What I consider crazy are folks doing 20+ over the speed limit in the city during the day. You never know when a tire will blow, you might debris in the road or someone may pullout in front of you causing you to crash and take out as many as dozen other cars.

If any of you have the time to take OSU-OKC's Precision Driving Course I would encourage you to do so. It's worth the time and the money, not to mention it will save you a few dollars on car insurance. I took through work and I came away with a whole new set of driving skills.

In regards to the topic, I think 240 needs to be reconfigured to where the service road can only be accessed at certain points instead of driveway cutaways every 50 feet. The westbound Penn off ramp and eastbound Walker off ramp are nightmares to navigate on most days.I've been thinking of doing that for some time now.

I also completely agree with limiting the access of the highway.

The skill set I like to use at the I-240 area is my ability to manage our " On / Off " Ramps that provide 50 ft. for decision making & life saving skills! Why do we still have On / Off Ramps in the year 2013? ...This is the best of our Okie Engineering. ... it makes me proud.

The skill set I like to use at the I-240 area is my ability to manage our " On / Off " Ramps that provide 50 ft. for decision making & life saving skills! Why do we still have On / Off Ramps in the year 2013? ...This is the best of our Okie Engineering. ... it makes me proud.

I am not sure I understand. Unless you are proposing downgrading I-240 from a freeway to a boulevard, it has to have on and off-ramps. Maybe they should only have them at the mile thoroughfares though i.e. getting rid of the Walker exit and possibly choosing either than Shields or Santa Fe and getting rid of the other.

I-240 is too important in my opinion to downgrade.

There are no highways in OKC that should be downgraded to a street or divided BLVD. If people want to remove the portion of I-235 that runs near downtown, well, that is for the community to decide. I would vote against it, but that's just me. Maybe I'm biased towards cars.

There are no highways in OKC that should be downgraded to a street or divided BLVD. If people want to remove the portion of I-235 that runs near downtown, well, that is for the community to decide. I would vote against it, but that's just me. Maybe I'm biased towards cars.

I can see the point in wanting to downgrade I-235 but I too am against it. I-235 is very important in bringing people into downtown from Edmond and the north metro. If there is one freeway in OKC that I would say isn't that important, it is I-35 between I-40 and I-44, but I doubt that area will ever be in play.

I am not sure I understand. Unless you are proposing downgrading I-240 from a freeway to a boulevard, it has to have on and off-ramps. Maybe they should only have them at the mile thoroughfares though i.e. getting rid of the Walker exit and possibly choosing either than Shields or Santa Fe and getting rid of the other.

I-240 is too important in my opinion to downgrade.

OK, when you try to exit on I-240 from Western & Walker, the one exiting does NOT have their own exit (or even space) drive on. The on-coming traffic is using the same (dedicated space) to merge on-to the freeway. And to make it worse, it is a very very short ramp. A person has to hit their breaks while on the freeway until you (both) find a space to merge in-to.

Someone must have listened, because they're repaving the frontage road on the west end, north side. That wasn't really where it was needed the most, but maybe they're starting on one end and moving down??

Someone must have listened, because they're repaving the frontage road on the west end, north side. That wasn't really where it was needed the most, but maybe they're starting on one end and moving down??

Now that you say that I noticed that when I went to Outback last week. One late had already been done at that time.

These people were walking out of a McDonalds and having pull the stroller up over the curbs and push it through the grass and repeat it over and over again. I took this picture after the the lady tripped and fell on the curb trying to get the stroller over it. There really needs to be sidewalks here.
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7294/12575392615_41379973f7_c.jpg

They should widen these service roads to three lanes each way anyways, it is getting way to congested. This highway needs to have some of its on/off removed to, that would help some.

Just read through this thread. Suburb worship is so weird to me. So is a 4-stack freeway interchange like the D cup of sprawl?

Just read through this thread. Suburb worship is so weird to me. So is a 4-stack freeway interchange like the D cup of sprawl?

A healthy city has a strong downtown and healthy suburbs. The I-240 area really needs a shot in the arm but I wouldn't say it is yet so far gone that it can't come back. If something doesn't change though it could end up that way. As for stack interchanges, they move traffic much more efficiently than do the cloverleafs that OKC currently has.

Stack interchanges are great

A healthy city has a strong downtown and healthy suburbs. The I-240 area really needs a shot in the arm but I wouldn't say it is yet so far gone that it can't come back. If something doesn't change though it could end up that way. As for stack interchanges, they move traffic much more efficiently than do the cloverleafs that OKC currently has.

I agree but they're also a lot more expensive.

As for the "shot in the arm" I-240 needs, what do you propose? Just reworking the feeder road, widening it, reducing curb cuts, and then tearing down some of the strip mall dreck and replacing with new strip mall dreck that will last 20 years?

I am curious how you think suburban planning should "work" to solve the obvious problems that are inherent with...suburbs

I agree but they're also a lot more expensive.

As for the "shot in the arm" I-240 needs, what do you propose? Just reworking the feeder road, widening it, reducing curb cuts, and then tearing down some of the strip mall dreck and replacing with new strip mall dreck that will last 20 years?

I am curious how you think suburban planning should "work" to solve the obvious problems that are inherent with...suburbs

Suburban development is going to always have inherent problems. Making I-240 conform to urbanist standards is not economically feasible nor is it the shot in the arm the area needs. What the I-240 area needs is a commercial focal point like Crossroads Mall used to be. It needs something to draw people there who wouldn't otherwise go. Most of the economic development on the south side of the metro has migrated to south Moore and Norman. If current trends continue, the I-240 area will continue to rot and become blight. When I lived in OKC the first time in the late '90s, I-240 was a much nicer corridor than it is today with many prominent retailers and restaurants doing business there. Today, it's barely still relevant but give it ten more years and it will no longer be.

I agree but they're also a lot more expensive.

As for the "shot in the arm" I-240 needs, what do you propose? Just reworking the feeder road, widening it, reducing curb cuts, and then tearing down some of the strip mall dreck and replacing with new strip mall dreck that will last 20 years?

I am curious how you think suburban planning should "work" to solve the obvious problems that are inherent with...suburbs

For our major corridors, why would we want anything less? If the stack is the obvious solution, then why wouldn't we hold them to this standard?

Because they're too expensive and we can't afford it while tons of other cities are going the stack interchange route. /sarcasm

Maybe we could add a few roundabouts at I240, that seems to be a cureall for some. :wink:

I agree but they're also a lot more expensive.

As for the "shot in the arm" I-240 needs, what do you propose? Just reworking the feeder road, widening it, reducing curb cuts, and then tearing down some of the strip mall dreck and replacing with new strip mall dreck that will last 20 years?

I am curious how you think suburban planning should "work" to solve the obvious problems that are inherent with...suburbs

Think in this vein we have to be diligent about distinguishing our likes and dislikes from what constitutes good planning. Those who pre-emptively hate the suburbs for whatever reason will never like any plan to modify or update them unless that plan forces them into being what they prefer in the first place - urban areas. That is, it wouldn't be sensible to me, given my preference for the suburbs, to start referring to concrete jungles as "urban dreck" merely because I don't prefer them.

I-240 needs a variety of things to help improve - in terms of simple eye appeal, a great first step would be the elimination of the pole-mounted signs and replacement with monument-mounted variety. Second, the traffic flow along the entire breadth of that stretch needs to be re-thought, especially in terms of the (eventual?) I-35 interchange rebuild - and a great first step would be to close off the Shields Avenue on-ramp. I have also wondered if widened service roads would be beneficial in this area, as traffic on the westbound service road at Penn can become especially congested during rush hour and into the early evenings.

In terms of business, however, there's not a great deal you can do because the tenancy along that stretch varies so widely - lesser apartments and a fairly nasty hotel (with no small crime history) at one end, a police facility at the other, and a variety of new-to-damaged-credit car dealerships and a varying retail mix in between, all couched amid some decent if older (60's/70's era) residential areas. Some here old enough to remember can hearken the days when the Southern Hills Shopping Center on the south side of I-240 at Penn was actually the grand old TG&Y Family Center that spanned nearly the entire center - and thankfully, when that place was rehabbed many moons ago, they at least maintained the brick veneer. The Walnut Creek center on the north side, west of Penn, has been problematic for years, although I will say Hobby Lobby's decision to move into the old Price Chopper/PriceMart (whatever) seems to have perked up that area some. The problem is that particular shopping area is so far pushed back from the street its just not very "accessible" (or at least doesn't seem that way).

All this blathering is to say I don't think there's a single magic bullet that will revive the area. As bchris02 pointed out, there's movement south and southwest of that area - even out of OKC as I-240 turns SW into I-44 - and hence a lot of sales tax $$ are heading to the Tri City area. Heck, figure that has to be why they're working hard to develop that Portland area near the airport into some nicer retail options. Would also have to think Odom would be invested in getting that area rehabbed/upgraded, as I believe he still owns/develops the 240 Penn Plaza (with the PetsMart/Mardel/Old Navy etc).

I'm not saying to urbanize it. Yes, we need to find ways to revitalize this stretch or else we will lose out to Moore but I can't say enough doubling down on the failures isn't the right way. 240 isn't going to out-Moore Moore. Let Moore worry about the consequences of it's strip mall dreck in 20-30 years.

For those in the know, has any action being taken on the Envision 240 study? I believe the study was completed in 2014 and I have not seen any action on improving this area.

Does anyone know what is being built on the northside of 240, between Walker and Santa Fe? Probably another car dealership...

Does anyone know what is being built on the northside of 240, between Walker and Santa Fe? Probably another car dealership...

IIRC: David Stanley Kia

Correct ^ (not sure on who, but it is a dealership)

It will be a David Stanley Dealership for sure the Kia brand name is the only thing that is in the rumor mill at the moment. The county assessor lists the property owner as David Stanley Imports.

It's got the David Stanley Kia sign out front...or at least it used to.

Anyone know what they're building on 240 and Penn (northeast corner)? It's the building next to Schlotzsky's and Denneys that has been a hundred different things but was finally torn down. They're moving dirt around but I haven't seen a sign for anything.

Wow I-240 really is seeing revitalization!

Cane's Chicken

Now that's a boom

Now that's a boomMaybe so because this will be the biggest Canes Chicken I've seen anywhere, unless 70% of the lot will be parking.

Maybe so because this will be the biggest Canes Chicken I've seen anywhere, unless 70% of the lot will be parking.

Would that surprise you?

I wish they would get back on repaving the frontage road. They did the west end (that didn't really need it...and I don't think they striped it yet).

Envision 240 kicks off petition drive for BID | The Journal Record (http://journalrecord.com/2015/03/31/envision-240-kicks-off-petition-drive-to-get-bid-real-estate/)

With a BID the property owners have to agree, right? I will be surprised if that happens with all the apartments.

State statutes requires that petition support from ownership be greater than 50% of the area liable to be assessed. If there are 100 acres of land eligible to be assessed, then the process requires petitions with a “yes” from owners who collectively own greater than 50 acres. Although the City may technically approve a BID with barely over 50% support, a higher percentage of support will set a stronger foundation with less resistance.

Thanks for the clarification. The Envision 240 study was undertaken in 2012. I wonder why it has taken so long to move to the next step.

Envision 240 kicks off petition drive for BID | The Journal Record (http://journalrecord.com/2015/03/31/envision-240-kicks-off-petition-drive-to-get-bid-real-estate/)

What the hell are they going to use a BID for? This is putting the cart way before the horse. They don't have a district, and that's not to say they shouldn't embark on some BI, but for a BID you need a District.. just having a geography selected doesn't give you a district.

This is typical laughable city planning on the part of OKC. This is becoming systemically helpless.

What the hell are they going to use a BID for? This is putting the cart way before the horse. They don't have a district, and that's not to say they shouldn't embark on some BI, but for a BID you need a District.. just having a geography selected doesn't give you a district.

This is typical laughable city planning on the part of OKC. This is becoming systemically helpless.

In your opinion, what makes a district having excluded geography? What districts if any do you see in the south OKC besides Capitol Hill?

Other than Capitol Hill, there are none. It will take time for the Wheeler District and Core 2 Shore to come together, the Farmer's Market has a shot (the OKC Freeway Boulevard certainly doesn't help), and Hubcap Alley is still premature. Those are the only places any concerted public effort begin to make since on the south side. I240 is what it is. But it ain't a district.

Whatever they call it or how they fund it, if they repeat the same design mistake of targeting I-240 as if it was Main St they are going to end up with the exact same result. OKC needs to get away from frontage road retail - and fast. We need Place Making, not Drive-by Place Making.

So an area is only a district when it is referred to by a place name ? I don't see why an identity or brand can't be created for this area just like Core to Shore or Wheeler. With Crossroads in its current state, it is the main shopping area for southwest okc.

Other than Capitol Hill, there are none.

Stockyards?

I-240 is a sea of sprawl catering to the automobile. Applying new urbanism terms to sprawl doesn't solve the problem, solving the problem solves the problem. My question is, do they really even know what the primary problem is? If all they want to do is rebuild what already decayed then expect to keep rebuilding it every 20 to 30 years. Just make sure they collect enough taxes to pay for it.

For those of us (like me) who are unfamiliar with how New Urbanism would apply to neighborhoods outside of the downtown core, could you give a brief description of how the problems with the I-240 corridor could be solved? Thanks!

^^^^^^^
Here is an excellent resource to help answer this question (5-10 minute read): Sprawl Repair: From Sprawl to Complete Communities, by Galina Tachieva : Articles : Terrain.org (http://www.terrain.org/articles/28/tachieva.htm)

Lets keep this highway a suburban area please and not urbanize it. Widen it to 8 lanes plus 3 lanes of service road each way with concrete, led lights, and new & better landscaping.

Lets keep this highway a suburban area please and not urbanize it. Widen it to 8 lanes plus 3 lanes of service road each way with concrete, led lights, and new & better landscaping.

It's unfortunate that you cannot see the value to new urbanism. First of all, applying new urbanism principles would not turn this area into the high-rise ghettos of Hong Kong. New urbanism has plenty of room for a suburban lifestyle and highways. Applying new urbanism principles to this area would allow many more stores to use the same plot of ground, maybe even get a store or two there that you like -- maybe a store that sells Armani suits. It would reward denser populations -- maybe even encourage a residential skyscraper that I bet you'd like. It would allow a better property tax revenue for the city which would in turn (with decent governance) allow better funding for city streets -- maybe even a 6-lane city street like you seem to appreciate in Dallas. It would allow a better semblance of neighborhood. It would allow a better lifestyle for many which could, in turn, allow them to better accumulate wealth. Maybe one of these newly wealthy OKC citizens would start up a film production business and you would be able to stay in this wonderful city AND pursue your acting career.

For those of us (like me) who are unfamiliar with how New Urbanism would apply to neighborhoods outside of the downtown core, could you give a brief description of how the problems with the I-240 corridor could be solved? Thanks!

When I get to a computer I will be happy to post some examples in addition to what Urbanized posted. Alas, the very fact that this effort is called I-240 Revitalization tells me they are trying to solve the wrong problem, Step 1 should be to literally turn their back to I-240 and cater to adjacent residential and building new higher density residential.

It's unfortunate that you cannot see the value to new urbanism. First of all, applying new urbanism principles would not turn this area into the high-rise ghettos of Hong Kong. New urbanism has plenty of room for a suburban lifestyle and highways. Applying new urbanism principles to this area would allow many more stores to use the same plot of ground, maybe even get a store or two there that you like -- maybe a store that sells Armani suits. It would reward denser populations -- maybe even encourage a residential skyscraper that I bet you'd like. It would allow a better property tax revenue for the city which would in turn (with decent governance) allow better funding for city streets -- maybe even a 6-lane city street like you seem to appreciate in Dallas. It would allow a better semblance of neighborhood. It would allow a better lifestyle for many which could, in turn, allow them to better accumulate wealth. Maybe one of these newly wealthy OKC citizens would start up a film production business and you would be able to stay in this wonderful city AND pursue your acting career.i think new urbanism is great and has its place. I'd love to see the Will Rodgers Eastside Development 100% new urbanism. I'd love to see Glimcher do 100% new urbanism. I'd love it if downtown Edmond would hire Jeff Speck to guide the downtown.

I'd also love to see I240 have some dense developments and a couple mid-high rises. I do not think I240 should retrofit into new urbanism however.

For I240, I want to see cars prioritized, the highway widened, and more wide roads there. Not everything needs to be new urbanism.

As a resident of the general area being discussed, I would love to see more walkable options, but I highly disagree with totally ignoring I-240. That highway is a huge economic driver for this area and ignoring it will leave money on the table for those businesses. That said, ignoring the residential developments surrounding this corridor is a mistake, as well. I think there needs to be a good balance between quality, walkable development that serves the needs of the community and car-oriented development serving the needs of commuters and travelers along the I-240 corridor - and yes, I wholly believe they can coexist.

This area is 4 miles away from downtown but feels a lot like you're in the 'burbs. I personally would love to change that up a bit with some midrise development - the tallest building along that corridor is probably the new Hampton Inn that was finished a year or two ago - and get some more dense residential and commercial areas. There's a TON of vacant land and a fair bit of dis-used or underutilized property along this corridor that could make that happen (car dealerships, I'm looking at you)... not to mention that a few of the apartment complexes towards the west side of that corridor need a LOT of help.

As for I-240: Honestly, it isn't anywhere near capacity, and dumping money into widening it right now would be a complete waste of money. The service roads and on/off ramps definitely need some TLC and some re-engineering (especially the westbound off ramp for Shields/Santa Fe), but aside from cosmetic upgrades the highway itself is fine, and probably will be for a good while. I've never seen traffic jams on this highway that weren't caused by accidents or the I-240 and I-35 interchange (which is absolutely the worst component of that highway). Although ODOT is going to be replacing that interchange "soon" (completed by 2018/19 if I recall correctly), they're halfassing it. The new interchange will be much, much better, than the current one to be sure, but it's still not as good as it could be.

Urbanized, thank you for that link... I haven't yet had the opportunity to read it, but I will soon. And JTF, I'd love to see any examples that you may have. Thanks!

i think new urbanism is great and has its place. I'd love to see the Will Rodgers Eastside Development 100% new urbanism. I'd love to see Glimcher do 100% new urbanism. I'd love it if downtown Edmond would hire Jeff Speck to guide the downtown.

I'd also love to see I240 have some dense developments and a couple mid-high rises. I do not think I240 should retrofit into new urbanism however.

For I240, I want to see cars prioritized, the highway widened, and more wide roads there. Not everything needs to be new urbanism.

IMO, everything DOES need to be new urbanism. New urbanism is a design philosophy that promotes growth, livability and walkability. It does not aim towards the elimination of the automobile. Why do you want to see cars prioritized? What about the drivers of the cars? the sentient occupant of the cars? You know where cars need to be prioritized? in movies where cars are alive and on racetracks (which, by the way, really should be places built around people, too -- drivers and spectators -- otherwise what's the purpose?).
Why do you need more wide roads there? Is it a race track? Is it important to get more people to Crossroads Mall? the airport?

we just completely disagree I guess. That's fine. It's just the kind of development I prefer. I'd rather I240 become like the Sam Rayburn Tollway through Frisco prioritizing cars in the road hat get you to your destination quickly. If you don't want that, there are tons of other walkable developments you can either drive or take DART to. That is kind of how I see I240.

I do agree the area should be more dense.

In your opinion, what makes a district having excluded geography? What districts if any do you see in the south OKC besides Capitol Hill?

Well, just to bring it back to Envision 240, doing a BID here will fail for a number of reasons. What kind of services and outputs (results) does a BID produce? It's generally the umbrella of "district services" which usually relate to wayfinding, ambassadors, trash removal, landscaping, marketing, etc. There is nothing under that umbrella that they can do that will produce the same output (revitalization) that would otherwise occur with a BID elsewhere. It's true that 240 is a commercial tax-base development project, but while a BID is often a good tool for that, it's the wrong approach for what 240 is. You do marketing, branding, and on-the-ground relations in a place like Western Avenue, not the I-240 frontage road.

I don't want to see or hear any "Shop 240!" commercials anytime soon because that's just not what we have here. 240 is not going to be successful by promoting a unique, special shopping environment. It's a strip with a bunch of exits that have stores and restaurants. Let's instead do a BID along Capitol Hill SW 25th or Stockyards City (which has an active Main Street Program, very similar). I also think that S. Western Ave including Wheeler-to-240, while not very picturesque, is the commercial backbone of the southside. That's a street worth investing in, and right now lots of people walk in the grass. Similarly, I'd like to someday see a Downtown-to-Airport rail link traverse SW 29th Street, which has a lot of latent potential. 240 also might be a good fit for a BRT to service all of the apartments and retail workers along the corridor; I would think that could be a huge equity win to augment a downtown or even Capitol Hill-to-Paseo streetcar.

But you have to embrace these south side areas for what they are. 240 is what it is, just as 29th Street is what it is. I say that as a southsider myself that wants the area to thrive as a vibrant, multicultural community.

Urbanized, thank you for that link... I haven't yet had the opportunity to read it, but I will soon. And JTF, I'd love to see any examples that you may have. Thanks!

I seem to remember doing a quick and dirty land-use plan for the 240 area, if I can find it I will post it. In the mean time we can start with this.

xn-QLDIvQSM

ugChSIDt4yQ

I'd rather I240 become like the Sam Rayburn Tollway through Frisco.

If that were to happen, there wouldn't be anything left to "vitalize". You'd have to doze everything within 200 feet north and south of the existing median barrier to install that kind of footprint.

I'd like to see the frontage roads get repaved. They repaved the section west of Penn up to May, which is one of the least traveled and was in the best shape comparatively, while leaving the horrible pothole-patch that is the rest of the intersections. We've seen Western Ave. repaved for a second time in 15 years too and it was in good shape.

Western was getting course though. It carries the most traffi on the southside so it is probably a very high priority street.

Yeah but you have to get on/off the highway to get to it :) Sometimes I think I'm going off-road on those sections just before the lights (especially on the west-bound side).

It's unfortunate that you cannot see the value to new urbanism. First of all, applying new urbanism principles would not turn this area into the high-rise ghettos of Hong Kong. New urbanism has plenty of room for a suburban lifestyle and highways. Applying new urbanism principles to this area would allow many more stores to use the same plot of ground, maybe even get a store or two there that you like -- maybe a store that sells Armani suits. It would reward denser populations -- maybe even encourage a residential skyscraper that I bet you'd like. It would allow a better property tax revenue for the city which would in turn (with decent governance) allow better funding for city streets -- maybe even a 6-lane city street like you seem to appreciate in Dallas. It would allow a better semblance of neighborhood. It would allow a better lifestyle for many which could, in turn, allow them to better accumulate wealth. Maybe one of these newly wealthy OKC citizens would start up a film production business and you would be able to stay in this wonderful city AND pursue your acting career.

There are three issues that frustrate me greatly with this.

1. It takes on this "if you don't agree, you're just stupid" moral sophomorism. It assumes that the benefits of "new urbanism" are universal, and if you don't see them, you're just uneducated/unaware. You're not entitled to have a contrary opinion.
2. It assumes everyone has this nascent desire to live an in urban or one-off urban space. I do not. I have no desire for a quasi-urban-jungle motif in our area, nor cramming people into these 800-sf residental cells that are all the rage in many of these new "urban panaceas."
3. It presumes the "we know better" notion of "well, you only think you like it here. We can make it better for you." One of the basic freedoms I love about our country is that no one is a paragon of virtue. If person A likes the urban spaces, great. Power to 'em. If person B likes suburban spaces, great. Power to 'em. But the time either side starts superimposing their preference on someone else because "it's better, trust us" is where I get my Irish up. I have *no* problem with a bit of an urban renaissance where apropos. I have a great deal of trouble with the idea that it should be imposed because someone else thinks its "better."

After driving around on OKC roads for the last 6 weeks I have come to this conclusion. Either there needs to be a massive tax increase dedicated to street maintenance OR every effort should be made in OKC to remove the automobile as the primary mode of transportation. Anyone thinking the solution lies in the middle is not living in reality. The fact is that the current tax rates aren't near enough to maintain the infrastructure, so either raise more money or get less stuff to maintain.