# OKCpedia > General Real Estate Topics >  Let's do THIS with the old I-40

## RedDirt717

I've been thinking that instead of tearing down the old I-40, the city should utilize the space. Maybe turn it into a pedestrian walk way, or contract out some local artists to do something with the old pillars. I stumbled on this online. What an awesome concept. 









http://www.designboom.com/weblog/cat...-now-open.html

----------


## Snowman

There was a thread about this a long time ago, anyway it is far to late now. At this point we are required to have a road continue from the freeway ramps which the feds consider appropriate to disperse traffic to/from downtown. Plus the deconstruction contracts have been awarded. At this point we only have control of the design of the road going there.

----------


## Rover

Yes, we've commented on the NYC highline.  It was old train route.  It is a couple blocks from my apartment and a great facility. I use it a lot.

----------


## OklahomaNick

This is actually a REALLY good idea.. but more for an Elevated train track and not a 6 lane highway.. 
The downtown Boulevard is MUCH more needed.

----------


## jedicurt

i think we tear it down and use it as the first corridor for an OKC light rail system... this would allow you to get it all the way from the Fair grounds to downtown... now just need to find the correct route to get it to the airport and we have the start of the MORT (Metro of Oklahoma Rapid Transit)

----------


## Just the facts

I prefer GOCART - Greater Oklahoma City Area Rapid (or Rail) Transit.

Advertisement:  Get to work fast - Take a _GOCART_.

----------


## jedicurt

> I prefer GOCART - Greater Oklahoma City Area Rapid (or Rail) Transit.
> 
> Advertisement:  Get to work fast - Take a _GOCART_.


that is awesome!  i love it!  

i'm still trying to figure out if a downtown boulevard is really needed...  i mean i guess if it is built it will be used, i just think that if we are really ever going to start a rapid transit light rail system, this would be an ideal location to get it started.

----------


## Just the facts

I am not a real fan of the boulevard either.  I would be happy if they just put the original grid back in.  Reno is a block north and is already 4 lanes.  If a new 6 lane road follows the I-40 path they are going to have to close all of the intersections between Walker and Western and there will be so many unbuildable pie pieces it will look ugly and be functionally useless for anything other than moving a bunch of cars at high speeds along an at-grade road.  Not exactly pedestrian friendly.

----------


## Larry OKC

^^^
This

----------


## ljbab728

> I am not a real fan of the boulevard either.  I would be happy if they just put the original grid back in.  Reno is a block north and is already 4 lanes.  If a new 6 lane road follows the I-40 path they are going to have to close all of the intersections between Walker and Western and there will be so many unbuildable pie pieces it will look ugly and be functionally useless for anything other than moving a bunch of cars at high speeds along an at-grade road.  Not exactly pedestrian friendly.


And why do you think the speeds will be high, Kerry?  This will be a city street, not a freeway and speeds should be appropriate for that.  I have no inside information but I suspect that the speed limits will gradually decrease as you exit the freeway onto the boulevard and probably be no higher than 30 through the central business district.

----------


## Patrick

I see a 6 lane downtown Boulevard turning into nothing other than a 6 lane NW Expressway.  I'll pass.

----------


## Snowman

All the city's statements for at least a year state it will have 4 lanes for driving. It has also been stated that it will promote pedestrian use which is inline with what they have been trying to move to with streets downtown in recent years. I just do not see it being another NW Expressway.

----------


## Just the facts

The width isn't up to the City and it is still planned for 6 lanes.  People tend to drive at speeds that feel safe for conditions and it is not uncommon for people to do 50 mph in a 35 mph zone if the street is wide enough and buildings are set back from the road.  If you look at the path of I-40 west of Walker it will require the closure of most of those side roads, otherwise there will be an intersection every 60 feet.  This will essentially cut the area in half and will be worse than having the elevated I-40.

I did see a plan I like that would create a boulevard from Robinson east to I-40 and then everything west of Robinson would just return to the street grid.

----------


## BoulderSooner

Per everyone involved it will be 4 driving lanes

----------


## betts

With one lane for angle parking on each side?  IIRC the parking lanes plus driving lanes make it a six "lane" road.

----------


## Spartan

I think this is good enough of an idea to warrant more than just this duplicate thread. It has an equally strong chance of happening today as it ever did, given how open to public input this process was from the beginning.

----------


## ljbab728

> The width isn't up to the City and it is still planned for 6 lanes.


Kerry, as usual when it comes to roads, your information is not totally accurate.




> Wenger said decisions on the width of the boulevard and what exactly it will look like are “still very much in the design process.”
> 
> “The latest discussions have recommended that it be two lanes in each direction, with a parking lane on both the north and south sides,” he said. “There'll be some green space in between those lanes ... there's a lot more right of way for this project than what's probably going to be utilized.”



http://newsok.com/grand-boulevard-is...rticle/3650268

----------


## ljbab728

> I think this is good enough of an idea to warrant more than just this duplicate thread. It has an equally strong chance of happening today as it ever did, given how open to public input this process was from the beginning.


Spartan, I don't care how much public input is given, that kind of project will never be loved by the public or the city officials to replace the old I40.  It may have a place in NYC but it would be totally inappropriate and virtually unused here.

----------


## Just the facts

ljbab728: 1+2+2+1 = 6.  However, that configuration is just an idea at this point.

----------


## metro

> With one lane for angle parking on each side?  IIRC the parking lanes plus driving lanes make it a six "lane" road.


I hope not, that'd be awful IMO. I wish they'd model this off of Benjamin Franklin Parkway in Philadelphia. Our forefathers master planned this and our other original cities for a reason. Hope OKC gets this right but have serious doubts they will. 




> I think this is good enough of an idea to warrant more than just this duplicate thread. It has an equally strong chance of happening today as it ever did, given how open to public input this process was from the beginning.


How so? This will never happen with the current I-40. They've already started demo on it. ODOT is too stubborn anyway.




> Spartan, I don't care how much public input is given, that kind of project will never be loved by the public or the city officials to replace the old I40.  It may have a place in NYC but it would be totally inappropriate and virtually unused here.


THIS!

----------


## Pete

That elevated park works in NYC because there is true urban fabric all around and underneath.

The only thing below the existing crosstown is hideous concrete, weeds, trash and a little parking.  It's a huge, ugly barrier with virtually no development directly on either side.

In fact, one big argument against the Boulevard is that it will go through an incredibly unsightly area, as everything around there is seedy at best, and all the buildings have their backs turned to it.  That drive is going to look very, very bad for a very long time.

It's going to create yet another huge area that will need to be developed, improved, landscaped, maintained, etc.  We already have about 30 of these in the central core and most are a long way from where they need to be.  Throw yet another one onto the pile.

----------


## Just the facts

Metro - Ben Franklin Parkway was not part of the original design of Philadelphia.  It was laid out in 1917.  Having walked it I can tell you it is a pedestrian disaster.  Traffic on it goes way too fast because it is really wide and no buildings are adjacent to it.  Its sole purpose is to move cars in and out of Central City as fast as the drivers are willing to go.  Plus, there is no way a person can cross it without being stranded in the center median.  I crossed it many times and got stranded in the median every single time.  Some of Philly's greatest architectural gems are located near the parkway - but not on it.  There are almost no people walking along it except for the stray tourist or the power walkers getting their exercise.

I fear this is what the OKC Boulevard is destined to become.  I would prefer something more along the lines of Avenue of the Arts if it has to be wide.

----------


## metro

Pete, you forgot vagrants.

Kerry, I slightly disagree with use, I've seen it used a lot. It's also a BEAUTIFUL boulevard with gorgeous views and history.

----------


## Just the facts

> Pete, you forgot vagrants.
> 
> Kerry, I slightly disagree with use, I've seen it used a lot. It's also a BEAUTIFUL boulevard with gorgeous views and history.


No doubt it has nice views at both ends, but you have to be in a car to see the view (or stand in the middle of the street).

----------


## ljbab728

> ljbab728: 1+2+2+1 = 6.  However, that configuration is just an idea at this point.


If you want to count parking as a lane that would be correct but with only four driving lanes it won't facilitate speeding traffic any more than any other four lane corridor which was your original concern.  In fact with parking it might actually slow down traffic because of cars slowing down to park or because of cars pulling out of parking spots.  Have you ever walked the redesigned Santa Monica Blvd. in LA?  It is constructed exactly like that with four traffic lanes, parking lanes and a center median.  It is a very walkable area.

----------


## Just the facts

ljbab728 - Which part of Santa Monica Blvd?  The proposal would be to have a section of parking, an individual lane to service that parking, a median, 2 lanes of traffic going west, a median, 2 lanes of traffic going east, a median, a lane of traffic servicing parking, and then parking.  What is going to slow traffic on the 4 lanes that don't have any parking adjacent to it?  Plus crossing the street will take a long time because it would be 200 feet wide - or more.

----------


## Rover

People will cross if there is anything on the other side to walk to.  I frequent any number of wider blvds in the world that are wider and heavily pedestrian with no trouble.  If the blvd entices the right mix of business alongside it will be successful whether four or six lanes, if proper crosses and signals are used.

----------


## metro

> people will cross if there is anything on the other side to walk to.  I frequent any number of wider blvds in the world that are wider and heavily pedestrian with no trouble.  If the blvd entices the right mix of business alongside it will be successful whether four or six lanes, if proper crosses and signals are used.


this

----------


## Just the facts

How many of those wide boulevards existed before the city was already built around them?  Even the boulevards of Paris where never that wide until well after the surrounding city had been established (in many cases for centuries).  Many residential buildings were leveled in the process.  Creating an initial road so wide that it rivals the great boulevards of Europe seems to be putting the cart way before the horse.  OKC needs to foster a pedestrian mindset first.  Building a road 200 feet wide where narry a pedestrian exist - and then hoping pedestrian oriented business are attracted to the area seems backwards to me.  We can't even get a steady pedestrian flow going along Automobile Alley after 20 years - although the streetcar will sure help.

Just like all the condos instead of apartments around downtown, the plan for this type of boulevard is skipping some steps in the natural development process.

----------


## Rover

> Just like all the condos instead of apartments around downtown, the plan for this type of boulevard is skipping some steps in the natural development process.


You don't want natural development.  You want controlled development to YOUR vision.  You deny real natural development everywhere and assign some condition to it.  You ridicule any societal development that doesn't adhere to urban 101 for dummies.

----------


## Snowman

> How many of those wide boulevards existed before the city was already built around them?  Even the boulevards of Paris where never that wide until well after the surrounding city had been established (in many cases for centuries).  Many residential buildings were leveled in the process.  Creating an initial road so wide that it rivals the great boulevards of Europe seems to be putting the cart way before the horse.  OKC needs to foster a pedestrian mindset first.  Building a road 200 feet wide where narry a pedestrian exist - and then hoping pedestrian oriented business are attracted to the area seems backwards to me.  We can't even get a steady pedestrian flow going along Automobile Alley after 20 years - although the streetcar will sure help. ...


You keep on this but it is contrary to what has been coming out of the city and ODOT for at least the last year about how it will be built. Plus it is not being built in a vacume, the city wants this to be a place that will support high end shopping which will draw people from all over the city. Granted they seem fine with the CC going against almost everything they mentioned they want for the boulevard in the C2S plan.

----------


## Just the facts

The good news for you is the City (and State) are going to do it the way you want.

----------


## Just the facts

> You keep on this but it is contrary to what has been coming out of the city and ODOT for at least the last year about how it will be built. Plus it is not being built in a vacume, the city wants this to be a place that will support high end shopping which will draw people from all over the city.


The paper just had a story yesterday on the most recent design idea - 6 lanes, 3 medians, and 2 rows of parking.

----------


## Snowman

> The paper just had a story yesterday on the most recent design idea - 6 lanes, 3 medians, and 2 rows of parking.


While I did not read the paper yesterday, that was proposed years ago and is contrary to every statement made in the last year.

----------


## Just the facts

> While I did not read the paper yesterday, that was proposed years ago and is contrary to every statement made in the last year.


From yesterday's paper.





> “The latest discussions have recommended that it be two lanes in each direction, with a parking lane on both the north and south sides,” he said. “There'll be some green space in between those lanes ... there's a lot more right of way for this project than what's probably going to be utilized.”
> 
> 
> 
> Read more: http://newsok.com/grand-boulevard-is...#ixzz1mxTYgjtV


the cross-section will look like this

S-P-L-M-L-L-M-L-L-M-L-P-S

S= sidewalk
P= parking
L = lane
M = median

No word if bike lanes or streetcar row will be used as well

----------


## Snowman

> From yesterday's paper.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the cross-section will look like this
> 
> S-P-L-M-L-L-M-L-L-M-L-P-S
> 
> ...


From “The latest discussions have recommended that it be two lanes in each direction, with a parking lane on both the north and south sides,” and “There'll be some green space in between those lanes ... there's a lot more right of way for this project than what's probably going to be utilized.”

unless you have more information than that, S-P-L-L-M-L-L-P-S could also be valid interpretation from what was said in the article you linked to. 

S-P-L-M-L-L-M-L-L-M-L-P-S would mean the medians would have to be very narrow as the space for eight parallel cars will leave little room left, even if the lanes are not as wide as the old highway ones. Not to mention the CC is pushing to use some of that space, which the crosstown space and the 3rd street space may have to be merged to make this arrangement fit comfortably there as is.

----------


## betts

> OKC needs to foster a pedestrian mindset first.  Building a road 200 feet wide where narry a pedestrian exist - and then hoping pedestrian oriented business are attracted to the area seems backwards to me.  We can't even get a steady pedestrian flow going along Automobile Alley after 20 years - although the streetcar will sure help.
> 
> Just like all the condos instead of apartments around downtown, the plan for this type of boulevard is skipping some steps in the natural development process.


My understanding from the article in the DOK was that the six lanes include the two for parking.  If the boulevard is inviting enough there will be pedestrians, but as been said, there has to be somewhere to walk to.  Automobile Alley will have pedestrians as well, when there are places to walk between.  I walk to Red Prime and Coffee Slingers, and would walk to Hideaway if my husband liked their pizza.  The only real shopping on AA is Rawhide, which is a great store, and the antique store.  They are right next to each other, which doesn't exactly create great pedestrian traffic.

And IIRC, most of the big cities of the world had houses adjacent to downtown long before they had apartments.  Brownstones or townhouses are still the housing of choice in most major cities and they were there first.

----------


## Just the facts

> unless you have more information than that, S-P-L-L-M-L-L-P-S could also be valid interpretation from what was said in the article you liked to.


If that is what is planned then that would be a huge step in the right direction.  I hope you are right.  Sorry Rover and Metro - no BFP or Champs Elysees.

----------


## Rover

I can go to the Champs Elysees anytime I want...don't want or need one here.  I just reject the notion there is only one way that OKC can develop or it will be a catastrophe.  I don't go into hysterics when something in OKC doesn't get done to my way of thinking.  Many times it turns out even better.  I also reject the notion that the blvd is another park.  It is a blvd and will serve to funnel traffic into and out of downtown.  Things will locate along it because it will serve to be an easy conduit to downtown and business will relocate to it because it will have traffic.  People will want to live next to it if it creates neighborhood amenities they want and if it makes it easy for them to get to things they want to get to.  Pretty simple economics.

----------


## Urbanized

I'd say the best we could hope for is that it resembled Commonwealth Avenue in Boston where it runs through Back Bay. Basically, a park runs down the center of it. With the ridiculous amount of right-of-way, it would be very easy.

----------


## Just the facts

> It is a blvd and will serve to funnel traffic into and out of downtown.  Things will locate along it because it will serve to be an easy conduit to downtown and business will relocate to it because it will have traffic.


Over the years that has worked so well for Shields, and Robinson, and Broadway, and Main Street, and Walker, and Reno, and Sheridan, and...  More of the same can't miss. [/sarcasm]

----------


## Rover

Yes, of course we know it won't work because it is exactly the same dynamics as all the other streets.  The ONLY way it will work is one found on page 42 of the world almanac of urban planning.  Just because you hate anything to do with cars doesn't mean it can't work.

----------


## ljbab728

> If that is what is planned then that would be a huge step in the right direction.  I hope you are right.  Sorry Rover and Metro - no BFP or Champs Elysees.


Kerry, that is also exactly how I interpreted it also and it's what I was referring to about Santa Monica Blvd.  Santa Monica also has a bike lane in each direction between the traffic lane and parking.  I think that would be a great option for OKC as well.  Would you object to that because it might make it too wide?

http://maps.google.com/?ll=34.090527...=12,74.89,,0,0

http://maps.google.com/?ll=34.09035,...4.89,,0,0&z=17

Please note the Historic Route 66 sign in the second link.  We could put up signs saying the Historic Crosstown Expressway,  LOL

----------


## SoonerBoy18

nooooo thats so boring, I prefer the blvd.

----------


## OKCisOK4me

I'm totally surprised this thread has gone over 1 page.  No stopping the boulevard so why speculate?

----------


## BoulderSooner

> If that is what is planned then that would be a huge step in the right direction.  I hope you are right.  Sorry Rover and Metro - no BFP or Champs Elysees.


this is what the planning is heading toward

----------


## Bellaboo

> Yes, of course we know it won't work because it is exactly the same dynamics as all the other streets.  The ONLY way it will work is one found on page 42 of the world almanac of urban planning.  Just because you hate anything to do with cars doesn't mean it can't work.


I'm out of this fuss, but this is a semi classic....+1 for Rover.

----------


## Just the facts

> Kerry, that is also exactly how I interpreted it also and it's what I was referring to about Santa Monica Blvd.  Santa Monica also has a bike lane in each direction between the traffic lane and parking.  I think that would be a great option for OKC as well.  Would you object to that because it might make it too wide?
> 
> http://maps.google.com/?ll=34.090527...=12,74.89,,0,0
> 
> http://maps.google.com/?ll=34.09035,...4.89,,0,0&z=17
> 
> Please note the Historic Route 66 sign in the second link.  We could put up signs saying the Historic Crosstown Expressway,  LOL


Something along those lines would be great.  I really hope you, BoulderSooner, and Snowman are correct, but this quote scares me.




> Mayor Mick Cornett said the new boulevard is likely a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for Oklahoma City.
> 
> “We're very fortunate to be able to design a brand-new street to go right through the heart of downtown, and we intend to make the most of it,” Cornett said.
> 
> *“We intend to make it the grandest street this generation has ever seen.”*
> 
> 
> Read more: http://newsok.com/grand-boulevard-is...#ixzz1n1oMPkBF

----------


## Spartan

> Spartan, I don't care how much public input is given, that kind of project will never be loved by the public or the city officials to replace the old I40.  It may have a place in NYC but it would be totally inappropriate and virtually unused here.


I actually think this is a pretty compelling counter-argument here. I suppose a good compromise is that the beams are going to be reused in other failing Oklahoma bridges, which is probably the most adaptive reuse we can hope for.

----------


## Skyline

Where can I see the latest plan, including the route, for the new boulevard?

----------


## Pete

Skyline, the city manager recently said they are still early in the design phase so I don't think there is anything new to see.

----------


## Skyline

I haven't been able to find any images, new or old, of the boulevard route.

----------


## Pete



----------


## Skyline

Thanks Pete.

----------


## Skyline

I find the west end of this boulevard very strange. It is easy to picture and imagine the boulevard going through downtown on the east end, but the west end not so much. 

This is why I wanted to see the route pictured.

----------


## Pete

The west half in particular is going to be UGLY.

It's very industrial anyway but at ground level there is lots of badly kept mostly vacant land and all the buildings have their backs turned to what will be the roadway.  I cringe at the thought of people taking that gateway into downtown as it's going to leave a very bad impression and I don't see much changing anytime soon.

I said this before but I don't think there is really the need for this, especially since Reno and other east-west streets immediately nearby are already four lanes.  And it does create yet another area that will be highly visible and in serious need of sprucing up and redevelopment -- and we already have plenty of those.

----------


## Skyline

I completely agree. 

I never gave the boulevard that much thought until seeing the old I-40 empty and now driving on the new I-40. This finally caused me to question what the boulevard will look like and the actual route mainly because of the west section and it's surroundings. 

I love the new I-40, but I do not like the appearance given after exiting on the west section. I really miss the Walker exit and I do not like the drive of Western Ave. 

I am not sure that the boulevard is the best idea (right now or in the near future) and I agree that Reno Ave. could serve the same purpose.

----------


## foodiefan

I agree, the Western section north is the pits. . .perhaps there will be some encouragement to clean it up.

----------


## BrettM2

> I am not sure that the boulevard is the best idea and I agree that Reno Ave. could serve the same purpose.


Do you mean the entire Boulevard or just the stretch west of Reno?  I'm not sure if the city is hoping for more than it should, but it seems like they could just have the western terminus of the Boulevard be Reno and use that road as the on/off ramp for the western stretch of the new I-40.

----------


## Pete

I just don't think they really knew what to do with this corridor so they decided to more or less replicate the old I-40 at ground level.

It doesn't make any sense as an entrance to downtown because it would take you far longer to drive all the distance on surface streets rather than just continuing on the new I-40 and taking an exit further east.  And there isn't much of anything in that western sector that needs all this access...  There is already the Penn/Agnew exit/entrance right there, as well as Western.

----------


## Pete

> I agree, the Western section north is the pits. . .perhaps there will be some encouragement to clean it up.


Or we could just stop building new, expensive roadways in areas where they aren't needed and that now NEED to be cleaned up because it serves as a gateway into our downtown.

There are plenty of crappy areas in town that almost no one sees, and that's just fine.  Every city has them.  We just don't need to be spending millions to feature them, then divert all kinds of resources that are badly needed elsewhere to try and do something with the area.

Take a look at aerials of this route...  Most don't pay attention because of the elevated nature of the old I-40.  It's really, really bad.

----------


## MDot

> Take a look at aerials of this route...  Most don't pay attention because of the elevated nature of the old I-40.  It's really, really bad.


I've drove around that area so much that I can't help but notice how UGLY it is even from the old I-40.

----------


## Skyline

> Do you mean the entire Boulevard or just the stretch west of Reno?  I'm not sure if the city is hoping for more than it should, but it seems like they could just have the western terminus of the Boulevard be Reno and use that road as the on/off ramp for the western stretch of the new I-40.


I'm not sure, I am only now beginning to think about the new Boulevard now that the new I-40 is completely up and running.

----------


## Urbanized

Western (interstate-style) flyovers are already complete, barricaded and waiting to connect to new road. For better or worse, the boulevard is a done deal. At this point we just have to make the best of it. Hopefully they find a way to knock the design out of the park.

----------


## Pete

Urbanized, I realize this is largely a lost cause but they could still tie the flyover into Reno and just have the boulevard start about Classen.

----------


## Snowman

If they really wanted it to connect to i40 on both sides; having the flyovers off i40 just east of Exchange bridge bend to 3rd at Western and would have been a much cleaner way for the city grid. Not sure how much a visual improvement it would be over the current route.

----------


## UncleCyrus

I really hope the bike lanes don't get scrapped, but then again, parts of it I probably wouldn't ride alone anyway.  

Also, they could put the streetcar/light rail down the median like the old interurbans used to be.

----------


## Spartan

It does seem unnecessary to have Reno, OKC Boulevard, Sheridan?, Main, Linwood, et al--ALL funneling out of downtown westward.

----------


## Pete

Especially since there is so little in that area to the west of Classen.  Just small industrial buildings and blight.

I really don't think anyone thought this through, just went with the default approach of basically replacing the old I-40 with a surface road.

----------


## mcca7596

I remember it beeing discussed by Eric Wenger, even, in a council meeting that the possibility existed of just tying the boulevard into Reno around Shartel and Classen.

----------


## Larry OKC

> I just don't think they really knew what to do with this corridor so they decided to more or less replicate the old I-40 at ground level.
> 
> It doesn't make any sense as an entrance to downtown because it would take you far longer to drive all the distance on surface streets rather than just continuing on the new I-40 and taking an exit further east.  And there isn't much of anything in that western sector that needs all this access...  There is already the Penn/Agnew exit/entrance right there, as well as Western.


Thank you. I have been saying the same thing for several years now. Whenever I write my COuncil person etc about it, get back no response at all. Not even the form letter "thank you for writing" variety.

if they are going to scrap the west end, they need to do it rather quickly as construction is to begin within the year or so....of course we have the half finished westend Boulevard exit/flyover already built, between the Agnew/Penn exits...

----------


## Snowman

> Thank you. I have been saying the same thing for several years now. Whenever I write my COuncil person etc about it, get back no response at all. Not even the form letter "thank you for writing" variety.
> 
> if they are going to scrap the west end, they need to do it rather quickly as construction is to begin within the year or so....of course we have the half finished westend Boulevard exit/flyover already built, between the Agnew/Penn exits...


At this point it is a federal requirement that it ties into something, they may be able to get away with merging it into Reno but we can not scrap it entirely.

----------


## Spartan

> I remember it beeing discussed by Eric Wenger, even, in a council meeting that the possibility existed of just tying the boulevard into Reno around Shartel and Classen.


Well if they're smart, they should just do that...and spend the money elsewhere.

----------


## Architect2010

I thought the idea was to tie the new Boulevard onto the old portion of the I-40 after Western. Basically where the I-40 bridge structure stops and continues onto the elevated portion of land. Then it would follow the old I-40 alignment from there and would tie back into the new I-40 just before the 44/40 junction. Does anyone else recall this plan?

----------


## Snowman

> I thought the idea was to tie the new Boulevard onto the old portion of the I-40 after Western. Basically where the I-40 bridge structure stops and continues onto the elevated portion of land. Then it would follow the old I-40 alignment from there and would tie back into the new I-40 just before the 44/40 junction. Does anyone else recall this plan?


That is most likely what will happen, there may be a chance the west side will tie into Reno around Shartel and the east side tie into 3rd/old i40, I have doubts ODOT will change the plan that much.

----------


## jbrown84

> I remember it beeing discussed by Eric Wenger, even, in a council meeting that the possibility existed of just tying the boulevard into Reno around Shartel and Classen.


They really, really need to do it that way.  It's so pointless to have that western end of it loop up north of Reno. And like Pete said, it's going to be UGLY.

----------


## Snowman

> They really, really need to do it that way.  It's so pointless to have that western end of it loop up north of Reno. And like Pete said, it's going to be UGLY.


Either way they are using the section just north of Reno, so I am not sure how that is better as concerned to how it looks coming in.

----------


## mcca7596

> Either way they are using the section just north of Reno, so I am not sure how that is better as concerned to how it looks coming in.


It's just that it would double the amount of street frontage that needs to be cleaned up, whereas if it ties into Reno, it focuses redevelopment in a smaller area (probably making it happen faster).

----------


## Pete

Not to mention, saving millions in unnecessary expenditures and not encourage people to take a route into downtown that never is going to be flattering.

----------


## OKCTransplant

> I prefer GOCART - Greater Oklahoma City Area Rapid (or Rail) Transit.
> 
> Advertisement:  Get to work fast - Take a _GOCART_.


This is amazing. So many branding and marketing opportunities with this acronym.

----------


## knightrider

I think they should shoot some of the next Season of "The Walking Dead" on the old I-40 before they tear it down.  It being deserted looks so strange and zombie movie/show like.

----------


## Just the facts

> This is amazing. So many branding and marketing opportunities with this acronym.


Ditch the minivan- get a _GOCART_

----------


## Bellaboo

> This is amazing. So many branding and marketing opportunities with this acronym.


Dallas is the Dallas Area Rapid Transit   -   DART....

If Ft Worth ever got rail would it be called   ?   FART  ?

----------


## jedicurt

> Dallas is the Dallas Area Rapid Transit   -   DART....
> 
> If Ft Worth ever got rail would it be called   ?   FART  ?


not to ruin the joke or anything, but i'm pretty sure it will still just be called the DART as the whole area is the Dallas/Fort Worth Area

----------


## OKCDrummer77

> If Ft Worth ever got rail would it be called   ?   FART  ?


Only if it ran on natural gas.

 :Sofa:

----------

