Pedestrian Bridge

[Tulsan]

I feel like they're better off not striping it.

[dbacksfan 2.0]

I feel like they're better off not striping it.

Thanks for posting this, I have been wondering how it would be divided up. I was looking at the paths along the river and comparing them to ones here, and using the measuring tool on Google maps (I know it's not that accurate) and the all looked to be ~10 feet in width but that's for both cyclist and pedestrian traffic.

The one thing I find odd is that all the seating is to face north. JMO opinion is that there should be some south facing seating and this could easily be done with a chicane in the path to move cyclists from one side to the other.

[Oil Capital]

I feel like they're better off not striping it.

Why do you think it's better unstriped?

This layout looks nice, but of course it presumes they come up with money for benches...

[Tulsan]

Why do you think it's better unstriped?

This layout looks nice, but of course it presumes they come up with money for benches...

Just personal intuition... unlike the trail, the bridge will be a confined space for pedestrians to meander. Folks will not just be getting from point A to point B, but stop to gather, sight-see, sit and rest. The proposed division would confin pedestrians to 78" of the total 216" wide bridge deck, with 24" reserved for center benches and 114" for zooming cyclists. I feel that cyclists go much faster on designated lanes, which will cause the bridge to be more dangerous. What if a pedestrian wishes to look out over that side of the bridge, and has to dodge traffic?

I think the better configuration would be to open the entire space without designated lanes, and require cyclists to go slower and respect pedestrian traffic.

[dbacksfan 2.0]

Just personal intuition... unlike the trail, the bridge will be a confined space for pedestrians to meander. Folks will not just be getting from point A to point B, but stop to gather, sight-see, sit and rest. The proposed division would confin pedestrians to 78" of the total 216" wide bridge deck, with 24" reserved for center benches and 114" for zooming cyclists. I feel that cyclists go much faster on designated lanes, which will cause the bridge to be more dangerous. What if a pedestrian wishes to look out over that side of the bridge, and has to dodge traffic?

I think the better configuration would be to open the entire space without designated lanes, and require cyclists to go slower and respect pedestrian traffic.

$10.00 say the cycling crowd will whine and cry because people are meandering all over the bridge and they have to keep yelling at people when they approach pedestrians, and they have a right to have protected lanes on the bridge.

[Arkansas Rio Gator]

Another article that closes with this quote: "If it's too much for the shade, it would be best to build it without the shade for now," Wells said. "Just get the necessity taken care of and then maybe later we can address the shade issue."

https://ktul.com/news/local/shade-no-longer-part-of-tulsa-pedestrian-bridge


Rather, find a better/cost-effective solution before it's too late to go back to the drawing board. If sufficient funding cannot be secured for shade on this new design, it is effectively more compromised than the old bridge.

[Oil Capital]

I don't remember the other designs, but is it possible one them might be more cost-effective?  This appears to be a pretty expensive design.  I'm afraid the best course at this point might be to start over.  Cannon_Fodder's initial reaction to the design finalists captures the issues:

The old bridge provided:

1. A smooth transition from the trails
2. A river crossing
3. Shade
4. Fishing areas
5. One or two small gathering places
6. and was architecturally cool by virtue of aging well
also...
7. had we gotten the renovations that were planned, it also would have been a double-decker structure that separated cyclists and pedestrians.

Generally speaking, none  of these bridges check off all those boxes.  Certainly some have improvements here, others there, but none really amazes me.  Since we are in the conceptual phase, I'm really surprised by that.  Generally speaking,  elements are stripped away for engineering or budget reasons as we go along.  It is less likely that things are added from conceptual design to actual bridge.

#1 is low on my list because it has no shade, has "exposed aggregate" as the surface, and the design seems fairly straight forward bridge

#2 is OK.  It has shade and is a vaguely interesting design

#3 is about the same. Hard to say for sure, but it appears to give some thought to separating cyclists and pedestrians using surfaces. The lighting concept is also interesting (but I wonder if the copper would also serve as a heat radiator).

#4 is very interesting. It offers some shade, gathering places, and is the most unique design.


So I guess I'd go with #4.  Can't say I'm blown away by any of them.
   

[heironymouspasparagus]

Another article that closes with this quote: "If it's too much for the shade, it would be best to build it without the shade for now," Wells said. "Just get the necessity taken care of and then maybe later we can address the shade issue."

Massively stupid statement by a massively stupid person.  


Wanna know what that is gonna be like?   Get up on a Kohl's store, or Walmart, or whatever your favorite big box is (I have done that.).  In July or August...or any other month of the year.  Walk around a while and experience the thrill of no shade on an elevated surface. 

This is gonna be a bust.

[Arkansas Rio Gator]

Various letters to the editor by different individuals from the last two months.


Bridge claims disputed, October 25 ("Editor's note: Charles Pratt is a licensed professional engineer.")

https://tulsaworld.com/opinion/letters/letter-to-the-editor-bridge-claims-disputed/article_5d6d7d74-1537-11eb-b5e9-ef5ce921d5a0.html

Selected quote: "Had the editors of the Tulsa World closely read the 2015 engineers report, deeming the old pedestrian bridge as dangerous, they would find out that any such conclusion of the bridge’s safety would be fake news."


Design for new pedestrian bridge looks less user-friendly, October 18

https://tulsaworld.com/opinion/letters/letter-to-the-editor-design-for-new-pedestrian-bridge-looks-less-user-friendly/article_8fe4201a-0e6f-11eb-abac-6bfb0e6ec7d3.html

Selected quote: "This taxpayer thinks this plan is outright stupid and wasteful. If the existing structure needs beefing up, do it."


Holding on to the River Parks bridge, September 16

https://tulsaworld.com/opinion/letters/letter-to-the-editor-holding-on-to-the-river-parks-bridge/article_8c06035c-f39c-11ea-8ca5-8b73737d3480.html

Selected quote: "In a city which has bulldozed many of its historic downtown buildings, maybe we might want to hold on to this old bridge. Just saying."


New pedestrian bridge is a step backward, October 20

https://tulsaworld.com/opinion/letters/letter-to-the-editor-new-pedestrian-bridge-is-a-step-backward/article_c8b3ebe8-10d4-11eb-9b82-8f63760b24e6.html

Selected quote: "Please, block the premature demolition of our time-tested, now-abandoned bridge. Research the question impartially. Do not settle for an unworthy successor. Replace it wisely or not at all."


Wonder if anyone with authority is listening...

[Arkansas Rio Gator]

And another one from today:

https://tulsaworld.com/opinion/letters/letter-to-the-editor-tulsans-deserve-a-covered-bridge-across-the-arkansas-river/article_c851b2a8-1f83-11eb-b40a-73daa276ce9d.html

Selected quote: "Tulsa deserves a bridge at least as good as what we had. If it is no longer safe, fix it.

"Surely it would cost less than a new one, and most of it is still there. We would then end up with a charming, old fashioned, safe, covered bridge."

[heironymouspasparagus]

Various letters to the editor by different individuals from the last two months.


Bridge claims disputed, October 25 ("Editor's note: Charles Pratt is a licensed professional engineer.")

https://tulsaworld.com/opinion/letters/letter-to-the-editor-bridge-claims-disputed/article_5d6d7d74-1537-11eb-b5e9-ef5ce921d5a0.html

Selected quote: "Had the editors of the Tulsa World closely read the 2015 engineers report, deeming the old pedestrian bridge as dangerous, they would find out that any such conclusion of the bridge's safety would be fake news."


Design for new pedestrian bridge looks less user-friendly, October 18

https://tulsaworld.com/opinion/letters/letter-to-the-editor-design-for-new-pedestrian-bridge-looks-less-user-friendly/article_8fe4201a-0e6f-11eb-abac-6bfb0e6ec7d3.html

Selected quote: "This taxpayer thinks this plan is outright stupid and wasteful. If the existing structure needs beefing up, do it."


Holding on to the River Parks bridge, September 16

https://tulsaworld.com/opinion/letters/letter-to-the-editor-holding-on-to-the-river-parks-bridge/article_8c06035c-f39c-11ea-8ca5-8b73737d3480.html

Selected quote: "In a city which has bulldozed many of its historic downtown buildings, maybe we might want to hold on to this old bridge. Just saying."


New pedestrian bridge is a step backward, October 20

https://tulsaworld.com/opinion/letters/letter-to-the-editor-new-pedestrian-bridge-is-a-step-backward/article_c8b3ebe8-10d4-11eb-9b82-8f63760b24e6.html

Selected quote: "Please, block the premature demolition of our time-tested, now-abandoned bridge. Research the question impartially. Do not settle for an unworthy successor. Replace it wisely or not at all."


Wonder if anyone with authority is listening...

Lies and distortions going on about the bridge being unsafe, just like so much other carp in Tulsa.  That's what Republicans bring to the table.  The era of 'Urban Renewal' all over again. 

Stupid as expected.

[shavethewhales]

I understand the disappointment and fondness of the old bridge, but don't want to see this become some grand conspiracy theory like everything else these days. If the experts say a bridge is unsafe, we should believe them. I do also agree that the bridge design needs to be revisted. We can call for a better bridge without assuming there's some conspiracy to deliver a poor design.

[SXSW]

As much as I would like there to be shade on this bridge how many other pedestrian bridges have shade structures?  Genuine question.  I'm familiar with the one in Austin and it doesn't have any kind of shade, and their summers are longer and more brutal than ours.

[dbacksfan 2.0]

As much as I would like there to be shade on this bridge how many other pedestrian bridges have shade structures?  Genuine question.  I'm familiar with the one in Austin and it doesn't have any kind of shade, and their summers are longer and more brutal than ours.

The pedestrian bridge over Tempe Town Lake has three areas where shade can be added or removed as the weather changes.

https://goo.gl/maps/dpJDbntKBGCZAGcPA

https://goo.gl/maps/91fqY94Bn5gz862L8

https://goo.gl/maps/cYuf3kJDTRg1v2ve6

[SXSW]

The pedestrian bridge over Tempe Town Lake has three areas where shade can be added or removed as the weather changes.

https://goo.gl/maps/dpJDbntKBGCZAGcPA

https://goo.gl/maps/91fqY94Bn5gz862L8

https://goo.gl/maps/cYuf3kJDTRg1v2ve6

Interesting, seems like provisions for something like this could be designed into the bridge and added later.  Fabric shade structures are probably the most cost-effective solution.