South Yale Toll Bridge

[Ed W]

I'm curious about this aspect:

"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."...Tulsa World

I suspect the life-span of a bridge would be right around 75 years or less, leaving the taxpayers holding the bag for a bridge replacement.  Not that I'll be around 75 years from now, though.

And another thing that bothers me - is there any requirement for pedestrian and cyclist access to the proposed bridge?  As private property, the toll bridge operators can bar any traffic they like.

[YoungTulsan]

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

<<<-----
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.

This is true, I really couldn't care less about this particular bridge.  It just pressed my buttons and got me riled up about our infrastructure problems.  Clearly the demand is there, and planners had already designated that as the spot where future traffic will flow through.  It makes perfect sense with Bixby Jenks and Glenpool expanding, and traffic in South Tulsa down Yale, Riverside, and 121st street all converging in the same general vicinity.

But yes, getting today's problems solved is also important, yes, even more important, than this.  I do think that if we had the money right now to build a free bridge, it would be an investment that paid off nicely in the increased tax revenue activity it would spur around it.

What can Tulsa do to catch up?  I've often wondered if they could draw up a master "fix all the roads" plan, projected the cost, and pitched a tax program to "get everything caught up".  Hell, a few of you smart guys on here should figure out how much we could fix and improve with the money they wanted for The Channels.  You could repave a lot of jacked up roads and do just about all of the projects identified as needed for the future with that large amount of money.

I personally would gladly pay a 4/10th of a cent tax for infrastructure as opposed to what the Channels offered (A very specific upper class oriented subsidy for private developers)

Get everything caught up, then reconfigure a plan to MAINTAIN everything in good condition.  The extra money spent on sales tax would be saved by not busting up my car every time I try to drive through parts of town that look like war-torn France in WWII.

[WillG]

Your idea makes too much sense, Young Tulsan, and thus unfortunately it's unlikely to be considered until it will cost even more.  Fixing Tulsa's infrastructure is needed a lot worse than an arena (or even an updated convention center which is at least economically viable).  Compared to much of the nonsense being worked on by city and/or county officials (annex the fairgrounds, trade Bell's for a parking lot, a stupid toll bridge that costs the city millions over the long term built on park land for the benefit of suburbs, etc.) this idea qualifies as "out of the box" thinking, although what you are talking about is really just tending to basic necessities.  Expect stiff opposition, it's more profitable to move slow so there's just enough work to keep the local contractors busy.  Who knows, maybe someone will soon have the gall to suggest that adequate police protection is more important than develpoing thr river!

[tulsa1603]

quote:Originally posted by 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.

When that doctor lives in Bixby, his property tax on his million dollar house doesn't really help Tulsa.  I don't see any reason that citizens of Tulsa should be encouraging a road that will only lead to further sprawl, more unecessary infrastructure, etc.  Increase the density of Tulsa, then we can spend more dollars per mile.  If they want the bridge, fine, but make it a toll road.

I could care less about "hippie bike paths".  I have no hatred for south Tulsa, in fact, I think it's got some of the most geographically beautiful parts of the city.  And I don't have an elitist attitude towards south Tulsans.  But I do believe in managing the growth of a city, and when we encourage people to live in Bixby with a bridge that makes it easier, then we will start to see our tax dollars head that way, too.  Hello, donut effect.

[Rico]

I could care less about "hippie bike paths". I have no hatred for south Tulsa, in fact, I think it's got some of the most geographically beautiful parts of the city. And I don't have an elitist attitude towards south Tulsans. But I do believe in managing the growth of a city, and when we encourage people to live in Bixby with a bridge that makes it easier, then we will start to see our tax dollars head that way, too. Hello, donut effect.

Hate to be the bearer of bad news but the Burbs are going to continue to grow at a greater rate than the Metro Area...

You do not reverse this mindset that the "Baby Boomers" have of a house in the Country away from the hustle and bustle of the City..Simply by as you say " managing the growth".. That train left the station long ago and far away...

If the IVI... Blackhog.... whatever plan is not followed.... One of the more desirable routes is  chosen and used.... You will make it easier for this bunch to make it to Tulsa and spend cash... The County is not going to give the City any of the property tax dollars any old way.

Tulsa and Jenks split the dough and play catch up on the infrastructure.
In a more solvent fashion than the current budget allows.

And we all live happily ever after...
[}:)]

[Double A]

True dat.

[Wrinkle]

Since nobody's come up with a good bridge solution, I recommend the bridge just go away.

Did we forget no bridge remains an option?

Maybe if someone were to suggest $0.25 Toll, making only 1/4 of the $800 Million (that's still $200M, a little less than the arena)

And, only if it does go to the public.

I still remain on the TOLL-FREE side of the issue. That or no bridge.

[TheArtist]

I actually like the idea of it being a publicly owned toll.  A toll will possibly put a bit of a damper on the sprawl issue. But if lots of people do use it, then THEY will be paying for the bridge and later for more infrastructure improvements in the rest of the city.

[Double A]

BINGO! We have a winner!

[deinstein]

YoungTulsan - How sure are you that the area south of Interstate 44 generates more tax revenue than the area north of Interstate 44? In addition, how sure are you that the area south of Interstate 44 isn't costing the city more revenue than it's giving in? I think you're making a brave assumption considering where Williams, Hillcrest, BOK, Sinclair, Sunoco, Cherokee Industrial Park, Southroads, etc. are located.

[]

[inteller]

quote:Originally posted by deinstein

YoungTulsan - How sure are you that the area south of Interstate 44 generates more tax revenue than the area north of Interstate 44? In addition, how sure are you that the area south of Interstate 44 isn't costing the city more revenue than it's giving in? I think you're making a brave assumption considering where Williams, Hillcrest, BOK, Sinclair, Sunoco, Cherokee Industrial Park, Southroads, etc. are located.

[]

 where do you think all the people that work at those locations live?  where are the property taxes assessed?  I am pretty sure the locations where those people live generate more taxes than the properties of businesses where they work.  oh and BTW Sunoco is really just a shell company, they moved most of their people to Houston.

[deinstein]

quote:Originally posted by inteller

quote:Originally posted by deinstein

YoungTulsan - How sure are you that the area south of Interstate 44 generates more tax revenue than the area north of Interstate 44? In addition, how sure are you that the area south of Interstate 44 isn't costing the city more revenue than it's giving in? I think you're making a brave assumption considering where Williams, Hillcrest, BOK, Sinclair, Sunoco, Cherokee Industrial Park, Southroads, etc. are located.

[]

 where do you think all the people that work at those locations live?  where are the property taxes assessed?  I am pretty sure the locations where those people live generate more taxes than the properties of businesses where they work.  oh and BTW Sunoco is really just a shell company, they moved most of their people to Houston.

They live...north of the interstate, south of the interstate, Broken Arrow, Owasso, Jenks, Bixy, Sand Springs...everywhere.

[MichaelC]

Developer, "New Group", opposed to alternative Delaware alignment.

From Tulsa World

quote: The neighborhood group opposes a proposal by a city councilor and a residents' coalition to relocate the embattled span.


A city councilor and neighborhood coalition's proposal to move a south Tulsa toll bridge alignment from Yale Avenue to Delaware Avenue has provoked the genesis of a second neighborhood group that isn't too excited about the new proposal.

Bob David, developer of the new Wind River addition at Delaware Avenue and 121st Street, addressed about 70 people Wednesday evening at the Hardesty Regional Library.

The residents and builders in Wind River and the adjacent Waterstone addition also heard from Terry Young, a former Tulsa mayor and county commissioner as well as a partner in Infrastructure Ventures Inc., the company that proposes to build and operate a toll bridge under a 75-year agreement with Jenks and the Arkansas River Bridge Authority.

Young said City Councilor Bill Christiansen's rendering of an Arkansas River bridge connecting to Delaware Avenue without having to acquire and remove any houses in Wind River is a fish story that isn't even possible.

"The theme of this is: It's the elevation, stupid," Young said.

He went over Infrastructure

Ventures' engineering drawings, which illustrate the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' requirements for building within floodplains.

To do so, it would be necessary to acquire and remove at least 14 luxury homes in Wind River and possibly an additional nine homes for a combined cost of about $9.2 million, Young said.

Additional costs associated with a Delaware Avenue connection would be the construction of a flood wall to stabilize the river bank, which is only about 65 feet from the Wind River addition.

The area's low elevation would require a significant amount of dirt fill, as well, Young said.

For the bridge to be one foot above the elevation of the levee, as is required, the roadway would have to be built up by 12 feet, which would make it loom over Wind River.

"That's the reason the bridge is where it is" in the major street and highway plan, Young said.

David said decisions about the proposed bridge should not be made by one city councilor and the South Tulsa Citizens Coalition, a group that has a pending lawsuit against Jenks and Infrastructure Ventures in an effort to stop the bridge's construction.

David encouraged those attending to contact all city councilors as well as the mayor to make their voices heard.

"They have been dodging this deal for a long time," he said. "They need to deal with this."

Wind River resident Phil VanTrease said connecting a bridge to Delaware Avenue would make no sense from either an economic or engineering standpoint.

"I'd definitely be against it, to put it mildly," he said.

[YoungTulsan]

Haha, looks like  the STCC didn't do their homework before getting out a map and a sharpie and saying we want a bridge THERE...

They should just give up.

I give up on the issue as well, let them have their toll bridge.  My previous posts were just rants about how we can't pay for infrastructure, which I get steamed about when I hear about a TOLL anything.

[MichaelC]

I like that west alignment.  It allows for an extension of Delaware (Riverside) which could go all the way to 131st, and connection to Yale.