River vote...county sets rules

[Vision 2025]

YoungTulsan,

Great plan, creativity is everything!

Many similar ideas were brought forward in the River Master Plan process (I was not a part of the study until near the end but attended the majority of the meetings and have read the plans, findings and public comments page by page).

Unfortunately in this area there are some significant infrastructure and environmental issues in the area that I will touch on.

1.  This area is immediately downwind of the City's waste water treatment plant (S. of 44) and the industrial looking facility on the N side of 44 and the creek right on the river is the flow equalization basin for the plant which fills up with raw sewage when it rains.  The cost to move these is more than the current river plan.

2. The area of the West Bank soccer fields in an old land fill and very unstable ground.

3.  There are known ground water contamination issues in parts of the area.

4.  I know the area pretty well from past construction projects.  10 years ago I ran an interceptor sewer in the area and on to the west and whenever we encountered ground water and had to pump it we were required to constantly monitor the discharge from the pumps and were always required to discharge it back into the sanitary sewer under an industrial pre-treatment permit.

Some day I believe you will be absolutely correct in the value of this area and will overcome the costs associated with properly utilizing it.  

Additionally, the river at this location had been identified as a potential dam site however if you back water up there in will flood what has been identified as sensitive habitat that the living river concept will greatly enhance.  

Lastly, I agree no one should have to live that close to a refienery.

[TheArtist]

I like your ideas YT but I would rather there not be any widening of riverside. For about 6 years I lived just a few houses off riverside on 46th st.  It was absolutely no problem crossing riverside. I would rollerblade and walk there often. I like the character of riverside in that area all the way towards downtown much better than the way it is at 71st. The 71st area with its wider roads feels more suburban. The areas towards downtown feel cozier. The trees reaching out and going over the roads feels very nice. Plus if you were to make the roads wider and add a lane you would decrease the walkability, or rollerbladability lol, of getting across them. If you added a pedestrian overpass every half mile those will require a lot of space and upkeep. Plus its highly unlikely I would go over to one of them but would do my regular zip down 46th street and right on across to the river. Even if an overpass were right near me I wouldnt bother going up and over it when I can go straight across. Again, the traffic was never a problem.

I have seen a pattern on many a post with people complaining about traffic in downtown, riverside, etc. I have never found any problem. The worst traffic I have ever run into was along 71st near the mall during the holidays. But even that is to be expected and a little patience goes a long way. Like I said, I lived right off riverside for 6 years. There was absolutely NO traffic problem whatsoever. (other than blocking off brookside or riverside for parades). I never had to wait for more than a couple of minutes. There was a pattern from the lights that would give you a huge emty space to drive out onto riverside or cross even during the busiest rush hour times. Its like people want to be able to drive everywhere without them ever having to stop or pause and park right in front of the place they want to go to.  Thats a rediculous and unrealistic expectation.

I wonder if this is just a Tulsa thing because I have lived in and stayed in cities where Tulsas traffic and parking are comparably, absurdly easy and frankly Tulsa is overly car centric already imo. (course there is Phoenix with its 24 lane highways, but I have not been there, and is that the direction we want to go?) I would rather come up with ideas to decrease traffic, monorail along riverside perhaps, or slow it down. Especially if we think that the city and downtown will grow in the future, with the car centric approach we will forever be wanting to widen the roads because it will never be enough if the same attitudes and outlook continue.

[Vision 2025]

Waterboy

I have been catching up on the threads and am tying to help but by all means please don't let me interrupt your ranting by providing acurate  information.

[waterboy]

quote:Originally posted by Vision 2025

YoungTulsan,

Great plan, creativity is everything!

Many similar ideas were brought forward in the River Master Plan process (I was not a part of the study until near the end but attended the majority of the meetings and have read the plans, findings and public comments page by page).

Unfortunately in this area there are some significant infrastructure and environmental issues in the area that I will touch on.

1.  This area is immediately downwind of the City's waste water treatment plant (S. of 44) and the industrial looking facility on the N side of 44 and the creek right on the river is the flow equalization basin for the plant which fills up with raw sewage when it rains.  The cost to move these is more than the current river plan.

2. The area of the West Bank soccer fields in an old land fill and very unstable ground.

3.  There are known ground water contamination issues in parts of the area.

4.  I know the area pretty well from past construction projects.  10 years ago I ran an interceptor sewer in the area and on to the west and whenever we encountered ground water and had to pump it we were required to constantly monitor the discharge from the pumps and were always required to discharge it back into the sanitary sewer under an industrial pre-treatment permit.

Some day I believe you will be absolutely correct in the value of this area and will overcome the costs associated with properly utilizing it.  

Additionally, the river at this location had been identified as a potential dam site however if you back water up there in will flood what has been identified as sensitive habitat that the living river concept will greatly enhance.  

Lastly, I agree no one should have to live that close to a refienery.

Perhaps if authorities would express the reality of development issues and the impact of past abuses we could move forward without cynicism from the public. In other words be truthful.

That word "landfill" implies a garbage dump. In reality, I'm told, the soccer fields sit on a sludge pit of some sort that was sealed with clay instead of being cleaned up. It was then given away to the county (leased for a $1??) because a sale would have necessitated federally mandated clean up for the buyer. Heaven forbid we should ask the abusing parties to just clean the area up and leave it like they found it.

So Cherry Creek is now a back up overflow for sewage. Sweet. And the living river which ostensibly will travel along that area and be populated with river users...will recieve that discharge and whatever leaks from the "landfill". Look for more of the "not for human contact" signs to sprout up too.

The much maligned Channels project acknowledged (exposed) to the public the reality of another "landfill". The protected islands by the 11th street bridge are actually covering barrels of refinery waste which leaks into the river. Apparently officials knew this since its inception but didn't deal with it. Channels would have cleaned up this toxic site. Look closely at the plan. Does it intend to clean up the islands?? Or just continue to allege they are a least tern refuge.

Then ask yourself why pedestrian bridges are suddenly replacing a real bridge. Could it be that it requires more planning, more complexity- since it interconnects with Riverside, more studies and then empties into areas designated "flood prone" and thus no federal funding could be involved? As pointed out the pedestrian bridges are faster development.

Just some truthiness please. Apparently that is different from accuracy?

[Conan71]

Mr. Crowe, with all due respect, will you kindly acknowledge and address the post I made on the last page about the low water dams?

Young Tulsan-

It's with mixed emotion I looked at your re-alignment for the area.  It's brilliant on the surface.  Mixed emotion because I'm typing right now from a desk which would be in the middle of the 41st St. corridor you propose.  I can also look at it from the standpoint of economic gain for the family I work for.  They own several parcels of property between the river and H 75, 41st & Cherry Creek.

There is quite a bit of money pumped into the local economy from this rough-looking industrial area.  I know the area isn't pretty, and some of the lots are pretty weedy.  It's an ideal location for many of us.  The cost of purchasing and relocating industrial and transportation businesses wouldn't be cheap.  

Quite a bit of the housing in "Garden City" (misnomer if there ever was one) is rental and, I believe, mostly owned by a handful of slumlords investors.  I personally would love to see that blight forever removed from the face of Tulsa.  Word around the campfire is that one or two of them would be happy to cash out.

I'm in with Cherry Creek being a viable tributary development.  I don't know if that was the creek that V2025 alluded to or not or if it's something on the south side of the I-44 bridge which fills with raw sewage.  Does the ODEQ and EPA know that?  First I ever heard of it.

Speaking of bridges, I'm pretty ambivalent about either a pedestrian or auto bridge at 41st or a combination.  I can see where access to the heart of west Tulsa would be simplified, but with the exit/entrance lanes on the east and west-bound sides of the I-44 bridge, it's not that big of a PITA to get back and forth now.  I only work on this side of the river, I'd be interested to hear what the homeowners have to say.  Rwarn was right about the "jog" over I-244, that's an infrastructure engineering cluster **** if ever I've seen one.

As far as a pedestrian bridge, I don't really see much of a purpose either.  You can cross the 31st. st. bridge now and there is trail all the way to the boundaries of the WWT plant on the south side of the I-44 bridge.  To the north, you can go back to 11th St.

I believe you would see a traffic flow on a 41st St. bridge similar to the traffic flow at 11th/SW Blvd. bridge.  That is a mixed use bridge now.  Big difference between 71st St.  There might be a little more traffic from people using a Hwy 75 exit to get home to Brookside a little quicker, but I don't think it would have near the flow as the 71st St. bridge.

We have noted with interest that there were survey crews working up and down W. 41st a few weeks ago.  That raised the level of speculation around this office as to what is going on.

I like your idea, don't get me wrong.  In one way, there are fewer people to have to deal with on acquisition since on a per acre basis ownership is far more consolidated than it is when you build an expressway through a newer neighborhood.

[Rico]

I do not think an answer will be forthcoming Conan... If he answers... he would have to admit it was the carrot in front of the horse.

With his vast knowledge no other answer would fit.He had to know the number was low.

One additional question that came up yesterday..... I watched the (repeat) showing of the Economic Development City Council meeting for Tuesday. Ms Miller was in attendance; unless I misinterpreted what she said... The portion of the "River Vote" concerning certain LWD's is moot.
She stated "that it was the job of the County Commissioners to collect V2025 Tax money until all items on the ballot were complete. Then and only then can the V2025 Tax be retired."

According to everything, I have read, the LWD's are something that should be completed. Not just a study done.

[MichaelBates]

If you took out all the projects in this river tax proposal that are NOT in the Arkansas River Master Corridor Plan, you'd cut the price nearly in half. The "living river" ($90 million), the 41st and 61st pedestrian bridges ($30 million for both), and the "downtown connector" ($15 million) are not in the master plan.

On the other hand, a 41st Street vehicular bridge is in both the ARMCP and INCOG's regional transportation plan. It would give Red Fork residents direct access to Brookside. It would make it easier for eastsiders to discover what Red Fork has to offer. It would make Webster High School more viable as a magnet school. It may not need to be built right now, but as YoungTulsan said, it would be tragic to do something that would forever close off the possibility.

Kirby (I assume it's Mr. Crowe) made some interesting statements:

quote:
Pedestrian bridges were one of the most requested features identified in the public comments received River Corridor Master Plan and one of the reasons that the original cost estimates used for the dams in Vision 2025 are so wrong, because they were not included.

So how much would the dams cost now if we just built them as dams? And shouldn't we give voters a choice between more expensive dams with pedestrian bridges and less expensive dams without?

quote:
People want to be near the water and not just on the bank of it. Additionally, who wants to be standing adjacent to traffic when out on a bridge enjoying the River, a walk across the 71st bridge will answer that question for anyone so inclined?

The 11th St. bridge is also a vehicular bridge, but is a different experience for pedestrians than the 71st St. bridge. There are ways to provide enough separation that pedestrians feel shielded from the car traffic. A half-mile long pedestrian-only bridge, particularly one that connects to nothing on the other side, leaves most pedestrians feeling isolated and vulnerable, because there are fewer "eyes on the street" deterring trouble.

quote:
What would a 41st bridge vehicle bridge access? I shared the same opinion until I drove every road in the area between the River and 75. What you get is the back door into the refinery, or one of the many industrial sites. If you want a vehicle bridge it would need to go all the way over 75 to connect like parts of east and west.

This is actually a stronger argument against a pedestrian-only bridge. People would be more willing to spend two minutes driving past a mile of warehouses to get between the river and Red Fork than to spend twenty minutes walking past a mile of warehouses.

quote:
The City still has not taken any action to even prevent facing the west-end of east-bound development to the River on what had be already been identified and adopted by the City Council as a river development site in both the River Vision plan (phase 1 study) and in the Corridor Master Plan (Phase 2 study). Yes, there is some zeal for River development at the City but not universally and the County by proven experience is a bigger picture entity. Additionally, the County appears to be a good way to avoid conflict with other development interests active in the City.

I'm not sure how to parse the phrase "to even prevent facing the west-end of east-bound development."  

I think I can paraphrase the second sentence, though: The city isn't moving fast enough on riverfront development, the city is putting more emphasis on downtown than the riverfront, so the county will usurp the city's role. Even if I don't like the way Taylor has handled west bank development, as a resident of Tulsa, I still want those decisions left in the hands of the level of government most directly accountable to me as a city resident.

quote:Would the City of Tulsa alone pay for river development in Sand Springs (now that would be an interesting campaign) which is required to maintain water in the river throughout the entire Tulsa County river corridor? Should Sand Springs alone pay for features that benefit the entire river corridor? Should just the river Communities pay, if just one community failed it then the entire plan would fail. In fact, all three lakes and the living river concept must work together in order to be successful and environmentally feasible because it addresses the entire river corridor not just a piece here and there.

So use the existing county tax to pay for the low-water dams and the Zink Lake modifications as promised in Vision 2025, Proposition #4, then let the individual cities decide whether to pay for pedestrian bridges, living rivers, etc. Let Sand Springs voters decide if they want to pay the extra to put a pedestrian bridge on their low-water dam.

quote:Lastly, I understand the promoters of the package evaluated many options, approaches, and determined the County and the authority to be created to be the best method and it requires the least time for the tax to run to accomplish the plan.

Why weren't these options and approaches debated publicly? Why not give the people the choice between different methods and approaches? The phrase "best method" raises the question: Best method for whom?

[Conan71]

quote:
"Would the City of Tulsa alone pay for river development in Sand Springs (now that would be an interesting campaign) which is required to maintain water in the river throughout the entire Tulsa County river corridor? Should Sand Springs alone pay for features that benefit the entire river corridor? Should just the river Communities pay, if just one community failed it then the entire plan would fail. In fact, all three lakes and the living river concept must work together in order to be successful and environmentally feasible because it addresses the entire river corridor not just a piece here and there."

This stumps me.  Are we referring to a low water dam in Sand Springs being required to maintain water in the entire Tulsa Co. corridor of the Arkansas river?

Why not just build a higher lwd east of Bixby/BA and maintain a higher level throughout.  Or say "screw Jenks and everyone else downstream" and add a few feet to the Zink lwd?

I'm not a hydrologist, so excuse my relative ignorance on these damn dam concepts. []

[Vision 2025]

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

Mr. Crowe, with all due respect, will you kindly acknowledge and address the post I made on the last page about the low water dams?

I Worked on it for quite awhile last evening and will post shortly... it is a bit long sorry for the delay but I just returned from the monthly Vision 2025 Sales Tax Overview Committee meeting which included which was followed by a presentation and tour of some of the Amierican Airlines projects.

[TheArtist]

Tulsa could always pair up with Sand Springs and help them with the dam if they chose to try and build it themselves. If it would benefit us to do so and it wouldnt be as cost effective, "work right" or environmentally feasible to raise the Zink Dam to hold more water. (Though one more possible reason is to let the water flow through the zink lake which helps with the stagnation and silt).



What really frustrates me about these river plans and others is indeed the approach.

Yes they should have public input during the initial phases. But where they always seem to go wrong is instead of putting out an "initial" plan and having an ensuing period of debate to allow for adjustments they say, Here is the final plan, take it or leave it.  There should be an initial proposal put out, debates, conversations, adjustments then a best compromises final proposal put out.  Would likely get more people on board, make many feel as though, "no its not the best plan but they did make good improvements" and who knows, it could really have ended up being a fantastic plan.


Also I think they are really tripping up on the difference between. "What people want for the river and Tulsa" and "What people are willing at the moment to pay for, and the priorities"

For instance; Yes we may want pedestrian bridges and connectors to downtown. BUT if allowed the choice between investing in those items at this time and investing the same amount for the Pearl District plans. I bet most people would choose the Pearl. But you cant have ideas like that when you dont have an initial proposal presented and a time for people to offer creative alternative ideas.


If the purpose of this particular tax is being sold as a "beautification, quality of life improvement, waterfront development stimulus," package. And we are willing to push for such a tax at this time, knowing that we are also going to have to deal with the roads as well.  Then if one also looks at the Pearl and all it could do for the same amount, and for the same over all reasons, as a couple of pedestrian bridges and downtown connectors... there is no question which the people would choose.

If we had been presented with a plan. Then were allowed to debate it and offer improvements. This would have come up before a vote was scheduled and could have allowed for a better plan to be drawn up and more likely passed. (funding, wording, and control issues as well)

People are fed up with city taxes. And yes I want river type development and other similar revitalization strategies, like the Pearl, done. Its going to be a hard enough sell to get a tax of this sort passed when we know we are going to also have to do something with the roads. I would say it would have been wise to look at the sum, which I think is reasonable,tolerable, and passable amount,but the city should have made an effort to get input to make sure every dollar of that sum is used to its best potential and keeping with the over all spirit of this particular tax.

[Conan71]

Artist, you brought to mind something for me when I've looked over the names on various oversight and planning committees.  Does it seem to anyone else that these committees are usually devoid of "average" citizens and most usually occupied by CEO's, business owners, beaurocrats, someone involved in the media, political insiders, etc.?

This question is directed to no one specifically, just anyone who cares to put a thoughtful answer to it:

Why is that?  Is there not enough interest from the average citizen or are they excluded on purpose?  

If it's from a lack of interest by the average citizen then we do deserve to get whatever the "elite" thinks we need crammed down our throats.  If it's intentional exclusion, then how do we change that?  I don't have millions of $$ to bring to the table, but I'd love to be able to have more of a say in the planning process instead of being asked for my wholesale approval or disapproval on a plan.

[RecycleMichael]

There is plenty of average citizens on various authorities, boards, and commissions.

The ones that control millions of dollars like RiverParks, Utility, Tare, Airport do tend to be a richer class of volunteer.

[waterboy]

quote:Originally posted by recyclemichael

There is plenty of average citizens on various authorities, boards, and commissions.

The ones that control millions of dollars like RiverParks, Utility, Tare, Airport do tend to be a richer class of volunteer.

Volunteers like Bobby Lorton, Zink, Coury, Cadieux, BOK/Frazier rep, etc. Yeah, citizens who just haved the average guys interests at heart.[]

Even the World noted they all had close interests in river development. Closer than ours I'll bet.

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by recyclemichael

There is plenty of average citizens on various authorities, boards, and commissions.

The ones that control millions of dollars like RiverParks, Utility, Tare, Airport do tend to be a richer class of volunteer.

Since I'm not on any of them, you think that means I'm below average?  Hmmmm.

[RecycleMichael]

The average American is fourty pounds overweight.

I am finally above average in something.