I was reading about the high priority of connecting the river and the canal. The problem that I see is the great water level height difference. There is an underpass just west of Lincoln by the Cheasapeak Boathouse for this.

So my bet would be that it will be more of a terminal/ exchange as opposed to a direct link.

Any ideas?


http://newsok.com/oklahoma-river-developments-continue-to-enhance-area/article/3534074#ixzz1DrIhyl3i

They will not actually meet, their is a 17 food difference in heights of the river and canal, at one point a lock was considered so riding the taxis all the way would be an option but is at least as of now not part of the plan. It will allow people to get off the taxi walk down and get on one of the Devon boats which will be able to turn around their. Also probably more importantly it allows walking from the taxis or bricktown to boathouse row, since they already have several large events and will be biding for more.

Yeah, there won't be an actual link. But there are plans to either extend the canal to where it's closer to the river link, or to use sidewalks and landscaping to connect the two.

17 feet is enough to do this.

http://www.shularinn-pigeonforge.com/slideshow/images/dollywood_log_ride_jpg.jpg

Could always install a lock.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/murky/5730799/

I like kerrys idea lol

Could always install a lock.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/murky/5730799/

or one of these:

http://www.contemporist.com/photos/falkirk_wheel_02_570.jpg

This +100

X 5

That is freaking awesome!!! Where is that?

on edit: here is how it works

n61KUGDWz2A

Some of these issue have been brought up previously in other threads. The problem with locks is that the canal is not a river or stream. It does not have a steadily replinishing source of water. As I have mentioned before about the youtube depiction, I hope I never see a monstrosity like that along our river.

And as mentioned a million times before on here...the canal is a closed system while the river is not.

The Falkirk Wheel puts just as much water back in as it takes out. There would be no loss of water from the canal.

nope, but one is river water, and one is old city water. Not sure how much difference that would make to critters in either, but probably some.

Another problem is the 8 lane highway that intersects them.

If your talking about the new highway, it's 10 lane

nope, but one is river water, and one is old city water. Not sure how much difference that would make to critters in either, but probably some.

If the City wanted to do it there is a way (after all they are doing it in Scotland from a canal to a river) . I'm not sure how big a deal mixing a small amount of river water and a small amount of canal water is anyhow as the canal is drained every year. The canal is filled with water from fire hydrants, where does that water come from?

As for the new highway - it doesn't matter if it is 20 lanes wide - they already built the bridge for it. You can see it here under the heading 'Canal Bridge'.

http://www.40forward.com/

Another problem is the 8 lane highway that intersects them.

There's a bridge under the new highway, as well as a canal extension which will extend the canal under that bridge to stop near the inlet of Regatta Park.

that wheel thing is so cool, i want to ride it!!! bring it to okc lol

There's a bridge under the new highway, as well as a canal extension which will extend the canal under that bridge to stop near the inlet of Regatta Park.

Actually it will be reversed. An extension of the Regatta Park inlet will extend under the highway with its terminus near the current S. end of the canal.

Actually it will be reversed. An extension of the Regatta Park inlet will extend under the highway with its terminus near the current S. end of the canal.

Ah ok, that makes sense. Couldn't remember which way it was supposed to go for sure.

The Falkirk Wheel puts just as much water back in as it takes out. There would be no loss of water from the canal.

It's still a monstrosity which would be totally out of place along our river.

17 feet is enough to do this.

http://www.shularinn-pigeonforge.com/slideshow/images/dollywood_log_ride_jpg.jpg

Exactly what I have been suggesting for years now. make the Canal a circular path and turn it into this!

Possibly use those side channels as dual water slides. Sell the naming rights to Frontier City/Whitewater Bay.

It's still a monstrosity which would be totally out of place along our river.

It doesn't have to look exactly like that. I can imagine some pretty cool ways to move boats 17 feet vertically. There has to be more than one way to build an aquavator or aqualator.

It doesn't have to look exactly like that. I can imagine some pretty cool ways to move boats 17 feet vertically. There has to be more than one way to build an aquavator or aqualator.
Hopefully they planned enough room that something might be able to be added later.

1) Bricktown canal is treated with some chemicals since it is a closed system, wouldn't want to mingle river and canal water for that reason. You would have to keep retreating the canal constantly and you'd be getting chemicals in the river.

2) How well do you think one of the Watertaxis would do on a windy day in a waterway 20x wider than the boat? Trust me, it would be an exciting ride.

1) Bricktown canal is treated with some chemicals since it is a closed system, wouldn't want to mingle river and canal water for that reason. You would have to keep retreating the canal constantly and you'd be getting chemicals in the river.

2) How well do you think one of the Watertaxis would do on a windy day in a waterway 20x wider than the boat? Trust me, it would be an exciting ride.

1) If that is a major concert and the benefits of having a connection outweigh the costs, a system could be designed to transfer little or no water along with the taxi.

2) The banks of the river are high enough that it would be fine most days, certainly on days which would have the most traffic between the two where their would be events on the river that are affected by wind that may be postponed or canceled.

So we can go to the moon but we can't move boats from one body of water to another body of water. Got it.

So we can go to the moon but we can't move boats from one body of water to another body of water. Got it.

Of course it could be done, Kerry. But the expense and real need for such a connection are certainly points that make it unlikely.

ljbab,

I take it then that you disagree with former Mayor Norick who stated in an "open letter to voters" before the original MAPS election the importance (think a stronger word was used, like "critical") that the Canal run from the Convention Center, through Bricktown and connecting to the River. This was to be a continuous Canal where riders could go all the way from the River to the Convention Center. All for about $9M. We did get a Canal and it cost $23M.

The Canal we got cost 2.55 times more than voters were told and not as promised. We only got the Bricktown segment. No connection to the Convention Center (a later extension connecting it was proposed by Mayors Norick and Humphreys for inclusion into MAPS 3 for an estimated additional $25M). Mayor Norick reiterated the importance of the Canal connecting at that time.

The non-connecting extension to the River is being funded through the 2007 G.O. bond issue but isn't slated for construction until 2016(?) and is budgeted at an additional $3M (not sure if this is includes "let's just look at the latest expenditure approvals, which include $1.05 million for a small extension of the Bricktown Canal south to Reno Avenue" Steve mentioned back in 2008) Interestingly, the bridge over the non-existing extension was one of the first things built in the relocated I-40. The river "extension" was Proposition 5 (Parks and Recreational Facilities), F, item 14 "Oklahoma River, Bricktown Canal connection/transition improvements" (the word "transition may be their loophole). Considering that projects built that much later than when passed (9 years later in this case) often easily exceed their announced budgets, it will be interesting to see if the $3M figure holds. But lets say for now, that they bring it in for that amount.

Undoubtedly expensive to be sure. if we ever get it, the total cost for the "complete" Canal is in excess of $50M (over 5 times what voters were told). Whats a few more million(s) to build it the way they said they were going to? "Promises made, promises kept"? So far they are 0 for 3 (they didn't build it on time, on budget or as promised).

Just to avoid any future unkept promises, the price tag on all MAPS items will be $1 billion each and will take 100 years to build.

I don't think the current canal boats would be able to handle the river. Maybe but those sit pretty low in the water.

I don't think the intent was to have the canal boats going out into the open water. I think they just wanted the canal boats and river boats to dock at the same place on the inlet. That would make tickets sales and transfer easier.

The non-connecting extension to the River is being funded through the 2007 G.O. bond issue but isn't slated for construction until 2016(?)

Is it still 2016 after the moved it up in the order of projects a couple months ago?

I don't think the current canal boats would be able to handle the river. Maybe but those sit pretty low in the water.

It is hardly a river at this point their is no current, it is a set of narrow winding lakes and no boats are allowed to generate a significant wake. The only movement is from wind and their is protection from that by a 15 to 25 foot bank, how different is lake water than city water that it will not be able to handle it? People train for the Olympics on it every day and wind/waves has far more effect on a rower or kayaker than it will ever have on the taxis.

Just to avoid any future unkept promises, the price tag on all MAPS items will be $1 billion each and will take 100 years to build.

LOL There ya go! Budget now for $1B and then 100 years later when they get around to it it costs $1T (trillion). Or maybe you are saying todays cost is $100M, and when it gets built it will be $1B?

Love the idea of a "temporary" 100 year tax though!



Is it still 2016 after the moved it up in the order of projects a couple months ago?

The 2016 date was the most recent one I recall from Steve in an article on the subject late last year(?). I wasn't aware that they had moved any projects up. Do you know which ones or have a link?

ljbab,

I take it then that you disagree with former Mayor Norick who stated in an "open letter to voters" before the original MAPS election the importance (think a stronger word was used, like "critical") that the Canal run from the Convention Center, through Bricktown and connecting to the River. This was to be a continuous Canal where riders could go all the way from the River to the Convention Center. All for about $9M. We did get a Canal and it cost $23M.

The Canal we got cost 2.55 times more than voters were told and not as promised. We only got the Bricktown segment. No connection to the Convention Center (a later extension connecting it was proposed by Mayors Norick and Humphreys for inclusion into MAPS 3 for an estimated additional $25M). Mayor Norick reiterated the importance of the Canal connecting at that time.

The non-connecting extension to the River is being funded through the 2007 G.O. bond issue but isn't slated for construction until 2016(?) and is budgeted at an additional $3M (not sure if this is includes "let's just look at the latest expenditure approvals, which include $1.05 million for a small extension of the Bricktown Canal south to Reno Avenue" Steve mentioned back in 2008) Interestingly, the bridge over the non-existing extension was one of the first things built in the relocated I-40. The river "extension" was Proposition 5 (Parks and Recreational Facilities), F, item 14 "Oklahoma River, Bricktown Canal connection/transition improvements" (the word "transition may be their loophole). Considering that projects built that much later than when passed (9 years later in this case) often easily exceed their announced budgets, it will be interesting to see if the $3M figure holds. But lets say for now, that they bring it in for that amount.

Undoubtedly expensive to be sure. if we ever get it, the total cost for the "complete" Canal is in excess of $50M (over 5 times what voters were told). Whats a few more million(s) to build it the way they said they were going to? "Promises made, promises kept"? So far they are 0 for 3 (they didn't build it on time, on budget or as promised).

If that is your take on what was planned, yes, I do disagree. I never considered that it was a likely plan and still think the expense is not worth it. I'm not defending any previous comments by city officials and those are certainly open to interpretation anyway.

What do you think it all meant then?

I don't think the intent was to have the canal boats going out into the open water. I think they just wanted the canal boats and river boats to dock at the same place on the inlet. That would make tickets sales and transfer easier.

It's my understanding that this is why there is a bridge on the new I-40 where it intersects the south end of the canal.. So that eventually the river inlet can be extended under the bridge and passengers just walk up the hill to the canal boats.

What do you think it all meant then?

I have no idea what was behind the statements but the word connection does not have to mean a seamless flow of water from the canal to the river. I often fly and have to make connections in various locations so it could be in that context.

I see where you are coming from. But when you look at the renderings, it was clearly a continuous flow. And then there are connecting flights where you have to change plans and others where you don't change, you just land, let some people off and others on. Then continue on your way.

I see where you are coming from. But when you look at the renderings, it was clearly a continuous flow. And then there are connecting flights where you have to change plans and others where you don't change, you just land, let some people off and others on. Then continue on your way.

Larry, it's not a major issue, but the type of flight where you stop but don't change planes is not called a connection. That is known as a direct flight which is different than a nonstop flight.

ok