base to a level that projects like water in the river would be easier accomplished.  Better transit would also make is easier for more people to enjoy the river and the surrounding amenities.

[PonderInc]

I'm at the point where I feel we need to either fix or remove Zink dam so it stops killing people but other than that I've lost all personal need to see water in the river. The price tag is just too high and I feel that other projects offer an actual ROI and not just a pleasing aesthetic.

+1

[carltonplace]

I can't deny your point of the benefit being greater than monetary.  However, is the overall benefit greater than other projects, such as transit or lowering the IDL?

I believe a "big city" transit system would lead to a transformation, to use your word, of our community.  A legitimate, large scale transit system, my preference would be a heavy investment in light rail, would allow for greater access to jobs by those who need that access the most, would encourage density and development along the transit nodes and would ultimately lessen the need for road and bridge maintenance.  In my opinion the true economic development that would occur as a result could raise the tax base to a level that projects like water in the river would be easier accomplished.  Better transit would also make is easier for more people to enjoy the river and the surrounding amenities.

Public transit is gaining support in Tulsa, I think investing in smart inovative PT (and Education) could push Tulsa far ahead of our neighbors.

[Townsend]

I'm at the point where I feel we need to either fix or remove Zink dam so it stops killing people but other than that I've lost all personal need to see water in the river. The price tag is just too high and I feel that other projects offer an actual ROI and not just a pleasing aesthetic.

+2

[rdj]

Public transit is gaining support in Tulsa, I think investing in smart inovative PT (and Education) could push Tulsa far ahead of our neighbors.

Agreed.  In my opinion, putting water in the river is catching up.  What can we do to leapfrog the competition?  What can we do that makes us standout from peer cities in the midwest/southwest?

[up4more]

Attractions bring people into the area. The Drillers stadium, BOK center, golf, casinos, the zoo, botanical garden, aquarium, etc. They all bring people and revenue into the area and it also increases the need for public transit which would benefit even those who dont go to these attractions. The river being filled up I believe will spark a desire for river development and combined that would be a very nice attraction to the whole city. It will never become that attraction if it is a sand bar. The ROI I believe would be huge especially when you see as many people exercising, walking, playing along what is now a sand bank. If it had water? More visitors... more needs for those visitors. Many cities are visited for its visual appearance and if we could someday have Tulsa in a travel magazine next to San Antonia, like I have seen over and over before, than it will be more than worth the initial investment for years to come. We need more than oil and airplanes if we ever want to be a truly diversified economy. IMO.

[rdj]

Attractions bring people into the area. The Drillers stadium, BOK center, golf, casinos, the zoo, botanical garden, aquarium, etc. They all bring people and revenue into the area and it also increases the need for public transit which would benefit even those who dont go to these attractions. The river being filled up I believe will spark a desire for river development and combined that would be a very nice attraction to the whole city. It will never become that attraction if it is a sand bar. The ROI I believe would be huge especially when you see as many people exercising, walking, playing along what is now a sand bank. If it had water? More visitors... more needs for those visitors. Many cities are visited for its visual appearance and if we could someday have Tulsa in a travel magazine next to San Antonia, like I have seen over and over before, than it will be more than worth the initial investment for years to come. We need more than oil and airplanes if we ever want to be a truly diversified economy. IMO.

Where will this river development be located?  The Arkansas River and the San Antonio Riverwalk or even Bricktown Canal are very different beasts.  If you want San Antonio style Riverwalk you're better off opening the ditch from the Pearl District, thru Veteran's Park and on to the river.  I would likely support public dollars for that project over dam's in the river.