This thread is at least 4 years too late if you actually wanted a major change in design.

Bull****. According to Emperor Ridley himself, ODOT hadn't even designed this two years ago.

For those of you who are passionate about this being done right, and believe that City Council would/could influence ODOT (and I agree that they can), D-Day is this coming Tuesday, July 31st, at City Hall- 8:30 AM.

PLEASE ATTEND AND LET THEM KNOW WHAT YOU THINK ABOUT THIS PLAN

I'll be there. (or perhaps we should keep that secret, we don't want to scare anyone away)

An interesting idea proposed by Steve in his blog.

http://blog.newsok.com/okccentral/2012/07/25/im-not-an-engineer-nor-do-i-play-one-on-tv/

I'm sure all of our traffic circle proponents will pooh pooh it though.

The original Core to Shore report envisioned closing Reno and bridging Western and Classen.
1929
http://www.okc.gov/planning/coretoshore/resources/CoreToShorePlan_2008.pdf

Most of the other concepts look like this one and assumed the ODOT version would be built.
1930
More here:
http://www.okc.gov/planning/coretoshore/visualshistory.html

One thing is for sure, the whole Walker to Penn area was kind of blown off by the Core to Shore advisory group. Which I find disappointing.

An interesting idea proposed by Steve in his blog.

http://blog.newsok.com/okccentral/2012/07/25/im-not-an-engineer-nor-do-i-play-one-on-tv/

I'm sure all of our traffic circle proponents will pooh pooh it though.

I'll say this: I have spent a significant time and effort developing these ideas for a roundabout in this location. If when all this is said and done and we end up with an at-grade boulevard with signalized intersections, I will consider this effort a victory won for the urban fabric of our city. I'll be more than happy as long as the current plan is prevented.

An interesting idea proposed by Steve in his blog.

http://blog.newsok.com/okccentral/2012/07/25/im-not-an-engineer-nor-do-i-play-one-on-tv/

I'm sure all of our traffic circle proponents will pooh pooh it though.

As one of the pooh poohing, traffic circle proponents - I like Steve's concept better than an elevated freeway running through downtown. I hope that as a minimum the street is built at ground level in such a way, that if necessary, the roundabout plaza can be built later. Instead of pooh poohing something grand and settling for the mundane, why not dream of OKC aspiring to be a "Paris on the Prairie" that is more than endless strip centers and office parks?

This thread is at least 4 years too late if you actually wanted a major change in design.

Sometimes it is best to have at least two impossible ideas before breakfast:

(a) This was all decided 11 years ago (when downtown OKC was vastly different from what it is today and what it will be in the next 10 years) and everybody knew about it;

or

(b) The design hasn't been done yet (so no one knows what it will look like) and nothing's been decided yet.

An interesting idea proposed by Steve in his blog.

http://blog.newsok.com/okccentral/2012/07/25/im-not-an-engineer-nor-do-i-play-one-on-tv/

I'm sure all of our traffic circle proponents will pooh pooh it though.

It doesn't kill the traffic circle. There still the question of what to do with Shartel(close it too?) and the angle that the boulevard intersects Reno.

I'll say this: I have spent a significant time and effort developing these ideas for a roundabout in this location. If when all this is said and done and we end up with an at-grade boulevard with signalized intersections, I will consider this effort a victory won for the urban fabric of our city. I'll be more than happy as long as the current plan is prevented.

Everyone appreciates your efforts greatly. And if an at-grade boulevard does happen it will be, in no small part, due to your efforts.

It doesn't kill the traffic circle. There still the question of what to do with Shartel(close it too?) and the angle that the boulevard intersects Reno.

Of course it doesn't kill the idea of the traffic circle. It does, at least, provide an example of an alternative though.

As one of the pooh poohing traffic circle people - I like that concept better than any elevated freeway running through downtown. I hope that as a minimum the street is built at ground level...

Beware of Divide and Conquer - the foremost aim is no restoration of the Crosstown Expressway - i.e., no Boulevard in the Air.

Sometimes it is best to have at least two impossible ideas before breakfast:

(a) This was all decided 11 years ago (when downtown OKC was vastly different from what it is today and what it will be in the next 10 years) and everybody knew about it;

or

(b) The design hasn't been done yet (so no one knows what it will look like) and nothing's been decided yet.

I had an extremely credible person tell me directly that (b) is the status.

I had an extremely credible person tell me directly that (b) is the status.

If only it were that simple. They ignore simple logic like that.
Thats the status if your not part of Oklahoma good ol' boy system where ODOT very broadly tells you that you are getting a bridge, but haven't picked out a color yet so its techically not designed.

Here's the letting date their aiming for: November 2012.

17428(88)F 4 IS040 2.170 0 15,000,000 0 0 15,000,000
GRADE,DRAINING,BRIDGE & SURFACE
OKLAHOMA WP 5.1B: OKCY XTWN FROM WESTERN TO THE WEST SIDE OF WALKER
OKCY -XTWN (078)

A letting date of November 2012? You can rest assured that they have the designs stored in their computers and are literaly waiting until one month before the letting. I didn't see any drawings from Penn to Western until about a week ago. They just have their letting schedules that go out about 4 months out.

When it comes to divide and conquer, I'm going to go ahead and say that we may have a rift between traffic circle and roundabout proponents. What Andrew has illustrated in his renderings is clearly a traffic circle with pedestrian islands, and that's what I favor. Bob Kemper supports a roundabout. Larry, Capt Dave, ljbab and others would just want regular intersections it seems.

I think we're a lot more united than we realize, and certainly that has shown a lot more in the last ten pages or so. This is very clearly ODOT v. the people.

I think we're a lot more united than we realize, and certainly that has shown a lot more in the last ten pages or so. This is very clearly ODOT v. the people.

I think that is a fair summation. The main thing to remember is out unanimous dislike of the ODOT design for various reason,.

Actually I strongly prefer Andrew's concept over a regular intersection. I think it would have to be a roundabout / circle hybrid if there is such a thing. Basically I envision a rather large roundabout with the Memorial Plaza in the middle of it. Traffic would flow like a two lane roundabout except it will be in a longer arc.

Double post.

I think that is a fair summation. The main thing to remember is out unanimous dislike of the ODOT design for various reason,.

Actually I strongly prefer Andrew's concept over a regular intersection. I think it would have to be a roundabout / circle hybrid if there is such a thing. Basically I envision a rather large roundabout with the Memorial Plaza in the middle of it. Traffic would flow like a two lane roundabout except it will be in a longer arc.

I agree with this in total. My concern with the roundabout is that it isn't pedestrian-friendly, and that it is designed to move traffic efficiently first and foremost. In fact, I'm puzzled why ODOT isn't seizing this roundabout idea and running with it, because it matches up with their mission almost too perfectly.

The traffic circle would not efficiently circulate traffic at peak hours like rush hour. Cars would be backed up entering the circle, certainly not nearly as bad as the Western/I-40 bottleneck every day, but it would be there. Possibly as bad as NE 5th/Walnut gets backed up at rush hour. But I think we have to revisit our mission here - what mode of transit is our priority? Cars, or people?

There is no way to move traffic as efficiently and simultaneously prioritize pedestrians. There is no panacea for both cars and humans. Human environment improvements must come at the expense of auto convenience. If we can have a world-class traffic circle entrance to downtown, and the only cost is that traffic gets backed up at the peak of rush hour a block or so, then the cost-benefit analysis seems so skewed how can we not do that?

I agree with this in total. My concern with the roundabout is that it isn't pedestrian-friendly, and that it is designed to move traffic efficiently first and foremost. In fact, I'm puzzled why ODOT isn't seizing this roundabout idea and running with it, because it matches up with their mission almost too perfectly.

The traffic circle would not efficiently circulate traffic at peak hours like rush hour. Cars would be backed up entering the circle, certainly not nearly as bad as the Western/I-40 bottleneck every day, but it would be there. Possibly as bad as NE 5th/Walnut gets backed up at rush hour. But I think we have to revisit our mission here - what mode of transit is our priority? Cars, or people?

There is no way to move traffic as efficiently and simultaneously prioritize pedestrians. There is no panacea for both cars and humans. Human environment improvements must come at the expense of auto convenience. If we can have a world-class traffic circle entrance to downtown, and the only cost is that traffic gets backed up at the peak of rush hour a block or so, then the cost-benefit analysis seems so skewed how can we not do that?

Yeah, Spartan is finally seeing what I see. (Maybe)

That is my point exactly. How efficiently does Michigan Avenue in Chicago move cars? The point is to encourage activity downtown along this street and cars flying by at 50 mph fails miserably on that goal. So incorporating a roundabout/circle achieves this goal while still moving traffic at a reasonable pace.

Why do we need this boulevard? Why not keep Reno open at all times and from end to end? Maybe 10th Street would help traffic from East to West and West to East. On an additional note, being able to close a street either partially or fully on a whim seems to be anti-productive.

The short answer is we don't but the Mayor/ODOT/Former City leaders etc have said the Boulevard is a needed "given".

I've often wondered why we need the boulevard, but a poorly designed boulevard is far worse than not having one at all. Since it seems as if we have no choice about the boulevard, we'd better make sure it's not a disaster. As planned , it will be a disaster for Core to Shore and any hopes we have of continuing renovation and redevelopment of the potential-laden areas adjacent to it.

Have others gotten a response from the FTA folks?

I got a response from the Federal DOT.

And???

Mr. (Catch22),

Thank you for your email to Federal Highway Administrator Victor Mendez expressing your concerns about the proposed Boulevard portion of the I-40 Relocation Project. I have been asked to respond on his behalf.

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has not yet made a determination as to the level of environmental studies and public involvement required for the Boulevard portion of the I-40 Relocation Project. We have requested that ODOT provide us an assessment of the social and environmental impacts associated with the project. As part of their assessment, we have asked ODOT to hold a public meeting to present what is currently being proposed and to seek public input such as the one you are providing. When this public outreach and analysis is completed, and the information received, FHWA will make its determination as to the level of environmental documentation for the Boulevard based on the specific impacts identified, their context and intensity, public input, and other factors.

We hope that you will take advantage of this public meeting and provide your recommendations for the ultimate design for this important part of Oklahoma City’s transportation network.

I am providing a courtesy copy of this and your email to the Oklahoma Department of Transportation and the City of Oklahoma City so they are aware of your concerns.

Sincerely,





Ivan Marrero, P.E.

Assistant Division Administrator

Federal Highway Administration - Oklahoma Division

5801 N. Broadway Extension, Suite 300

Oklahoma City, OK 73118

Office: 405-254-3300

Cell: 405-626-0127

Fax: 405-254-3302





From: (Catch22) [mailto:xxxxxxxxx@live.com]
Sent: Monday, July 16, 2012 1:30 PM
To: Mendez, Victor (FHWA)
Subject: Proposed OKC Downtown Boulevard/I-40 Project



Hello Mr. Mendez,


I am a citizen of the great state of Oklahoma and a loyal citizen of Oklahoma City. I have serious concern over the proposed Boulevard to replace I-40. From my understanding, the (or a portion of it) funding for this portion of the project is coming from Federal moneys which you have a part in distributing to ODOT (Oklahoma DOT) for the construction of the Boulevard.


I want to make myself heard as a citizen and taxpayer of the United States and Oklahoma that I am not in favor of the proposed Boulevard. The elevated superstructure to replace the old I-40 will do nothing to create a more pedestrian friendly environment. It will continue to choke downtown development by creating a physical and psychological barrier preventing development to naturally expand from one side of the structure to the other. It will do nothing to solve the issues OKC currently faces. Oklahoma City currently scores fairly low on walkability studies, and this will only make that situation worse. This elevated Boulevard also eliminates any possibility of fixed public transit to be included now or in the future (light rail, street car, commuter rail, or even bus service with stops [Where would one get off the bus on a virtual highway in the sky "Boulevard"?]). It is also my understanding that ODOT has failed to have a public input process, they effectively have decided what the citizens want with no input from the public. This is simply unacceptable with public money, and especially federal money. There are proposals done by citizens interested in the project for an at grade boulevard in the existing right of way, with a roundabout/traffic circle on one end to slow traffic down coming off the interstate and merge them into the traffic flow. I am not an engineer, so I can't speak for the effectiveness of that. But other options should be considered. And citizens should be heard.


In summary, the current plan by ODOT does nothing to improve overall quality of life for OKC's citizens. It is a high capacity, mostly elevated, high speed roadway through the middle of the downtown core of a major city. It will cut off transportation options for the long term future for those who do not have automobile transportation, by situation or by choice. The proposed roadway is for one use only, and that is fast automobile transportation. This needs to improve quality of life for pedestrians, bicyclists, public transportation users, and automobiles. Not just vehicles.


Thank you very much for your time. I hope to hear a response back.


Thanks,
(Catch22)
OKC, OK 731xx

Actually, looks like that got forwarded down the line to the local division to respond. But I did send it to Mr. Mendez of the DOT.

Letter from ODOT to FHWA:

Mr. Ivan Marrero, P.E.

At your request, we held a secret public meeting and presented our designs to a cross-section of the Oklahoma City populace hand selected by us. They all agreed our plan was best. Thank you. That is all.

ODOT

Letter from ODOT to FHWA:

Mr. Ivan Marrero, P.E.

At your request, we held a secret public meeting and presented our designs to a cross-section of the Oklahoma City populace hand selected by us. They all agreed our plan was best. Thank you. That is all.

ODOT

Laughing out loud. This is spot on. I've often wondered if the "public meeting" was actually Couch and Ridley chatting at the urinals in ODOT's basement bathroom!

Mr. (Catch22),

Thank you for your email to Federal Highway Administrator Victor Mendez expressing your concerns about the proposed Boulevard portion of the I-40 Relocation Project. I have been asked to respond on his behalf.

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has not yet made a determination as to the level of environmental studies and public involvement required for the Boulevard portion of the I-40 Relocation Project. We have requested that ODOT provide us an assessment of the social and environmental impacts associated with the project. As part of their assessment, we have asked ODOT to hold a public meeting to present what is currently being proposed and to seek public input such as the one you are providing. When this public outreach and analysis is completed, and the information received, FHWA will make its determination as to the level of environmental documentation for the Boulevard based on the specific impacts identified, their context and intensity, public input, and other factors.

We hope that you will take advantage of this public meeting and provide your recommendations for the ultimate design for this important part of Oklahoma City’s transportation network.

I am providing a courtesy copy of this and your email to the Oklahoma Department of Transportation and the City of Oklahoma City so they are aware of your concerns.

Sincerely,





Ivan Marrero, P.E.

Assistant Division Administrator

Federal Highway Administration - Oklahoma Division

5801 N. Broadway Extension, Suite 300

Oklahoma City, OK 73118

Office: 405-254-3300

Cell: 405-626-0127

Fax: 405-254-3302





From: (Catch22) [mailto:xxxxxxxxx@live.com]
Sent: Monday, July 16, 2012 1:30 PM
To: Mendez, Victor (FHWA)
Subject: Proposed OKC Downtown Boulevard/I-40 Project



Hello Mr. Mendez,


I am a citizen of the great state of Oklahoma and a loyal citizen of Oklahoma City. I have serious concern over the proposed Boulevard to replace I-40. From my understanding, the (or a portion of it) funding for this portion of the project is coming from Federal moneys which you have a part in distributing to ODOT (Oklahoma DOT) for the construction of the Boulevard.


I want to make myself heard as a citizen and taxpayer of the United States and Oklahoma that I am not in favor of the proposed Boulevard. The elevated superstructure to replace the old I-40 will do nothing to create a more pedestrian friendly environment. It will continue to choke downtown development by creating a physical and psychological barrier preventing development to naturally expand from one side of the structure to the other. It will do nothing to solve the issues OKC currently faces. Oklahoma City currently scores fairly low on walkability studies, and this will only make that situation worse. This elevated Boulevard also eliminates any possibility of fixed public transit to be included now or in the future (light rail, street car, commuter rail, or even bus service with stops [Where would one get off the bus on a virtual highway in the sky "Boulevard"?]). It is also my understanding that ODOT has failed to have a public input process, they effectively have decided what the citizens want with no input from the public. This is simply unacceptable with public money, and especially federal money. There are proposals done by citizens interested in the project for an at grade boulevard in the existing right of way, with a roundabout/traffic circle on one end to slow traffic down coming off the interstate and merge them into the traffic flow. I am not an engineer, so I can't speak for the effectiveness of that. But other options should be considered. And citizens should be heard.


In summary, the current plan by ODOT does nothing to improve overall quality of life for OKC's citizens. It is a high capacity, mostly elevated, high speed roadway through the middle of the downtown core of a major city. It will cut off transportation options for the long term future for those who do not have automobile transportation, by situation or by choice. The proposed roadway is for one use only, and that is fast automobile transportation. This needs to improve quality of life for pedestrians, bicyclists, public transportation users, and automobiles. Not just vehicles.


Thank you very much for your time. I hope to hear a response back.


Thanks,
(Catch22)
OKC, OK 731xx

I got a very similar response from Elizabeth Romero.

http://blog.newsok.com/okccentral/2012/07/26/required-reading-for-jim-couch-dennis-clowers-and-eric-wenger/

http://blog.newsok.com/okccentral/2012/07/26/required-reading-for-jim-couch-dennis-clowers-and-eric-wenger/

Excellent reading, Steve...

I am continuing to send emails to everyone I can find who is related to this project. Just sent another one to the mayor...didn't get a response on the last email.

http://blog.newsok.com/okccentral/2012/07/26/required-reading-for-jim-couch-dennis-clowers-and-eric-wenger/

So Steve, in your blog piece you suggest ODOT will not listen to Council. Don't Jim Couch and Wenger report to Council? Jim Couch serves at the pleasure of Council. Just who does ODOT believe they should answer to? This is ridiculous.

Don't forget Sen. Al McAffrey in your letters / emails. This boulevard plan lies in his Senate district. I suspect he would be responsive to citizen concerns.

Reading Speck's book changed my entire perspective about urban design some years ago when I was in San Francisco. I appreciate the post. It is "spot on."

http://newsok.com/maps-3-subcommittee-seeks-transit-considerations-on-boulevard-project/article/3695736?custom_click=pod_headline_politics

So Steve, in your blog piece you suggest ODOT will not listen to Council. Don't Jim Couch and Wenger report to Council? Jim Couch serves at the pleasure of Council. Just who does ODOT believe they should answer to? This is ridiculous.

None of the Council members have "PE" behind their name; Couch, Clowers, and Wenger do (although Couch doesn't put his PE after his name now). The civil engineering community in OK is largely still run in the old school mentality of "engineers know best", above and beyond what the little people can understand. Therefore, PEs follow PEs and no one else. That's my snide, off-hand comment.

There's nothing snide about your comment at all. It's the truth.

The Council is supposed to make policy and it is the job of the City Manager to carry it out. This particular debate illustrates how glaringly obvious it is that the City Manager and the Council often role-reversed.

He is trying to sell the Council on ODOT's design, when he and his staff should be trying to sell ODOT on what the Council wants.

And Tuesday is their chance to really clarify what it is that they want and whether they will stand up for the citizens that elected them.

On Tuesday everyone in this thread will have the opportunity to REALLY have their voices heard or not go and then gripe about the outcome. I understand people have jobs, etc. But don't be fooled - I'm told citizen turn-out Tuesday on this topic likely will determine whether the city council gives a new instruction to Couch.

On Tuesday everyone in this thread will have the opportunity to REALLY have their voices heard or not go and then gripe about the outcome. I understand people have jobs, etc. But don't be fooled - I'm told citizen turn-out Tuesday on this topic likely will determine whether the city council gives a new instruction to Couch.

What time?

The meeting starts at 8:30 a.m. The question is whether the presentation will be the start or end of the meeting - which I don't know. Usually they don't get to starting the real biz of the meeting until 8:45 after they go through prayer, resolutions, etc.

City Council meetings start at 8:30. Presumably, this is a City Manager Report. Depending on the size of their docket, it will probably come up around 9:30 AM.

Exactly right Steve.

The Council Agenda will be published later this afternoon. That should give an idea of what the schedule might look like and whether there is anything else contentious beforehand. Should be interesting also to look at Eric Wenger's presentation.

Here is the facebook event page for this ABSOLUTELY critical City Council meeting... PLEASE COME!

http://www.facebook.com/events/331744983579275/?ref=notif&notif_t=plan_user_joined

Just curious (translation: brain toot kind of day.) Can a govt. entity reorder an agenda after its is published, e.g., set something at the tail end of the agenda and then decide day of meeting it needs to be taken it up earlier due to some need, e.g., to accommodate someone's changed availability?

Just curious (translation: brain toot kind of day.) Can a govt. entity reorder an agenda after its is published, e.g., set something at the tail end of the agenda and then decide day of meeting it needs to be taken it up earlier due to some need, e.g., to accommodate someone's changed availability?

yes they can change the agenda order on the day of meeting

Anybody see the Journal Record today?

Anybody see the Journal Record today?

I tried... but I'm not a subscriber, so I couldn't look.

Great article Andrew! Just bought a copy and it is the full front page of the B Section. Nice story angle too about the architectural aspects being promoted as an idea. Between Steve, Clifton, Michael, and Brianna the Oklahoman, Gazette, and Journal Record are doing a stellar job covering all angles of this debate. Many thanks to all of you!

I see that Ed Shadid, Kristin Vails ( Plaza District ) and others are pushing this public discussion on August 13. But Steve seems emphatic that the best time to influence the City Council will be Tuesday. Hopefully that chamber will be packed in a visible sign of opposition to this fiasco. The City Council members should be on notice that this is not a small incident, and their leadership or lack of leadership on this issue will be remembered.

The planned public discussion is a great thing, but people need to be at the City Council meeting Tuesday if they can. Steve said in a chat today that the City Council members are being lobbied hard (by Couch) behind the scenes to go along with ODOT's plan.

Here's a nice meaty piece of steak for you guys to feast on. Have fun!
http://newsok.com/oklahoma-city-group-questions-highway-engineers-roundabout-design/article/3696173

Excellent!

J*s*s!..

Thanks Steve!

Oh - - my - - goodness. I had to read that twice.....

Litigation anyone ?

I hope it doesn't come to that. Surely this can be resolved without having to go that route? I suppose the City Council's action will decide that though.

I had to read that again too.