South Yale Toll Bridge

[Rico]

Well here it comes again, better but still no Cigar.
City Councilor Eagleton has recommended that there be a Board established to look into building the "Bridge", in south Tulsa, connecting Tulsa and the other side of the River"...

The proposed location for the bridge would be in line with the requests put forward by the STCC (South Tulsa Citizens Coalition)..

This is actually a good proposal.. However, Councilor Eagleton suggests, that this could be financed by a retail district created around the proposed site location.. And furthermore, the profit made from the "Bridge", could be used to cover cost overruns from the "Arena"...

I want to know the speed at which this fellow feels he could put this all together..
Is this not overextending the Capabilities of the City of Tulsa..?  How does he feel this could be done in time to pay for the Arena overruns..?

From Today's World.


Councilor proposes toll-bridge stake
By P.J. LASSEK World Staff Writer
5/10/2006



Other city councilors are skeptical of a venture with Jenks or Bixby.
The City Council will hear public input Thursday to decide whether the city should join with south Tulsa suburbs to build a toll bridge across the Arkansas River at Riverside Parkway.

Councilor John Eagleton is proposing that the city enter into agreements with Jenks and possibly Bixby to build a bridge. He said a retail zone should be created around the bridge, where increased sales-tax revenues could be used to fund infrastructure improvements.

Eagleton said the city should be working with sister cities "to do what is best for both Tulsa the city and Tulsa the county."

During a Tuesday council committee meeting, Eagleton said that if there is a council consensus to move forward on his idea, he wants the council to "encourage the mayor to act upon it."

He said the mayor is the appropriate person to negotiate for the city, and he has "no intention on trampling on the mayor's turf."

Councilor Bill Martinson suggested that Eagleton check Mayor Kathy Taylor's level of interest before proceeding.

"I don't know that there is really a whole lot of pressure anywhere in Tulsa to get this bridge built," Martinson said. "The
mayor has a lot on her plate right now. I think we've done without the bridge for a while and might be able to do without the bridge for a little while longer."

Eagleton said he has talked to the mayor three times and that "I believe she is very interested in the idea."

Taylor said later Tuesday that she is willing to hear from Eagleton or anyone else who has an idea regarding the bridge.

"I'm always up for innovative ideas, but there are things that need to be analyzed in Councilor Eagleton's idea," the mayor said. "This city has an amazing number of issues that we need to tackle immediately, so I applaud him for being creative and trying to put some solutions together."

The city of Jenks signed a 75-year agreement with Infrastructure Ventures Inc. in February to build and operate a toll bridge between 121st and 131st streets in the vicinity of Yale Avenue and Yale Place.

The South Tulsa Citizens Coalition opposes a bridge on Yale Avenue and has filed a lawsuit against Jenks and Infrastructure Ventures. The lawsuit is pending in Tulsa County District Court.

Eagleton said he opposes locating the bridge near Yale Avenue.

"There are enough citizens in Tulsa that object to a bridge on South Yale; that it is a nonstarter for us, . . . something as a council I don't believe we should support," he said.

Eagleton also said the bridge should not be private.

In a memo to councilors, he suggested using the proceeds from the toll bridge first to pay for the bridge and then to pay for cost overruns on the arena, if any. Recent bids on a major construction package for the arena came in at $32 million more than estimates.

Councilor Dennis Troyer said he wants to leave the bridge issue alone.

"We have a lot going on with the budget," he said. "I don't have the time to sit around with this. After June or July, I'd look at it, but I don't want to be bothered with it right now."

The council approved a resolution last year opposing a bridge at Yale Avenue until all the infrastructure is in place.

In February, the council discussed but did not act on another resolution supporting a bridge at Riverside Parkway if it would be built by a governmental entity or a public trust.


Picture of the proposed Development.

[MichaelC]

From Tulsa World

quote: Tulsa County District Judge Gordon McAllister said Thursday that he will rule in the next couple of weeks on a lawsuit filed by a neighborhood coalition that is seeking to block the construction of a toll bridge.

McAllister made that decision during a closed conference in his chambers with attorneys representing the South Tulsa Citizens Coalition and the defendants -- the Arkansas River Bridge Authority, the city of Jenks and Infrastructure Ventures Inc.

Kevin Hoskins, an attorney for the Citizens Coalition, said he believes that one of the strongest arguments among the 11 counts filed in the effort to stop the bridge is whether the 75-year bridge agreement can be considered a franchise, which would warrant a public vote.

The agreement, which sparked the lawsuit, is between Infrastructure Ventures and the Bridge Authority, which represents Jenks and Bixby.

Proponents of the bridge insist that the agreement is not a franchise because Infrastructure Ventures would not own the bridge, although the company would fund, construct
and operate it.

Jenks City Attorney Stephen Oakley said the Bridge Authority would control the bridge span from Jenks to Tulsa. Jenks would own the approach to the bridge on the Tulsa side.

The toll bridge would connect Yale Avenue in Tulsa to Yale Place in Jenks between 121st and 131st streets.

Hoskins said the defendants had resorted to being "hypertechnical" in an effort to "wiggle out of a franchise" and avoid a public vote.

"If it looks like a duck and sounds like a duck, it doesn't matter what you call it. It's still a duck," he said.

Oakley said the cost of building the bridge is increasing with every day of delay in the process of winning approval.

The judge's ruling might be appealed, as well, he said.

"It's as good of news as possible to be getting a ruling and move on," he said.

Citizens Coalition spokesman Michael Covey said: "I think it's the right way to go; we're going to get a ruling. It's clear that the citizens will prevail, and it should go to a vote of the people."

[Wrinkle]

We want a TOLL-FREE bridge. Or, no bridge.

If it takes a TIF, or Kimberly-Clark paying for the whole thing to do that, fine.

Otherwise, leave it on the Master Plan schedule until a time when the County/Cities can build it as a TOLL-FREE bridge.

[cannon_fodder]

I dont want to pay for a bridge that I will never use.  I have to reason to go over that bridge.  I have never even been to the other side of the river where it will span.

I really dont understand the big problem with this bridge as a toll-bridge.  Is it that some people dont want it at all and other people want to make tax payers pay for it?

If you are worried about the tolls, dont use it.  When the business fails the city/county whoever can buy the bridge from the company for cheap Im sure.

If you dont want a bridge there, why not?  121st Street and Yale in that area will soon be major routes of traffic anyway.  Argue about the 1 or 200 new homes that are going up there every other year if you are worried about the area getting busy.

For Wrinkle it seems to boil down to "I dont want to pay tolls on a bridge - so no one else should either!"  If you dont want to use it, dont.

[ttownclown]

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder

I dont want to pay for a bridge that I will never use.  

Umm, I doubt I will ever use the new loop up north, but that doesn't mean that my tax $$ shouln't be used to complete that project.  

There is no reason for the south Tulsa bridge to be a Toll bridge (especially a private toll bridge).  If it becomes a toll bridge - I propose we make the 11st,21st, 51st, 71st, & 91st all Toll Bridges.. Then we can all pay for maintance for the bridges we do use.

[cannon_fodder]

If I private company would pay to complete the North Loop, I would be happy to make that a toll road too.  

Not to mention a bridge to make it easier for Jenks (Bixby?) residence to get to Tulsa isnt very comparable to a highway that will provide potential jobs via industrial development.  If you think tolls are expensive, see what an industry pays in taxes sometime!

Hell, with the condition of bridges in this state maybe everyone should be required to get a pike pass and pay every time they use one...  heck, if we did that maybe they would even score above "F" on the annual inspections.

Good point just the same.

[YoungTulsan]

Infrastructure extends beyond your own little personal bubble.  That is the whole deal with infrastructure, is that it is complex to the point that the common man shouldn't need to worry about it.  If our metro area planned anything like smarter urban areas do, this bridge would have already been authorized, funded, and built a few years ago.  Not just that, but all the feeder streets around the area would be widened to handle the load that would be created by having a bridge there.  I don't know if the general public is even smart enough to be able to vote about infrastructure needs simply due to short sighted views such as "I dont go there and never would".   Maybe not, but that doesnt mean that there wouldn't be an overall benefit to the metro area as a whole to improve quality of life, connection between communities, and creating an overall increase in efficiency by putting in a bridge and improving the local infrastructure.   I'm not just talking about 121st and Yale specifically, but similar improvements overall.  But that fact that Jenks is drooling to get the rights to profit off a bridge should tell you that it is feasible, and a good investment as a public project free for all to benefit from.

So instead of desperate rich people crossing the river there, the average yokel could also cross and visit the subsequent commercial developments on each side.

I see a lot of jealousy in people in regards to areas of town they dont live in.  Ive seen some people on here gripe about Brookside stealing all the money and getting streetscaping.  Well, take a look at the streets around us.  Some of them look like they have been carpetbombed.  Others look like third world countries.   Well, we have to start SOMEWHERE if we are going to improve the streets.  Do you realize if Brookside gets their streets done nicely now,  they're probably in the back of the line for a while?   Which means other areas will be updated eventually leaving Brookside to be some of the worst streets in town?

What about the hatred towards South Tulsa?  You want your hippie bike paths and mass transit so we can be different from that South Tulsa suburban scum, but how do we pay for those projects?  I doubt we could do it without the tax dollars from all of those South Tulsan residents.  Well, some of the tax money comes from the oil money midtown... but Oil is bad because it fuels cars, and Al Gore said that driving too much is bad...

Face the facts:  Rich people, however much you despise them or are jealous, are the bread and butter of any plan for public improvements.   Rich people might not seem very fair in paying some schmuck $6 an hour, but they play a huge part in building millions of dollars in sidewalks for that schmuck to get himself to work on in an efficient manner.   It all evens out more than you think (I know it isn't perfectly even) - But here's the deal.  If you want to attract a tax base, which is codeword for affluent rich residents and spenders of cash, you have to kiss their butts.  Things that make life easier on the rich are what drives a better tax base to the community.  You give the rich doctor who lives in Glenpool a quicker way to work in Tulsa, and he might speak better of his life to his pal in Dallas.  That could bring another productive member of society from Dallas to Tulsa, not to mention a good addition to our tax base.  It sounds bad to people who are jealous of the rich and despise them with their monocles and top hats and what not, but you must KISS THEIR BUTTS to earn their tax base, to hopefully improve upon the entire picture of public projects such as education, mass transit, sufficient police force, etc.

All of the people gripeing about urbanism who wish they lived in San Francisco need to realize that SF has some huge corporations and huge money earners living there that fit the bill for people to ride on trams and get free condoms and beer or whatever the heck they give away socially there.

You can't create your urban utopia by telling the upper class to stick it.  Sorry for the rant, but the general theme of many people on this forum is that they want urbanism on one hand, but they hate the wealthy on the other.

You could never drive on a south tulsa bridge, but it could still do wonders for your visions for civic improvements that effect you, as in investment.

[cannon_fodder]

Wow, great post.

You've convinced me.  Put it to a vote and I'd vote to have the city build a bridge there.

I still like user taxes, but good points about community as a whole and it all evening out.

[MichaelC]

More at
Tulsa World

quote: City Councilor Bill Christiansen will roll out a plan Friday that calls for a proposed south Tulsa toll bridge to be built publicly, with Tulsa and Jenks reaping the revenues instead of a private company.

A news conference to provide more details will be held at 1:30 p.m. Friday in Room 201 of City Hall.

"I think the south Tulsa bridge needs to happen," Christiansen said Tuesday during a luncheon of the Republican Women's Club of Tulsa County.

He said a study indicates that over the next 75 years, a south Tulsa toll bridge is projected to net $900 million in revenues.

"That's a lot of money that would go a long way to help the city of Tulsa fund infrastructure needs and would be directly tied to economic development along the river and quality of life in Tulsa," Christiansen said.

The councilor said the bridge location would be proposed to connect at Riverside Drive. A current proposed toll bridge across the Arkansas River would connect Yale Avenue in Tulsa to Yale Place in Jenks between 121st and 131st streets.

"I'm pleading with the Republican Party to get behind the fact that the south Tulsa bridge, when built, needs to be a public bridge where the citizens of Tulsa and Jenks share in that revenue," Christiansen said.

He said a public trust would be formed that could issue revenue bonds to fund the construction of the toll bridge

[YoungTulsan]

So they still want a toll bridge.  Not really good news.  The only thing they are doing is saying the city will put up the money and build the thing, and then take the profits instead of the original plan of a private company building it and taking the toll money.  I guess that is an improvement.

I'm guessing the city of Tulsa wants to take out a "loan" on that future revenue, so now they are behind the toll bridge as a quick money grab.  They'll waste future revenue by borrowing the projected tolls, paying it back in the future with interest, to build the bridge and perhaps fill some other pressing budget matters (like the arena).  So in 5 years we'd have a toll bridge that is just paying back budget overruns from 2006 that we financed into the future.

I'm still pretty new and clueless about how some of this stuff works.  Couldn't a TIF district help pay for the bridge as a non-toll road by allocating the tax revenues from all the commercial and retail that will pop up when the road is opened?  There won't be nearly as much development in the near future if it is just a toll bridge, IMO.

You know, if $900 million worth of traffic is hypothetically using this bridge in the future, how many other people are going to say "I'll just cross at Memorial instead?" to avoid paying a toll..  - So now we'll have to make Memorial and 96th street 12 lanes wide?  Or we can just leave them how they are, turn them into huge traffic jam nightmares that FORCE people to use the toll bridge?

How much is it going to cost to cross the friggin river anyway?  What do toll bridges in other cities typically charge?

Toll bridges, toll highways, what next?  Toll streetlamps?  I wish this city (and State for that matter) could take care of its infrastructure issues.

[Rico]

quote:Originally posted by MichaelC

More at
Tulsa World

quote: City Councilor Bill Christiansen will roll out a plan Friday that calls for a proposed south Tulsa toll bridge to be built publicly, with Tulsa and Jenks reaping the revenues instead of a private company.

A news conference to provide more details will be held at 1:30 p.m. Friday in Room 201 of City Hall.

"I think the south Tulsa bridge needs to happen," Christiansen said Tuesday during a luncheon of the Republican Women's Club of Tulsa County.

He said a study indicates that over the next 75 years, a south Tulsa toll bridge is projected to net $900 million in revenues.

"That's a lot of money that would go a long way to help the city of Tulsa fund infrastructure needs and would be directly tied to economic development along the river and quality of life in Tulsa," Christiansen said.

The councilor said the bridge location would be proposed to connect at Riverside Drive. A current proposed toll bridge across the Arkansas River would connect Yale Avenue in Tulsa to Yale Place in Jenks between 121st and 131st streets.

"I'm pleading with the Republican Party to get behind the fact that the south Tulsa bridge, when built, needs to be a public bridge where the citizens of Tulsa and Jenks share in that revenue," Christiansen said.

He said a public trust would be formed that could issue revenue bonds to fund the construction of the toll bridge

Great News... I don't believe there are many opposed to it... if it is built in the right location....

And... the City makes the profit rather than Black Horse or whatever IVI.... alias Cinnabar....alias etc. is now calling itself.

[sgrizzle]

Tulsa/Jenks getting profits = good
Private entity not owning public infrastructure = good
Connected at riverside = good

Still a toll = I'm okay with it

[Conan71]

<<<-----

I like a good troll bridge.

We still have other problems in our existing infrastructure in more highly travelled areas like 81st street from Delaware to Mingo, 91st St. from Delaware to 169.  Let's take care of more pressing priorities for more heavily travelled use first.  I seriously doubt congestion on 81st and 91st streets have a whole lot to due with this bridge not existing now.

If I understand this correctly, we have to put the money out up front and pay ourselves back incrementally, and use part of it to re-pay BOK center over-runs.  YT's take on it is pretty good, IMO.

The prediction in $900 million revenue over 75 years is even more speculative than our legislator's estimate of the windfall a lottery would provide to the state's public schools.   More "potential" revenue streams are nothing more than high interest credit cards we give our government.

I think with the current budget status of the city, even doing a feasibility study is a luxury at this point.  You are talking about a bridge that will essentially service about 5% of the total traffic in the county.  All to cut a few minutes of inconvenience out of lives and save a little fuel for a small portion of the county population.

[sgrizzle]

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

<<<-----

I like a good troll bridge.

We still have other problems in our existing infrastructure in more highly travelled areas like 81st street from Delaware to Mingo, 91st St. from Delaware to 169.  Let's take care of more pressing priorities for more heavily travelled use first.  I seriously doubt congestion on 81st and 91st streets have a whole lot to due with this bridge not existing now.

If I understand this correctly, we have to put the money out up front and pay ourselves back incrementally, and use part of it to re-pay BOK center over-runs.  YT's take on it is pretty good, IMO.

The prediction in $900 million revenue over 75 years is even more speculative than our legislator's estimate of the windfall a lottery would provide to the state's public schools.   More "potential" revenue streams are nothing more than high interest credit cards we give our government.

I think with the current budget status of the city, even doing a feasibility study is a luxury at this point.  You are talking about a bridge that will essentially service about 5% of the total traffic in the county.  All to cut a few minutes of inconvenience out of lives and save a little fuel for a small portion of the county population.

81st at delaware and mingo are both under construction fyi.

the main point of the bridge is servicing not only existing people, but areas not yet built. Housing construction is active on both sides and tulsa would like those people to come to riverside and justify public and private development and pay our sales tax.

[Conan71]

Well aware of the construction at those two intersections- way overdue.  91st & Yale was just finished, about 10 to 15 years after it was needed.  But what about the two lane roads connecting those broad intersections in south Tulsa with other broad intersections?  Still creates bottle-necks.

Let's take care of infrastructure issues where people already live and suffer from congestion first, not where developers are anticipating building something in the future.  Tulsa has always been about 20 years behind the times on creating efficient infrastructure.  If we were caught up on other areas, I'd say: "Sure let's get the jump on this projected development." but we aren't.  

I'm not a fan of OKC, but one thing I noticed is up on the northern part of the city, they already have four lane divided roads where there is still no residential development, those roads have been there for years.  In fact, I can't think of well-developed areas of OKC which don't have four lane roads.  IOW- they thought ahead on infrastructure.  

Other part that is giving me the hee-bee-gee-bees is counselors frothing at the mouth over "projected" revenue streams which might be used to pay for other items we've already squandered money on or might in the future, based on nothing other than pure speculation as to how many people will use it and future traffic flow.