Just as a heads up, I will be on Gwin Falconer-Lippert's radio show to talk about boulevard design and urban activism next weekend (not this weekend).

Just out of curiosity, is it your plan to stay in OKC and help it become a better city or will you move to another city and do the same there? It'd be nice if people like you stayed so we'd be able to push these people that can't think outside of the box out of office.

That's the only way OKC is ever going to get better.

Stuff you all probably already know, but I can never be too sure:

http://www.okladot.state.ok.us/newsmedia/press/2012/Adv_080212_public_meeting_set_on_Aug_21_for_okc_bo ulevard.pdf
1963

Just out of curiosity, is it your plan to stay in OKC and help it become a better city or will you move to another city and do the same there? It'd be nice if people like you stayed so we'd be able to push these people that can't think outside of the box out of office.

That's the only way OKC is ever going to get better.

Hybrid. My plan is to move to Cleveland in a few weeks, where I already have a job, kick ass there, maybe kick ass somewhere else, and then come back to OKC and kick ass for the rest of my life.

I have been thinking a lot about the boulevard the last several days. You know, looking at ODOT's plans I think it is so obvious that an elevated roadway is the absolute worst thing that could happen to downtown OKC... it isn't even funny how obvious it is. I mean it is such a bad idea I think for the first time in my life I saw all the nuts who post on NewsOK getting along and agreeing with each other on all the boulevard articles that Steve has written lately. That is really saying something. I don't understand how ODOT can't see that. So the question is, do they see it and they just don't want to have to deal with schedule delays, or are they just so engineering-minded and utilitarian in their approach that they can't possibly see what is so obvious. No offense, but when you look around at how ugly so many facets of this state are, one tends to think the problem is simply the blase mindset of a state bureaucrat.

Now for as much as I agree with the "Friends" movement on all of that, I have to say that I am entirely not jazzed about the concept of a roundabout or traffic circle or whatever downtown. I have driven in many, including the largest one in North America that is out in Southern California, so my issue isn't one of unfamiliarity. I've been trying to put my finger on why my gut doesn't like the idea for some time now. I think I finally came to grips with it this afternoon.

Oklahoma has some horrible drivers. Out of all the states I have driven in, the two that I feel like you never know what the heck someone around you might do are New Mexico and Oklahoma. It's a weird mix of overly-cautious and completely oblivious people, a perfect storm of traffic collision probability. And the nexus of it always involves yield signs! Getting on the highway, getting off the highway, roads the merge and one or both have a yield sign... think about it, that is always where Oklahoma's worst drivers are on display, either stopping when they shouldn't or barreling down a roadway when they should be stopping.

It dawns on me this is why I despise Oklahoma roundabouts. I am always concerned I'll be hit from behind, or from the side as I get on, or from the other side as someone else tries to barrel on. It's a yielding nightmare where you have to watch from all directions. I don't feel this apprehension in other places with roundabouts that I've driven because I guess I trust the drivers in those other states more.

I know this is probably a weird rantish post, but I wanted to bring it up because I have a lot of friends who are equally underwhelmed with the idea of circles but can't exactly express why. I feel like if the "Friends" group hangs their hat on the traffic circle idea, this may not be such a great thing for the movement in general. Just a few years ago OKC was bragging about removing the last of its old traffic circles that people incessantly complained about.

Just saying I wish there were some more options identified....

I have yet to have a conversation with anyone, no matter their age, sex, political affiliation or any other variable whose reaction to the idea an elevated portion of the boulevard wasn't negative. The closest thing I've found to an agreement was one person who said they never go downtown so they don't care.

So the question is, do they see it and they just don't want to have to deal with schedule delays, or are they just so engineering-minded and utilitarian in their approach that they can't possibly see what is so obvious.

Engineers are not known for creativity. They go 100% by published guidelines from others in the traffic engineering world. They are taught that cars are like water flowing through a pipe, the bigger and straighter the pipe the more water that can flow through it. Anything that slows that water down is an obstacle that must be overcome, or better yet, eliminated.

All they know are roads.

xmDjcvpVh2M

Talked to more public works contractors today, include typical ODOT construction guys. NO ONE likes this.

I wanted to take the time to synthesize all of the real-life examples being thrown out in this thread.

Ben Franklin Pkwy - Philly (I WANT!!)
http://z.about.com/d/philadelphia/1/0/G/b/parkway1.jpg

Avenue of the Arts - Philly (Boston Ave Tulsa??)
http://images.fineartamerica.com/images-medium-large/broad-street-avenue-of-the-arts-bill-cannon.jpg

Octavia Boulevard - SF
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/4e/San_Francisco-Octavia_Boulevard.jpg

Peachtree Boulevard - Atlanta (I think a better example for rescuing the NW Expressway)
http://www.brookwoodgroup.com/graphics/news/bloom_001.jpg

Rose Kennedy Greenway - Boston (fwy removal project)
http://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/314008_4382094950782_843753333_n.jpg


I also wanted to point out that the APA has a "Great Streets" award as well, which obviously OKC has never won unlike the neighborhood award. Since 2007, here are the APA's Great Streets:

2007 (http://www.planning.org/greatplaces/streets/2007/)
Bull Street - Savannah, GA
Michigan Avenue - Chicago, IL
Canyon Road - Santa Fe, NM
Delmar Loop - Univ City/St. Louis, MO
Ocean Drive - Miami Beach, FL
125th Street - New York, NY
St. Charles Avenue - New Orleans, LA
South Temple Street - Salt Lake City, UT
Monument Avenue - Richmond, VA
Main Street - Northampton, MA

2008 (http://www.planning.org/greatplaces/streets/2008/)
7th Avenue - Tampa (Ybor City), FL
Broad Street - Philadelphia, PA
Clarendon/Wilson boulevards - Arlington, VA
Commercial Street - Portland, ME
Main Street - Annapolis, MD
Mill Avenue - Tempe, AZ
South El Paso Street - El Paso, TX
Summit Avenue - St. Paul, MN
Washington Street - Boston, MA
West Main Street - Louisville, KY

2009 (http://www.planning.org/greatplaces/streets/2009/)
Broadway Street - Skagway, AK
President Clinton Avenue (E. Markham St.) - Little Rock, AR
Front Street - Bath, ME
South Main Street - Ann Arbor, MI
Front Street - Traverse City, MI
Haddon Avenue - Collingswood, NJ
Main Street - Greenville, SC
Duke of Gloucester Street - Williamsburg, VA
North Main Street - Wheeling, WV
East Newberry Boulevard - Milwaukee, WI

2010 (http://www.planning.org/greatplaces/streets/2010/)
Spring Street - Eureka Springs, AR
5th Avenue (Gaslamp) - San Diego, SD
Bank Street - Wallace, ID
Massachusetts Street - Lawrence, KS
Wydown Boulevard - Clayton, MO
Broadway Avenue - Red Lodge, MT
Washington Street - Hoboken, NJ
Middle Street - New Bern, NC
Liberty Street - Franklin, PA
Washington Street - Middleburg, VA

And the latest, 2011 (http://www.planning.org/greatplaces/streets/characteristics.htm)
Santa Monica Boulevard - West Hollywood, CA
U Street N.W. - Washington, DC
Front Street - Lahaina, HI
Main Street - Galena, IL
Main Street - Nantucket, MA
Washington Avenue - St. Louis, MO
Market Street - Portsmouth, NH
Davis Street - Culpeper, VA
King Street - Alexandria, VA
Downtown Woodstock Streetscape - Woodstock, VT

That's funny! But probably closer to the truth than we want to think...

btw, I watched the doc you recommended....I haven't written you back as there's so much to say...but just WOW. I actually was going to see that at OKCMOA during urbanology but didn't realize it was the same film until I started watching it. I didn't get to catch that one at Urbanology, so I watched it on Netflix and THANKS for recommending!

Hey Mike - we were actually graced in the audience with a gentleman who had recently moved to downtown OKC, into the Legacy at Arts Quarter, who actually grew up in Pruitt-Igoe in STL and it was interesting to get his perspective growing up there. It really accentuated the point that a lot of people overcame that environment. I think having lived in STL, you would have gotten a kick out of that..

Engineers are not known for creativity. They go 100% by published guidelines from others in the traffic engineering world. They are taught that cars are like water flowing through a pipe, the bigger and straighter the pipe the more water that can flow through it. Anything that slows that water down is an obstacle that must be overcome, or better yet, eliminated.

All they know are roads.

xmDjcvpVh2M

What troubles me is all they talked about were highways for a transportation engineer. The need to change the title to the position and department to end with road or highway. As a nation we desperately need to get away from being highway/car centric - these will never go away, nor should they, but we have indeed become slaves to the very invention that was supposed to give us more freedom.

Then we can start talking about aesthetics, city streetscape, urbanism, etc and watch their eyes glaze over simply because it is unfamiliar territory for them. Hell - I had never heard of New Urbanism until I started keeping up with events on here and started readng "Suburban Nation' and I consider myself fairly well read and informed. Contrast the work ODOT is doing at I44/235 with the boulevard. Two very different situations, yet one solution. It is clear they are very good at highways but lack expertise in how highways affect urban areas. This is why there was a need for citizen advocacy to our elected leaders to reassess what the otherwise very talented engineers had planned for the boulevard.

Peachtree Boulevard - Atlanta (I think a better example for rescuing the NW Expressway)
http://www.brookwoodgroup.com/graphics/news/bloom_001.jpg


I had never considered what to do about NW Expwy, but you are 100% on target. That fits very well there, but for the love of God, not the boulevard! Once you get past Midtown ATL, Peachtree is a nightmare for an 'urban' street.

I know this is probably a weird rantish post, but I wanted to bring it up because I have a lot of friends who are equally underwhelmed with the idea of circles but can't exactly express why. I feel like if the "Friends" group hangs their hat on the traffic circle idea, this may not be such a great thing for the movement in general. Just a few years ago OKC was bragging about removing the last of its old traffic circles that people incessantly complained about.

Just saying I wish there were some more options identified....

I don't think they have been hanging theirs hats on a traffic circle/ roundabout idea. They just don't want to see an elevated road.

I don't think they have been hanging theirs hats on a traffic circle/ roundabout idea. They just don't want to see an elevated road.

100% true. The 'Friends' group simply wants the city to reevaluate the elevated boulevard design. One alternative to the bridge and berm is to use roundabouts at intersections with greater than two streets. I believe I can safely state keeping the boulevard at grade is the number one priority of the group.

The main problem with Peachtree, and the reason you don't see many pedestrians is three fold. 1) Every building is built in a park (radiant), totally surrounded by green space. There is no continuous streetwall to encourage walking and there are constant curb cuts to allow cars into parking lots and hotel drop-off. 2) The buildings are setback from the street and most don't have easy access to the sidewalk. So even if you wanted to walk from a building to the one next door you either have to walk across 2 parking lots to use the sidewalk, or cut through a landscape barrier. 3) The roads are ridiculously wide and crossing them is very dangerous due to the high rates of speed and sheer volume of traffic.

This explains some of the resistance we experienced from city staff as we began asking questions about the boulevard. The mayor / city did a poor job communicating what the boulevard would actually be during the Core to Shore presentations. I am guilty of assuming what it would be without specifically seeking out the answer.

From the 2007 Boulevard Concept Report to OKC by URS Corp. -

"The proposed Boulevard, as defined by the lower-speed pedestrian-friendly section where traffic access is highest, extends from Walker Avenue to Oklahoma Avenue (about 3000 feet). The Boulevard will extend east and west from those intersections as a higher-speed expressway that connects back to I-40. This higher-speed portion of the roadway will feature three lanes in each direction and speeds of 45-55 mph. Especially to the west, it could use portions of the existing I-40 infrastructure between the Boulevard section and the connection to the realigned I-40."

This explains some of the resistance we experienced from city staff as we began asking questions about the boulevard. The mayor / city did a poor job communicating what the boulevard would actually be during the Core to Shore presentations. I am guilty of assuming what it would be without specifically seeking out the answer.

From the 2007 Boulevard Concept Report to OKC by URS Corp. -

"The proposed Boulevard, as defined by the lower-speed pedestrian-friendly section where traffic access is highest, extends from Walker Avenue to Oklahoma Avenue (about 3000 feet). The Boulevard will extend east and west from those intersections as a higher-speed expressway that connects back to I-40. This higher-speed portion of the roadway will feature three lanes in each direction and speeds of 45-55 mph. Especially to the west, it could use portions of the existing I-40 infrastructure between the Boulevard section and the connection to the realigned I-40."

I haven't seen any Core to Shore concepts for what could become of this western area even though its technically included in Core to Shore. They kind of just ignored it.

I agree. That is where I mistakenly assumed the boulevard would be at grade for its entire length. I included the Farmer's Market area in Core to Shore area but I think the city has a much narrower idea of what C2S is.

Maybe the FBB rally cry should be "Build a gateway not another getaway!"

Big events on the horizon!

Some quotes from today's OKC Central Chat Transcript with Steve Lackmeyer.

"ODOT keeps recommending Shields/Gaylord as the best route into downtown. Won't it have to be closed for old I-40 removal soon like the other N-S streets were? What will be the detour?" - Steve at 10:09

"Steve, you're right on target with questions that hit me as I drove under that surviving section of the Crosstown just yesterday. That entire section of E.K. Gaylord/Shields and the Boulevard also will be torn up for the new road to go under the BNSF tracks. One might wonder: is the limited access purposely designed by ODOT engineers playing into the urgency to turn the west boulevard connection into an elevated high speed, volume access point? These are questions that will be asked." -Steve Lackmeyer at 10:12

Some more..

"Steve, when we envisioned the boulevard during the MAPS process, we thought about a tree-lined street similar to Classen Blvd. When did it become a street capable of handling 90,000 cars a day?" - Guest at 10:07

"Good question. In 2010 I approached the Oklahoma Department of Transportation asking them to visit with me for an update on the boulevard project. At that time I was told there no designs prepared to discuss. This latest controversy over the boulevard design took place as city leaders first learned that the road being designed to come into downtown from the west resembled a high-speed freeway more than a boulevard. There seems to be a disconnect between the traffic engineers and interested residents and civic leaders as to what is desired in a new boulevard." - Steve Lackmeyer at 10:09

"30,000 cars per day is more accurate"- okcbrwr at 10:12

Okay, I'll take your word on it that they aren't hard over on the traffic circle idea. But guys, I'm just telling you of all the news coverage I watched, and all the images I have seen on the internet involving Friends or the council meeting earlier this week, they all involved traffic circles. So if that isn't your intent, then maybe you should tone that down a bit. If I were opposed to all of this, that is where I would hit you and I am sure I could be successful at taking you down a peg in the eyes of the public. That's all I'm saying.

I want you all to be successful....

Looking at those great photos that Spartan posted, it comes to mind once again at how... boring and utilitarian... the name that we chose for our boulevard is. I can't help but think we should have named it for some interesting facet of our city/state, and then tied some features of the boulevard into it. Like calling it Rose Rock Blvd. and lining the thing with an amazing number of roses. Not a great example but you get the point I am sure.

So if that isn't your intent, then maybe you should tone that down a bit. If I were opposed to all of this, that is where I would hit you and I am sure I could be successful at taking you down a peg in the eyes of the public. That's all I'm saying.

Unfortunately, we don't control the media. However, the media has been very kind to us. I do know for a fact that many of the traffic roundabout images that have been put on television and even the Journal Record were grabbed straight from OKC Talk or the Facebook page. With the exception of the crazy 10 legged ODOT proposal, which I guess came straight from them to make the idea of a roundabout design look crazy.

The issue is "at-grade" or "not at-grade." We have tried to avoid it being anything else, but... the roundabouts have this sort of hypnotic appeal that it is easy for people to immediately be drawn to that as the issue. Undoubtedly, the Reno, Classen, Western, and Exchange intersection is a huge crux of the debate and the roundabout is an easy resolution for a great many people in their minds and does deserve merit in being properly assessed by an expert.

But honestly, I don't think it has hurt us with the public or convinced the City-ODOT engineers any which way at all. I haven't found one negative comment about studying the overall Boulevard design further on any electronic site, and I haven't met any citizen who didn't think that an elevated design was a bad idea. I also haven't found any engineer involved in the project willing to properly assess all of the other concerns. It is cultural with many of them and the simply do not "get it." They will have to be told by an outside expert how to "do it."

So, not sure that the people involved in this campaign have done much wrong on the campaign part yet.

Questor-

Ah the news coverage showing traffic circles - those images were definitely NOT provided by FBB. That large 10 legged traffic circle was thrown out as an "alternative" by ODOT in their evaluation of the feasibility of incorporating roundabouts in the boulevard. Of course that abomination cannot possibly work.

This group favors the use of much smaller roundabouts IF (and only if) that is the best method for traffic control at a couple of key intersections. There are significant differences in a traffic circle and a roundabout notably the angle of entry and who has the right of way.

There is an informational meeting on August 13, at 6:30PM in the OKC Farmer's Market on S Klein. One of the speakers will be a traffic engineer with extensive experience in roundabout design and the proper use of them. If you can, come on down for what is sure to be an informative couple of hours.

Yes... all true Captain Dave. But we have also put out conceptuals for "slip lanes" and street closures. The group isn't made up of engineers and it doesn't have a clear cut resolution. But we do know, that with that much space, and the extra $15 million in the GO Bond issue specifically put there to supplement the Boulevard budget, we should be able to design a great solution.

It s just going to take outside experts trained in these matters and listening to people such as Russell Claus to incorporate all of the other needed elements. Traffic engineer alone cannot solve all the needs for a 21st Century city.

Come to the event at the Farmers' Market and hear some real experts give us some advice not just for the Boulevard, but how to rebuild our city in a more sensitive way other than building "Berlin Walls".

Indeed. My main goal is an at-grade boulevard for as close to the entire length as possible.

I guess you guys don't buy a lot of cars. :) Never counter-offer first. If all you want is an at-grade boulevard let ODOT propose that as the compromise. Personally, I think the debate STARTS at an at-grade boulevard and we work from there closer to what FBB proposed. If you have a negotiation line with three points (FBB ______ at-grade________ODOT), you don't start at at-grade, you let ODOT start at at-grade and keep the debate on your side of the midpoint.

JTF - You know what I meant! :D

Of course I would love to see some version of the iconic roundabouts and monuments part of the boulevard immediately, but if it is at grade at least those things can be added later. I want the whole iconic boulevard Mayor Cornett described as soon as possible - tree lined sidewalks and medians, tons of sidewalk furniture, wide median, narrow lanes, low speed limits, wide sidewalks, high quality lamp posts etc, streetcar prep included, roundabout and fountain at the arena and park - ALL this. But the basic requirement to have all this is for the boulevard to be at grade the maximum length of possible within the budget available. I think we can do MUCH better than presently proposed.

I guess you guys don't buy a lot of cars. :) Never counter-offer first. If all you want is an at-grade boulevard let ODOT propose that as the compromise. Personally, I think the debate STARTS at an at-grade boulevard and we work from there closer to what FBB proposed. If you have a negotiation line with three points (FBB ______ at-grade________ODOT), you don't start at at-grade, you let ODOT start at at-grade and keep the debate on your side of the midpoint.

I don't buy new cars because they majorly depreciate after you drive them off the lot. This car hasn't even gotten to the lot and it's 75% depreciated. ODOT has a lot of dressing to do to sell that POS.

I guess you guys don't buy a lot of cars. :) Never counter-offer first. If all you want is an at-grade boulevard let ODOT propose that as the compromise. Personally, I think the debate STARTS at an at-grade boulevard and we work from there closer to what FBB proposed. If you have a negotiation line with three points (FBB ______ at-grade________ODOT), you don't start at at-grade, you let ODOT start at at-grade and keep the debate on your side of the midpoint.

Of course that only works when your spouse supports you. Our spouse is the city.........

Steve posted this in his blog and it's interesting for those who have a couple of hours to watch.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73UsUJDJtWQ

I don't buy new cars because they majorly depreciate after you drive them off the lot. This car hasn't even gotten to the lot and it's 75% depreciated. ODOT has a lot of dressing to do to sell that POS.

I'm not singling you out, but from what I understand, this is not ODOT imposing a design on the city. This is ODOT providing the design they were asked to provide. Let's remember who has veto rights -- and who is the customer -- OKC. ODOT has made this clear. The reason we're in the predicament we're in is because the representatives of our city: mayor, city manager, public works, etc. asked for this design. If you want change, you need to direct your energies and activism toward the only people who can change it: our city manager (who signed off on this concept) and our City Council (the only body our city manager answers to).

I just watched the entire thing, and I have to say, Meg Salyer's comment about the roundabout not being "pedestrian friendly" was a ridiculous shot across the bow. It's ridiculous, it's wrong, and it seemed contrived, almost like GOP talking points on FOX News. What is she talking about? I've personally crossed that intersection numerous times on foot and it's one of the few places in our city where I feel safe walking. Has she been to Dupont Circle in DC? Has she been to Europe? (I'm guessing "yes" on both counts). Has she crossed the intersection herself? She is very disappointing and she seems to be providing political cover for Couch, who comes across like a total weasel on all counts.

It was frustrating to watch as a citizen, thinking that these are the people making key decisions for our city. Other thoughts:

For his part, Wenger seems like a spin doctor (in an amateurish way).

Ryan: It was unnecessary for him to scold citizens for giving a flip about OKC and expressing their concerns. Who does he think he is?

Kelley: This guy should be ousted in the next election. He adds nothing and occupies a seat that could/should be held by an engaged, urban progressive.

Salyer: Represents what could be OKC's most progressive ward, yet she seems to provide cover to Jim Couch and appears annoyed by citizens getting involved (her comments about the alleged pedestrian unfriendliness of the roundabout at Walker and 10th were ridiculous, and, IMO, calculated).

Gary Marrs: Waste of space

Greenwell: milquetoast

Pete White: noticeably absent

Mayor: not impressed, although he at least didn't wade in with stupid comments like Meg

Russell Claus: Spineless sycophant. Does anyone believe it will take "30 years" before the west side of Downtown improves? We've witnessed remarkable improvement in the last 5 years, and with Film Row moving ahead of schedule, the Devon Tower complete, and the Main P180 project finally done, it's rather shocking that our director of city planning apparently has such low regard of our city that he would make such a negative public proclamation.

Altogether unimpressed with most of the City Council and looking forward to working on insurgent campaigns in the next election cycle. It's clear that many of them seemed annoyed that citizens care about this issue. Some of them dated themselves with their "old school OKC" behavior. Most of all, they seem to lack any vision of an urbanized, vital OKC. We need better representation from top to bottom.

I just watched the entire thing, and I have to say, Meg Salyer's comment about the roundabout not being "pedestrian friendly" was a ridiculous shot across the bow. It's ridiculous, it's wrong, and it seemed coordinated, almost like GOP talking points on FOX News. WTH is she talking about? I've personally crossed that intersection numerous times on foot and it's one of the few places in our city where I feel safe walking. Has she been to Dupont Circle in DC? Has she been to Europe? (I'm guessing "yes" on both counts). She is very disappointing and she seems to provide cover for Couch, who comes across like a total weasel. For his part, Wenger seems like a spin doctor. It was frustrating to watch as a citizen, thinking that these are the people making key decisions for our city.

Ryan: unnecessary for him to scold citizens for giving a flip about OKC and expressing their concerns. Who does he think he is?
Kelley: This guy should be ousted in the next election. He adds nothing and he occupies a seat that could/should be held by an engaged, urban pr"pogressive.
Salyer: Represents what could be OKC's most progressive ward, and she seems to provide cover to Jim Couch and appears annoyed by citizens getting involved (her comments about the alleged pedestrian unfriendliness of the roundabout at Walker and 10th were ridiculous, and, IMO, calculated)
Gary Marrs: Waste of space
Greenwell: milquetoast
Pete White: noticeably absent
Mayor: not impressed, although he at least didn't wade in with stupid comments like Meg
Russell Claus: Spineless sycophant. Does anyone believe that it will be "30 years" before the west side of Downtown improves? I've seen remarkable improvement in the last 5 years, and with Film Row moving ahead of schedule, the Devon Tower complete, and the Main P180 project finally done, I'm shocked that our director of city planning apparently has such a low opinion of our city that he would make such a negative public proclamation about our city.
"o
Altogether unimpressed with most of the City Council and looking forward to working on insurgent campaigns in the next election cycle. It's clear that many of them were annoyed that citizens care about this issue. Some of them dated themselves with their "old school OKC" behavior.

I also watched the entire thing with somewhat different impressions. Some comments were better than others and more well thought but I didn't think anyone came across as heavy handed in the least. I actually ended up feeling optomistic that some kind of agreeable solution can be reached.

I agree about the pedestrian aspects at 10th and Walker so I saw nothing sinister in that comment.

Anyone who is pressing for the roundabouts is just undermining the potential for an at grade solution here.

I didn't see anyone who acted annoyed by citizen input.

Perhaps you forgot about what some of our alternatives were in the last city council election. I don't think you want to go in that direction.

I'm not singling you out, but from what I understand, this is not ODOT imposing a design on the city. This is ODOT providing the design they were asked to provide. Let's remember who has veto rights -- and who is the customer -- OKC. ODOT has made this clear. The reason we're in the predicament we're in is because the representatives of our city: mayor, city manager, public works, etc. asked for this design. If you want change, you need to direct your energies and activism toward the only people who can change it: our city manager (who signed off on this concept) and our City Council (the only body our city manager answers to).

Have you ever heard of a metaphor? Apparently it wasn't that good. And if it was...a lil hint for ya.. Add a scent of dry and a pinch of sarcasm.

I'm not singling you out, but from what I understand, this is not ODOT imposing a design on the city. This is ODOT providing the design they were asked to provide. Let's remember who has veto rights -- and who is the customer -- OKC. ODOT has made this clear. The reason we're in the predicament we're in is because the representatives of our city: mayor, city manager, public works, etc. asked for this design. If you want change, you need to direct your energies and activism toward the only people who can change it: our city manager (who signed off on this concept) and our City Council (the only body our city manager answers to).
That is certainly what one would think if one only read what ODOT gives as quotes for the media, but after reading some of the stuff over at Steve's blog, I got the impression that ODOT says one thing publicly but the reality is something else. Steve can correct me if i am wrong, but it seems that the City was opposed to the relocation route that was chosen, fought it all the way but was basically told, "this is the way we are doing it" (Boulevard included).

Boulevard's alternate roundabout plan not sane (Letter to the Editor, Oklahoman, 8/4/12)


...I've lived with roundabouts in both New Jersey and Florida. They're serious traffic hazards requiring super attention to get on and off safely. ... Florida's Clearwater Beach put in a new roundabout connecting five busy routes and the accident rate went up substantially. When they added a lovely and dramatic fountain to the center, the accident rate increased exponentially. They had to take it out — a wonderful use of taxpayer dollars.

Read more: http://newsok.com/boulevards-alternate-roundabout-plan-not-sane/article/3697896#ixzz22dh7B0Lr

OKC had the same experience, we had them then took them out for safety reasons a few years ago, now they claim they are safer as they are putting them back in. I don't know if what the letter writer says is true or not about the safety issues. My question would be what are the stats for the ones here? Are they safer as the City claims? What are the accident stats before/after. Traffic counts before/after? After doing these are we going to decide that they are dangerous after all and pull them out again (like we did before)?

I agree with comments that when negotiating you should always ask for more. But maybe I am not reading the pulse of the city correctly, but I just don't think throwing roundabouts into the mix of the boulevard discussion is a winner. I think you're going to spend all of your time defending that, instead of trumpeting your message of wanting an at-grade boulevard.

The Friends group itself is really sending the message of roundabouts out there, and I am not sure they are even consciously aware of it. I hear from people that isn't the focus, but then I get invited to hear a guy talk about roundabouts at the Farmers Market, watch a council video that talks about roundabouts a whole lot, I didn't catch it but I heard there was even a live webcam of one in there somewhere, and in this thread you guys are talking a lot about roundabouts. I don't think it is reasonable to say that the media is just harping on that message, it's there in everything you are doing. The media is focusing on the roundabouts because they always look to stir up controversy for reader/viewer-ship, and they probably see that issue as controversial. I kind of view this as why organizations have professional PR folks and the types of things that they do... they intentionally avoid certain words and pepper other keywords into discussions because it always subconsciously influences the guy on the other end taking notes for the story he is going to write later on. I guess I'm just thinking that is what is going on here.

Maybe I'm over blowing the issue, but it just seems to me that when you aren't talking about the at-grade issue, which seems to have 99% support across the city, you are not winning the argument. Why would you allow the media to spend its time talking about anything else but the argument you are almost guaranteed to win? I feel like you guys are about to "snatch defeat from the jaws of victory...."

That is good input Questor. Thanks, you made some good points.

Great story in today's Oklahoman by Micheal Kimball about how roundabouts can help make a statement of arrival to a city's visitors: http://newsok.com/possible-roundabout-has-iconic-art-potential-for-oklahoma-citys-boulevard/article/3698261

I think this is what many people envisioned when Mayor Cornett spoke so often about having an "iconic" boulevard and entryway into the city. I bought into that vision as I understood it wholeheartedly. Oklahoma City a nice city now, but it is poised to become a very special place if we will push forward and not be distracted by naysaying and "we've never done it that way before".

I think this is what many people envisioned when Mayor Cornett spoke so often about having an "iconic" boulevard and entryway into the city. I bought into that vision as I understood it wholeheartedly. Oklahoma City a nice city now, but it is poised to become a very special place if we will push forward and not be distracted by naysaying and "we've never done it that way before".

Let's get the dang thing at grade then lets change the name. Cornet was wanting to plaster 'Oklahoma City' on the Skydance bridge at one point. If it's halfway iconic, you won't have to name it by its location.

Oh yes - I think labelling everything "Oklahoma City ______" starts getting tacky. I say this street, if done properly, doesn't need to be "marketed" to bring attention to OKC's downtown.

Great story in today's Oklahoman by Micheal Kimball about how roundabouts can help make a statement of arrival to a city's visitors: http://newsok.com/possible-roundabout-has-iconic-art-potential-for-oklahoma-citys-boulevard/article/3698261

Questor, I think the irony in your statements above are lost on this latest (today's) article by Kimball. The reality is that no matter how much our folks promote the idea that "at-grade" Boulevard is the chief issue, the media and the public are going to be drawn to roundabout option as exemplifying the debate.

I think in many minds, the debate boils down to not just the "at-grade" issue but whether or not we are going to get the "Grand Entrance" to our fair City or another concrete bypass. The idea of a roundabout is "grand" in itself, particularly when you consider what could go in the middle of it. Thus it captures attention and generates inspiration.

To be honest, with the exception of a few people and that Letter to the Editor, most people seem to want a roundabout. So not sure that it really hurts but rather attracts attention to the broader Boulevard design.

But your comments are well taken.

Questor, I think the irony in your statements above are lost on this latest (today's) article by Kimball. The reality is that no matter how much our folks promote the idea that "at-grade" Boulevard is the chief issue, the media and the public are going to be drawn to roundabout option as exemplifying the debate.

I think in many minds, the debate boils down to not just the "at-grade" issue but whether or not we are going to get the "Grand Entrance" to our fair City or another concrete bypass. The idea of a roundabout is "grand" in itself, particularly when you consider what could go in the middle of it. Thus it captures attention and generates inspiration.

To be honest, with the exception of a few people and that Letter to the Editor, most people seem to want a roundabout. So not sure that it really hurts but rather attracts attention to the broader Boulevard design.

But your comments are well taken.

Great point, Aviator. It's up to the FBB group to ensure this issue is "at grade" versus "not at grade," and show some other workable alternatives. Part of the problem is the only quality alternative drawings show roundabouts. Make sure the media knows the issue is "at grade" versus "not at grade." The danger is if everything hinges on a roundabout, and the hired engineer determines a roundabout won't work, the "at grade" side could lose the public argument.

Great point, Aviator. It's up to the FBB group to ensure this issue is "at grade" versus "not at grade," and show some other workable alternatives. Part of the problem is the only quality alternative drawings show roundabouts.

It all depends if the city and ODOT are willing to compromise on one or a combination of these 4 points.
1. Accept the close proximity of intersections
2. Close certain streets or limit access in certain directions.
3. Completely move streets or the boulevard itself.
4. Route the boulevard to nearby streets and accept that the boulevard won't connect in a straight line.

If they won't budge or compromise on these four points then there are no options than bridges or a roundabout.

That is certainly what one would think if one only read what ODOT gives as quotes for the media, but after reading some of the stuff over at Steve's blog, I got the impression that ODOT says one thing publicly but the reality is something else. Steve can correct me if i am wrong, but it seems that the City was opposed to the relocation route that was chosen, fought it all the way but was basically told, "this is the way we are doing it" (Boulevard included).

I don't know what happened with the highway, but what's happening now is different. ODOT's goal is to get this done and hand it to the city. The "city" is Jim Couch. This concept is what he wants. It's easy to pick on ODOT, but Couch is the customer who placed the order.

Great point, Aviator. It's up to the FBB group to ensure this issue is "at grade" versus "not at grade," and show some other workable alternatives. Part of the problem is the only quality alternative drawings show roundabouts. Make sure the media knows the issue is "at grade" versus "not at grade." The danger is if everything hinges on a roundabout, and the hired engineer determines a roundabout won't work, the "at grade" side could lose the public argument.

Below are three possible at-grade solutions…all rather simple…that would seem to be worth studying.

The first utilizes a 300’ diameter roundabout involving Classen, Reno and the Boulevard. The second and third do not involve a roundabout.

All provide for just two additional signalized intersections…one at Western…one at Reno.

The roundabout option leaves Classen as an open through street. The first no-roundabout option provides slip lanes on Classen to access the Boulevard but provides no through access. The second no-roundabout option closes Classen at the Boulevard.

The roundabout option would likely require only minor additional right-of-way…probably no more than 2 acres. Only the two tracts highlighted in yellow have buildings on them…one involves a towing company…the other a refrigeration service.

The slip lane no-roundabout option would likely require less right-of-way than the roundabout option.

The second no-roundabout option would likely require no additional right-of-way.

All of these options would likely cost substantially less than any bridged/embankment/retaining wall solution.

All of these options would likely require very little additional NEPA documentation with the FHWA.

There are additional street alignment modifications that could be done at a later date as needed to improve access, connectivity and circulation in the area for all of these solutions.

Any effective at-grade solution will likely need to be limited to involving only one or two additional signalized intersections on the Boulevard, with or without a roundabout. Those need to separated sufficiently to avoid traffic back-up issues. So, you likely can't signalize Western, Classen and Reno. In addition, Western will most likely need to remain open as a through street since it directly connects to the new Crosstown. Also, Reno probably needs to remain open as a through street to as great a degree as possible.

1971

1972

1973

In the roundabout diagram, I don't know why the roundabout can't be moved just a little to the north and avoid needing more right of way...? May be a tighter fit, but it could work.

In the roundabout diagram, I don't know why the roundabout can't be moved just a little to the north and avoid needing more right of way...? May be a tighter fit, but it could work.

It does appear to be a tighter fit. It doesn't look like it provides enough distance between the Classen and Boulevard spoke or enough distance between the roundabout and the Western-Boulevard intersection, which could cause traffic back-up into the roundabout.

Also, it doesn't really lessen the right-of-way impact unless you drop Reno as a leg of the roundabout and just continue it as a through street. The problem with that is the Reno-Classen intersection also appears to be too close to the roundabout and could also create traffic back-up into the roundabout.

Here's an illustration of that concept:

1975

It does appear to be a tighter fit. It doesn't look like it provides enough distance between the Classen and Boulevard spoke or enough distance between the roundabout and the Western-Boulevard intersection, which could cause traffic back-up into the roundabout.

Also, it doesn't really lessen the right-of-way impact unless you drop Reno as a leg of the roundabout and just continue it as a through street. The problem with that is the Reno-Classen intersection also appears to be too close to the roundabout and could also create traffic back-up into the roundabout.

Here's an illustration of that concept:

1975

I like that. The lights on both ends of the circle will do an impeccable job of regulating traffic flow into the circle and making sure it is never overwhelmed. I'm not an expert on traffic patterns aside from an internship I had with signal calibration, but I'd have to think bookending the circle with signaled intersections is a good idea.

My chief concern however is that I'm ready to see you guys actually do something with Western instead of Classen. Western/Boulevard needs to be the chief main intersection in this area. I think that's a northsider's bias showing through against my southsider bias, but also keep in mind that Western is absolutely gridlocked south of Sheridan whereas Classen has like 2 cars a day and was only just extended past Sheridan in my lifetime.

I have decided that I do NOT want to see slip lanes. The roundabout is much more pedestrian-safe than slip lanes. For urban boulevards you're talking about wanting to narrow distances, especially at pedestrian crossings, which you want to hug and define intersections - slip lanes create infrastructure that is precisely the inverse of the bump-outs that narrow pedestrians crossings and enhance walkability and pedestrian activity.

It does appear to be a tighter fit. It doesn't look like it provides enough distance between the Classen and Boulevard spoke or enough distance between the roundabout and the Western-Boulevard intersection, which could cause traffic back-up into the roundabout.

Also, it doesn't really lessen the right-of-way impact unless you drop Reno as a leg of the roundabout and just continue it as a through street. The problem with that is the Reno-Classen intersection also appears to be too close to the roundabout and could also create traffic back-up into the roundabout.

Here's an illustration of that concept:



I think the northbound Classen to eastbound Boulevard would use its own dedicated u-turn type of lane which would alleviate this issue, keeping that traffic off the circle altogether. Another dynamic is will they still use the exit to cross under to Sheridan for eastbound traffic, such as before ? If so, that would truly take a lot of the morning rush hour off the boulevard.

My chief concern however is that I'm ready to see you guys actually do something with Western instead of Classen. Western/Boulevard needs to be the chief main intersection in this area.

Here's a Western-Boulevard roundabout...

1976

I think Hutch has very ably demonstrated there are a number of at grade possibilities. Until an independent, competent engineer states otherwise, I see no reason the boulevard could not easily be kept at grade - and that does not include sitting on top of a berm. I think the time tested "good enough" may have been the standard used in the initial planning over 14 years ago.

What some people forgot is that civic pride also brings more civic involvement from the citizens - and there are a lot of reasons for us to proud of our city and the changes that have been made and in progress. So it should come as no surprise there are significant numbers of people who care enough about OKC continuing to improve that there would be questions about a street that is so poorly designed and goes counter to everything the city's leadership has been talking about. We should not settle for "good enough" just because it was 14 years ago.

Guys, what about a Walker Circle-scale traffic circle (1 lane) at Exchange and SW 3rd? Essentially no more than replicating the Walker/Shartel circles. I definitely concede that the more familiar OKC drivers are with circles and roundabouts, the better they work in concert with eachother.. that would give us 4 in downtown (not counting Classen Drive extn which who knows at this point), with a few more on the north side including the new one Western/Grand in front of MidFirst and Balliet's. A small start on Carmel...

And while I think Western is so pivotal, I also just remembered that the GOLT bond supposedly has funding to redo Classen between 13th/Sheridan which may bring a small renaissance to that area, or at least turn it into something other than blight that you go to great ends to avoid when you have guests (like now).. and also having a signaled intersection, coming off of this long straight-away from Penn, may be beneficial to reducing speeds and traffic calming in advance of the traffic circle.

I wonder if there is a way to transition NORTH Classen into SOUTH Western to connect a seamless north/south main spine and unify the two sides of town at the "grand central" roundabout. I can't think of any way that doesn't involve significant land acquisition, specifically of the Allergy Laboratories facility that actually looks kind of nice (expensive).

I'm just trying to think this through and make sure that we end up with a roundabout that delivers the results that we should get, reduced accidents, efficient circulation, sense of place, pedestrian safety, enhanced walkability, ROI development, etc.

I would also lastly point out that the distance between Classen and Western along the Boulevard is actually less than the distance along Sheridan, which is already a functional (albeit somewhat annoying) series of lights. Reno is also slightly further than both blocks, along the Boulevard ROW at least. I think we may be making this area more complicated than it really is. I get the impression there's a bit of a "GOD FORBID we have block widths less than 500 feet in OKC!!" mentality here. Lol

OKC and Salt Lake I think are in a dead heat for largest block widths among major U.S. cities.

Here's a Western-Boulevard roundabout...

1976

I think this is a winner.... I really do.

However,....

From someone with no background in either planning or engineering, my main concern with this design however is the high traffic speeds entering the roundabout from the west....will make it difficult for traffic entering the roundabout from the south....You know Oklahoman's do not follow stop/yield signs very well at all, especially when coming from highway like speeds. We would need to slow and also calm the traffic down coming from the west before it reaches the roundabout.

What options with the Western/Boulevard roundabout concept would we have to slow and also calm the traffic down entering from the west?

Even if it flew over Western and was down my Classen would be an improvement over the proposal the other day, it seems like some of the other streets could at least connect even if they do not have lights or are limited to slipping in through right turns though.

Guys, what about a Walker Circle-scale traffic circle (1 lane) at Exchange and SW 3rd? Essentially no more than replicating the Walker/Shartel circles. I definitely concede that the more familiar OKC drivers are with circles and roundabouts, the better they work in concert with eachother.. that would give us 4 in downtown (not counting Classen Drive extn which who knows at this point), with a few more on the north side including the new one Western/Grand in front of MidFirst and Balliet's. A small start on Carmel...

And while I think Western is so pivotal, I also just remembered that the GOLT bond supposedly has funding to redo Classen between 13th/Sheridan which may bring a small renaissance to that area, or at least turn it into something other than blight that you go to great ends to avoid when you have guests (like now).. and also having a signaled intersection, coming off of this long straight-away from Penn, may be beneficial to reducing speeds and traffic calming in advance of the traffic circle.

I wonder if there is a way to transition NORTH Classen into SOUTH Western to connect a seamless north/south main spine and unify the two sides of town at the "grand central" roundabout. I can't think of any way that doesn't involve significant land acquisition, specifically of the Allergy Laboratories facility that actually looks kind of nice (expensive).

I'm just trying to think this through and make sure that we end up with a roundabout that delivers the results that we should get, reduced accidents, efficient circulation, sense of place, pedestrian safety, enhanced walkability, ROI development, etc.

I would also lastly point out that the distance between Classen and Western along the Boulevard is actually less than the distance along Sheridan, which is already a functional (albeit somewhat annoying) series of lights. Reno is also slightly further than both blocks, along the Boulevard ROW at least. I think we may be making this area more complicated than it really is. I get the impression there's a bit of a "GOD FORBID we have block widths less than 500 feet in OKC!!" mentality here. Lol

OKC and Salt Lake I think are in a dead heat for largest block widths among major U.S. cities.

Spartan: Here are a few ideas I did awhile back that might relate to your post:

https://dl.dropbox.com/u/15393885/Market%20Circle%20-%20Scheme%20C.jpg

https://dl.dropbox.com/u/15393885/Market%20Circle%20-%20Scheme%20C2.jpg

https://dl.dropbox.com/u/15393885/Market%20Circle%20-%20Scheme%20D.jpg

This may not be feasible but I will throw it out there and let ya'll discuss it/rip it apart. Why not take the $80 million + the 2007 Bond Issue money and transform Reno into the Boulevard? Return the old Crosstown pathway to private property ownership and restore the street GRID?

https://dl.dropbox.com/u/15393885/Market%20Circle%20-%20Scheme%20C2.jpg

i like this one a lot... some others may not like it because the circle isn't on the boulevard, but i think for traffic purposes and ease of use, this is the best layout i have seen