Thought this was an interesting article on how several cities are removing elevated freeways:

http://www.archpaper.com/news/articles.asp?id=5476

Your wording threw me, Pete. I was expecting an article about inovative ways to "bring down" an elevated highway. :-)

yep, it does appear to be the thing to do now.

I'd like to see this happen with I-235 between 36th and I-40 and repair the urban fabric between downtown and NE OKC.

I really like driving that elevated stretch...seeing all of the trees, the tops of buildings and church steeples rising above...am always reminded when driving it about my girlfriend in college that thought Oklahoma was nothing but something out of an old west movie...mesas & sage brush with no grass or trees in sight.

I am not a big fan of tearing down a 4 mile stretch of 150' wide freeway and replacing it with 150' wide park or street though. I would prefer they return the original street grid and let development in-fill. To me they are replacing an ugly physical barrier with a more attractive physical barrier. The problem is the physical barrier.

I'd like to see this happen with I-235 between 36th and I-40 and repair the urban fabric between downtown and NE OKC.

I-235 is only "elevated" from just north of 23rd to just north of 13th. The rest of the freeway is at ground level or below grade.

Yeah, the elevated portion is from 15th to 27th.

I realize that. The depressed portion is a much (if not more) of a barrier than the elevated portion.

I realize that. The depressed portion is a much (if not more) of a barrier than the elevated portion.

Barrier that it may be, that freeway is going nowhere. It's a too vital cog in the OKC system. You could argue that every freeway is a barrier and be correct. Since we don't have a subway system or any significant mass transit,the freeways will have to suffice for now.

Not saying i agree or disagree with it completely, but the reasoning offered for replacing the Crosstown with a Boulevard (essentially the same width/number of lanes etc) was an elevated structure is more of a psychological barrier in addition to the physical barrier. To a certain extent I can see it as it might indeed impact my own driving behavior.

Not saying i agree or disagree with it completely, but the reasoning offered for replacing the Crosstown with a Boulevard (essentially the same width/number of lanes etc) was an elevated structure is more of a psychological barrier in addition to the physical barrier. To a certain extent I can see it as it might indeed impact my own driving behavior.

The Crosstown is realistically being replaced by the new I40 not the Boulevard. And it won't be a boulevard because an elevated structure is more of a barrier. It will be a boulevard because there is no need for any other kind of structure. We still have no specifics about the design of the new Boulevard and what kind of a barrier it may or may not be.

Barrier that it may be, that freeway is going nowhere. It's a too vital cog in the OKC system. You could argue that every freeway is a barrier and be correct. Since we don't have a subway system or any significant mass transit,the freeways will have to suffice for now.

Maybe, maybe not. It would be an interesting study.

Not saying i agree or disagree with it completely, but the reasoning offered for replacing the Crosstown with a Boulevard (essentially the same width/number of lanes etc) was an elevated structure is more of a psychological barrier in addition to the physical barrier. To a certain extent I can see it as it might indeed impact my own driving behavior.

The only reason the Crosstown is being replaced is that it has out lived it's time frame and it's a safety hazard. if people claim it's being removed to make one "feel better", professional help should be acquired ASAP.

I'd like to see this happen with I-235 between 36th and I-40 and repair the urban fabric between downtown and NE OKC.

Since they have spent/spending several hundred million expanding it north of 23rd, Broadway extension, upgrading the i44/i235 interchange and upgrading i40/i235 interchange that is unlikely to even be considered for a few decades if ever. NE OKC is not an urban style anyway, it is an older suburban style along with several large destination spaces. Also their is space for the urban core to expand in most directions and the city is putting most focus south.

The Crosstown is realistically being replaced by the new I40 not the Boulevard. And it won't be a boulevard because an elevated structure is more of a barrier. It will be a boulevard because there is no need for any other kind of structure. We still have no specifics about the design of the new Boulevard and what kind of a barrier it may or may not be.
According to the ODOT info and numerous articles BOTH the relocated 1-40 and the Boulevard are serving as "replacements" for the old (not so much both are needed to handle the traffic count, but access to downtown be maintained). As to what the final design is going to be, you are correct, we don't know that yet. But the last mentions of it still had it at 6 lanes etc (though they are trying to get that reduced so it will be less of a barrier). A City official in a presentation to Council mentioned that the 6 lanes was an ODOT requirement, so who knows. The idea of 6 lanes/overall width has been deemed by many as being a barrier (starting with the Speck's City paid for study). The Oklahoman archives or the various threads here go into it.


The only reason the Crosstown is being replaced is that it has out lived it's time frame and it's a safety hazard. if people claim it's being removed to make one "feel better", professional help should be acquired ASAP.
Of course it has outlived its expected "lifespan". Of course it has become a safety issue (as well as costing at least $1MM yearly to maintain). The psychological barrier was cited by others as one of the reasons for making it "at grade" rather than elevated...oh never mind, [[snarky comment self-censored]], we were getting along so well in that other thread....

I think some of you are missing the idea of what kind of road the article was talking about. These cities are not removing interstate freeways that connect one city to another. They are removing freeway style roads that are either city streets at both ends or are freeways to no where. In the 3 examples used in the article (Seattle, New Orleans, and Baltimore) you have to go look at these particular situations to understand why they are getting ride of them.

Seattle: The elevated portion of Highway 99 is a surface city street north and south of downtown. It is only elevated through downtown Seattle and doesn't connect to another freeway on either end.

New Haven: Route 34 is an 8 lane spur that runs through the south edge of downtown New Haven that runs from I-95 to a parking garage (litterally directly to a parking garage).

Balitmore: Route 40 is a 4 lane divided freeway that runs for exactly 11 blocks and dead ends. It is a freeway to no where.

OKC doesn't have any freeways that meet these condition. The closest it has is the current I-40 though downtown and after I-40 is replaced the elevated deck will be coming down any how.

There are plenty of examples of cities removing / relocating / reworking freeways to repair urban fabric.

The Big Dig in Boston is the most notable case but it also happened in San Francisco and elsewhere.


Also, when I was in Sydney, Australia I noticed they have zero freeways running through the main part of the city. This is common in older cities (can think of many in Europe) where there simply isn't the space for multi-lane roadways but Sydney is a new city and was designed this way. It's a bit strange but seems to work and you certainly don't have the massive impassable concrete canyons splitting up neigborhoods.

There are very few interstate style freeways in Australia. It is the size of the continental US with 1/20 the population. They have a pretty extensive rail network so no need for freeways to get to work.

There are very few interstate style freeways in Australia. It is the size of the continental US with 1/20 the population. They have a pretty extensive rail network so no need for freeways to get to work.


...has been said "you ain't gotta lie to kick it" -- upon first returning stateside, I would tell kids I rode to school in a kanga's pouch (they bought it). {:+)

There are plenty of examples of cities removing / relocating / reworking freeways to repair urban fabric.

The Big Dig in Boston is the most notable case but it also happened in San Francisco and elsewhere.


Also, when I was in Sydney, Australia I noticed they have zero freeways running through the main part of the city. This is common in older cities (can think of many in Europe) where there simply isn't the space for multi-lane roadways but Sydney is a new city and was designed this way. It's a bit strange but seems to work and you certainly don't have the massive impassable concrete canyons splitting up neigborhoods.

I don't think Australia or Canada went as crazy with building roads based on the Autobahn as the US did.

I don't think Australia or Canada went as crazy with building roads based on the Autobahn as the US did.

Try driving to Perth - from anywhere.

We need to admit that the interstate highways system is just far to expensive too maintain and expand, and come up with plan B. Plan B being private toll roads and public mass transit systems with an emphasis on getting people to work 5 days a week and not on long distance inter-city rail service.

Try driving to Perth - from anywhere.

We need to admit that the interstate highways system is just far to expensive too maintain and expand, and come up with plan B. Plan B being private toll roads and public mass transit systems with an emphasis on getting people to work 5 days a week and not on long distance inter-city rail service.

In other transportation threads I have talked about how the interstate has be struggled to be maintained for years, which is why many expansions have been implemented as turnpikes. Mass transit systems are not a perfect either even with their benefits. No transit system be it road, rail, or air has made enough to be self maintained and expanded on it's own.

Not to get side tracked from the freeway discussion, but after the Australia comment I looked up Adelaide, AU. It has the same population as metro OKC and has a region-wide rail system, streetcars, extensive bus system, and not a single American style freeway.

I'd like to see this happen with I-235 between 36th and I-40 and repair the urban fabric between downtown and NE OKC.

That is such a recent blunder, too..

Not to get side tracked from the freeway discussion, but after the Australia comment I looked up Adelaide, AU. It has the same population as metro OKC and has a region-wide rail system, streetcars, extensive bus system, and not a single American style freeway.


Suh-weet!


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X2wcMB_gfXI&feature=player_embedded

The reason Australia has much better mass transit and much less dependency on freeways is that their government wasn't/isn't trying to placate the auto and oil industries like the U.S. has been doing since WWII.

It's amazing to think they are even newer than the U.S., have way less population density but infinitely better mass transit and urban planning. The same can be said about Canada.

Really, the U.S. is unique in this crazy sprawling, car-centric approach. And that is not a good thing.

The reason Australia has much better mass transit and much less dependency on freeways is that their government wasn't/isn't trying to placate the auto and oil industries like the U.S. has been doing since WWII.

It's amazing to think they are even newer than the U.S., have way less population density but infinitely better mass transit and urban planning. The same can be said about Canada.

Really, the U.S. is unique in this crazy sprawling, car-centric approach. And that is not a good thing.

Sad isn't it. Meanwhile, another $178 million to add lanes to the Creek and Kilpatrick turnpikes. It seems we will never learn, we will however go broke.

http://newsok.com/work-to-widen-kilpatrick-turnpike-is-expected-to-start-in-the-spring/article/3595817?custom_click=pod_headline_politics



Authority members voted to seek a $178 million bond issue to widen seven-mile sections of the Kilpatrick and Creek turnpikes.

From the discussion alone, one might be lead to believe that Australia had no freeways. They do and are primarily in near the major cities metropolitan areas, which look to have a similar sprawl to American cities. I have not been to an Aussie city yet or studied the planing, so hopefully they did better than us.


It seems we will never learn, we will however go broke.

As far as going broke the leading cause for that has been politicians made decisions to spend more than they collect in taxes for decades and continue to do so, even if we had great mass transit and urban planing we would still be massively in debt since they are such a small fraction of the budgets.

If we had sustainable neighborhoods think of the billions (if not trillions) we would save on blight. Of course, government spending is only part of the issue. Look at your personal life and see how much of your expenses are suburban in nature (car, yard, gasoline, etc).

Sad isn't it. Meanwhile, another $178 million to add lanes to the Creek and Kilpatrick turnpikes. It seems we will never learn, we will however go broke.

http://newsok.com/work-to-widen-kilpatrick-turnpike-is-expected-to-start-in-the-spring/article/3595817?custom_click=pod_headline_politics

Whether these are worthy projects or not, they have little to do with going broke. My opinion was that those turnpikes should have been originally been constructed to be at least six lanes instead of four. I'm not that familiar with the Creek but the route of the Kilpatrick is hardly a candidate for mass transit alternatives and is more of a city bypass which will gradually turn more local.

Whether these are worthy projects or not, they have little to do with going broke.

I was talking more about "total cost of ownership", and I don't just mean the governments cost. I currently live in the suburbs like everyone else. It is a 1/2 mile from my driveway to the entrance to my subdivision. I recently started riding a bike 3 to 4 times a week. I am now up to 6 miles and barely break a sweat.

Unfortunately, a 3 mile trip from my house doesn't get me anywhere except to more sprawling subdivisions and a single Chinese take-out place. I got the bike 17 years ago for Christmas and I know that it cost $100 at the time. If I lived in an area where a bike was reasonable transportation most of the time I would have saved well over $350,000 just in cars and gas in the last 17 years. I am just sorry it took me this long to figure it out. Guess I was too busy chasing 'the American dream' to notice how much money I was wasting.

I was talking more about "total cost of ownership", and I don't just mean the governments cost. I currently live in the suburbs like everyone else. It is a 1/2 mile from my driveway to the entrance to my subdivision. I recently started riding a bike 3 to 4 times a week. I am now up to 6 miles and barely break a sweat.

Unfortunately, a 3 mile trip from my house doesn't get me anywhere except to more sprawling subdivisions and a single Chinese take-out place. I got the bike 17 years ago for Christmas and I know that it cost $100 at the time. If I lived in an area where a bike was reasonable transportation most of the time I would have saved well over $350,000 just in cars and gas in the last 17 years. I am just sorry it took me this long to figure it out. Guess I was too busy chasing 'the American dream' to notice how much money I was wasting.

Though it unlikely you could have kept that money if you lived in an area that was built in a sustainable way. Gas costs are replaced by the user costs of mass transit, the car is often made up for in the cost or rent or purchase price of whatever type of home. Services are often higher due to labor costs (though more tend to be available). Their is still blight even with more dense populations due to what people demand over time changes, cases of shoddy construction, poor management and the population shifts geographic regions. Some of it might be kept in an area with sprawl but that is due to sprawl will devalue the well planned areas.

Though it unlikely you could have kept that money if you lived in an area that was built in a sustainable way. Gas costs are replaced by the user costs of mass transit, the car is often made up for in the cost or rent or purchase price of whatever type of home. Services are often higher due to labor costs (though more tend to be available). Their is still blight even with more dense populations due to what people demand over time changes, cases of shoddy construction, poor management and the population shifts geographic regions. Some of it might be kept in an area with sprawl but that is due to sprawl will devalue the well planned areas.

I think you are taking an American view of it where the only urban cities you have as a reference are NYC and Chicago for the most part. Look at cities around the world with the same population as present day Oklahoma City and you will see they are nothing like NYC or Chicago in terms of cost of living and blight.

As my spinklers were going this morning I couldn't help but wonder how many millions of gallons of fresh water I have poured on the ground over the last 20 years. Then multiple that by the 395 homes in my subdivision, and then multiple that by the hundreds of subdivision in my town. That is a lot of fresh water, and we didn't even use it to grow food.

I'm so happy I no longer have a lawn. I've spent my summer watering trees and flowers for the bees. Speaking of bees, I helped my daughter plant flower boxes on the balconies of her new apartment, and they were promptly located by bees. There are clearly some urban beekeepers near her. I'm about to dub Chicago the City of Flowers". It's amazing how many of their light poles throughout the city have gorgeous flower baskets, and every median downtown is planted with a riot of flowers. There are huge concrete pots planted throughout downtown as well. I hope we can do something similar with the new boulevard(bringing myself back on topic).

I'm so happy I no longer have a lawn.

I was thinking about you while I was doing 4 hours of lawn care yesterday in 98 degree temps. I was also thinking about the $250 worth of mulch I have to go buy for the flower beds.

I'm still buying mulch, although not that much. I redid the bed by my front door, and changed the groundcover under my trees. I'm slowly switching my back bed from nandina to roses and perennials. I've talked to one of the developers about giving us some land for a community garden next year and got a favorable response, so maybe that will happen. But, no grass. That's the one thing that doesn't give back a lot. My flowers are helping support a few species of bees: I've got honeybees and cutter bees, for sure, and at least one other type I haven't identified. I didn't have much luck, with the heat, growing food plants for butterfly caterpillars, with the exception of my passion vine. It doesn't have any gulf fritillary or zebra longwings caterpillars so far, but I'm hopeful because it's just starting to flower. I'm hoping maybe it takes the flowers to lure the adults. We'll see.