What about merging the boulevard with Reno just east of Classen (?) and connecting Reno with I-40 at Penn. Then restore the street grid in the old I-40 right of way directly north of this merged section and sell that land off for redevelopment.
Thoughts??

I like the first part. Reno can definitely support a lot more traffic from Penn to Western. But they wont want to build any more flyovers than absolutely necessary, too expensive. Is that how you want Reno connected with I-40? Because it's already connected via Penn, isn't it?

Flyover connectors on the west end of the boulevard project have already been in the process of being constructed and they're working on the east end as we type.

I think you use the eastbound flyover already built at Penn and run it into Reno on a simple T intersection. Then use a ramp from westbound Reno in the same vicinity to shift traffic up onto one of the "old" I40 bridges over the rail line and then merge into Westbound I40. Then you widen Reno to six lanes, or install center turn lanes along the combined Blvd/Reno length.

You can't do it..the grade would be at 45% after clearance over the railroad tracks. Also, Reno is closed east of Agnew right now while they're tearing out the steel beams over the street and tracks.

Hmmm..... which part? It is hard to get a good idea of grade from Google Earth and my memory of the topography in that area is not very detailed..... and that Penn flyover is pretty high. I might drive down there in a few minutes to better understand the differences in grade required to transition to the various roadways....

You can't do it..the grade would be at 45% after clearance over the railroad tracks. Also, Reno is closed east of Agnew right now while they're tearing out the steel beams over the street and tracks.

And thats just for the eastbound ramp. The westbound ramp is in the completely wrong spot to have an intersection at Reno and there is even less room between Reno and the railroad tracks.


Its too late to do anything about this particular stretch from Penn to Western. In the future, this stretch can be converted to be grade level. That is if if an investment is made to remove the big mound of dirt the road will sit on. It also depends if the elevated bridge starting at western can be removed from the plans.

Note: Connecting to Reno would have been easy if this was the plan from the get go and the orientation of the ramps were set to intersect Reno futher east where there is more room.

Its too late to do anything about this particular stretch from Penn to Western. In the future, this stretch can be converted to be grade level. That is if if an investment is made to remove the big mound of dirt the road will sit on.

So you have resigned to the fate of Oklahoma City having the world's shortest boulevard? Because anything not at grade just isn't a boulevard. Some real Orwellian mind tricks Cornett/Couch/Wenger are playing. People have to wonder if it would have turned out differently with Shadid as mayor.

So you have resigned to the fate of Oklahoma City having the world's shortest boulevard? Because anything not at grade just isn't a boulevard. Some real Orwellian mind tricks Cornett/Couch/Wenger are playing. People have to wonder if it would have turned out differently with Shadid as mayor.

Have you not been down there? He's saying that from the ramps to just north of Reno, where it connects into the old I-40 alignment, that it's too late for anything to be done.

It's not too late to do anything east of there, such as lowering the berm to ground level. I think if ODOT and the city were smart they could do this, install a traffic circle and keep everything on the ground except for the portion just to the east of the riverboat canal. But of course, they have to make engineering hard.

So you have resigned to the fate of Oklahoma City having the world's shortest boulevard? Because anything not at grade just isn't a boulevard. Some real Orwellian mind tricks Cornett/Couch/Wenger are playing. People have to wonder if it would have turned out differently with Shadid as mayor.

Its already 70% built. Good luck to you if you want to try to campaign to have those newly built piers demolished.

http://img594.imageshack.us/img594/8831/atgradeidea.jpg

This is modifying the "slip lane" idea that Steve posted on his blog.

There are three intersections Western, Reno, and Lee. Right turn only lanes will allow Eastbound traffic to go south on Classen and Shartel. Westbound traffic has right turn only lanes that allow traffic to go north on Classen and Shartel. Lee takes over some of the duties that Shartel had.

And really you can use your imagination on what type of interchange is at Reno could be traditional, roundabout, etc.

The only bridge piers that were there when I last went by were the flyover from I40 East over to the north side of the interstate. It would be silly to demolish something already built, that is why I hope(d) that flyover could be used to intersect with Reno. It may not be a workable solution, but it would get the darn boulevard out of the sky which is my primary goal.

Anything less than that is a loss in my opinion, and we can talk about roundabouts, etc when the detailed plans for the intersections are designed. I like the idea of using roundabouts where appropriate - I even thought if my idea was feasible, maybe the roundabout adjacent to the arena, CC, and Park could be part of the design. I am trying to think of ways that will keep the majority of the boulevard at ground level in its entirety.

The only bridge piers that were there when I last went by were the flyover from I40 East over to the north side of the interstate. It would be silly to demolish something already built, that is why I hope(d) that flyover could be used to intersect with Reno. It may not be a workable solution, but it would get the darn boulevard out of the sky which is my primary goal.

Anything less than that is a loss in my opinion, and we can talk about roundabouts, etc when the detailed plans for the intersections are designed. I like the idea of using roundabouts where appropriate - I even thought if my idea was feasible, maybe the roundabout adjacent to the arena, CC, and Park could be part of the design. I am trying to think of ways that will keep the majority of the boulevard at ground level in its entirety.

Eventually, those recycled bridges along the "elevated berm" will have to be replaced and that would be a great time to lower everything between Penn and Western. Once the bridge structure between Western and Walker gets built though it will be there for a Loooong time.....

We have to pick our battles and that's where it has to be: Western to Walker.

I agree on the primary battle, but always look for alternatives that may help us in achieving the main goal.

Just watched Bob on news 9. Eric looks like he needs some sleep. Lol

Probably catching hell from all directions.....and now they are using traffic after Thunder games as a "top priority" to justify the capacity they claim is required? (That was the last quote from Wenger stated by Christina Eckert.)

Even if every person who attended a Thunder game used the boulevard, and most won't because there is very little parking adjacent to the boulevard, that's only 18,000 people, most of whom are sharing the car with at least one other person. So, we're down to 9,000 cars max for 10 to 20 minutes. Then, I would guess well over half of the people attending a Thunder game live north of the Chesapeake Arena and will use the Broadway Extension to get home. The 25 mph speed limit will discourage many others from using it. I would be shocked if anywhere near a thousand cars would utilize the boulevard to get home from a Thunder game.

There are 41 home games, which means that 324 days of the year you don't even have that kind of traffic.

Wenger is really digging in on this issue. It's obvious he's not considering ANY alternatives. Who's pulling his strings (besides Couch)? Clay Bennett? Cornett? The mind wanders.

http://newsok.com/oklahoma-legislators-monitor-downtown-oklahoma-city-boulevard-debate/article/3696821

http://newsok.com/boulevard-fight-represents-divide-between-traditional-road-design-modern-urban-planning/article/3696824

Just another weak, disingenuous justification for a poor design when there are obviously better alternatives - makes no sense and is unfortunate. I do not envy Mr Wenger at all.

We need a new City Manager -- one who will listen to constituent concerns. The tail is wagging the dog right now. If the City Council has any dignity, it will give Couch the smackdown tomorrow. It's absurd that we have major-league ambitions as a city and yet our city manager has no apparent concern for sensible urban planning and is clueless when it comes to promoting economic development.

http://www.news9.com/story/19152202/city-council-to-get-update-on-controversial-okc-boulevard-project

News 9 Article

We need a new City Manager -- one who will listen to constituent concerns. The tail is wagging the dog right now. If the City Council has any dignity, it will give Couch the smackdown tomorrow. It's absurd that we have major-league ambitions as a city and yet our city manager has no apparent concern for sensible urban planning and is clueless when it comes to promoting economic development.

You guys know I want to see Couch gone more than anyone on here, but I'll be honest - I don't know how much of a finger to point at him when I go and speak tomorrow, because contrary to popular opinion, I actually try to be extremely polite and tactful in person. Cornett does a lot of things that tick me off but I'm always very gracious, even if he cuts me off and suggests I give up another Tuesday morning next week...

It is more difficult for me to call for the guy to be fired with him staring right down at me than it is for me to make a damn-good argument on here or on my blog.

Also below grade (up to 8 feet) from somewhere east of Robinson to Compress or Oklahoma.

keep in mind that the entire road in both directions will be lowered including the sidewalks on the west side of the rail road bridge... and also only 1 corner of that intersection is develop able and that side will be the level of the street as well ..

east of the rail road bridge north and south of the blvd could also be lowered if it was to be developed to be right next to the road ..

so the "below grade" is not really a big deal

This is an idea that just occurred to me looking at that map. What about merging the boulevard with Reno just east of Classen (?) and connecting Reno with I-40 at Penn. Then restore the street grid in the old I-40 right of way directly north of this merged section and sell that land off for redevelopment.

This would do several things:
1) reduce the costs significantly
2) completely eliminate the raised road debate
3) provide the city with some revenue from the sale of the land
4) provide the traffic counts the Market district needs to develop, and
5) leave enough funding to really make the boulevard section fit the ideal we were all promised.

Thoughts??



that would not reduce cost .. a good part of that portion of the blvd does not need to be rebuilt

the city doesn't own the land that would be sold the state does

the city doesn't own the land that would be sold the state does

Since the state is going to hand it over to the city once the road is built, is it not a safe assumption they will do so even if the boulevard is shifted slightly south? I still think cost would be reduced by combining that portion of Reno and the Blvd - and I may be incorrect in that assumption. This idea may not be workable in totality, but parts of it could be an at-grade alternative to another elevated freeway.

For what its worth, from Mr. Wenger's reply to my question:


The information that will be presented to the City Council tomorrow I believe will be very helpful in understanding the overall timeline of the Boulevard project. The relocation of I-40/boulevard project actually began in 1995 with a Project Study, and progressed with a series of reports including Environmental Impact Studies in 1998 and a Record of Decision by the Federal Highway Administration in May 2002. The Record of Decision which includes a project description is as follows:

"The selected alternative will provide a six-lane at-grade boulevard in the existing I-40 right-of-way from east of the Union Pacific tracks at the I-235 interchange to west of Walker Avenue. From west of Walker to Western Avenue, the existing I-40 bridge structure will be rehabilitated. From Western Avenue, west to Agnew Avenue, the existing facility will be converted to a divided boulevard."

I believe the mis-understanding of the at-grade boulevard is in this statement. Elevated portions have always been planned, but as a part of the current design process, the City recognizes that many things have changed in the last 10 years. Development in downtown Oklahoma City has progressed tremendously with the completion of the original MAPS projects, private development projects have occurred throughout downtown, Project 180 work is progressing and now the MAPS 3 projects are beginning. We are working closely with ODOT to ensure the new boulevard meets the City's current and future needs while promoting future development, walkability and raising the quality of downtown. ODOT has been very responsive to the City and our requests to evaluate a number of design options, and no decisions on the final design have been made. They have also suspended work on several areas of the project at the City's request to allow more time for the consideration of additional options and further evaluation. We fully expect to consider all possibilities, and the final design to be the best solution for each of the boulevard sections to be constructed.

My reading of his quoted description makes it sound like it is at grade, then elevated, then back at grade (but divided)???

This is an idea that just occurred to me looking at that map. What about merging the boulevard with Reno just east of Classen (?) and connecting Reno with I-40 at Penn. Then restore the street grid in the old I-40 right of way directly north of this merged section and sell that land off for redevelopment.

This would do several things:
1) reduce the costs significantly
2) completely eliminate the raised road debate
3) provide the city with some revenue from the sale of the land
4) provide the traffic counts the Market district needs to develop, and
5) leave enough funding to really make the boulevard section fit the ideal we were all promised.

Thoughts??
I am with you and have suggested that for a few years now...the response back from the City, has been....well...what we have seen in the thread.

No need to point a finger Spartan, nor any need to call for someone's head on a pike. Either would be quite counter-productive.
When yer up to yer arse in gators, it may be hard to remember the mission is to drain the swamp, but just stay focused on the mission - a better blvd., at grade, that permits new and exciting opportunities for development and growth that just can't occur with having a blvd only at a few blocks by the arena, park and cc due to what is already being established there. OKC has seen what an elevated barrier does. There is no need to compound that mistake by keeping a large portion of the roadway as elevated.

As to Thunder traffic being a priority, oh ferdaluvofmickneric already! It's a city of hundreds of thousands who need good access 365 days a year, not 40 odd evenings for 30 minutes or so. It's too silly a suggestion to be treated seriously by the council, or even team ownership for that matter, and it ought to be dismissed outright as a mistake and nothing more.

Again, drain the swamp. If the gators later die from the change in their natural habitat, it happens, but that is not the goal de jure.

Please update this thread with impressions from the meeting ASAP. I'm out of town and regrettably couldn't make it down for the meeting. I will absolutely be there in August, even if I have to skip class.

Please update this thread with impressions from the meeting ASAP. I'm out of town and regrettably couldn't make it down for the meeting. I will absolutely be there in August, even if I have to skip class.

don't know if you have internet access today .. but you can watch online at OKC.gov

You might want to add green for the depressed part under the tracks. As proposed the 'boulevard' will have 3 blocks of at-grade road surface. On the north side of those 3 blocks in the new convention center. On the south side of those 3 blocks is Central Park. Not exactly a lot of room for anything else.

As to Thunder traffic being a priority, oh ferdaluvofmickneric already! It's a city of hundreds of thousands who need good access 365 days a year, not 40 odd evenings for 30 minutes or so. It's too silly a suggestion to be treated seriously by the council, or even team ownership for that matter, and it ought to be dismissed outright as a mistake and nothing more.

Thunder traffic is a red herring, the vast majority coming from the west and parking downtown would probably getting off at Shields/EKG as it has much less city street driving between it and the parking garages, sure some may take it to avoid the main traffic in and out of the city. The boulevard provides easier access to the west side of town for those coming from the west and east side access for those coming from the east but a nicer city street is not going to get people to take three times as much city street distance (or couple miles of slower quazi-interstate with just as much city street distance) verses the closest exit most of the time though.

Man, the engineers and ODOT just keep spreading the BS around. Relieve traffic before and after Thunder games? Really? By making people walk from the arena to Bricktown and the drive back by the arena where other people are still leaving. I knew they thought we (the little people) were stupid, but surely they can't think we are THAT stupid. Can they?

The elevated road is a solution in search of a problem.

... The elevated road is a solution in search of a problem.

Assuming the 2002 Record of Decision statement (as quoted from a EW email in a recent post) is accurate, and I've no reason to think otherwise, the the elevated roadway isn't a solution in search of a problem. It is a once simple, but ill-advised, solution that while perhaps once seen as cost-effective is now even more ill-advised. There is now a revitalized interest in the growth of inner OKC after decades of inner city division and neglect. So much has changed since the 90's and even since the 2002 Record fo Decision that to not reexamine prior thoughts in like of the remarkable growth and investment is akin to forfeiting investment and growth opportunities in the western core of DT before even trying.

While it was never a fab idea, it was a make-do and probably less expensive idea to try and reuse whatever could be reused. However, that OKC is not the OKC of today, and decisions in 2012 should not proceed as though it is still 2002.

I knew they thought we (the little people) were stupid, but surely they can't think we are THAT stupid. Can they?



Yes

What's the consensus on how the meeting went?

I felt it went well. The city made the decision to hire a consultant to evaluate alternatives. I was alarmed by Couch's remark that the consultant be yet another traffic engineer, so after that we had an opportunity to stress that we need more diverse perspectives than just a consensus of every traffic engineer west of the Mississippi. I kinda bungled my comment into a joke that we have enough traffic engineers present, but Bob Kemper was very on-target in stressing it needed to be someone with experience designing enhanced boulevards with complete streetscape programming.

Pat Ryan and Skip Kelly were visibly perturbed that we lowly citizens would dare want to be involved and accused us of jumping to conclusions, but Ed Shadid was brilliant, Gary Marrs was even fairly receptive to what we were saying (which is saying a lot), and to be fair to Pat he did lay out the parameters that both sides will need to compromise. I would almost just chalk Pat and Skip's comments up to them not being used to having a huge snafu like this every week. Our turnout was impressive, and the media were all over us.

Awesome job guys!

That's citizen activism at it's finest.

Great job to everyone who went! This could be a great win for OKC, and really say something about the kind of city we want going forward.

It also demonstrates how badly we need intervention when it comes to the Couch/Wenger block.

I've become very, very uncomfortable with both of them as there have now been multiple times where they have emphatically stated things as fact which turned out to be not-so-subtle manipulations of the truth.

I should be on KOCO, too. I think Jeff may be also. I'll be bouncing back and forth between channel 5 and 9 to see the whole picture of coverage, but I'll bet it's pretty favorable toward a better boulevard. I can only imagine what kind of car-jacking or multi-homicides we'll be wedged in between... lol

...and to be fair to Pat he did lay out the parameters that both sides will need to compromise.

What does 'compromise' even mean in this situtation? An elevated traffic circle?

What does 'compromise' even mean in this situtation? An elevated traffic circle?

Yes, then us little people can walk underneath.....

What does 'compromise' even mean in this situtation? An elevated traffic circle?

Yeah, there were than a few chuckles when that one was presented...

Yes I couldn't help but chuckle when they pulled that one up. I think everyone in the room (in the audience anyway) was on the same page. One of the councilmen acknowledged at one point the collective nodding of heads from the audience, which there definitely was for the better part of the meeting.

Great job to everybody who attended and even more props to the ones who spoke... thank you for letting our voice be heard!

Does anyone have an estimate of how many people showed up to the meeting from the public?

I mean, it's not like one wants chocolate and the other want peanut butter and the compromise is delicious.

Make that News9..

When will they publish Eric Wenger's presentation?

Saw Nick Roberts on KOCO, lol...good job Nick, well spoken...

Did the Council tell ODOT/direct Couch or Wenger to tell ODOT to STOP...or at least a rolling stop???

I felt it went well. The city made the decision to hire a consultant to evaluate alternatives. I was alarmed by Couch's remark that the consultant be yet another traffic engineer, so after that we had an opportunity to stress that we need more diverse perspectives than just a consensus of every traffic engineer west of the Mississippi. I kinda bungled my comment into a joke that we have enough traffic engineers present, but Bob Kemper was very on-target in stressing it needed to be someone with experience designing enhanced boulevards with complete streetscape
Pat Ryan and Skip Kelly were visibly perturbed that we lowly citizens would dare want to be involved and accused us of jumping to conclusions, but Ed Shadid was brilliant, Gary Marrs was even fairly receptive to what we were saying (which is saying a lot), and to be fair to Pat he did lay out the parameters that both sides will need to compromise. I would almost just chalk Pat and Skip's comments up to them not being used to having a huge snafu like this every week. Our turnout was impressive, and the media were all over us.

Ditto Spartan...can I say that?

The turn out was good and I want to thank everyone who came and to those who spoke on our vision for the boulevard. We had a coversation today that could not have happened just one month ago. As far as a compromise, the only compromise its wether the Boulevard will be elevated or not. Going grade level, is the compromise. What ever the outcome, we will have a much better boulevard as a result of your interest, efforts, ideas and conversation. Thanks again to all.

One more thing: please show up for our "Town Hall", "Highway to Boulevard","Expo and Symposium" August 13th. We will have a complete program of which details will be posted as soon as they are confirmed and in place.

http://www.news9.com/story/19162449/oklahomans-express-concerns-on-okc-boulevard-project

ODOT will continue with the I-40 connectivety on the east and west, but for all ntents and puposes, they are hands off on the elevated and the Dowtown core section...for the time..until OKC makes a study of alternatives. It was not a "stop" order but more of an understanding. I could be wrong but that was my take-a-way.

Also, Mr. Wenger seemed to be of the opinion that all of this "backlash" is because we haven't seen the renderings of what they are proposing. Did he have any renderings in this presentation (did someone say they had a rendering of an elevated traffic circle?) Did those renderings convince anyone here that we have it all wrong?


SouthwestAviator: how can they continue with the connectivity if they don't know what they are connecting with (elevated or at grade)? The post right above yours mentioned it starting the 1st of next year but earlier reports said ODOT was bidding out some part of this in August?

Also, Mr. Wenger seemed to be of the opinion that all of this "backlash" is because we haven't seen the renderings of what they are proposing. Did he have any renderings in this presentation (did someone say they had a rendering of an elevated traffic circle?) Did those renderings convince anyone here that we have it all wrong?


SouthwestAviator: how can they continue with the connectivity if they don't know what they are connecting with (elevated or at grade)? The post right above yours mentioned it starting the 1st of next year but earlier reports said ODOT was bidding out some part of this in August?

The area of focus was the Western to Walker section so unless I misunderstood this is the area that will see additional studies along with the central section. (Note: the area of construction will stop at the Sheridan and Reno on and off ramps, so there is plenty of space to lower it to grade before reaching Western).

And the renderings were worse than I expected. It literally built a wall through the area with several bridges and retaining walls. Its was a mini version of the railroad tracks that separate downtown and Bricktown.

Also, Mr. Wenger seemed to be of the opinion that all of this "backlash" is because we haven't seen the renderings of what they are proposing. Did he have any renderings in this presentation (did someone say they had a rendering of an elevated traffic circle?) Did those renderings convince anyone here that we have it all wrong?


SouthwestAviator: how can they continue with the connectivity if they don't know what they are connecting with (elevated or at grade)? The post right above yours mentioned it starting the 1st of next year but earlier reports said ODOT was bidding out some part of this in August?

It is not like we do not know what an elevated road looks like, no matter how they do the rendering, it will not change why most of the people against a flyover are against it.

It is not like we do not know what an elevated road looks like, no matter how they do the rendering, it will not change why most of the people against a flyover are against it.

"Hey look! That flyover bridge has Buffalos painted on it. I think I will change my opinion"

It is not like we do not know what an elevated road looks like, no matter how they do the rendering, it will not change why most of the people against a flyover are against it.
Actually, the renderings we were shown today show an elevated platform not dissimilar to the railroad viaduct we have down Shields/E.k. Gaylord. Not just a simple bridge.