South Yale Toll Bridge

[nonimbys]

So let me get this straight, the STCC/Christiansen alignment will destroy a bunch of homes and put an elevated roadway which "looms over" Wind River...while the Yale alignment (from the master road plan) destroys no homes and will come back down to existing street elevation by the time it hits the north side of the river, and will not be near an existing subdivision.   How can anyone not see the logic of the Yale alignment?  Don't you think the street planners considered all of this when they placed it at Yale so many years ago?  Am I missing something here?

[Double A]

quote:Originally posted by nonimbys

So let me get this straight, the STCC/Christiansen alignment will destroy a bunch of homes and put an elevated roadway which "looms over" Wind River...while the Yale alignment (from the master road plan) destroys no homes and will come back down to existing street elevation by the time it hits the north side of the river, and will not be near an existing subdivision.   How can anyone not see the logic of the Yale alignment?  Don't you think the street planners considered all of this when they placed it at Yale so many years ago?  Am I missing something here?

It was originally planned on Riverside, only a few years ago was it changed to Yale. Nice try.

[Wrinkle]

Naturally, Bob David is out to protect his 'investment', even though planning a project like his could've only occurred once he felt sure of the outcome, ya know, like it a done deal.

Must be upsetting when things don't go the way you planned them.

As for the $9.6 Million, we can just condemn the property, it's easy as pie.

The elevation issue is a red herring, too.

[MichaelC]

I haven't been down on that corner lately, can't remember how many houses are down there.  But, if the Delaware alignment is going to be clearly visible from "Wind River", it might make their case stronger than that of STCC since a Yale alignment would be a bit farther from current housing additions.

Not that I really care, I do like the alternate west alignment though.  Might solve the issue for  both STCC's and "Wind River".

[nonimbys]

Double A – Everything I have read on the issue has told me the following:  The "original" alignment was actually to have an east-west bridge which would connect 121st  across the river.  Some industrial projects that Jenks let happen years ago (the power plant among others) made that bridge un-doable.  After that the alignment was changed to Yale Ave to Yale Place (since the Kimberly Clark plant made a straight shot un-doable).  I have never seen anything that had the riverside alignment as an official "on the books" path.  But perhaps I missed something.  Either way (and I am no engineer) it would seem to me to make the most sense to have a bridge "land" at an intersection.

Wrinkle – I don't know Bob David (I did meet him once) but  I would think that were I a developer I would want to know what the city plans were for the roads/streets around my development before I broke ground, so I don't see why we should condemn (no pun intended) him for that.  On the elevation, how is that a red herring?  

MichaelC – I drive by that area from time to time and since becoming interested in this issue I have looked around and there are currently no homes at 121st and Yale, there is a nursery on the SE corner and I think that is it.  Also, what West alignment are you talking about?  In the paper they had one in the middle (between the two alllignments) but that seems to be the worst for the people of Tulsa as it cuts right through the park.  I like parks.

It seems to me that the only reason the STCC folks don't like the Yale alignment is because they don't want more traffic up Yale.  Here is an idea:  Don't buy a house that backs up to an arterial road.  I am pretty sure that Yale has been there for quite some time.

[MichaelC]

I'm not a fan of STCC either.  These are folks that moved way out to the far South because they could build what they wanted, and "get away from it all".  Well, they didn't move far enough.  They're still in the City of Tulsa, and now they're going to resist all development that might interfere with their fine country living.  

That being said, I'd also be fine with no bridge at all there.  Depends on how this all plays out, I like the original private plan with the County, but if this becomes public, I in no way feel that the City of Tulsa needs to subsidize a substantial portion of the construction of this bridge.  Infrastructure may eventually lead Tulsa to a position where it needs to build that bridge, right now it mostly benefits the burbs.

[waterboy]

quote:Originally posted by nonimbys

Here is an idea:  Don't buy a house that backs up to an arterial road.  I am pretty sure that Yale has been there for quite some time.

Seems like the Wind River folks might have heeded that advice also. Only 65 ft from a river levee and backing up to Riverside?

A couple of insights. The park loses some of its land with either of the proposed IVI crossings. Not what the estate had in mind but they prefer the yale alignment.

Most importantly, Bob David has a couple of partners in Wind River. Any idea who? One is none other than Bobby Lorton. The World neglects to disclaim that in their stories about the bridge controversy. Another close ally is River Parks Authority. They have some sort of donation to the RPA for every house sold to fund more paths in the area. No doubt promises were made and the pressure is on to make sure the bridge goes where they want it.

I made a proposal on another thread that I would like input on. Why don't we encourage the IVI folks to build the low water dam too? They could take a % of increased tax revenues that Jenks is supposed to get from all the resulting development. It could be packaged with the bridge.
Any response?

[Wrinkle]

I'm for no bridge.

At least until a time when the County considers it priority enough to ask for public funding and a TOLL-FREE BRIDGE, give the City of Tulsa a reason to participate and put Jenks/Bixby in roles consistant with their participation.

There currently is nothing on the south end besides a thick bank of heavy industry along the river. Beyond that are 40-acre+ ranches.

As it is, it's benefit is soley developers who see only potential development south of the river, and south of the industrial zone, none of which helps Tulsa in any way.

Seems government has forgotten its role.

When it is built, it should align at Yale Av. (on both ends). Since the County managed to give Yale Ave ROW to Kimberly-Clark, the next best alignment is Pittsburg Avenue ("Yale Pl").
Then, users for the next 75 years will have only to go one mile out of their way each time. And, I suppose, there's some DOT statistic about accidents on curved vs straight bridge approaches, and resulting fatalities. Anyone cared to figure that cost?

[MichaelC]

From Tulsa World

quote: Ruling advances proposed south Tulsa-Jenks link


Proponents of a toll bridge connecting Jenks to Tulsa won a significant legal victory Monday when a judge ruled in favor of a Tulsa-based company seeking to build and operate the bridge.

Tulsa County District Judge Gordon McAllister denied the South Tulsa Citizens Coalition's motion for summary judgment on nine of 11 counts that challenged the legality of a 75-year agreement that Jenks and the Arkansas River Bridge Authority made with Infrastructure Ventures Inc.

The ruling means that Infrastructure Ventures and the bridge authority may move forward with plans for a bridge connecting Yale Avenue in Tulsa to Yale Place in Jenks, between 121st and 131st streets.

"We are absolutely elated, but we are not surprised," Infrastructure Ventures President Bill Bacon said in a prepared statement. "We have strongly believed in our
position from the beginning of this project four and a half years ago, and -- for the second time -- the court has agreed."

McAllister ruled that because Infrastructure Ventures' agreement is with the bridge authority and not the city of Jenks, it is not a franchise and therefore did not require a public vote as was argued by the citizens group. The bridge authority was formed by Jenks and Bixby.

A spokesman for the citizens coalition, Michael Covey, said the group would meet in the next couple of days to decide whether to file an appeal to the Oklahoma Supreme Court.

"We're obviously disappointed in the judge's ruling," Covey said. "We'll regroup and see what makes the most sense. I am certainly not going to rule out the possibility of appealing this matter."

Covey said he believes that the coalition had very strong arguments against the legality of the toll bridge agreement.

"Why wouldn't a municipality just go form an authority to do everything?" he asked. "That way they can get around laws that were put in place to protect the public."

The other two counts in the lawsuit relate to eminent domain and are premature for determination until condemnation proceedings occur, the judge said in his ruling.

If the coalition decides not to appeal, Covey said, Infrastructure Ventures has received the green light to build the bridge unless the city of Tulsa decides to contest whether property owned by Tulsa can be con demned to build it.

"That probably is the first decision the city of Tulsa needs to make," Covey said. "But that decision probably will not be made until we decide to file an appeal or not."

Bacon said that almost every large bridge, road or turnpike project in Tulsa County has been controversial.

"But as we look around, we find that all of these projects, once built, ultimately proved to be invaluable contributors to improving the quality of life in our communities," he said.

Bacon said he is confident that the ruling would be upheld on appeal.

As part of his ruling, McAllister said Jenks and the bridge authority have the authority to construct or maintain a toll road in Tulsa County. He also found that the Competitive Bidding Act is inapplicable.

[sgrizzle]

quote:Originally posted by MichaelC

Christiansen has said the bridge alignment here, credited to STCC is someone's guess based on a hand drawing. He is supporting the CoT alignment that destroys no homes. One of those spokesman "standing up for Wind River" is a member of IVI.

[MichaelC]

quote:Originally posted by sgrizzle

Christiansen has said the bridge alignment here, credited to STCC is someone's guess based on a hand drawing. He is supporting the CoT alignment that destroys no homes. One of those spokesman "standing up for Wind River" is a member of IVI.

You absolutely opposed to the IVI alignment?  It doesn't appear to destroy homes, at least none on the Tulsa side.  If fact, IVI alignment, out of the three "proposals", appears to be the farthest from existing homes.

[nonimbys]

It seems to me that the IVI alignment also has the least impact on the park.  From the article with the family that donated the land I understand that they want the park to "interact" with the river, that is to look like undisturbed river land.  The CoT path would seem to put a road between the river and the park and, since I am sure it would have some type of elevation to it, would cut off any river view from the park as well.  I think you have to admit that (despite your opinion of IVI) the IVI alignment has the least impact on all parties. No?

[MichaelC]

The way this has all dragged on, I'm not sure who is opposed to the IVI alignment, or for what reasons.  Not sure sgrizzle is opposed to IVI, or their proposal.  Just don't know.

The IVI alignment IMO, has always made more sense than the STCC's proposal, mostly on the basis that the river is much closer to 121st and Delaware.  The river is basically across delaware from housing additions.  There's no telling how much flood control, drainage, levees, fill for the river, it's going to take to build STCC's proposal.  It is likely to be more expensive.  And we could very well see damage years later, when IVI is simply no longer responsible for water control.  

The IVI proposal accesses 121st and Yale, which is around a quarter mile from the river.  There are no residences between 121st/Yale, and the river.  

If you've been down that way, you probably noticed that drainage is a serious problem, a lot of those fields stay wet good portions of the year.  Don't know how much flooding is a problem, I know it's serious enough to close down Sheridan from time to time.  It needs to be considered IMO, especially if you want to start jacking with the shoreline at 121st and Delaware.

[sgrizzle]

I'm opposed to IVI in general. Too many people who are financially involved are using their political and personal influence. It's conflict of interest on crack.

I like the CoT alignment better than IVI's due to traffic flow. My main concern with the IVI alignment is that traffic will automatically go east on 121st and bixby gets all the benefits.

[Double A]

quote:Originally posted by sgrizzle

I'm opposed to IVI in general. Too many people who are financially involved are using their political and personal influence. It's conflict of interest on crack.

Exactly.