South Yale Toll Bridge

[MichaelC]

quote:Originally posted by sgrizzle

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.

So, you're talking about the flow of primarily retail traffic, correct?

I can certainly see being opposed to any bridge altogether under the concept that Yale Place, on the Bixby/Jenks side of the river is basically uninhabited.  There are a few rather large homes, but not enough to build a bridge for IMO.  I don't see there being much traffic initially.  

Also, State HWY 67 between Glenpool and Bixby (less than 3 miles from the proposed bridge) is largely undeveloped.  Prime for commercial, if there were a larger population base with better access.

After the bridge is built all of that land becomes more valuable as residential and commercial because there will be significantly better access across the river.  Any bridge,  more or less benefits the burbs.  Automatically IMO.

[sgrizzle]

quote:Originally posted by MichaelC


So, you're talking about the flow of primarily retail traffic, correct?

I think at least half of all South Tulsa traffic is retail.

[MichaelC]

quote:Originally posted by sgrizzle

I think at least half of all South Tulsa traffic is retail.

Certainly.  Maybe something like 90%, depending on where exactly in South Tulsa you are.

Given that there's very little population directly south on Yale Place, I'm trying to envision where these people are supposedly coming from.  Obviously if you're driving around far South Tulsa, if you're wanting to get farther South and you're in the area, you'll use the bridge.  It avoids Bixby and Jenks.  HWY 67 is easily accessed, you cross the bridge you're pretty much out of town and on your way.

Coming into Tulsa, to me, is much more difficult to peg.  If it's retail, given retail options, future retail options, and current access to the area, I'm having a hard time grasping what people from what general area will use the bridge.

For example, will someone drive in from South Memorial in Bixby, go 4+ miles out of the way, to avoid maybe 3 stop lights on their way to Bixby's Lowes?  That doesn't make much sense to me, IMO, more or less, North Bixby/Woodland Hills access via Yale Bridge from most points in South Bixby, Luther, Haskell, is unlikely.  Slightly more likely to be used as access to Tulsa and Jenks, coming in from that general area.

Another likely scenario would be for someone to come from Glenpool, Kiefer, and Okmulgee; use HWY 67/Yale Bridge, and avoid basically all traffic.  Yale Bridge would be a bypass of most of Bixby.  However, this goes for South Tulsa/Jenks as well, there is already very good access to the area if one really wants to pay tolls (Creek Turnpike).  And, Glenpool is adding it's own Wal-Mart (probably other retail as well), AND finally if you're coming in from South 75, once you hit Glenpool you're only about 8 miles away from the future "Tulsa Hills".

So, the retail traffic argument is something that I'm having trouble with.  Which obviously, gives me trouble in regards to whether or not a 1/2 mile diversion of the bridge, would make a difference.

I'm slightly surprised, maybe no one has ever been down there, but I'm slightly surprised that no one is really talking about what this will do for access for future residential and commercial in Jenks/Bixby/Glenpool. If IVI is half as evil as some on this board say they are:  The place to look is in who owns commercial property directly north, or any property within about 5 miles south of this bridge.

[MichaelC]

Poll:

http://www.tulsanow.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=6331

I'm on the fence.  I'm ok with IVI's proposal, the CoT's "West Alignment", and No bridge at all.  For various reasons.

[iplaw]

How the hell did this topic end up in Politics and not Development?

[MichaelC]

quote:Originally posted by iplaw

How the hell did this topic end up in Politics and not Development?

The short answer:  The Toll Bridge, Tulsa World, Lorton, IVI, STCC, the County...all of them were pounded into bugdust by pundits, bloggers, politicians, and forum members, about a year ago.  This was a nasty politically angled debate, at one time.  

It's calmer for now, but there's no telling when it will get nasty again.

[iplaw]

quote:Originally posted by MichaelC

quote:Originally posted by iplaw

How the hell did this topic end up in Politics and not Development?

The short answer:  The Toll Bridge, Tulsa World, Lorton, IVI, STCC, the County...all of them were pounded into bugdust by pundits, bloggers, politicians, and forum members, about a year ago.  This was a nasty politically angled debate, at one time.  

It's calmer for now, but there's no telling when it will get nasty again.

Good to know.  I have a good friend who is on the board of the citizens council against the bridge, but I live in midtown so I could give a rip...

[Wrinkle]

Tulsa City Council has already passed a resolution against the bridge, which ostensibly means the City will not be selling the required property for the Tulsa end of the bridge to be built, at any location.

It remains a dead issue in spite of the Court ruling, at least until something changes there. And, when it appears something might happen in that regard, you can bet the temperature will raise substantially.

I seriously doubt Tulsan's are going to be interested in spending the $60 Million on approach improvements IVI says will be needed for their $33 Million bridge.

And, in all practicallity, why should we?
The bridge provides Tulsa nothing.

It only raises property values for parcels way south of the river, in Jenks and Bixby. And, devalues affected properties on the Tulsa side.

There's no reason for Tulsa to spend a cent.

[Wrinkle]

quote:Originally posted by ricecake

I have a question for those with a legal background or with a good handle on the law.

1. The Arkansas River Bridge Authority has entered into a sole source contract with IVI. (Tulsa World 04/10/06)

2. The state attorney general's office says that the Tulsa Authority for the Recovery of Energy cannot negotiate sole-source contracts. (Tulsa World 04/12/06)

What's the difference here?

I came here to post the exact same question. It appears to be selective rationalization.

And, we'll have to review those 40-year water contracts, too.

[Wrinkle]

quote: "I think there is no doubt a bridge is needed to bring people into our community." -Mayor Taylor

from Taylor talks about issues she's facing

I disagree, there's plenty of doubt a bridge is needed. Besides, it won't bring people into Tulsa, it allows unchecked sprawl to the south, and outside the City Limits, which provides nothing for Tulsa. All new development south of the river benefits only Jenks and Bixby, but, in particular, the developers who own land down there and want only to incease its' value.

[RecycleMichael]

I thought the bridge was two way.

[waterboy]

quote:Originally posted by recyclemichael

I thought the bridge was two way.

The traffic is but the revenue gains aren't.

Perhaps we could charge a higher toll for those cars leaving Tulsa and free tickets to the zoo for those entering.

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by Wrinkle

Tulsa City Council has already passed a resolution against the bridge, which ostensibly means the City will not be selling the required property for the Tulsa end of the bridge to be built, at any location.

It remains a dead issue in spite of the Court ruling, at least until something changes there. And, when it appears something might happen in that regard, you can bet the temperature will raise substantially.

I seriously doubt Tulsan's are going to be interested in spending the $60 Million on approach improvements IVI says will be needed for their $33 Million bridge.

And, in all practicallity, why should we?
The bridge provides Tulsa nothing.

It only raises property values for parcels way south of the river, in Jenks and Bixby. And, devalues affected properties on the Tulsa side.

There's no reason for Tulsa to spend a cent.

Bingo.

I don't see any reason for Tulsa to spend $60mm on infrastructure improvements for a project like this until the rest of long-overdue infrastructure improvements are completed between 81st & 101st and the river and Memorial.

Let IVI fund everything on this if they want it so bad.

[MichaelC]

quote:Originally posted by recyclemichael

I thought the bridge was two way.

IVI has contracted to have the Tulsa-bound lane be ruled by trolls.

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by MichaelC

quote:Originally posted by recyclemichael

I thought the bridge was two way.

IVI has contracted to have the Tulsa-bound lane be ruled by trolls.

Where do I sign up?