What makes you think an extra $2 or $3 would keep the bridges from falling down? The state doesn't have a revenue problem - they have a spending priority problem.

Agree completely. Over the decades there has been more than enough money raised through the various transportation related taxes. Problem is, they have diverted a lot of those funds to other areas. Not saying it was illegal or that those other projects weren't deserving but many have there own dedicated funding source. Most think that transportation taxes go to transportation. Then there has been the graft etc that just naturally occurs in government.

I'm with you. I voted in favor of the nickel increase in 2004. Unfortunately, it failed.

So everyone can stop complaining about the roads.

I saw a teabagger bumper sticker that said "Stop Raising Taxes and Fix the Damn Roads".

^ (rolling eyes) now that's an oxymoron for ya, jbrown.

I saw a teabagger bumper sticker that said "Stop Raising Taxes and Fix the Damn Roads".

Though I do see the irony in the statement, how do you know it was a 'teabagger' bumper sticker?

Though I do see the irony in the statement, how do you know it was a 'teabagger' bumper sticker?

I agree, sounds more like a liberal bumper sticker than a "teabagger". Keep demonizing the teabaggers though, it's the socialist strategem.

I agree, sounds more like a liberal bumper sticker than a "teabagger". Keep demonizing the teabaggers though, it's the socialist strategem.

Yeah, the tea baggers do a great job of being intellectually dishonest without any help. If we had an old white guy as president, 85% of them would never leave the barcalounger while watching 13 hours a day of Fox.

Money, Smith said, “kept rolling in” ... “they just grew programs ...They kept passing and approving programs. Teacher raises, early childhood education and more.”

Kerry, Where do you want to see spending reductions made? Do you agree with Mr. Smith from the article you quoted where he talks about the money we wasted on teacher raises and early childhood education?

So you are happy with doubling the state government budget in just 5 years? How about returning funding and programs to 2004 levels. Oklahoma has 2004 level revenue they should have 2004 level expenses. This isn't economic rocket science.

Yeah, the tea baggers do a great job of being intellectually dishonest without any help. If we had an old white guy as president, 85% of them would never leave the barcalounger while watching 13 hours a day of Fox.

Sounds like you can't make a factual statement without resorting to demonizing, insulting and name calling. Besides, what does this have to do with The New I-40 (construction updates)? If you want to be political, move to a political thread.

Here's what I'd like: some magical new source of revenue that will allow us to complete I-40 and tear down the current Crosstown by the middle of 2011. I'm no construction expert, which probably explains why I'm always so baffled it takes so f'ing long to finish these projects.

Odot

Odot

Good point. Very good point. It boggles my mind and frustrates me.

You both hit on it. Between federal funding issues, cost over runs (it has doubled) and ODOT, it is amazing that any projects actually get completed. ODOT hinted that the oft repeated 2012 date (itself a delay, see below) may be pushed back to federal funding issues.


The I-40 Crosstown, estimated at $360 million, is expected to be complete in 2008 with construction of the new boulevard taking an additional two years. The timetable could be affected by availability of funding.

S U R P R I S E !

So is the completion date still 2012?

So is the completion date still 2012?

Unless it gets changed ... again.

Unless it gets changed ... again.

It is still 2012. Whether that's January 1, or December 31, the new I-40 will open sometime in the year 2012. That's directly from the project manager at ODOT.

It is still 2012. Whether that's January 1, or December 31, the new I-40 will open sometime in the year 2012. That's directly from the project manager at ODOT.

When did he say that?

Here is the article from last month

Budget cuts could hamper Oklahoma transportation projects (Oklahoman, 4/18/10)
NewsOK (http://newsok.com/budget-cuts-could-hamper-oklahoma-transportation-projects/article/3453440)


Funding cuts could push back the completion date on major projects such as Oklahoma City’s Interstate 40 Crosstown realignment and improvements to Interstate 244 in Tulsa by at least a year, Ridley said.

Oklahoma Department of Transportation head says budget crunch won't slow projects

Read more: Oklahoma Department of Transportation head says budget crunch won't slow projects | NewsOK.com (http://www.newsok.com/oklahoma-department-of-transportation-head-says-budget-crunch-wont-slow-projects/article/3466841?custom_click=headlines_widget#ixzz0qCVV24s L)

Yeah, the tea baggers do a great job of being intellectually dishonest without any help. If we had an old white guy as president, 85% of them would never leave the barcalounger while watching 13 hours a day of Fox.

Hail Mary!

Oklahoma Department of Transportation head says budget crunch won't slow projects

Read more: Oklahoma Department of Transportation head says budget crunch won't slow projects | NewsOK.com (http://www.newsok.com/oklahoma-department-of-transportation-head-says-budget-crunch-wont-slow-projects/article/3466841?custom_click=headlines_widget#ixzz0qCVV24s L)

Good to hear, but anything Ridley says you have to consider the source...he seems to flip-flop a lot. Remember during the push to raise the gas tax, he said Oklahoma was several billion (maybe even multi-billion) behind and then the tax failed and the legislature increased funding (but not near the amount we were behind) and suddenly ODOTs problems were over.

Just did a quick read but still didn't see any mention of the replacement Boulevard being funded.

...
Just did a quick read but still didn't see any mention of the replacement Boulevard being funded.

Is it even on their current 8 year plan? I'm thinking not.

Is it even on their current 8 year plan? I'm thinking not.

It's not. The demolition of the olde I-40 is funded, but the boulevard construction is not on the 8-year plan.

It's not. The demolition of the olde I-40 is funded, but the boulevard construction is not on the 8-year plan.

I'm fine with that. We don't need a boulevard. There's already two east/west streets within a 1/2 mile of each other. They may not be major but it's not like we need another street bisecting those. Like I've said before, we need to worry more about the streets coming up from the new I-40 location when it gets finished. Both Robinson and Walker are in horrible condition down in that area. Not only is the area blighted, the roads are too!

I live in Plano now, but as I type this am back in town to work for a few days... it's amazing to me the difference in approach to road projects there. The 121 project, which by Texas standards evidently 'moved slow' seemed to me like lightening compared to this new I-40 project. When they let a project down there, it's absolutely amazing the size of the contractors (Sinacola for example) --- this project, here, just should not be taking this long.

I’m fine with that. We don’t need a boulevard. There’s already two east/west streets within a 1/2 mile of each other. They may not be major but it’s not like we need another street bisecting those. Like I’ve said before, we need to worry more about the streets coming up from the new I-40 location when it gets finished. Both Robinson and Walker are in horrible condition down in that area. Not only is the area blighted, the roads are too!

I agree and think the Boulevard would be better aligned on one of the N/S exits from I-40 rather than an E/W one (but that might interfere w/the Mayor's preferred choice for the Convention Center).

I really wish someone in the media would ask the Mayor why he thinks the Boulevard is so important. He has mentioned multiple times that it is important but has never explained WHY? It just appears to be a given in his mind.

Mayor Mick Cornett Looks Ahead – Downtown, Core to Shore | OKC Central (http://blog.newsok.com/okccentral/2009/01/15/mayor-mick-cornett-looks-ahead-downtown-core-to-shore/)


The park and the boulevard are the lynchpins, and they serve as the catalyst for future retail, housing, and a potential Convention Center, which I’ll discuss in a moment.

SpiritBank - Full News (http://www.spiritbank.com/Spirit-News/228/June-eNewsletter/)

To me the boulevard has a distinct timetable that can’t be altered ... the boulevard is the most important element of Core to Shore. The boulevard will become the address and allow for downtown retail to get a signature foothold. The park needs to open up at the time of the boulevard. Ideally, I’d like to see the park and boulevard open at the same time in 2014. I think this will be a catalyst for downtown momentum.

Can’t find the link now but recall Mayor Cornett saying something to the effect, that the Park & Boulevard were critical, that without them, Downtown grinds to a halt. if that is true, how have we gotten along for over 100 years without them?

Supposedly the Boulevard will be the “gateway into the City” but with the relocation of I-40 5 blocks to the south, are people going to get off at the 1-40/I-44 junction and drive thru a lot of city, stop and go traffic to get to downtown? Or are they going to stay on I-40 and exit off one of the closest exits and just drive the 5 blocks north (one of the chief reasons given for the MAPS 3 Park, having something nicer for people to look at than what is there now).

By putting the Boulevard along the side of the Park, rather then the top, could make better use for the prime residential/mixed use that the ULI recommended (instead of the C.C. going there). They didn't seem to have a problem with the Boulevard where the Mayor wants it but made several suggestions to modify it it. Just seems like reorienting it would make more sense IMO

I agree and think the Boulevard would be better aligned on one of the N/S exits from I-40 rather than an E/W one (but that might interfere w/the Mayor's preferred choice for the Convention Center).

I really wish someone in the media would ask the Mayor why he thinks the Boulevard is so important. He has mentioned multiple times that it is important but has never explained WHY? It just appears to be a given in his mind.

Mayor Mick Cornett Looks Ahead – Downtown, Core to Shore | OKC Central (http://blog.newsok.com/okccentral/2009/01/15/mayor-mick-cornett-looks-ahead-downtown-core-to-shore/)



SpiritBank - Full News (http://www.spiritbank.com/Spirit-News/228/June-eNewsletter/)


Can’t find the link now but recall Mayor Cornett saying something to the effect, that the Park & Boulevard were critical, that without them, Downtown grinds to a halt. if that is true, how have we gotten along for over 100 years without them?

Supposedly the Boulevard will be the “gateway into the City” but with the relocation of I-40 5 blocks to the south, are people going to get off at the 1-40/I-44 junction and drive thru a lot of city, stop and go traffic to get to downtown? Or are they going to stay on I-40 and exit off one of the closest exits and just drive the 5 blocks north (one of the chief reasons given for the MAPS 3 Park, having something nicer for people to look at than what is there now).

By putting the Boulevard along the side of the Park, rather then the top, could make better use for the prime residential/mixed use that the ULI recommended (instead of the C.C. going there). They didn't seem to have a problem with the Boulevard where the Mayor wants it but made several suggestions to modify it it. Just seems like reorienting it would make more sense IMO

There he goes again, making false accusations. The Mayor has always stated that as of now, no site has been selected, why not give it a rest until he does.

Glad somebody agrees with me. If they still want to make the elaborate tie ins to a boulevard, do it to Reno and like the North Canadian River, just change the name of the street through downtown OKC. Fix Reno up and make it the grand boulevard...

I'm all for the boulevard if the boulevard part of it is the emphasis and the street part of it is downplayed (i.e. no more than four total lanes). I have zero interest in it being a big thoroughfare and think it will actually have a negative effect on development if that is the case. It will divide C2S from the CBD for pedestrians, which I think is a huge mistake.

I'm not following at all how OKC mayor, or anyone, can think the blvd. could be in place come 2014. Sounds like the 8 year plan is at squeek by potential at best, so how does such a project, get added, bumped to the top of the priority stack and get done, particularly when the getting the old elevated crosstown out of the way can't begin until the new crosstown is fully functional?

Just seems like a new timetable is mandatory at this point.

There he goes again, making false accusations. The Mayor has always stated that as of now, no site has been selected, why not give it a rest until he does.

What "false accusations" are you talking about? The Mayor has been fairly outspoken on the subject (but has admittedly backed off a bit, the current City line is that no site has been selected). Don't believe me, ask Steve.

Even if a sight hasn't been formally selected, that still doesn't change the fact that it is the Mayor's preferred choice. From as far back as the Core to Shore report.

I am still waiting for your detailed response of a post I made quite a while back where you said there were so many things wrong with my post you didn't know where to begin. Everything in the post was factually correct.

I'm fine with that. We don't need a boulevard. There's already two east/west streets within a 1/2 mile of each other. They may not be major but it's not like we need another street bisecting those. Like I've said before, we need to worry more about the streets coming up from the new I-40 location when it gets finished. Both Robinson and Walker are in horrible condition down in that area. Not only is the area blighted, the roads are too!

I agree. A boulevard would be like having two interstates. If they thought all the downtown traffic would use the new boulevard why would they need to make the new I-40 as wide as it is. They need to just finish I-40 and re-evaluate traffic flows.

Of course they already budgeted and even built some of the overpasses that are used to access the new I-40 from the boulevard.

4 highways actually. You've got Shields/EK Gaylord, Reno, I-40, and this new boulevard. I really like the idea OK4me toyed with. Why are we building a brand new entrance boulevard into Downtown OKC when Reno already does that? Fix Reno, make it grand and it can serve as a perfect boulevard. It goes through Bricktown, passes the Myriad Gardens, is the face of both the Cox and the Ford, and extends into the future potential of west downtown. Seems to me it's a bit redundant to build another massive street just south of Reno.

I agree. Just use Reno the the main E-W thoroughfare.

I like my idea of before. Have Classen "curve" into the new boulevard (can be Reno) at Reno. No need for the boulevard to start west by Mathis Brothers. Classen should be perfectly fine and already is a boulevard and could be further enhanced.

Agree with that as well. The Boulevard doesn't need to go all the way to Agnew or wherever they have it going.

I e-mailed John Bowman who is one of the Project development engineers and asked about what has happened with the photo documentation. Here is his reply:

Thank you for your kind words on the project. I have personally been involved developing the Crosstown since May, 2000 and it is encouraging to receive those kind of comments. You are correct that there has been a lag in the posting of additional new photographs. We have continued to take the photographs, but have experienced a delay in posting those items. The size of the consultant team and ODOT staff working directly on this effort have been scaled back in order to be more financially responsible. However, we are striving to make adjustments and provide the information and photodocumentation as before. Please feel free to contact me with any additional questions or comments regarding the Crosstown.

Thanks,
John B.

John R. Bowman, P.E.
Assistant Planning and Research Division Engineer
I-40 Crosstown Project Development Engineer
Planning and Research Division
Oklahoma Department of Transportation
200 NE 21st Street, Rm 3A7
Oklahoma City, OK 73105

Ph. (405) 521-2175/(405) 522-6611
jbowman@odot.org
Oklahoma Dept. of Transportation (http://www.okladot.state.ok.us)

I went and looked at the road construction behind Union Station today and saw something different. It looked like a bunch of the excavation that had been done has been filled in with either none of the road below grade or that stretch very slightly below grade. Does anyone know anything about this?

I've been looking at the ODOT website ( Oklahoma Dept. of Transportation (http://www.okladot.state.ok.us/) ) for any pics there ... couldn't find any later than 2000 ... are progress pics there somewhere?

I went and looked at the road construction behind Union Station today and saw something different. It looked like a bunch of the excavation that had been done has been filled in with either none of the road below grade or that stretch very slightly below grade. Does anyone know anything about this?

I thought it was supposed to fairly deep there as well. Didn't the park drawings show a big arse foot bridge across the below grade interstate connecting the Union Station part of the park to the more southern sections of the park?

It was initially supposed to be 20 feet below grade, and then I believe they discovered the water table was too high to drop in 20 feet and so they decided to put the road six feet below grade. They'd done a bunch of excavation and now it seems like it's filled in. I suppose it is possible that they've put sand there and by the time it's packed down it will be six feet below grade, but it certainly looks different from my last visit.

I've been looking at the ODOT website ( Oklahoma Dept. of Transportation (http://www.okladot.state.ok.us/) ) for any pics there ... couldn't find any later than 2000 ... are progress pics there somewhere?

Check out 40 Forward: Oklahoma's I-40 Crosstown Expressway (http://www.40forward.com/). The most recent pictures there seem to be from March of this year.

Thanks, David.

I e-mailed John Bowman who is one of the Project development engineers and asked about what has happened with the photo documentation. Here is his reply:

Thank you for your kind words on the project. I have personally been involved developing the Crosstown since May, 2000 and it is encouraging to receive those kind of comments. You are correct that there has been a lag in the posting of additional new photographs. We have continued to take the photographs, but have experienced a delay in posting those items. The size of the consultant team and ODOT staff working directly on this effort have been scaled back in order to be more financially responsible. However, we are striving to make adjustments and provide the information and photodocumentation as before. Please feel free to contact me with any additional questions or comments regarding the Crosstown.

Thanks,
John B.

John R. Bowman, P.E.
Assistant Planning and Research Division Engineer
I-40 Crosstown Project Development Engineer
Planning and Research Division
Oklahoma Department of Transportation
200 NE 21st Street, Rm 3A7
Oklahoma City, OK 73105

Ph. (405) 521-2175/(405) 522-6611
jbowman@odot.org
Oklahoma Dept. of Transportation (http://www.okladot.state.ok.us)

I stated this a while back. I don't care that I have to repost it, but he told me too, that the lady that uploaded the pics got a new job in Hawaii and took that. I haven't told him, but, heck, I'd upload the pics for free if they'd just give em to me!

They've uploaded a few hundred new pics on 40forward

Shields
http://www.40forward.com/gallery/photos/Shields_01.jpg

Agnew Flyover
http://www.40forward.com/gallery/photos/Agnew_Flyover_exit_to_Reno_09.jpg

North side of Penn Bridge
http://www.40forward.com/gallery/photos/Penn_Bridge_N_side_20.jpg

http://www.40forward.com/gallery/photos/Roadbed_E_of_Agnew_01.jpg

http://www.40forward.com/gallery/default.asp?pid=0&page_size=-1&sort_filter=0&sort_order=descending

Looking at pic #90, It looks to me as if they're going to connect the west end and eventually when the whole thing is built, put all west and east traffic on the eastbound bridge over Agnew and build the westbound bridge in as it would run into the current alignment with I-40. There's no way in hell that one bridge is for all lanes of traffic!

Thanks to everyone for the great PICS!!!! I have always lovED driving down the old underground ROBINSON TUNNEL and WALKER TUNNEL........????DOES ANYone know if they are keeping them with this new project??? Will they still be underground .....or are they building an overpass from north to southside for Robinson and Walker?:tiphat:

Sorry but they both have been demolished to make way for the new alignment

hence, why there was all the fuss about the rail yard - afterall. ...

Thanks to everyone for the great PICS!!!! I have always lovED driving down the old underground ROBINSON TUNNEL and WALKER TUNNEL........????DOES ANYone know if they are keeping them with this new project??? Will they still be underground .....or are they building an overpass from north to southside for Robinson and Walker?:tiphat:

Both streets will have bridges that go over I-40.

http://www.40forward.com/gallery/default.asp?pid=0&page_size=-1&sort_filter=0&sort_order=descending

Looking at pic #90, It looks to me as if they're going to connect the west end and eventually when the whole thing is built, put all west and east traffic on the eastbound bridge over Agnew and build the westbound bridge in as it would run into the current alignment with I-40. There's no way in hell that one bridge is for all lanes of traffic!

Your right, they still have another bridge to build, but they should have enough room to build it though. It will involved closing the eastbound on and off ramps and maybe Agnew itself which is probably why they have not started it yet.

http://www.okladot.state.ok.us/newsmedia/i40-okc/maps/20050630b_Corridor-Aerial.pdf

The concrete retaining wall for the old I-40 bridge may be in the way, but they will deal with this issue with some vertical sheet piling.

4 highways actually. You've got Shields/EK Gaylord, Reno, I-40, and this new boulevard. I really like the idea OK4me toyed with. Why are we building a brand new entrance boulevard into Downtown OKC when Reno already does that? Fix Reno, make it grand and it can serve as a perfect boulevard. It goes through Bricktown, passes the Myriad Gardens, is the face of both the Cox and the Ford, and extends into the future potential of west downtown. Seems to me it's a bit redundant to build another massive street just south of Reno.

I totally agree with your statement. It's right before our eyes, we just need to see it. My waste money we don't have.

If the new I-40 is going to be 6 feet below grade instead of 20 feet, will the pedestrian bridge still be built? If so, I assume it will have to be re-designed. Anybody know anything about this?

If the new I-40 is going to be 6 feet below grade instead of 20 feet, will the pedestrian bridge still be built? If so, I assume it will have to be re-designed. Anybody know anything about this?

The pedestrian bridge will be built. ODOT has allocated funds for it in its 8 year plan. It's plans are being finalized right now. If I remember correctly 90% plans have already been submitted. (If not they're close to being submitted)

http://www.okladot.state.ok.us/projmgmt/8-yr_cwp/cwp2010-2017.pdf
(go to page 22 of 92)

6 feet below grade only??? Is this really true??? I mean the Walker and Robinson underpasses were a lot deeper than that and didn't seem bothered by the water table.

Oh yes the underpasses were affected by the water table. I have walked through both of them and both were in bad shape. The concrete in those was cracked and easily chiped off. Only the relatively fewer amount of vehicles that went those kept them from getting worse.

Imagine 100,000 cars daily going through those underpasses on Robinson and Walker!!! Both would be in far worse shape than I-40 is now. Better to just avoid the problem in the first place.

Just think of the nightmare it would be to get I-40 repaired if it were 20 feet below grade. It took a very long time to get a replacement for I-40. I do not see any major work being done on the new highway for a very, very, very long time (20 years at least).

I also am disappointed to see that the area south of the current I-40, east of Shields and north of the river will contain a ramp for access to the relocated I-40. It looks to be one of those circular ramps that take up much real estate.

I was thinking, incorrectly apparently, that particular area wasn't going to be have any type of ramp in it. I was thinking that it would be available for expansion of Bricktown once the current I-40 is demolished.

How do you all feel to be driving further away from the Devon tower?

How do you all feel to be driving further away from the Devon tower?

I feel great knowing the highway isn't going to fall out from underneath me at any time... Plus, It'll be 850+ feet... It's not like you won't be able to see it.

Plus, you'll actually be able to look at it better and longer since you won't be whizzing by it at whatever speed with precious little, if any, time to gawk.

I thought the new highway was going to be built in a ditch where you can't see anything?

Sgt. Pepper, it is 6 to 8ft below grade (depending on info source) and it was originally planned to be completely below grade (20ft?) Have also read somewhere that there are retaining walls and berms. Unless you are right up against those on the side closest to Devon, most should be able to see the Devon tower. It might be the only part of downtown they see from there but they should still be able to see it. And should be able to see it & downtown as they approach from either direction, just once they head south on the relocated part, vision will be more limited.