The 'article' is provocative. It would have been more appropriate in the Opinion Section of the paper.

I am all for going to Capitol Hill in the future. The trouble with doing so right now is that theoretically it would have very low ridership projections. The other is significant cost... Going further south would involve the reconstruction of two Robinson Avenue bridges over I-40 and the Oklahoma River. It would also involve a major underpass to go under the "Packingtown lead" freight railway. All of that before one even touches SW 25th street.

The other is significant cost... Going further south would involve the reconstruction of two Robinson Avenue bridges over I-40 and the Oklahoma River.

Would it? KCMO put tracks on an existing bridge for their route. Has an engineer actually done a load calculation?

Would it? KCMO put tracks on an existing bridge for their route. Has an engineer actually done a load calculation?

Typically bridge retrofits cost significantly more than street subsurface installation. If the entity in charge is willing to close a lane and simply bolt trackage to the deck structure, those costs can be reduced.

It's a general rule of thumb with bridges and most streetcar systems though. That is why the current proposal to Health Sciences Center involves a connection using the 4th street underpass instead of the 6th Street Harrison bridge.

4th street is so much better for pedestrians anyway...

Underpasses are the worst though. That is probably the biggest cost quandary with going to Capitol Hill on Robinson or Walker. Underpasses under railroads are even worse. I have forgotten who controls the Packingtown lead these days. It may be WATCO. They might be easier to deal with then Union Pacific or BNSF.

But there's a railroad underpass whether you go 4th or 6th? I guess you meant the I-235 underpass would be a big problem?

I'd be cool with 6th if a SERIOUS effort to improve the pedestrian experience there was made. Sidewalks are not complete or deteriorating. The railroad underpass has no lighting (at least the times I've gone that way at night) so it's super creepy at night. Etc etc... the pedestrian experience DOES get better on 6th after 235... whereas the pedestrian experience gets a little worse on 4th after 235.

I guess you meant the I-235 underpass would be a big problem?

No, going under I-235 via 4th street is the easiest and cheapest way. I was writing about the underpass that would be needed to gain access into Capitol Hill going underneath the Packingtown lead.

Underpasses are the worst though. That is probably the biggest cost quandary with going to Capitol Hill on Robinson or Walker. Underpasses under railroads are even worse. I have forgotten who controls the Packingtown lead these days. It may be WATCO. They might be easier to deal with then Union Pacific or BNSF.

Why would it have to be an underpass? Why not an overpass?

Yes, that is WATCO territory, but it might be BNSF-owned and leased to WATCO, can't recall.

NO.

Just allocate more $ to build a spur for the CC and use CC dollars (or Maps 4) to fund it. Sick and tired of the CC messing around with the other MAPS projects. The Streetcar route is chosen, put in the darn rails. If another area gets hot (such as the CC site) then add it in later.


I don't see anything in that article that really pits the Plaza against Capitol Hill or advocates making a change to include Capitol Hill at the expense of the Plaza District.


The 'article' is provocative. It would have been more appropriate in the Opinion Section of the paper.

I am all for going to Capitol Hill in the future. The trouble with doing so right now is that theoretically it would have very low ridership projections. The other is significant cost...

All of these.

LJ - I know that Steve isn't pitting Plaza and Capitol Hill against each other, but it's obvious that both are vying as competitors to be that next natural extension out of the approved downtown circulator loop.

Hot Rod - you're absolutely right that any excess impact that the CC causes other projects, especially including the streetcar that has already been pushed around for the CC, should be paid for by the CC. That's the only equitable solution since the streetcar has its own timeline, processes, benchmarks, and checks in place. We have to remember that the voters wanted transit, they didn't really vote (affirmative or negative) on the other issues, and they will judge the success of MAPS 3 based on transit outcomes. If we don't move the needle on transit in a big way with this project, the voters may not approve a MAPS 4.

UP - the thing about Plaza versus Capitol Hill, is that the spatial distribution is just very different. There's a wide valley of absolutely nothing to traverse to the south, but once you hit 25th - the southside might have higher population density, and certainly higher transit dependency, than the northside.

If this news article (http://www.tbo.com/news/business/csx-crossing-insurance-costs-tampa-streetcar--549496) about Tampa's streetcar is anything to go by, it sounds like it would be possible to have an at-grade crossing between the Streetcar and the Packingtown Lead - but it might be costly to do so depending on how much insurance would be required by the railroad. I don't imagine it would be /that/ much - WATCO only operates over this line maybe once or twice a day...

Crossing freight tracks with passenger lines as part of a new service would require Positive Train Control, an extremely expensive solution. It would also require resolution to liability issues and FRA approvals. Not impossible, but improbable.

I'm sure you will study all alternatives when it comes time, because we all know you gotta reach Capitol Hill at some point in the near future. I'm glad to see its part of the mix early on and impressed that you can speak thoughtfully on the issues at a preliminary glance.

I like the idea of spring boarding the CC issue into that, but at least a presence on the Robinson side of the park helps more so than the dead-end west side..

Why is Steve Lackmeyer pushing this now? He knows just as well as everybody that the streetcar is getting further and further along in the process. If I am not mistaken, it is in engineering stage right now -- which I am sure is not cheap.

I think everyone would agree Capitol Hill and Plaza (as well as OUHSC) are all good destinations for future expansions -- but we need to build the darn first system in the first place!

Let's get the tracks in the ground!

Why is Steve Lackmeyer pushing this now? He knows just as well as everybody that the streetcar is getting further and further along in the process. If I am not mistaken, it is in engineering stage right now -- which I am sure is not cheap.

I think everyone would agree Capitol Hill and Plaza (as well as OUHSC) are all good destinations for future expansions -- but we need to build the darn first system in the first place!

Let's get the tracks in the ground!Yeah I am really ready for this thing to just start construction. I could be mistaken, but I think the original proposed timelines had it wrapping up right about now. I understand some things changed which is fine, but it just seems there is set back after set back with the street car and the convention center which are my top two favorite projects. The changes made for both of those projects seemed to have been for the better, so hopefully they get started.

Why is Steve Lackmeyer pushing this now? He knows just as well as everybody that the streetcar is getting further and further along in the process. If I am not mistaken, it is in engineering stage right now -- which I am sure is not cheap.

I think everyone would agree Capitol Hill and Plaza (as well as OUHSC) are all good destinations for future expansions -- but we need to build the darn first system in the first place!

Let's get the tracks in the ground!

Well it's just the tiny matter of that O+M service center leg, with which we could launch a Capitol Hill extension while serving the CC in the meanwhile? I think it's a valid point as long as its framed as an issue for the CC project and its budget, and not the streetcar project which has been transparent in "mapping" out a route for years without a single closed door meeting for that express purpose.

Why is Steve Lackmeyer pushing this now? He knows just as well as everybody that the streetcar is getting further and further along in the process. If I am not mistaken, it is in engineering stage right now -- which I am sure is not cheap.

I think everyone would agree Capitol Hill and Plaza (as well as OUHSC) are all good destinations for future expansions -- but we need to build the darn first system in the first place!

Let's get the tracks in the ground!

The issue is if there is no streetcar access to the convention center, it could hurt the overall potential of it. People will need easy access to Bricktown and Midtown. Of course, you and I have no problem walking but a lot of people and convention planners don't see it that way. For the convention center to reach its potential, it needs streetcar access.

Changing the route will also make way for easier access to hubcap alley and Capitol Hill when the streetcar is expanded.

I just think the article was premature and like mentioned above a complete opinion piece. Should this conversation take place? Absolutely, but like Spartan said it needs to be framed as a CC problem and not a streetcar which is how I took the article. It's been about a month since the new CC location announced and it took the backseat to the immediate problem of streetcar supplier so I'm sure more news will come of this once they are able to meet and go over solutions like UP said they are doing tomorrow.

People continue to overstate the streetcar's potential to alleviate pedestrian connection issues between the CC and hotels/Bricktown. Will it be helpful? Yes. Is it a fix-all? Absolutely not. It doesn't have capacity to serve thousands during a lunch rush in a timely manner, for instance.

Much, MUCH more important to the future of the CC than streetcar connection is a concerted effort to make the physical landscape (boulevard, Shields, Reno, etc.) safer and more walkable.

All of this is not to say that the streetcar is not critically important to downtown in general. Now, getting a two-for-one and enabling an eventual connection to Capitol Hill? That's worth discussing.

Now, getting a two-for-one and enabling an eventual connection to Capitol Hill? That's worth discussing.

I am not sure what you mean "two-for-one". The way the column generally reads to me is advocating for considering scrapping the planned alignment entirely and considering spending the funds on connecting to Capitol Hill instead. As usual in these sorts of pieces, there is a great deal of nuance and caveats written into the piece.

The current route approved by our City Council is 60+% engineered. There may be opportunities in helping more easily establish a better expansion capability further south. However, it is not as if we have ignored or prevented expansion to the south in the current plan as it stands today. Based on the experience with this project, full connections to Capitol Hill proper are at least 10 - 12 years away at best.

Such an endeavor can only be had through streetcar support by Councilman White in the next GO Bond or MAPS 4 or by a RTA which is in formation.

People continue to overstate the streetcar's potential to alleviate pedestrian connection issues between the CC and hotels/Bricktown. Will it be helpful? Yes. Is it a fix-all? Absolutely not. It doesn't have capacity to serve thousands during a lunch rush in a timely manner, for instance.

Much, MUCH more important to the future of the CC than streetcar connection is a concerted effort to make the physical landscape (boulevard, Shields, Reno, etc.) safer and more walkable.

OKC Streetcar will be a "GAME CHANGER" for both Bricktown and accessibility to the Convention Center. Those words were used by CVB staff in a meeting a couple of weeks ago. It will enable connections to hotels, venues, and restaurants that are simply beyond reasonable walking distance for most folks.

I agree with you, it is not a fix all. That is why many of us have fought the ODOT Boulevard battle for so long. However, the grades they have established at the new underpass location are reasonable. There are assurances for 8' - 12' sidewalks in the underpass section. What is missing is pedestrian refuge islands, bump outs, and other helpful mechanisms to enable crossing the streets. Maybe those will come. It is hard to say as ODOT has not released final designs to the public.

I suspect that much of the walkability connective tissue on the south side sidewalk of the Boulevard will be addressed by the architects of the new Convention Center Hotel.

Back to streetcar, with the move of the Convention Center back to it's original location, that means that we will be spending $420 million of MAPS dollars down there. It will in essence be the new civic center point of our city. Streetcar needs to connect to it in a meaningful and efficient way.

...Back to streetcar, with the move of the Convention Center back to it's original location, that means that we will be spending $420 million of MAPS dollars down there. It will in essence be the new civic center point of our city. Streetcar needs to connect to it in a meaningful and efficient way.

That may be true (and in fact it probably is), but needs to be done without subtracting funding from the CC budget, which has already take major hits including land costs and OG+E relocation), and frankly should be done ALSO without negatively impacting the streetcar budget, which didn't ask for this problem (though many streetcar advocates and even streetcar committee members openly actively advocated this location for the CC in this forum and elsewhere).

Everyone should have understood that this would be the consequence of moving the CC back to this location, and in fact I repeatedly pointed it out in posts in the CC thread and elsewhere. It is a part of the hidden costs created in the name of "saving money" by moving the CC south of Chesapeake.

Again, I think it is great - even important - to connect the streetcar to the CC. That said, from a convention sales standpoint the most important thing at this point is to appropriately develop the area close to the CC in the future and to guarantee great WALKING connectivity between the CC and Bricktown. Who should REALLY be pushing for streetcar connection to the CC are areas like Automobile Alley and Midtown, who would stand to benefit in terms of increased dinner-time traffic in their districts. Convention-goers are going to find Bricktown regardless of a streetcar connection, and 90% of them will be going there on foot - assuming pedestrian issues are worked out - regardless of streetcar connectivity.

"That said, from a convention sales standpoint the most important thing at this point is to appropriately develop the area close to the CC in the future and to guarantee great WALKING connectivity between the CC and Bricktown."

"90% of them will be going there on foot - assuming pedestrian issues are worked out"

What is the Bricktown Association doing to facilitate this? Or the CVB? This location is so vastly different than the Cox site. I mean, walk out the front door of the current Convention Center and just look to the right. There is a huge sign on the railroad underpass that says BRICKTOWN.

We can't even get final designs from ODOT to know what the hell is going on with their plans. At this point one has to cross their fingers and just watch. It is a travesty of public transparency by a public agency.

I think we both agree Urbanized. Where we don't agree I think is that streetcar will enable pedestrian access deeper into Bricktown. How far will these folks walk into 'old' Bricktown considering that the Convention Center 'front door' is being so far removed from Sheridan Avenue?

It seems that Lower Bricktown is within reasonable walking distance. However, probably another giant "BRICKTOWN" sign needs to be strapped to the new underpass to be a way-finding guide.

I guess where you and I disagree is what the streetcars' impact will be to the greater and broader area. Avis Scaramucci used to say that you could judge the size of a convention by how restaurants filled up along Sheridan. A big convention meant that people made it all the way to Crabtown. Her opinion was that (Crabtown) was about the edge of how far people would walk from Cox along Sheridan if everything was full.

I think your original concerns about the chosen Convention Center location were valid. And therefore, I believe that the streetcar will play an even more vital role to keeping Bricktown healthy. If anything, it will give the people attending conventions confidence that they can walk to a restaurant and get on the system to return to the Convention Center and get back on time for their next forum.

People continue to overstate the streetcar's potential to alleviate pedestrian connection issues between the CC and hotels/Bricktown. Will it be helpful? Yes. Is it a fix-all? Absolutely not. It doesn't have capacity to serve thousands during a lunch rush in a timely manner, for instance.

Much, MUCH more important to the future of the CC than streetcar connection is a concerted effort to make the physical landscape (boulevard, Shields, Reno, etc.) safer and more walkable.

All of this is not to say that the streetcar is not critically important to downtown in general. Now, getting a two-for-one and enabling an eventual connection to Capitol Hill? That's worth discussing.

So we are doing a $250-280+ MM convention center designed with the user in mind... Is the user a homogenous centipede creature with a thousand legs? If so then you're right, the streetcar is NOT the "game changer" that the CVB thinks it is. Otherwise, it increases overall value by creating more attractive choices for how those visitors may experience OKC. You've gotta give people choice IMO. As a conference traveler myself, I'm sick of conference chicken no matter how good. I expect my pick of 300 downtown restaurants wherever I go. OKC can provide that with a streetcar.

Obviously those are rhetorical questions I posed. The real question is why a CC subcommittee isn't a fan of the streetcar (either you are or you aren't), and who and how is the value of the streetcar being overstated? Are you sure the CC isn't the project whose value is being overstated? What constitutes properly stated value as opposed to overstated value as it relates to the streetcar?

I absolutely agree that the real value is realized at the end of the line to the north. To me, that's more value for the CC than for AA which already has a thriving retail scene. Those shops are supported by locals and nearby residents, for whom this streetcar is really optimized. That allows the CVB to tout OKC's local retail scene, which is really just a small blip on the radar concentrated on Broadway or 16th. OKC really isn't a hub of local retail, but connecting that to the CC allows marketing pitches to play that up more.

...I think your original concerns about the chosen Convention Center location were valid. And therefore, I believe that the streetcar will play an even more vital role to keeping Bricktown healthy. If anything, it will give the people attending conventions confidence that they can walk to a restaurant and get on the system to return to the Convention Center and get back on time for their next forum.

Regarding giving people that confidence, I disagree to a considerable extent. For large conventions (which we see more often than people know, and which hopefully will increase exponentially with a new facility) there are often thousands of people walking out of the CC to lunch simultaneously. Even if you have equipment sitting on the track waiting at the exact moment a session lets out (difficult to coordinate, and disruptive to regular service), you will be able to satisfy what, 160 of them? You can stack equipment there (again, not easy) and carry more, but many, many more will be left at the stop waiting for the equipment to return. Much more likely that those people choose to walk, and in fact that should be the default suggestion of convention planners.

Then, when done with lunch they will walk out of a restaurant, and unless they time it exactly right they will be waiting on equipment. And, BTW, will they then have to ride a full loop before returning to the CC? That removes all possibility of lunch transpiring in an hour. Would you have equipment dedicated to the event? I can't remember if FTA money is being brought to bear in the streetcar project, but if so that would rule out chartering the equipment (generally illegal if federal transit funding involved).

At the end of the day, if people are going to have lunch offsite they will need to walk and will choose to walk. That is one of the reasons why I say it is important that amenities develop adjacent to the CC. Now, dinner is another proposition entirely. I think the streetcar will get much use by conventioneers going out in the evening, but of course they might be catching it at their hotel instead of the CC.

And once again, I am writing all of my opinions based not on what is best for Bricktown, but what is best for the CC, for the booking of the CC, and for the City and taxpayers to maximize their sizable investment in the facility. Will the CC be good for Bricktown, absolutely. But as I have said before, based on the developments that have happened and continue to happen in the district, Bricktown is in excellent shape going forward, even if less connected to the CC (which it certainly will be at this point). As I have mentioned before, I honestly believe the CC needs Bricktown (and other connections) MORE than BT needs the CC.

All good points.

No, FTA is not applied to vehicles and does not affect operations. Making the entire loop to get to and from Bricktown is not a viable option and should not be significantly considered.

Your right about the changing demographics of conventions. Many of my comparisons are in the context of what has been observed using the Cox. That is not a fair comparison if we are growing.

...I absolutely agree that the real value is realized at the end of the line to the north. To me, that's more value for the CC than for AA which already has a thriving retail scene. Those shops are supported by locals and nearby residents, for whom this streetcar is really optimized. That allows the CVB to tout OKC's local retail scene, which is really just a small blip on the radar concentrated on Broadway or 16th. OKC really isn't a hub of local retail, but connecting that to the CC allows marketing pitches to play that up more.

Again, I think the streetcar IS important to the CC. It without question makes attending conventions here better. It just doesn't make it THAT much better for getting to Bricktown, and certainly doesn't solve the lunch issue. Where the streetcar helps OKC shine to a conventioneer is that it will connect them to AA and Midtown (heretofore not an option for them at all). But I think that happens mostly in the evening, and I'm not even sure if they will be headed there from the CC itself, but more likely from their hotel room OR circulating between districts, which also include Bricktown.

Again, I think the streetcar IS important to the CC. It without question makes attending conventions here better. It just doesn't make it THAT much better for getting to Bricktown, and certainly doesn't solve the lunch issue. Where the streetcar helps OKC shine to a conventioneer is that it will connect them to AA and Midtown (heretofore not an option for them at all). But I think that happens mostly in the evening, and I'm not even sure if they will be headed there from the CC itself, but more likely from their hotel room OR circulating between districts, which also include Bricktown.

Yes. Definitely. So the relationship that matters most is hotels to amenities, and not so much CC to amenities. CC to hotels though then supersedes all of this...

I think it can be agreed how we did them to interact in a way that benefits both. But what solutions are there besides a spur line that also takes into account where the maintaince facility is. Urbanized I think you are exactly right in that equally as important is how walkable we make it to get to Bricktown and the main hotels and I really hope the city take this as an opportunity to make something picturesque that delivers on that goal.
Another idea I was thinking about the other day is why not create a spur line that starts in the track going in front of the Sante fe station. Heads down shields and runs on the new boulevard( well aware how difficult that might be to accomplish) it could then run the Bricktown loop when it was in service on even some variation of using that initial track.

The problem with reverting to "mere walkability" is that nobody is really fighting for a "Better Boulevard" anymore... ODOT, unrelenting as they are destructive, has exhausted all of us it seems.

To me, a streetcar is unique (perhaps better) than full-blown light rail because it's a very fluid system, with people hopping on and off; slicing this awful "OKC Boulevard" with that kind of intimate pedestrian calculator will also help.

The problem with reverting to "mere walkability" is that nobody is really fighting for a "Better Boulevard" anymore... ODOT, unrelenting as they are destructive, has exhausted all of us it seems.

How do you mean? They haven't produced public documents with the "final" design; to me, it's a lull in public review activity, not a pronouncement of defeat.

Well I hope you're right, but I think that there's a strong consensus that the fix is in on the "boulevard."

Well I hope you're right, but I think that there's a strong consensus that the fix is in on the "boulevard."

It'll be a boulevard, regardless. No need for quotes or pithy commentary from afar.

I haven't really had time to follow up on here from our big meeting on Wed. Basically, a ton of extremely detailed information was covered.

As far as the Boulevard is concerned, the official City position on it is to take possession of it from ODOT and rip out what we don't like an modify it after it is built. Bids will be let for it during the first quarter of 2016. We will be tearing it up to install streetcar tracks... that is now official.

It seems that ODOT is incapable of building an 'actual' boulevard. The City has to deal with ODOT to get other major transportation projects funded... and of course our share of road salt. So it is just easier to take the keys and modify it afterward. If you care about how your federal tax dollars are spent, you have good reason to be angry. The reality is though, there is absolutely no mechanism to force ODOT to do build a proper urban street instead of a highway bypass. Even the Federal Highway Administration spokesman didn't understand the actual law and basically stated to the Gazette ODOT can do whatever it wants regardless of the public's requests or environmental impact.

Anyways, we will be tearing up a bunch of relatively new concrete.

UP, when you say tear it up to install streetcar tracks, is that for a track to go to the CC or a slight adjustment of the original line?

It'll be a boulevard, regardless. No need for quotes or pithy commentary from afar.

I just don't know what to say to this. Congrats on compressing so much consternation into one concise one-liner.

I can't tell if you're being sarcastic, or if you're clinging to a position that requires you to to discredit posters outside a certain proximity (what qualifies someone's perspective? same neighborhood, zip code, city, county, state?) and remind us that it has "Boulevard" in the name regardless. Either way I hope you'll elaborate.

What exactly gives you hope on the boulevard?

What exactly gives you hope on the boulevard?I don't think he has "hope" for it (whatever "hope" might signify) -- rather, seems to me he's saying it'll be a boulevard if TPTB call it one, regardless of any dictionary definitions.

Sorta like calling Union City a city...

I took it to mean that regardless of whether it's well-done or poorly done, the street will clearly meet the technical definition of a boulevard, and putting quotation marks around the term doesn't change that fact.

A tiny house, a mobile home, a container home, a three bedroom ranch and a mansion are all still houses, and not made less so by saying they are "houses".

A boulevard is a boulevard is a boulevard.

Except maybe when it's a cafeteria. :)

True, but I still think of boulevards and expressways as different things. Just as an expressway is something that isn't quite a freeway..

I personally don't mind the boulevard being primarily a means of funneling suburbanites in and out of downtown with walkability taking a back seat. The reason being is doing so opens up a lot of potential on Reno and Sheridan as they will no longer serve as the high-traffic corridors for getting people in and out of Bricktown. As for ODOT, they are simply doing their job, which is to design a road that will move traffic as quickly and efficiently as possible. If the city wants something different, they will have to modify it after they take control.

If ODOT is building a road that the city will immediately spend more taxpayer dollars modifying, they're arguably not really doing their job, at least not correctly. They should be building what the client wants, not what they want.

Let's be clear about something, this thing as conceived by ODOT isn't a Boulevard, it is a Highway Bypass.

The City however may indeed spend additional monies to make it "better". FBB just enabled making it "better" easier by getting rid of the elevated bridge decks and adding intersections... and possibly making it slightly smaller.

UP, when you say tear it up to install streetcar tracks, is that for a track to go to the CC or a slight adjustment of the original line?

Either scenario. In the current plans we cross the new Boulevard on Hudson to go down to the maintenance facility. All plans being considered to modify the route to better serve the MAPS 3 Park and Convention Center involve impacting the Boulevard to a greater degree. Any and all scenarios involve tearing up new concrete as ODOT is dead set on letting contract the first or second quarter of next year.

The only good think about the Boulevard is that it is currently a utility free zone. So it it is only concrete and substrate that we will supposedly be tearing up.

Let's be clear about something, this thing as conceived by ODOT isn't a Boulevard, it is a Highway Bypass.

The City however may indeed spend additional monies to make it "better". FBB just enabled making it "better" easier by getting rid of the elevated bridge decks and adding intersections... and possibly making it slightly smaller.

How legit is that letter that is from the feds saying that what had to be put back in place was what we're getting now? I don't remember the exact letter, but Wegner had it on a powerpoint he presented a year or so ago to a meeting I was at.

Basically, the only way this project would have been able to be more urban and pedestrian sensitivity is if the Federal Highway Administration administrators told ODOT that they wanted the project to adhere to the current administrations "Livability Principals". ODOT itself wasn't going to design and build a sensitive project. It culturally doesn't know how. The FHWA could have easily exerted more pressure. This project could easily be a example of their stated goals. However, I am not sure that those goals go beyond a press release. Culturally, the Washington arm of the FHWA doesn't seem any more educated than ODOT when it comes to urbanity and quality of life principals. So, the letter is "legit" in the sense that they will not ask for nor enable a different design. The project is a lock.

Culturally, the Washington arm of the FHWA doesn't seem any more educated than ODOT when it comes to urbanity and quality of life principals.

I disagree.

Have you seen this? Press Release: FHWA Move to Encourage Highway Design Flexibilities Kicks Off with Changes for Lower Speed Roads, 10/7/2015 | Federal Highway Administration (http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/pressroom/fhwa1566.cfm?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter) - in other words - Feds Propose Major Rule Changes to Eliminate Barriers to Safer Streets | Streetsblog USA (http://usa.streetsblog.org/2015/10/08/feds-propose-major-rule-changes-to-eliminate-barriers-to-safer-streets/)

Or this? Bicycle and Pedestrian Facility Design Flexibility - Guidance - Bicycle and Pedestrian Program - Environment - FHWA (http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bicycle_pedestrian/guidance/design_flexibility.cfm)

Or this? FHWA Officially Supports City-Friendly Street Designs - National Association of City Transportation Officials (http://nacto.org/2014/07/25/fhwa-officially-supports-city-friendly-street-design/)

The local/regional office, however, may be of the same culture as ODOT.

double post

I personally don't mind the boulevard being primarily a means of funneling suburbanites in and out of downtown with walkability taking a back seat. The reason being is doing so opens up a lot of potential on Reno and Sheridan as they will no longer serve as the high-traffic corridors for getting people in and out of Bricktown. As for ODOT, they are simply doing their job, which is to design a road that will move traffic as quickly and efficiently as possible. If the city wants something different, they will have to modify it after they take control.

No on so many counts. It's actually pretty unique for a state DOT to do this in downtown in 2015. They all did this 20-50 years ago but by now most of them have reformed. ODOT is the nation's most backwards DOT.

This boulevard is part of a Core 2 Shore visioning process that began ten years ago, before you even knew where OKC was. It was promised by the city to be "our Champs d'Elysses." We all knew it wouldn't be that great and that Mayor Mick was getting ahead of himself, but the seed was then planted to give us enough confidence in the future to approve MAPS 3. Back then we really had a vision for how this could all come together.

The city also could take this over, as ODOT is just acting as a turnkey project manager here. The city however never intended to have to pay for this. Oops.

As for Reno and Sheridan, one failure doesn't correct another. The truth is that we have a huge tradition of public works failure. It is what we do, harkening back to Paul Brum and "better than crappy makes us happy." There is a reason that Bricktown was never streetscaped. It could have been. It was also purposely left out of P180.

IMO it's a huge failure that the city has no interest in making pickup trucks have to drive through a real city on their way to Toby Keith's and Bass Pro. Somehow that's beyond the pale. There is a real mentality that it's only okay to put roundabouts and pedestrians in the way of Prius' (Prii?) coming from Mesta Park..."those people won't mind."

I can think of no other reason why one corner of downtown should be different than another.

No on so many counts. It's actually pretty unique for a state DOT to do this in downtown in 2015. They all did this 20-50 years ago but by now most of them have reformed. ODOT is the nation's most backwards DOT.

This boulevard is part of a Core 2 Shore visioning process that began ten years ago, before you even knew where OKC was. It was promised by the city to be "our Champs d'Elysses." We all knew it wouldn't be that great and that Mayor Mick was getting ahead of himself, but the seed was then planted to give us enough confidence in the future to approve MAPS 3. Back then we really had a vision for how this could all come together.

The city also could take this over, as ODOT is just acting as a turnkey project manager here. The city however never intended to have to pay for this. Oops.

As for Reno and Sheridan, one failure doesn't correct another. The truth is that we have a huge tradition of public works failure. It is what we do, harkening back to Paul Brum and "better than crappy makes us happy." There is a reason that Bricktown was never streetscaped. It could have been. It was also purposely left out of P180.

IMO it's a huge failure that the city has no interest in making pickup trucks have to drive through a real city on their way to Toby Keith's and Bass Pro. Somehow that's beyond the pale. There is a real mentality that it's only okay to put roundabouts and pedestrians in the way of Prius' (Prii?) coming from Mesta Park..."those people won't mind."

I can think of no other reason why one corner of downtown should be different than another.

I definitely understand what you are saying. However, I don't see what could have been done to change it with the way ODOT currently operates. ODOT needs reform to get them out of the 1980s mentality.

I really hope once Business I-40 is complete that OKC will strongly look at narrowing and streetscaping Reno and Sheridan. Bricktown could be so much better with narrower streets, better streetscaping, and overall more focus placed on the pedestrian experience than the automobile.

I disagree.

Have you seen this? Press Release: FHWA Move to Encourage Highway Design Flexibilities Kicks Off with Changes for Lower Speed Roads, 10/7/2015 | Federal Highway Administration (http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/pressroom/fhwa1566.cfm?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter) - in other words - Feds Propose Major Rule Changes to Eliminate Barriers to Safer Streets | Streetsblog USA (http://usa.streetsblog.org/2015/10/08/feds-propose-major-rule-changes-to-eliminate-barriers-to-safer-streets/)

Or this? Bicycle and Pedestrian Facility Design Flexibility - Guidance - Bicycle and Pedestrian Program - Environment - FHWA (http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bicycle_pedestrian/guidance/design_flexibility.cfm)

Or this? FHWA Officially Supports City-Friendly Street Designs - National Association of City Transportation Officials (http://nacto.org/2014/07/25/fhwa-officially-supports-city-friendly-street-design/)

The local/regional office, however, may be of the same culture as ODOT.


LOL Cafe. That is exactly why I referenced the "press releases" in my earlier posts. Part of the FBB strategy was to also contact the Washington Administrators in tandem with the Regional Office. The requests for these specific "Livability Initiatives" to be directly incorporated were flatly ignored....

I think that is all they are, press releases with no backbone.

Let's be clear about something, this thing as conceived by ODOT isn't a Boulevard, it is a Highway Bypass.
...

Actually it quite clearly meets the definition of a boulevard; it's just a BAD boulevard (as executed by ODOT). The boulevard of broken dreams, if you will. Obviously at the ends it functions more like a limited access freeway, but once it is on the ground it is a boulevard as defined here:

Boulevard | Define Boulevard at Dictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/boulevard)


boulevard
[boo l-uh-vahrd, boo-luh-]
noun

1. a broad avenue in a city, usually having areas at the sides or center for trees, grass, or flowers.

2. Also called boulevard strip. Upper Midwest. a strip of lawn between a sidewalk and the curb.

Word Origin and History for boulevard
n.
1769, from French boulevard (15c.), originally "top surface of a military rampart," from a garbled attempt to adopt Middle Dutch bolwerc "wall of a fortification" (see bulwark ) into French, which lacks a -w-. The notion is of a promenade laid out atop demolished city walls, a way which would be much wider than urban streets. Originally in English with conscious echoes of Paris; since 1929, in U.S., used of multi-lane limited-access urban highways. Early French attempts to digest the Dutch word also include boloart, boulever, boloirque, bollvercq.

Obviously at the ends it functions more like a limited access freeway

I think we both agree despite the literal Wikipedia definition. I'll give Wikipedia the grass... we'll see about the flowers and trees.

Back to the street car....most installations I have seen have been on nice concrete streets, not the crap asphalt that is all over the city. Is that an issue and will lanes that hold tracks be redone as concrete?

Yes. They will be embedded in a 8' wide reinforced concrete track bed. That will be in both concrete and asphalt streets. Also, the rails will be connected via continuous welds creating essentially one continuously connected and reinforced structure.

That was not a Wikipedia definition. Pretty much all (traditional) dictionary definitions say the same thing.

That was not a Wikipedia definition. Pretty much all (traditional) dictionary definitions say the same thing.

I think we both agree despite the literal dictionary.reference.com definition. I'll give dictionary.reference.com the grass... we'll see about the flowers and trees.

So Person A in this thread is attempting to define "boulevard" using a resource on English grammar and vocabulary...

Person B is attempting to define "boulevard" and "highway bypass" using a resource on traffic planning...

Oookay. The reason it matters that we keep this straight is bc Person A said the streetcar really doesn't matter that much in the grand scheme bc that "boulevard" crossing.

Obviously I see things from different angles than anyone else here, but nothing annoys me more than when someone can't maintain logical consistency and integrity.

Ironic indeed.

Listen, this isn't even my argument. I was only hazarding a guess at why cafeboeuf took issue with you putting quotation marks around the word boulevard. I'm well aware that the street is an abomination and I have always been quite critical of it.

The point is, the street requires neither hyperbole or intellectual dishonesty to still qualify as a piece of crap. Sometimes, eliminating those tactics from your argument makes it MORE powerful.

Actually it quite clearly meets the definition of a boulevard.
However, NW Hiway is also "a broad avenue within a city" so it, too, meets the cited definition -- as do Broadway from Main to NW 23, or any of the 4-lane streets such as NW 122 or Portland.

Broad definitions can be quite tricky to pin down at times.