Feedback Received
83 comments received as of November 6th, 2009 at 3pm.
Note Regarding the South Tulsa Bridge Alignment
The PLANiTULSA team would like to acknowledge the controversy regarding the alignment of the South Tulsa bridge, which was originally depicted on the draft vision map at Yale Avenue. [The vision and transportation maps have since been updated and no longer show this alignment] The draft vision maps were prepared using transportation planning documents with existing and planned facilities; versions of these maps are available on the INCOG website. Our focus has been on the development of a long-range citywide vision and plan, and not any one particular facility.
The vision is the starting point for a discussion, and we welcome your feedback. Proposed roadways and infrastructure improvements shown in the Vision are conceptual and for discussion purposes. The final draft of the vision map may include one or more alternatives for this bridge, and the design and alternatives analysis will take place at a later date.
Thank you for your input, and we look forward to more feedback on Our Vision for Tulsa!
Feedback
Nov 6 2009 - 7:07am
As an umbrella document, the Comprehensive Plan incorporates and takes precedence over a number of subsidiary plans and policies. There should be a place in the administrative section of the plan with a list of the subsidiary plans, the agency or body responsible for them and the date of their latest adoption. A diagram could show how these plans are related and their relative importance. It should also be clear which subsidiary plans (if any) are being approved and adopted with the Comprehensive Plan, for instance the new Downtown Plan.
Nov 5 2009 - 7:40pm
I strongly oppose the land use map presented on page 5 of the PlaniTulsa Land Use Chapter, Draft 1.0. This map shows larges tracts of land which appear to total over fifteen percent of the city’s land area in east, northwest and southwest Tulsa that are now largely zoned for agricultural use as new residential single family neighborhoods. Such a designation of these areas will only perpetuate the longstanding patterns in Tulsa of low-density development with segregated uses dependent on automobiles as the sole means of transport. The City of Tulsa can not adequately provide and maintain the necessary infrastructure and public services in the existing developed areas of the city and it is fiscally irresponsible and unsustainable to recommend this new greenfield development. While the draft comprehensive plan contains many hopeful proposals for urban redevelopment, new transportation alternatives and reforms to the current land use regulations, the fact is these will be difficult to achieve politically, technically and economically. Changing the zoning of agricultural land to residential single family subdivisions only requires routine application of the current zoning and subdivision requirements by the planning commission, something they will be justified, if not compelled to do, if they follow the draft plan presented.
Nov 5 2009 - 2:44pm
Page One, paragraph three, First line, reads: This chapter describes Tulsa’s current housing stock. Recommend that the word stock be removed and replace with inventory.
I think the word inventory will be more amicable than stock thru this chapter.
Nov 3 2009 - 10:50am
I do not understand how the City could possibly approve a toll bridge in South Tulsa. The indian tribe involved wants to purchase private land and have it converted to indian land. Then the tribe can build commercial stores and ventures at the base of the bridge that are not subject to state and local taxes. The same is happening in other parts of Tulsa. All to Tulsa's detriment. If this trend of converting private land to indian land continues and grows, local businesses may find it hard to compete against a competitor that does not have to pay taxes or adhere to other costly state and local regulations.
Nov 1 2009 - 7:47am
Tapping into the historical value of Rte 66 would be a wise and vital move for the revitalizing the 11th St area. This would be a great pedestrian/shopper-friendly area, similar to Brookside and Cherry St.
My cousin is a producer for a documentary film group. Their current project involves an 84 year old man driving across the country in a 1935 London taxi to reconnect with his estranged wife. They started in New Mexico and just last week came along 66 right through Tulsa. They along the Sheridan-Yale stretch of 11th (old 66) to film in front of the old travel motels. This is exactly what they are looking for in the history of 66. It's definitely an untapped resource!
Oct 31 2009 - 10:02pm
I think that Route 66 should take on more of a Cherry Street feel. There are many of the original buildings along 11th Street which could be renovated, maintaining when possible the art deco feel, the tile roofs, etc. There is plenty of parking (unlike Cherry Street) as there are many empty lots. The potential is exciting and would be a boon for a part of Midtown Tulsa (Peoria to Sheridan) which could use a shot in the arm!
Oct 29 2009 - 1:20pm
to help in combating hunger, poverty, food deserts and sustainability in our region, I would like to see community gardens throughout the city. They not only grow food and flowers which feed the body and soul but also grow community as neighbors got to know and begin to feel a responsibility and kinship for/with each other.
Oct 22 2009 - 2:43pm
This fine document seems to be lacking in consideration of the importance of Tulsa's arts history and particularly the importance of Public Art in our community. Tulsa was one of the first Citites in America to establish a percent for art program in 1969 and has been cultivating this treasure ever since. It would be a nice enhancement to the Vision for Tulsa if there was some regognition of the importance of Public Art and possibly even some mention of what is considered the standards for successful percent for arts programs in other communities such as Seattle, WA.
Oct 12 2009 - 5:54pm
I'm excited about the PLANiTULSA vision. Specifically: promoting sustainability and density with appropriate/sensitive infill; protecting historic neighborhoods and architecture; encouraging mixed-use concepts that combine housing with office or retail; the importance of smart/shared parking to reduce costly asphalt wastelands; developing pedestrian- and transit-friendly infrastructure; investment in public transit to make it a viable, efficient and affordable option for all Tulsans; and the importance of developing downtown as a vibrant, urban core.
I also strongly support the proposed strategies (6 steps) for achieving our vision.
One concern/suggestion:
I noticed that on the transportation map, both Harvard Ave and 11th Street are identified as "commuter corridors," which I understand to be auto-focused.
However, both of these arterials have long stretches in which numerous historic, retail storefronts remain extant. In addition, the adjacent neighborhoods remain walkable due to the smaller lot size, traditional street grid, and sidewalks.
Tulsa should work to emphasize redevelopment of walkable neighborhood centers along this asset, not relegate it to car-centric development.
While Rt 66 is certainly a "driving draw" to 11th street, it's important that tourists on the Mother Road slow down and discover unique Tulsa destinations along the way (and find a diverse array of shopping, dining, entertainment venues to support). It should not just be about driving.
In the case of Harvard Ave, you'll see evidence of a strong tradition of walkable "main street" type development, especially north of 21st. (But areas as far south as 41st could reclaim the distinction of "neighborhood center" with the right zoning and incentives.)
These areas should be identified as "main streets" because of their potential for significant infill and redevelopment of a walkable, mixed-use, urban fabric.
Oct 6 2009 - 8:55am
The concept does not appear to change or address land use needs along the 11th Street/Route 66 Corridor, an area recognized by a majority of groups participating in the citywide visioning process and those who participated in the TU/neighborhood planning session as a unique and underutilized asset. Specifically, those who participated in the TU area workshop overwhelmingly supported the main street concept from TU east to Sheridan. The map does not appear to reflect any of the desired development patterns proposed at that workshop. It does not reflect the intrinsic value and tremendous potential of Route 66. Its primary and best potential lies in its history. A mainstreet would provide that hometown feel, create walkability, increase access to services, and encourage economic development for small businesses. Vision 2025 provided funding for enhancements that reflect the historic value of Route 66. The plan should recognize and build upon that investment and vision.
Oct 1 2009 - 6:16am
What about SW Tulsa? This is an opportunity area in the City of Tulsa. Riverbank, transportation infrastructure, good schools, underdeveloped. A small-area workshop was held in this area but the plan seems week in addressing the opportunities here.
Oct 1 2009 - 1:03pm
Contrary to the impression given by the South Tulsa Citizens Coalition, there is strong opposition to a 121st and Riverside alignment for any south Tulsa bridge. Unlike the neighborhoods that have come out against a 121st and Yale alignment, a 121st and Riverside alignment, especially if done as suggested by the STCC in the past, would have a direct impact on a neighborhood, namely Wind River.
Besides the convoluted design that would be necessary for a 121st and Riverside alignment, the residents of Wind River object to such an alignment because of the complex intersection that would be created at or very near to neighborhood entrances, the nonutility of dedicated park land (for Cousins Park) that would necessarily result, the irrationality of forcing a connection on Riverside instead of logically using a primary arterial, and the inefficient routing of traffic.
Residents of Wind River are of course concerned about infrastructure improvements in the areas around the area of any bridge connection. Most residents in Wind River are all for widening of both Yale (from the Creek Turnpike to 121st) and Riverside/Delaware/121st (from Sheridan to the Creek Turnpike).
While the views of the STCC and like-minded residents should certainly be respected, please understand that there is nothing close to a homogeneous view on this topic within south Tulsa.
Sep 30 2009 - 2:56pm
I want a public vote for the final approval of the PlaniTulsa Comprehensive plan update. I am very disturbed by the last minute changes made in regards to having the city do it's own planning, I see this as a lack of transparency and want the Council to investigate and find out who requested it and why in detail these recommendations were changed. I think any correspondence on this issue during the period the results were released and the recommendations were changed should be made public.
Sep 30 2009 - 11:01am
I know PLANiTULSA will ultimately have nothing to do with what really happens in Tulsa, but if I'm wrong, I think it's essential for you to fight against any new bridge to Bixby. Creating one would be like pulling the drain plug in a bathtub. Businesses would migrate even further South than they already have.
I would like to see incentives for businesses and residents to occupy existing structures in downtown and midtown. I would also like to see an enormous property tax increase on any businesses South of 71st to discourage further growth in this direction.
Fighting urban sprawl is the key to a functional and beautiful city. People are already commuting to Tulsa from over an hour away. We need to discourage this with incentives for living in Tulsa, and disincentives for development outside of Tulsa.
Sep 28 2009 - 1:44pm
Beyond the bridge alignment, I would like to know how Tulsans and City staff alike can better communicate and coordinate with external partners such as State and Federal departments, private foundations, etc. when 'improving' our community. My primary concern is the widening of I-44, the seeming disregard for the residents immediately abutting the improvements and the City's position of Catch-22 (not my drainage problem - call ODOT...not our noise problem - call COT Public Works). Congrats to all who spent time and thought drafting PlaniTulsa. Wishing all of us the patience to endure the growing pains.
Sep 28 2009 - 8:30am
Where can I find the best information of the detail of the proposed South Yale Bridge. Thanks, Alan Odgers
Sep 26 2009 - 7:38pm
I strongly disagree with putting a bridge connecting Bixby to Tulsa at Yale for numerous reasons. This will benefit Bixby much more than Tulsa. Yale can not handle the traffic it gets right now let alone much more. Tractor trailer traffic will be dangerous to the children and schools along Yale. It is not very far from Memorial which already connects Bixby & Tulsa. It would be much better to connect at Riverside which would benefit the new businesses along Riverside.
Sep 26 2009 - 5:24pm
Tom Adelson sent a letter to the STCC saying he doesn't think a bridge is even needed! Now there is a novel idea. Finally someone with some future vision for the City of Tulsa!
Sep 26 2009 - 12:13am
It is obvious that Riverside Dr is a better corridor. Please do not destroy the good neiboughhood and make Tulsa another Detroit!
Sep 25 2009 - 3:20pm
Making Yale Avenue the traffic interconnect for the proposed Jenks bridge does not seem to make any sense. Why would you put significant additional traffic on a narrow, poorly maintained, 2 lane road that runs primarily through residentian areas? It seems more logical to route the traffic at the north end of the proposed Jenks bridge to Riverside Drive. Your draft map should be changed to show Riverside Drive as the interconnect for the north end of the proposed Jenks bridge.
Sep 25 2009 - 10:48am
I feel that the bridge would better suit the city's needs being placed at Riverside Drive. I am opposed to a bridge at South Yale. Thank you
Sep 25 2009 - 9:50am
I strongly disagree with the plan to have the South Tulsa Arkansas River bridge's northern connection point be at Yale. Please change the connection point to Riverside Drive.
Sep 25 2009 - 9:08am
As a citizen of South Tulsa, I respectfully request you to reconsider the Yale connecting point for the bridge. Yale can't even handle the traffic currently on it, and this would bring much more traffic to an area that is primarily residential, not commercial. There are also several schools in the area, and the increased traffic flow would bring great risk to the safety of our children. A Riverside connection is so much more logical. The area is predominantly commercial and has access to the turnpike, a win-win.
Whatever happened to listening to the will of the people?
Sep 25 2009 - 8:38am
Please reconsider the entry point for the S Tulsa Bridge alignment as you now show it. It seems to me that the most logical route should surely be down Riverside Drive rather than Yale. I understand there may be more initial cost involved in the second route; however, the ongoing expense of infrastructure expense, disturbance of a large number of previously established neighborhoods, and safety provisions for a large elementery school etc. would seem to more than offset any possible initial differences in cost. If you were searching for a way to upset the largest number of homeowners, disturb traffic to the greatest extent possible, and create a dangerous environment for anyone travelling on a Tulsa street (especially for children and parents dropping off children at school) then surely dropping S Tulsa bridge traffic onto Yale Avenue would be the way.
Sep 25 2009 - 8:30am
South Tulsa bridge is in the right place, Riverside has an overwhelming amountof traffic and it would be nice to have some of the traffic dispersed among other roads. But first and of utmost importance is to rebuild the infrastructure of our current roads before the bridge is built. Yale and Riverside are nightmares to travel in the mornings. We have to leave 40 minutes ahead of time to get my son to school which, at any other times is 5 to 1o minutes.
Sep 25 2009 - 8:13am
First, let me say thank you for doing what you are doing and I think it is great. I do have two concerns. One specific to where I live and one general comment.
South Tulsa Bridge: This is a lightening rod issue that will trump everything else in PlanitTulsa to those of us that live in South Tulsa. It think a bridge is needed but it needs to be connected to Riverside. Riverside needs to be a major parkway.
Light Rail: I do not think that the demographics or population/economic density will support a light rail system. I have lived in several big cities and the three things required to make public transportation viable on a mass scale like light rail is 1) it must significantly reduce commute time (given our light traffic conditions, this won't happen), 2) very expensive parking (you can park downtown in a class B spot for a couple of dollars a day) and 3) you need a concentration of jobs (our downtown is too spread out and not enough concentration).
Sep 25 2009 - 7:23am
I see the PlaniTulsa comment that the location of the South Tulsa Toll Bridge has been changed on the map and I see that yes it has. However it still does not show that it connects to Riverside Drive. This is the location that the majority want....not the way you have it currently on the map. PLEASE change the location of the landing point on the northside of the river to merge onto Riverside Drive. Thank you!
Sep 24 2009 - 11:34pm
Once again 51st to 71st on S. Peoria is left out - NOTHING is set for this area - Brookside is being built up - Cherokee Casino and on to Jenks and South Tulsa at 81st on is built up with nice apartments - and we are the 'south ghetto' along S. Peoria with Cash and Pawn shops, bars and rent-a-center shops amidst NICE single family homes both east and west of S. Peoria. The apartments at 61st and S. Peoria - just east of Peoria and south of 61st have CONSTANT problems - police sirens nightly with helicopter runs, gunshots - drug dealers on corners hanging around - so you're planning in a few years to widen 61st from Riverside to Lewis - what are you going to do with those apartments!!!??? We've been left out once again. WHY????
Sep 24 2009 - 5:19pm
As the population of South Tulsa has all voted to have the bridge access at Riverside and not Yale why has this come up again?
MY VOTE and neighborhood vote is RIVERSIDE bride access.
Listen to the people.
Sep 24 2009 - 4:08pm
Preserving and expanding our city's urban forest is integral to the development of Tulsa. This has not been addressed. Greenery increases livability. Nearly every rendering in your beautifully executed work, shows trees. They are necessary for noise control, for temperature/shade/comfort in this hot city, beauty, and so on.
Please add your support of regreening Tulsa to your plan.
Everyone loves trees. (Look at the River Parks!)
We need more shaded trails for both our seniors and our juniors.
Thanks for listening.
Sep 24 2009 - 2:49pm
You have go to be kidding! This is a city wide planning tool. You put out a draft version of the city wide planning tool and ask for comments. You receive a large number of comments regarding the Yale bridge which affects the entire city. And, then you have the nerve to put the statement you just posted about the Yale bridge and act like it isn't your problem and that you had nothing to do with it.
Let's see, I believe "transportation" is one of the parts / chapters / versions (whatever you want to call it) of the PLANiTULSA process. You get feedback that isn't to your liking regarding the "transportation" part of your draft version city wide plan and instead of saying thank you for your comments, noting as part of the comment process and reporting the comments back to the appropriate people, you try and make it not your problem. UNBELIEVABLE!!!!
First, I though this was PLANiTULSA not PLANiJENKS or PLANiBIXBY or PLANiINCOG. This is plan is supposed to be about the future of Tulsa and not its suburbs.
Second, INCOG is run by a bunch of developers and their friends (not to mention the mayors of Tulsa suburbs like Bixby and Jenks who don't give one flip about Tulsa).
Third, I believe that it is your recommendation for the City of Tulsa to break away from INCOG and to do its own planning. Why? Probably because INCOG doesn't care about the actual City of Tulsa. INCOG cares about regionalism.
For all of these reasons, for PLANiTULSA to simply say we got it from an INCOG map, is ridiculous!!! Let's me ask you something else, have you really put the citizens will on these draft versions of your plan or have you just put together a bunch of draft versions that INCOG and its Board have signed off on?
Why don't you go back to the last City of Tulsa transportation plan (note City of Tulsa, not INCOG around 1998 or so) and the Yale bridge is actually an East to West bridge connection 121st and Riverside in Tulsa to 121st and ???? in Jenks. Why didn't you use that plan?
In conclusion, PLANiTULSA is supposed to be a planning tool for the next 20 to 30 years for the City of Tulsa. Well, the Yale bridge is part of that future plan. By the number of comments you have received on the plan, I would say that it is a major issue for City of Tulsa in the future and, instead of dismissing it as not your problem, you had better deal with it.
The bridge should be moved from Yale to Riversdie Drive.
Sep 24 2009 - 1:42pm
No bridge connection with Yale...Riverside makes so much more sense for so many reasons!
Sep 24 2009 - 12:37pm
The Bridge should connect to Riverside drive and not Yale, and not until Riverside is modified for all the extra traffic, and that cost should be on whoever builds the bridge and plans to profit from the bridge. They are creating the problem and they should be the ones to correct the problem, not the citizens of Tulsa.
Sep 24 2009 - 9:38am
Wanted to remind you to include the significant impact trees can have on stormwater -- reducing the amount of water going into the system, and making it much cleaner. Incporating trees throughout the city, in every neighborhood and commerical area -- not just clumped in parks or rec rareas -- is the best way to do this.
Here is a great article adetailing some of the may ways trees should be used in an urban setting to reduce imapct on stormwater system:
http://www.
Sep 24 2009 - 9:28am
To Whom It May Concern:
As a concerned resident in a neighborhood at 112th and Yale in South Tulsa, I strongly encourage you to reevaluate your position regarding the South Tulsa Bridge project. Particularly, the connection of Yale Ave. as the main feeder to the bridge. This area is a beautiful, peaceful residential section that would be virtually destroyed by the extra traffic, specifically the semis and construction vehicles.
An added concern as a parent is Southeast Elementary school at the corner of 111th and Yale. The east side of the playground is directly bordered by Yale Ave. One accident is all it would take for a car/truck to end up on the playground and cause serious damage/injury. Just watching the way dump trucks drive along the roads today can cause alarm and concern for safety. Children are able to walk and bike to school relatively safely these days.
Please reconsider the logistics of this plan. Lets not ruin another beautiful residential area of town. They are too few and far between these days. As always, we are not against the bridge in general, just specifically the connection at 121st and Yale. Please, please think about our children and quality of life in South Tulsa.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sep 24 2009 - 9:06am
Dear Fellow Citizens,
Concerning your recently released Vison for growth plan I am responding to ask you to adjust the connection point of the South Tulsa Bridge from Yale Avenue to Riverside Drive.
I don't know if you had time to consider this point carefully. Many, many hours of research has been done by neighborhoods and the City of Tulsa on this issue.
You may not be aware that the Yale connection point has been strongly opposed by south Tulsa neighborhoods, Tulsa Mayor Kathy Taylor, and a majority of the Tulsa City Council. All of the above favor the Riverside Drive connection.
Please change your Draft Plan to reflect this majority request and preference.
Sep 24 2009 - 8:55am
lt;p>Please consider changing the plan for the bridge that your proposal mentions connecting to S. Yale and take it to the West to Riverside Ave. (or Blvd). After speaking with many area residents in the S. Yale corridor from 101st to 121st Street, I have not heard of anyone that desires the bridge to flow directly into Yale Ave. If there is to be a bridge between Memorial and the Creek Nation (or 91st bridges), please plan for access that will flow directly into Riverside Ave, as there is much more land available to widen lanes and have a smoother traffic flow if the bridge is located further west.
Sep 24 2009 - 12:42am
I just hope that things really get started on this. I was reading about how OKC is getting together with their MAPS3 program and will be initiating progress for light rail and urban development. I really hope Tulsa does not drop the ball on this. i hate to beat a dead horse, but I hope that when my kids are teenagers, they will not have to drive 9 miles to go to interesting and entertaining parts of town (IE 71st and memorial, 101st and memorial, and Jenks Riverwalk) and can instead have a vibrant river with entertainment and food as well as a built up downtown with all kinds of art, entertainment, dining, parks, and urban housing. Hopefully a hybrid between choice C and D will happen and things can get done.
I think a good example of a smaller city who really revitalized their downtown and urbanized it very well is SLC. Salt Lake City is not a huge city, but it has beautiful parks downtown, light rail, plenty of lofts, downtown dining, condos, apartments and some really nice looking outdoor malls that mix outdoor retail shopping, condos, dining, recreation/fountains all in one. I know Tulsa is not Dallas, so I do not expect that kind of a downtown, but I hope we keep up with Oklahoma City's progression of downtown, and I think it would be nice to come closer to how San Antonio utilized their river and how Salt Lake city revitalized their downtown before the 2002 olympics. Please Tulsa, I want my kinds to have a city where they can find all their dining, entertainment, arts, and recreational needs close to downtown as well as being a place where young adults and young families can find a job.
Sep 24 2009 - 12:02am
I live in a neighborhood along Yale, south of the Creek Turnpike. There is a great deal of traffic on Yale, which is only two lanes at this location and primarily abutted by neighborhoods and schools. Jenks Southeast Elementary School is at 101st & Yale. Town & Country School is on 101st Street about a block east of Yale. Jenks Middle School is on 101st between Yale and Riverside Drive. During morning and evening rush hours, the cars and school buses are bumper to bumper. If the South Tulsa Bridge is to be built at some point, the northern connection has to be at Riverside Drive, not Yale. Yale cannot handle the increased traffic that a bridge connection would bring. Channeling the traffic up Riverside Drive makes sense for many commercial reasons as well since it has numerous shops, restaurants, gas stations, a casino with entertainment, an entrance onto the Creek Turnpike, the River Park with biking and walking paths, and not the least of all, a direct path to downtown. The only connection point that should ever be considered for the bridge is to Riverside Drive.
Sep 23 2009 - 9:20pm
We would like to see the South Tulsa bridge’s northern connection point change from Yale Avenue to Riverside Drive.
Sep 23 2009 - 9:00pm
I am responding to Planitulsa's placement of the south Tulsa bridge at Yale. Where have you been for the past four years? The South Tulsa Citizens Coalition fought a lawsuit all the way through the Oklahoma Supreme Court against the developers and Cities of Jenks and Bixby from building the south Tulsa private toll bridge at Yale and winning! Please be aware that the citizens of Tulsa paid for the entire lawsuit in order to prevent the developers and two mayors from taking Tulsa land by eminent domain for the bridge at south Yale. The City of Tulsa should really have paid to fight that battle especially because the land on Tulsa property for the bridge and surrounding areas can produce badly needed tax revenues for the always cash-strapped City. Now the developers, Jenks and Bixby mayors, and the Creek Indians want to take the Tulsa land for the private toll bridge. Why is Planitulsa wanting to give away valuable Tulsa land?
The infastructure of south Yale won't handle the traffic. It will lower the value of one of the most beautiful and valuable residential areas in Tulsa. The logical place for the bridge is up Riverside that is next to the Arkansas River where a 4-6 lane road can be built without harming a residential area, where the traffic will flow up Riverside that can handle the traffic better than a 2-lane residential road, and where the traffic will be funneled to downtown Tulsa and the Creek Casino better than up Yale.
For planning purposes, Planitulsa has sure missed the proverbial boat. Are you aware when INCOG first placed the dotted line across the Arkansas River in south Tulsa at Yale, it was to show in 20-25 years south Tulsa would need a bridge SOMEWHERE but not necessarily at Yale just somewhere in south Tulsa? It was a dotted line to show that it was not a permanent plan for the placement of the bridge to be at Yale. It is unfortunate that the developers and surrounding mayors in their greedy haste to build a private toll bridge misinterpreted the map and then went on to not only pay $1 million for the architectural plans for the bridge but purchased as much property at Yale and 121st as possible. That was also before they ever got any feedback from anyone in the area about the bridge plans.
It is quite obvious that the developers and two mayors don't want to pay to revise their architectural plans to be able to take the bridge up Riverside. It's beside the point that none of them have ever built a bridge. It also seems quite obvious that the bridge needs to take traffic up Riverside to the Casino and to downtown Tulsa and not into a residential neighborhood such as south Yale where the infrastructure can't handle the traffic. It's also important to mention here that Tulsa's budget cannot afford to widen Yale probably for many years to come. It's also important to mention that INCOG's plan still shows a dotted line at south Yale over the Arkansas River.
I would like to mention here that every square inch of the U.S.A. has federal planners who are paid with all our tax dollars to study population growth, traffic trends, and development and make long-range plans for planned growth development. They suggested the need for a bridge in 20-25 years with a dotted line and said SOMEWHERE in south Tulsa there would be a need for a bridge at that time. We paid these federal planners with our hard-earned tax dollars to tell us this. So why is Planitulsa ignoring INCOG, our federal planners?
So now we come to all the efforts of Planitulsa and you don't seem to be aware of the two court cases about this bridge, one of which went all the way through the Supreme Court of Oklahoma that said this bridge will not be built as planned at south Yale by these developers who are now trying to go around this decision by using the Creek Indians. Why is Planitulsa ignoring the Oklahoma Supreme Court?
Planitulsa doesn't seem to be aware that Mayor Cathy Taylor is against the bridge at south Yale. Why is Planitulsa ignoring our own mayor on this subject?
Most if not all of our Tulsa City Councilors are against the bridge at south Yale. So why is Planitulsa ignoring our City Councilors on this subject?
There are over 100 homeowners associations in Tulsa who are members of the STCC and against the placement of the bridge at south Yale. Why is Planitulsa ignoring so many homeowners in Tulsa?
Further, there is land involved at 121st and Yale that would be required to land the bridge at this area. Some of this land was deeded to Tulsa with a specific purpose and if not used for that purpose reverts back to the original owners. Why is Planitulsa ignoring this issue and willingly wanting to lose this land?
Has Planitulsa been asleep at the wheel? In my opinion, the fact that this private toll bridge has been a major issue in Tulsa for five years and Planitulsa has ignored this in its planning, the credibility of Planitulsa's plan is a big question in my mind. Please wake up and put the bridge going up Riverside directly to downtown Tulsa by way of the Creek Casino and bypassing the residential part of south Tulsa and without a private toll. There is a win-win solution to this situation and Tulsa won't have to give away any land.
Sep 23 2009 - 8:17pm
If the bridge goes down Yale:
(1) You would destroy hundreds of full grown Oak Trees.
(2) You would endanger the traffic flow and members for 5 churches.
(3) You would endanger the children of 3 schools (several hundred from Jenks S.E. and Jenks Middle)
(4) You would create an unsafe traffic flow in an already crowded area.
(5) You would create a traffic problem for the access of a fire station.
(6) You would create hundreds of lawsuits due to the devaluation of property.
If the bridge goes down Riverside:
(7) You would have to staighten a very dangerous curve which has already claimed several lives.
(8) You would destroy no significant tree growth.
(9) You would not create any of the dangerous conditions outlined above.
(10) You would greatly improve traffic flow down Riverside and have a more clear and free access to Creek Turnpike, I44 and downtown Tulsa.
Please move the bridge from Yale to Riverside.
Sep 23 2009 - 8:15pm
Could you move the bridge across the river to cross at Riverside rather than at Yale. There a fewer homes on Riverside & it is a less congested thru way.
Sep 23 2009 - 7:57pm
It has come to my attention that PlaniTulsa has chosen the northern connection point of the future South Tulsa bridge to be Yale Avenue.
This is a mistake. I live right of Yale and 97th and already the traffic so bad I have trouble exiting my neighborhood either traveling north or south on Yale. If the bridge is connected to South Yale, the traffic will even be worse and widening Yale to four lanes will not help!
I had the mistaken belief that PlaniTulsa was city-wide process to update Tulsa's Comprehensive Plan. Promising to bring a new vision that is inclusive and reflects the needs and dreams of all it's citizens. Obviously, you don't mean this statement, since the citizens of South Tulsa are against the bridge connecting to South Yale. So who is running PlaniTulsa? Not the citizens!
Sep 23 2009 - 7:23pm
Please, please don't even consider Yale Ave for the Bridge Connection. It only makes sense to keep Riverside Dr as the location.
You will destroy the atmosphere of Tulsa with this oversight.
Sep 23 2009 - 7:21pm
Please change the Bridge from Yale crossing to Riverside location. It just makes more sense!
Sep 23 2009 - 7:00pm
I believe the northern connection point for the proposed south Tulsa bridge should be on Riverside, not Yale.
Sep 23 2009 - 4:24pm
As a mom and resident along Yale Ave. I am always surprised how the debate over the bridge connection on Yale continues to reappear. There is obviously some "money" to be made by this move because the connection to Riverside makes so much more sense, with the more advanced commercial development along Riverside.
Someone is trying to develop this Yale route without thinking of consequences, such as an elementary school nearby the Yale route with children that cross at the intersection. One child involved in an accident is not worth the risk to such a small change of roads from Yale to Riverside.
Please reconsider your Yale developmental plans, not just for the neighborhoods affected but also for the safety of our school children in the vicinity.
Sep 23 2009 - 3:59pm
I am asking PLANiTULSA to change the South Tulsa bridge’s northern connection point from Yale Avenue to Riverside Drive. I have contacted all City Councilors and the Mayor and asked them to formally object to the current Draft Plan from PLANiTULSA, specifically the portion of the plan pertaining to the northern connection point of the South Tulsa bridge.
Sep 23 2009 - 3:53pm
I don't usnestand the rational of having the proposed bridge being attached to Yale. Riverside Parkway is the logical conection point and is already positioned to handle the north/south flow. this impacts minimal neighborhoods, schools and churches. traffic flow would be more condusive to this area currently being developed for commercial use.
Sep 23 2009 - 2:15pm
Would like to see the South Tulsa Bridge connect to Riverside Drive and NOT Yale Ave.
Sep 23 2009 - 2:15pm
Please change the northern point of the South Tulsa bridge to connect to Riverside Drive rather than to Yale Avenue. This southern section of Yale has become mostly residential and can barely handle the local residential traffic; adding more traffic to include commercial as well would be disastrous.
Sep 23 2009 - 1:47pm
It's hard to believe that Planitulsa has drafted the north landing of a proposed South Tulsa bridge to be at Yale.
This makes me wonder how tuned in this study was with Tulsa history. Lord knows, that location has been under severe scrutiny for many years and even had an Oklahoma Supreme Court ruling against it. No less than 50 articles have been written about it in the Tulsa World.
Certainly, feedback from almost every member of the 5,000 strong STCC would urge the bridge to align with Riverside not Yale.
If the study group did not hear this already, please listen now.
Sep 23 2009 - 1:13pm
It seems apparent the road should run down riverside. It a parkway like so many we find in Dallas. Who wants to travel across the river to stop and go traffic, pot holes, and have to wind around to end up on Riverside. Its were most of the traffic will be headed. Lets use some logic here, build a better city.
Sep 23 2009 - 11:41am
I would like you to take the following facts under consideration and move the connection point of the South Tulsa Bridge connection point to Riverside: To go down yale: 1) you must destroy hundreds of full grown Oak Trees. 2) You will endanger the traffic flow and members for 5 churches 3) you will endanger the children of 3 schools (several hundred from Jenks S.E. and Jenks Middle) 4) you will create an unsafe traffic flow in an already crowded area. 5) you will create a traffic problem for the access of a fire station. To go down Riverside: You will have to staighten a very dangerous curve which has already claimed several lives. You will destroy no significant tree growth You will not create any of the dangerous conditions outlined above. You will greatly improve traffic flow down Riverside and have a more clear and free access to 169.
Sep 23 2009 - 11:10am
Editing comments:
pg. 24 Highways and Freight
second to the last sentence, "This will alleviate help prevent...."
seems to need another word - alleviate what?
pg. 41 Use Context Sensitive Solutions
CSS used throughout the paragraph, but CSD used under illustration.
Great plan and vision. Let us all carry the vision forward to the next phase.
Sep 23 2009 - 10:58am
The bridge in south Tulsa should connect to Delaware Avenue a/k/a River Road, not Yale Avenue.
This is the only map I've seen that aligns the bridge at Yale Avenue which leads me to my next question of who told you to draw the map this way or who gave you this map drawn this way?
Sep 23 2009 - 10:56am
We ask that you please consider changing the connection point of the South Tulsa Bridge from Yale to Riverside Drive. It makes more sense for the traffic to flow down Riverside since Yale is a 2 lane street through many neighborhoods. Thank you for this consideration. Amy Meyer
Sep 23 2009 - 8:49am
I along with the majority of my neighbors are adamantly opposed to any bridge being attached to South Yale avenue. This would route far too much traffic through this residential neighborhood and past an elementary school. Traffic should be connected to Riverside Drive which is being developed for commercial use.
Sep 23 2009 - 7:57am
I believe that the South Tulsa Bridge, which your plan has connecting with Yale Avenue on the north side of the river is ill advised and does not take into effect the neighborhood, the schools and the configuration of the community. The only obvious alternative is to connect to Riverside Drive. This is a mojor objection of those in the area, and for good reason.
Sep 23 2009 - 7:32am
As a member of the South Tulsa Citizens Coalition, and as a member of the Lexington Homeowners Association at 112th and Yale, I am shocked to find out that PLANiT Tulsa has placed the Northern landing point of the proposed bridge crossing at Yale, even after the huge outcry against this location, the lawsuit to stop the bridge being placed there which we won, and the fact that there is land deeded to the City of Tulsa which would prevent this location being used.
Please, please, PLEASE! Pay attention to the constituency on this issue. Put the northern connection point of the bridge at Riverside, a far more logical and non-confrontational location.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sep 23 2009 - 7:21am
The Planitulsa map shows a new bridge in south Tulsa over the Arkansas River. I am very strongly against this bridge connecting to Yale. It should connect to Riverside drive.
Sep 23 2009 - 7:15am
The future South Tulsa bridge should be moved from Yale Avenue to River Road.
Who told you the bridge should be placed at Yale Avenue?
The last City of Tulsa transportation plan has the bridge headed in an East/West direction located at 121st and River Road.
I have attended numerous INCOG meetings where this bridge has been brought up and INCOG has stated that a bridge is needed "somewhere in the vicinity" of 121st and Yale in 20 years or so. "Somewhere in the vicinity" doesn't mean Yale Avenue.
The future South Tulsa bridge should be moved from Yale Avenue to River Road.
Sep 23 2009 - 6:48am
Please reconsider putting the Northern point for the bridge in South Tulsa to the much more reasonable point at Riverside, NOT Yale Avenue.
The Yale Avenue northern point is opposed by a great majority of citizens whom it would affect. Thanks!
Sep 23 2009 - 6:03am
I do not agree with the plan where you have the toll bridge conncetion at yale.
Sep 23 2009 - 5:34am
The bridge alignment should be altered to exit at Riverside Drive instead of Yale Ave. Yale Avenue to the Creek Turnpike is predominately residential and includes an elementary school at 101st. I live at 121st and Yale, work at 71st and Yale, but take Memorial to get to work to avoid the morning "Yale Crawl".
Riverside Drive makes much more sense for the bridge alignment due to all of the commercial development along the Arkansas River.
Thanks,
Dale & Susan Gann
Sep 22 2009 - 10:14pm
I am one of the proponents of scenario D. I want to see the downtown and adjacent neighborhoods developed with housing, condos, apartments, services, art galleries, restaurants, artists studios, theaters, museums, pedestrian safe access between facilities and attractions. All of these things make Tulsa a city that will attract visitors and perhaps new residents. When visitors come to a city they come to the heart of the city, not the outlying areas. And when they do come, they want to see a thriving active city. I am in favor of all the things suggested in Scenario D. As a table facilitator at one of the neighborhood workshops, I can say that I did contribute to and support the efforts to build this vision.
Now, having said that, I do agree that parts of C and D should be combined as they have been for the vision of the future of our city. Perhaps that will be more acceptable and perhaps more palatable to those who have abandoned the downtown and midtown areas for homes in far South Tulsa and who didn't contribute input to the original workshops but who voiced their objections not suggestions after the fact.
So, the bottom line to this feedback is that I will support the vision as proposed by PLANiTULSA.
Sep 22 2009 - 4:03pm
There are a number of references to biking as a way to travel in Tulsa in the plan. Biking has also been mentioned in the past few years as something the city should promote and support. Unfortunately, no one told the people who plan and design streets in Tulsa. I am not aware of any new streets built in any part of the city that provide space for cyclists. Regardless of the success or acceptance of the larger plan, is PlaniTulsa going to have any influence on the design of new streets to include bike lanes?
Sep 22 2009 - 2:19pm
I am a member of The Tree Advisory Committee which was formed at the request of the Mayor of Tulsa in 2006/2007. We have worked with PSO/AEP with tree related problems as well as being a liaison with homeowners and their concern with City tree trimming in the Parks.
In our Strategic Plan, our Mission Statement is: "Growing Tulsa's urban forest for the 22nd century".
Our Vision Statement is: "To transform Tulsa's aging urban forest through a well managed and thoughtfully designed forestry initiative that enables Tulsa to maintain and enhance its beauty while integrating highly reliable electric service with improved public safety and increased community awareness".
In our Strategic Plan, we have set as a major Key Performance Measure
A Increase the city's tree canopy.
Description: Increase percentage of tree canopy by 3% per year through a variety of mechanisms (partnerships with utilities, landscape companies, etc.) Plan to complete Land Sat imaging in FY '08 (cost estimated at $167,000) to establish baseline and update minimum of every five (5) years. - NEED TO GET THE LAND SAT IMAGING PLANNED, FUNDED & SCHEDULED FOR THIS FALL OR SPRING OF 2009. NEED TO IDENTIFY FUNDING BY CONTACTING MAYOR ABOUT REGREEN TULSA MONIES.
*Baseline to be established in 2008 Source: Land Sat Images
It is my desire and hope for the new Comprehensive Plan to aggressively promote the planting of trees in new neighborhoods through credits given to the Development Community when obtaining Permits for these new properties.
I would also like to see funding for replenishment of the Tulsa tree canopy as a result of natural disasters, insect infestations or removal of trees due to age or infrastructure installations.
It is critical in determining how Tulsa's Tree Canopy is growing to establish a baseline study of the current canopy. Funds for this study can be taken from the Economic Development resources. I firmly believe that the percentage of tree canopy can improve livability, clean air and water as well as decrease the effects of urban heating (this could be codified by another study, if funds were available).
I respectfully request that you include strong language and achievable mechanisms to insure that Tulsa's tree canopy increases in the future.
Thanks for providing this forum for my thoughts.
Sep 22 2009 - 11:51am
I object to the northern connection point of the future South Tulsa bridge being placed at Yale Avenue. The better northern connection point is Riverside Drive a/k/a River Road.
I am somewhat mystified by why PLANiTULSA would place the northern connection point of the future South Tulsa bridge at Yale Avenue when (i) an overwhelming majority of the neighborhoods oppose such a connection, (ii) the Southwest corner of 121st and Yale Avenue is owned by the City of Tulsa and is deed restricted that it must be used for a public park and (iii) Tulsa Mayor Kathy Taylor and majority of the Tulsa City Council oppose such a connection.
I respectfully request that the northern connection point of the future South Tulsa bridge be changed from Yale Avenue to Riverside Drive.
Sep 22 2009 - 12:25am
Very impressed and excited about the plan. As a native Tulsan, now starting my family here, I am very optimistic about Tulsa's future but we absolutely need to implement a plan like this in order for the city to reach it's full potential.
I support putting this vision into action!
Sep 21 2009 - 9:13pm
Haven't seen the final plan but I am a strict preservationist. Hope we keep our historic neighborhoods, historic!
Sep 21 2009 - 6:26pm
I'd like to see a vibrant downtown that attracts young professionals; fast and affordable mass transit to downtown; more bike lanes and continued development of bike and walking paths throughout Metro Tulsa. I'd like to see neighborhood shopping developments and eating places that could be accessed by walking or biking and avoiding heavy traffic that necessitates car transport.
Sep 21 2009 - 5:26pm
The report is terrific . . . so much better and more understandable than I anticipated.
Now my biggest concerns are:
1. the adoption of the recommendation to consolidate all of the scattered planning groups into one centralized, well-staffed, well organized entitiy in order to support and encourage private development
2. revise the zoning ordinance to support the plan.
3. the plan should NOT be put up for a vote of the general public. YIKES!
We had great participation in the PlaniTulsa effort and ALL Tulsans have been given adequate opportunity for input. Those that have not participated will likely not take the time to educate themselves in order to make an informed decision.
4. That proper funding will be derailed by special interest groups (such as the firefighters union) that are not looking charged with looking at at the overall financial requirements of the City of Tulsa.
Shame on the firefighters and their union - Councilor Martinson was the ONLY person who had the ability and took the time to understand the whole picture. Tulsa is much poorer for their (probably illegal) meddling in the election.
5. That the new administration won't adequately insure that the plan is carried through.
6. That George Kaiser, himself, won't buy into and whole-heartedly support the plan. This perhaps should have been my #1 concern.
I've heard that Mr. Kaiser doesn't care for or care about planning, he just want to "do it", with the "it" being whatever project HE chooses in whatever manner that HE chooses to execute it. His largess is a blessing and a curse. We run the risk of Tulsans loosing touch with how much it costs for projects that are typically paid for by taxpayers AND we will loose the authenticity of a variety of "looks". In other words, Tulsa's look will become "George Kaiser World".
7. The overwhelming deep pockets of the George Kaiser Family Foundation will persuade parts of the plan to be over ridden by whatever the GKFF (and their Tulsa Community Foundation and their BOK) wants to do instead.
We headed in the right direction, but this is just (a very important) step towards Tulsa's future.
Sep 21 2009 - 3:13pm
Whatever plan we go with, we need a better way to fund public amenities like Tulsa Parks and public transportation.
Yes, we need good streets. But we might not need quite so much police and fire if we had a public transportation system that did not require an hour and a bicycle to get to/from a job, that operated on Sundays so people could go to church, and that went to/from parks where children could learn to be part of teams instead of gangs, and families and adults could relax in healthy ways.
Parks and public transportation should be near the top of the priority lists instead of the first thing cut out of every single budget. These are a better use of public funding than some big copycat river project trying to turn a perfectly beautiful living prairie river into a canal. The tourism dollar may be drawn to Tulsa by the BOK center, but the longterm business relocation dollar will come here for quality of life.
Sep 21 2009 - 9:00am
Transportation is my personal issue with Tulsa so I'm very excited to see that I will hopefully gain access to streets with sidewalks and public transportation that doesn't confuse me.
Sep 21 2009 - 8:42am
Attention: Theron Warlick - Principal Staff City of Tulsa Planning Department John Fregonese - Planitulsa consultant
Subject: Planitulsa public comment e-mailed on September 20, 2009
My wife and I are the owners of the following described parcel of real estate:
All of Government Lot 4 Lying West of the West Line of South Delaware Avenue inSection 29, Township 18 North, Range 13 East, Tulsa County, Oklahoma.Our land is located near 105th and South Delaware Ave. in Tulsa, Oklahoma.We have over 1500 front feet on South Delaware Ave. and Arkansas River Frontage.
In the enclosed jpg attachment is a copy of the "Jenks/South Tulsa RiverfrontConcept Plan" That rendering was adopted as part of the Arkansas River CorridorMaster Plan. In that rendering our land is shown in the very near bottom left andis labeled as Proposed Mixed Use Development Area. In regards to Planitulsa comments and input, our concerns are as follows:
1. Please reconcile and incorporate into all of your renderings and documentationthe elements of the Arkansas River Corridor Master Plan.
2. Please extend on your renderings the public transit line to 106th street and South Delaware Ave. to be in proximity of the proposed south Tulsa/Jenks Dam and Pedestrian Bridge.
3. Please designate on Planitulsa renderings and documentation all of our property as a proposed mixed-use urban village commercial riverfront development center which would include retail, restaurants, office, multifamily residential, and entertainment venues.
Your attention to this matter is greatly appreciated.
Thank You
Joram Rauchwerger
Sep 21 2009 - 8:11am
I took a look at the map and the proposals...so far so good.
Sep 21 2009 - 5:57am
Spend 50% of all money on sidewalks and boulevard all avenues. Make EVERYTHING walkable.
Sep 21 2009 - 5:39am
I like how Planit Tulsa worked, but you need to publicize the process more now and how results were achieved. Metlock mis-represented your efforts and other politicians may do the same. You need to remind people that they were invited into the process and that the people of Tulsa made these decisions. People forget so quickly.Thanks a a lot.
Sep 21 2009 - 5:34am
So how does any of this get done without the monetary resources that are needed?
If you could stimulate business in Tulsa you can collect more taxes and fund some of the projects in your strategy.
I don't see any change without redirecting short-term and long-term goals to centralizing the city of Tulsa.
Build a downtown grocery store or two!
Bring back the shopping, the movies, the bowling to downtown. Go back to the 50's in short!
Where does the Mayor stand on any of this?
Sep 20 2009 - 11:48pm
Adoption of this plan, which by all accounts, has been produced in the most transparent, inclusive, and open way, is an imperative step on the path our city must take ensure that it's future is prosperous, it neighborhoods and citizens are safe, and that it's quality of life takes a backseat to no one in this part of the country. If we are to have vibrant economy, beautiful streets with room for all forms of transportation, a bustling downtown, convenient and quality public spaces, an effective public realm (government), a strong and healthy tax base, neighborhoods and conveniences that appeal to young folks, families, and our aging population; WE MUST ADOPT THIS PLAN as step number one. If we are to see our institutions of education, from early childhood education to our 4-year universities, meet the needs of our city and our region, we must adopt this plan. If we want Tulsa to return to the relevance many of us remember, but many more of us only hear about in history books, we must adopt this plan. Is it perfect? Not yet...but it is a great start. I am pleased with much of what has been done thus far. A balanced approach to all phases this plan addresses: Land Use; an emphasis on downtown, with focused development on our existing assets and potential new centers of commerce and vibrancy; New main streets, and new neighborhoods rising out of neglected areas. The potential for a variety of new types of housing and services is huge in these areas. Transportation and Housing; a diversification of our transportation options. No single public investment does more to stimulate private investment than transportation. Our investment in streets and highways has proven that, if you build it, they will come; and nationwide there is widespread proof that transit investments bring as much, if not more, private investment around those improvements as well. We must permit mixed use and transit oriented development as a viable development standard. We must encourage urban living downtown, we must create streets that are safe for cyclists and pedestrians (WE NEED BIKE LANES and SIDEWALKS) and we must value the strength of our existing neighborhoods. Parks and Open Space: Jan Gehl, a famous planner and architect, claims that, in designing a city, it is the space BETWEEN the buildings, not the buildings themselves, that is most important to our civic and social health. Our parks are a vital part of our community. We must ensure that they are protected and that new public spaces are usable and convenient retreats for Tulsans. Our public realm; our streets and sidewalks must be accessible for all citizens. Economic Development: Investment in our quality of life is critical to the continued vibrancy of our economy. Cities of the future will be competing, first and foremost for talent: young people who will be the future of large companies, small business, and creative life. We must invest in higher learning, we must encourage original and interesting neighborhoods and culture. We must understand that diversity is a strength, not a weakness. Sustainability: Environmental and Fiscal. Speaks for itself. We must build our community so that it doesn't tax our environment or our pocketbook with burdensome problems. Design smartly, and run efficiently. I do have to say, there are a few changes, particularly in the Transportation section that I'd like to see, starting with some clarification on terminology. For example, Harvard is designed as a "commuter corridor". I don't know what that means, but Yale is already a primary arterial for a large portion, and thus has the necessary ROW, plus it passes several major development areas including, the St. Francis/Warren Plaza area, which is a large employment center; 41st and Yale, which is a huge shopping area and the location of OU-Tulsa; The Fairgrounds and 21st and Yale, another commercial hotspot, intersects with the BA Expressway and potentially a Light Rail line, which could connect the area to downtown via transit; and comes very close to the Airport. It would seem that Yale, not Harvard would make the most sense to implement a complete streets policy, including BRT, making it the central North/South commuter spine. Additionally, I think a BRT line on 71st street makes sense, connecting the US-75 and SH-169. 71st is also a primary arterial, and has the existing ROW to implement a BRT line. The "Big Boxes" on 71st will, one day be redevelopment opportunities, and will more likely attract quality redevelopment if there is a proper transit option in place. On a smaller scale, I would expand the 15th Street "Main Street" designation all the way to Harvard, rather than stopping at Lewis. I also think that our On-Street Bikeway policies need to be reexamined. With the rising popularity of cycling as a legitimate commuter option, the opportunity of conflict between cyclists and automobiles is only going to increase unless something is done to provide drivers and cyclists with a safe, visible system that gets cyclists where the need to go, and provides an obvious designation that cycling is permitted. In many communities around the nation, particularly in Portland, Oregon, designated bike lanes have shown to be a successful way to encourage cycling while keeping cyclists safe. Their safety statistics are public and indisputable. Over the past decade, cycling ridership has increased by more than 10 times, yet, because of the awareness provided by the physical bike facility, reported injuries and fatalities have remained the same. Considering the two most recent bicycle/auto related deaths that have occurred in Tulsa in the last few months, we must consider this. On a final note, as we challenge ourselves to create the kind of place that is a truly great place live, that we keep the core principle that makes Tulsa such a unique place: our civility and respect for our fellow citizens.
Sep 18 2009 - 3:47pm
I would like the guiding principle that addresses the health disparities in our community put back in the plan. In fact, I would like much more emphasis on creating a healthy city, particularly important are active transportation and fitness, food security and nutrition, health care access and the many connections between urban form and public health.
Sep 17 2009 - 4:12pm
I'm a member of the Tulsa bicycling advocacy group, an instructor with the League of American Bicyclists, and a life-long bicycle commuter. At present, there is not a comprehensive transportation plan that includes bicycling interests, so I have to wonder how the PlaniTulsa document decided that bike lanes be included in both new and existing development. The advocacy group opposes bike lanes for a variety of reasons, but chief among them is the added complications they cause at intersections. Tusla already has some bike lanes along Archer and Mohawk Blvd that are ill-designed and ill-maintained, yet we're supposed to believe that adding additional lane miles will lead to improvements. I'm sure the idea came from some well-meaning people with limited bicycling experience. Please, if you're intending to include bicycle planning in PLANiTULSA, contact the advocacy group for expert advice. Otherwise, it's like building interstate highways designed by blind people with no knowledge of driving.
Sep 16 (email comment):
Too many commas in letter and intro.
Transportation: No mention of walking as method of transportation. So no investment in sidewalks?
Clumsily written: "This strategy includes making better use of advanced transportation modeling and information technologies to guide investments and realigning planning and nfrastructure finance practices to fund them".
The following conspicuously omits to refer to the necessity for Public Works investment to reflect planning strategy - or is that what is meant by ‘capital planning'? If so, it should be made much more explicit.
"Organize city planning and development functions to implement the vision. Enhance coordination of long range planning, zoning dministration, current planning, capital planning, community development and economic development functions to move major projects and initiatives forward."
Q To a visitor from Boston to Tulsa: "What did you think of Downtown?
A: "I saw about two people. It made me appreciate Boston"
Bad grammar:
"Adequate space for expanding businesses into downtown, along main streets, or in employment centers should be easy to find."
Obscure:
"Transit should be designed as a consumer good, to attract people without a vehicle, as well as people who do, with its quality and benefits." Spelling?
"Development and zoning policies should be easily understood, workable and result in predicable development." I suggest that the following understates the very strong performance and preference for the centered city strategy: an amazingly strong consensus from so many people. The current wording makes the results sound vague and shapeless. A missed opportunity that also makes it easier for some people to argue for a ‘vote' of some kind. If the report doesn't make this clear, it could easily be used to delay, prevaricate, obscure and impede progress.
"There was substantial support for Centered City, which envisions restoring downtown as the region's center of housing and employment.At the same time, New Centers was also popular, with its focus on complete communities of single-family homes in proximity to neighborhood centers with shopping and community amenities. Finally, Tulsans were supportive of Main Streets, and a renewed emphasis on making the city's corridors more pedestrian-friendly, transit-friendly, and livable."
The following should be in caps: "Strong support for new possibilities-instead of continuing withcurrent trends-indicates a strong desire by Tulsans to change direction."
Add a photo of the kind of urban homes that people would like, in addition to the two boring pictures at this point: "Our Vision
also recognizes the need for an expanded range of housing options, like apartmentsand condos.
Recreational"
The following seems absolutely insane. Does it follow from what respondents said or from what we know about the rest of the 21st century? I see no justification for it. It seems to be advocating continued low density sprawl.
Plan Chapter: Land Use
"In keeping with Tulsa's tradition of single-family neighborhoods, new neighborhoods will consist mostly of individual homes."
Add ‘and angled' to the following sentence: "These areas typically will have wider sidewalks, street trees, and parallel parking to provide some separation between traffic and the pedestrian."
How about addressing appalling school design which precludes or demeans access on foot in the following:
"Parks, schools and churches will continue to be important community assets, and will be protected and maintained. With walking and biking investments, school-aged children will be able to walk to and from school, as they did for much ofTulsa's history".
I very much hope that in the following chapter, we get to grips with the toxic effect of surface parking.
Light Rail: Just for info I haven't seen any case for allocating money to a Broken Arrow rail connection. I'm with Jack on this. Let's think straight before we prioritize something, spend money, then discover it doesn't work, then blame rail as a bad idea. The following are much more important and relevant than a Borken Arrow connection:
"Initially, Tulsa will invest in two or three key corridors with frequent bus service to downtown from North and East Tulsa. Over time, key housing and employment developments will add riders, and enhancements will spread throughout the city."
Does the following mean we can get rid of the inner dispersal noose?
"Freight travel and distribution will be improved through strategic investments to disentangle freight and localtraffic. Freight routes, which historically were routed through downtown, will be shifted to the Gilcrease Expressway Extension."
I find the following discouragingly timid. Be more imaginative. Anyone up there read Shoop yet? Or studied other cities?
Smart Parking
While transit, biking and walking are important pieces of the transportation system, Tulsans, generally, will still own and drive cars. The city's approach to parking will make optimal use of the land along main streets, downtown, and in new centers to better support pedestrian-friendly places. New centers, downtown and other gathering places will be served by parking districts, which provide just the right amount of parking capacity. Offices usually do not need parking spaces in the evenings, when restaurants and residences do, so these uses can share the same spaces over the course of the day. New development will no longer be required to provide large amounts of on-site parking for the one or two days a year it is used, but will be able to use public spaces already on the street and public lots or garages that serve many businesses. This will not preclude builders from including additional parking on-site, but lower minimums will allow the marketplace to determine how much parking is needed."
Likewise I find the following section exasperatingly wimpy. The first para needs to be turned around completely:
The process will begin modestly, by acknowledging that transportation defines communities. In the same way that roadways spur development today, transit and livable streets will fuel the new economy which will focus on entrepreneurialism, retaining younger people and creating an urban experience.
Replace the above with something like:
"Transit options and ‘living' streets designed for the pedestrian help create an urban experience that attracts new businesses and young people in the 21st century economy."
Get rid of ‘fuel the economy' - it confuses new and old economies. Get rid of the ‘modestly' sentence. It both sounds wimpy and confuses by implying that transportation is the only thing that defines a community.
Tulsa will implement this new vision and create sustainable communities by:
• Redesigning key streets into main streets and corridors with many transportation options. (MANY?? HOW MANY?)
• Revolutionizing freight commerce by building a state-ofthe-art facility that combines rail, truck, barge and air cargo.
• Using new technology that helps traffic signals bettermanage transit and cars.
• Implementing real-time travel information systems that alert drivers and transit riders to congestion or delays.
• Redesigning streets so they support options in addition tocars, while also being context sensitive to neighborhoods,
businesses and the environment. (TURN POINT THIS AROUND: IT SOUNDS APOLOGETIC. HOW ABOUT "REDESIGNING STREETS TO FOSTER TRANSIT CHOICE AND TO SUSTAIN NEIGHBORHOODS, LOCAL BUSINESSES AND THE ENVIRONMENT".
• Forging funding partnerships that reward the private sector or building sustainable projects that complement walking, biking and transit.
I think the street designs shown in the document are all horrific. Not a single instance of a 2-lane street or an alley, or a passageway. And is it only me who has read research telling us that medians inhibit pedestrian movement and therefore economic viability of surrounding businesses? We really must start reading the research and studying best practices very carefully. If we don't we'll be as guilty of the same things for which I critcise Public Works right now: lazy, outmoded thinking. We only get one shot at this.
Just to let you know that London recently not to adopt the following strategy. It decided to sustain and improve a world-class environment instead.
"Pursue business retention and recruitment efforts that build on existing and emerging industry clusters." And "Stimulate job growth in target cluster industries, such as health care and aerospace, which provide goodwages and that are expected to grow."
What does the following mean? It sounds like a whiff of policy with a sprinkling of physical design:
"Create an environment that welcomes new ventures, particularly those generated by the creative class."
The picture that goes with the following shows a 4-lane highway and a median as a ‘neighborhood street'!!!!
New neighborhoods and centers will be designed as complete communities with a variety of uses and transportation options.
You might have considered showing a picture of the Village At Central Park at this page, in terms of sustainable development. Compact urban form (not to mention rowhome format) contributes more to urban energy efficiency than any number of gizmos, and you address this to some extent iin the following para.:
"Growth and development strategies that embrace sustainable practices will yield financial benefits as well. Well built compact communities will be more fiscally sustainable by reducing maintenance costs and reducing waste over the long term".
Endless schematics of 4-lane roads with medians. Is it because someone likes drawing them or because this is the only possibility given any consideration??!:
Medians and 4-lane roads kill independent retail businesses.
Is Public Works strategy and organization encompassed in the following section:
"Step 6: Organize Planning and Development Functions for Implementation
Taking PLANiTULSA to BUILDiTULSA
Our Vision for Tulsa lays out an ambitious agenda for change that will require a high degree of coordination and skill to accomplish. The city will adopt the comprehensive plan, but most of the key projects will be built by the private sector. Therefore, it is crucial that the process of development is clear and easy to follow. Cities that have been successful implementing visionary plans have carefully coordinated their long-range and current planning, capital improvement, economic, and redevelopment programs to reinforce one another."
No mention anywhere of climate change, changing demographics, peak oil, globalization.... Tulsa is immune to the outside world, is it? For a comprehensive Plan, this seems less than comprehensive.
Sep 15 2009 - 10:37pm
Hello, I applaud the many references to bicycle paths through the city, but feel that even more effort should be made to incorporate this pollution free obesity fighting transportation mode into future city concepts. In case you may not be familiar with cutting edge designs, I would like to inform you of the existence of fully enclosed all weather 3 wheel bicycle prototypes not to mention the possibility of adding electric boost to such types which could make biking to work or shopping pleasurable and practical, if the infrastructure was there to allow that to happen. My other comment is that air pollution must be considered and should take a prominent place in planning for a new and more vibrant Tulsa. As a citizen who spends at least 2 hours outside each and every day within the city limits, I can tell you that air pollution spoils my sense of well being while outdoors more than half of those days. Though worse in summertime, winter too yields many days with the fresh air mixed with fumes from automobiles and from industrial sources. Taking a deep breath outside in Tulsa is more often than not taking a serious risk with one's health. I worry about my health and the health of many others I see exercising on heavily air polluted days along Riverside and elsewhere. While attempting to improve their health, they may actually be harming it. Please take into account the damage that ozone and particulates, as well as chemical releases from industrial sources can do and work that into your plans. Thanks, Mitchell Lester
