Pedestrian Bridge

[LandArchPoke]

I guess I need to dig in further on what they have narrowed down to the current design (pun may or may not be intended).  My interest piqued when I saw in the TW that a petition was being circulated to stop the demo of the old bridge and I figured I could count on a few of you here to fill me in on the controversy and I appreciate your responses.  When I left Tulsa in 2017, I was under the impression that the old bridge was toast.

I thought the same until I dug a little deeper on it as well and then when a few people started posting about it here I have learned even more.

Sounds like we weren't really lied to by the city but we were told 10% of the truth and they just omitted the rest (like that they studied other options in that HNTB report). The bridge is toast if you're talking about retrofitting it to be a double deck pedestrian bridge which would allow to break up the various uses (active users and passive users). However, it appears like it really would not be a monumental feat in order to save the bridge as is...

The city and others are being fairly misleading when they quote the cost to fix the old bridge is 'too much and should be new for that reason' in the figure they always point to is what it'd cost expand it with a second deck and refurbish it - not to keep it the same size and fix deferred maintenance issues, like moving it onto new piers.

You have to ask yourself why would we pay so much for a new bridge that might end up being twice as much to keep the old bridge as is without the double deck, to not really get any better function out of the new bridge. Yes, you'd still have the issues of bikes versus pedestrians on the old bridge and the city points back to that - but I don't see how the new bridge vastly improves that issue with the cut back that it's worth building new.  

If we were getting the bridge promised to us, I'd have very different feelings about it. Instead, to preserve the vanity of the project, they're cutting the utility (the critical part) out of the new bridge - and that's completely backwards. It's like buying a new Range Rover with crank windows and cloth seats... no thanks. We can raise money later for power windows though... It looks nice to take pictures for Instagram while standing outside it, just don't ask your friends to ride with you. 

[Red Arrow]

  It's like buying a new Range Rover with crank windows and cloth seats... no thanks.

Maybe more like no air conditioning here in OK.

[Arkansas Rio Gator]

http://www.batesline.com/archives/2020/12/midland-valley-pedestrian-bridge.html

[Arkansas Rio Gator]

I thought the same until I dug a little deeper on it as well and then when a few people started posting about it here I have learned even more.

Sounds like we weren't really lied to by the city but we were told 10% of the truth and they just omitted the rest (like that they studied other options in that HNTB report). The bridge is toast if you're talking about retrofitting it to be a double deck pedestrian bridge which would allow to break up the various uses (active users and passive users). However, it appears like it really would not be a monumental feat in order to save the bridge as is...

The city and others are being fairly misleading when they quote the cost to fix the old bridge is 'too much and should be new for that reason' in the figure they always point to is what it'd cost expand it with a second deck and refurbish it - not to keep it the same size and fix deferred maintenance issues, like moving it onto new piers.

You have to ask yourself why would we pay so much for a new bridge that might end up being twice as much to keep the old bridge as is without the double deck, to not really get any better function out of the new bridge. Yes, you'd still have the issues of bikes versus pedestrians on the old bridge and the city points back to that - but I don't see how the new bridge vastly improves that issue with the cut back that it's worth building new. 

If we were getting the bridge promised to us, I'd have very different feelings about it. Instead, to preserve the vanity of the project, they're cutting the utility (the critical part) out of the new bridge - and that's completely backwards. It's like buying a new Range Rover with crank windows and cloth seats... no thanks. We can raise money later for power windows though... It looks nice to take pictures for Instagram while standing outside it, just don't ask your friends to ride with you. 

I agree with most everything. But as far as the TRUTH issue, we might look at it very closely. As recently as July 2019 the Tulsa World could credibly write: "Repairing the 100-year-old Pedestrian Bridge would have cost more than the new bridge. The choice wasn’t between the new bridge and the old bridge. The choice was between the new bridge and no bridge."

Link: https://tulsaworld.com/opinion/editorials/tulsa-world-editorial-the-pedestrian-bridge-on-the-arkansas-river-has-taken-a-long-time/article_98b852d8-3f58-57df-b9bc-f451f324097e.html

Similarly, in July 2018 the World could credibly write:

"The city of Tulsa and Gathering Place officials had initially believed the century-old pedestrian bridge could be rehabilitated to complement the park. But a 2014 engineering analysis found that the bridge was structurally unsound, leaving the city with no option but to build a new one."

Link: https://tulsaworld.com/news/local/update-river-parks-authority-votes-to-take-over-pedestrian-bridge-project-near-gathering-place/article_116c8908-de12-5e2e-801a-a64c8b99730a.html

HMMM... If a person thinks about those statements in light of the actual report...and if one reads the December 9 Bridge Petition article carefully...what is one to make of it? Note especially in the Dec. 9 article where Mr. Zachary (to his credit) admits: "...what we had to realize was, if we did rebuild it being the way it was, we would still have a substandard trail width for the pedestrians and not necessarily the (required space) for bicyclists up on top.”

Link: https://tulsaworld.com/news/local/petition-seeks-to-halt-demolition-of-pedestrian-bridge-over-arkansas-river/article_61671bfe-398d-11eb-8cd2-afcb2268c468.html

Look at what he says, there, compared to what the public was told before. This is important to consider. I agree with most everything you said, though, like I said.

[buffalodan]

Man...batesline really throwing me for a loop. I tend to use him and tulsa beacon endorsements as a good check of things I don't agree with.

I've let my council people know that I am disappointed in how this turned out. If all things were fair, I would vote for the KKT bridge, then the old bridge, then the MVA bridge. I would have loved to see this be a Design-Build type bidding. See if any construction crews or designers want to take on rehabbing the old bridge.

The lesson I learned from this is that KKT should have won that contract and not the idiots from NYC. I personally believe MVA spent their money on a bridge that will look neat for their portfolio later and not on making the bridge functionally good.

[Arkansas Rio Gator]

Michael Wallis supports saving the bridge. See his important statement in today's paper. Or you can see it online.

https://www.facebook.com/tulsaworldopinion/posts/1761774130648688

Bridge petition is currently over 1,300 signatures.

Hope you have been enjoying a great Christmas Season!

[Arkansas Rio Gator]

From the 10 o'clock news.

https://ktul.com/news/local/support-for-saving-pedestrian-bridge?fbclid=IwAR1FKhz1kPt7FzHYDbLpamQTwrZjV5_dkIq8HKOjXLKwvUvGxHWdftmv01I

[SXSW]

Isn't work already started on the new bridge?  It's hard to tell what construction is for the dam and for the bridge.  I certainly don't want to see any delays, we have been waiting for this new bridge long enough as it is. 

Would a happy medium resolution be to preserve the old bridge in pieces and potentially use it somewhere else?  And if so where do you store the pieces?

[patric]

Would a happy medium resolution be to preserve the old bridge in pieces and potentially use it somewhere else?  And if so where do you store the pieces?

Like Zingo?  ;-)

Seriously, there are a couple places in The Gathering Place where the old bridge could be repurposed and preserved.

[swake]

Michael Wallis supports saving the bridge. See his important statement in today's paper. Or you can see it online.

https://www.facebook.com/tulsaworldopinion/posts/1761774130648688

Bridge petition is currently over 1,300 signatures.

Hope you have been enjoying a great Christmas Season!

He used to post on here,  but it's been a bunch of years.

[Arkansas Rio Gator]

Isn’t work already started on the new bridge?  It’s hard to tell what construction is for the dam and for the bridge.  I certainly don’t want to see any delays, we have been waiting for this new bridge long enough as it is. 

Would a happy medium resolution be to preserve the old bridge in pieces and potentially use it somewhere else?  And if so where do you store the pieces?

My thoughts…

It’s all dam, and it’s going to take a while regardless of what is done. That said:

Is it better to delay some months more, to get this right for Tulsa and generations to come, or to demolish—on an inadequate basis—and thereby royally screw things up, irreparably, for Tulsa and generations to come?

As for the idea of relocating the bridge…

Which makes more sense, moving a classic bridge that is already there (since circa 1905 is the current determination) or moving a bridge that still doesn’t actually exist?

I talked to a higher-level person recently. He mentioned the new bridge could still maybe be built “around” the existing bridge, or “always pushed up a little.” It would take some remodeling and adjustment…

I bet it won’t be until at least 2023, regardless… (Don’t forget about possibly inevitable construction delays.) It really should be done the right way or not at all.

***

If time is of the essence, the *quickest* fix would surely be: Rehabilitate the classic, keeping it a single-deck to avoid unnecessary complications. It’s already there. Check it over again, replacing what is necessary, beginning with the piers—but this time, for single-deck weight load. Bet we’d have a functioning bridge in half the expected time (unless the Gateway Bridge’s construction is going on in the same vicinity) and, it seems probable, for a heck of a lot less money.

So there are definitely reasons why some people are still seriously saying, save money and DON’T build the new bridge. Someone noted, recently, that the *double-decker* version actually discussed in the report would still save millions…that money could, indeed, be put to other uses…

But I think arguing to stop the new bridge is definitely a more problematic (probably unrealistic) position. It is not indefensible, especially in light of certain things from a few years back, but stakeholders already have interests, and canceling construction would surely upset more than a few people. Similarly, demolition plans are already upsetting more than a few people. The general idea of “compromise” makes most sense.

Seriously, a new bridge’s construction should not destroy the original bridge. The planned demolition is truly a cultural/architectural travesty in the making. If it happens, just wait and see. Give it some time to sink in, as hindsight and regret grow…


(Furthermore, the Tulsa public never formally agreed to the destruction or even relocation of the Midland Valley Bridge, regardless of what anyone may have assumed was implied by the 2016 election...)


The Midland Valley Bridge could still be made fully functional—it can still be one of the most pleasant walking bridges in the country, along with being “integral to Tulsa’s early history.”   

Has anyone revisited 11th Street, taking the dedicated walkway underneath the bridges, which leads to the Cyrus Avery Bridge commemorative display? Look at those various bridges/structures, near one other. (The Cyrus Avery Bridge is the most beautiful there...) Mr. Wallis’ suggestion for the Midland Valley Bridge and Gateway Bridge would be more doable and elegant than that arrangement.

Keep the old, new, and Tulsa could have the benefits of both—and more functionality.

Happy New Year!

[SXSW]

Speaking of the Cyrus Avery bridge, outgoing TAF director Amanda DeCort said not getting that rehabilitated was one of her biggest frustrations.  I agree it's a travesty that it isn't open for pedestrians.  Not sure why we spent money to build a pedestrian pathway on the 244 bridge that could've been used for the Avery bridge.  I still have hope that someday soon it can be converted to pedestrian/bicycle use and can tie into the Route 66 Experience originally planned for that site, maybe as part of a large mixed-use development that could include apartments or condos overlooking Crybaby Hill.

er successor, DeCort says, will also have to carry on the foundation's advocacy for the 11th Street Bridge, where the original Route 66 crossed the Arkansas River. It's still standing but not used.

"It's frustrating that we still haven't found a way to repurpose it," she says, listing it as her "biggest disappointment." "It's the reason Tulsa has Route 66, and I see tourists there every day. Something needs to be done with it."

https://www.google.com/amp/s/tulsaworld.com/news/local/amanda-decort-one-of-tulsas-most-vocal-advocates-for-historic-preservation-will-leave-behind-many/article_1a15559e-3fbf-11eb-861b-87ad0001617b.amp.html

[Vision 2025]

I read the report several years ago and as I recall the 11th Street Bridge is a structural mess due to chloride contamination which likely came from the river water used for mixing the concrete during construction.  I love arched bridges, especially that one as my Grandfather took it from his home on North Denver to work in the oil fields but unfortunately the only way I see the Avery bridge re-opening would be to construct a new one in its place and I'm not sure that is even possible with registered historic structures. 

Also note that the new pathway under the 244 bridge was Federally funded and the 11th street bridge does not qualify for such Federal Highway funds.

[SXSW]

I read the report several years ago and as I recall the 11th Street Bridge is a structural mess due to chloride contamination which likely came from the river water used for mixing the concrete during construction.  I love arched bridges, especially that one as my Grandfather took it from his home on North Denver to work in the oil fields but unfortunately the only way I see the Avery bridge re-opening would be to construct a new one in its place and I'm not sure that is even possible with registered historic structures.  

Also note that the new pathway under the 244 bridge was Federally funded and the 11th street bridge does not qualify for such Federal Highway funds.

If the bridge is completely structurally deficient would there be any way legally with its historic status to demolish it?  I feel like I've seen similar historic bridges demolished for those reasons in the past.  Would it ever be feasible to preserve the arches and other elements of the Avery Bridge and rebuild the current 11th St Bridge incorporating those elements but with structurally-sound piers/foundations?  That may be a better use of funds and while it's not the "original" bridge location it is the bridge that takes Route 66 over the Arkansas River.

[dbacksfan 2.0]

When I first started driving in 1979, the 11th St. bridge was open for all four lanes. Then a couple of years later the report came out that there were problems with the bridge and it was narrowed to two lanes, no vehicles over 10,000 lbs, and no pedestrian traffic, and then by '82 or '83 late 1980 it was closed and the new bridge was in place. Pedestrian traffic was close off in 2008.

I just remember everyone saying something to the effect of "The bridge is at a point of imminent collapse". I don't doubt that there where structural defects, it's just like how many other hundreds of bridges in the state that for decades was a case of deferred maintenance like the bridges on the BA from Yale to downtown.(specifically Yale to Utica)

The same seems to be true for the Midland bridge. I remember when it first opened it was only half way, but it had one or two observation decks on the top side, that were later removed since they were deemed unsafe because of structural issues with the bridge, and that was 40+ years ago.

I know there were question about it's structural condition after the floods in '84, '86, and I want to say that there was one or two more in the late 90's early 00's that there was long periods of high water flows in the river.

modified to reflect info according to Wiki