While my statement above is optimistic, I would say that arrogance by the original ODOT engineers is apparently part of the mix. The proposed roundabout isn't on the Blvd itself as Boulder Sooner also stated. Arrogance in that one was determined not capable of working on the Blvd itself as the engineers have continued to stick to rediculous, inflated, traffic estimates.

The "final" proposal is much better and is a compromise in all directions. It still however, is excessively huge to handle their original numbers.

Arrogance has been a huge factor in many recent public projects.

I would hate to think that after all this time and money that there wasn't agreement on the basic assumption of how many cars the road would need to serve. What a monumental error that would be (and I use the word 'error' in place of a more profane choice of words).

As long as the city isn't stuck with another idiotic street in the sky, and the ability to reconfigure and restore the street grid in the future for nominal cost is present, I will be satisified with a compromise solution for now. I still hope the city will eventually eliminate the unnecessary diagonal street connecting 3rd and California.

But if ODOT and OKC Public Works is still using ridiculous traffic volume estimates to justify their preselected solution, it does not reflect well upon them with regard to their ability to objectively evaluate the needs of the city.

I wonder if that is because they are still trying to simulate it with 94,000 cars a day.

Duh

Design compromise for Oklahoma City Boulevard to be revealed at December meeting | NewsOK.com (http://newsok.com/design-compromise-for-oklahoma-city-boulevard-to-be-revealed-at-december-meeting/article/3732096)

Noticed an updated rendering of the new projects

http://riversportokc.org/files/PRIME_Whitewater_image11.7.12.jpg

from the river thread .... pretty good image of what the east end of the blvd will look like .. and how it will connect

from the river thread .... pretty good image of what the east end of the blvd will look like .. and how it will connect

If the drought persists, imagine that rendering with no water.

If the drought persists, imagine that rendering with no water.

Nah. After all isn't most of the missing water from Hefner stored in super secret underground storage tanks below a certain mover and shakers wine warehouse, just to make sure that there is always water flowing by the first boathouse on the river? No? Well, hooey, wonder how that rumor got started then?

Nah. After all isn't most of the missing water from Hefner stored in super secret underground storage tanks below a certain mover and shakers wine warehouse, just to make sure that there is always water flowing by the first boathouse on the river? No? Well, hooey, wonder how that rumor got started then?

Not a conspiracy: fracking requires a lot of water.

I'm hearing that Santec is going to recommend the option with the boulevard going over Western.

from the river thread .... pretty good image of what the east end of the blvd will look like .. and how it will connect

just looking at that...where do you exit for the river community access if you're headed EB on I-40?

just looking at that...where do you exit for the river community access if you're headed EB on I-40?

The exit to i235, then exiting at Sheridian is still probably going to be the main access to the boathouse district. Sheilds would be more useful for what will eventually be neighborhoods downtown, though Sheilds could almost have ramps to SW 15th.

Design compromise for Oklahoma City Boulevard to be revealed at December meeting | NewsOK.com (http://newsok.com/design-compromise-for-oklahoma-city-boulevard-to-be-revealed-at-december-meeting/article/3732096)

But the camp supportive of a boulevard with a primary purpose of helping commuters get to and from their jobs pointed to traffic-clogged downtown intersections and freeway ramps as evidence the road should be designed with traffic movement at the forefront.
The only thing this proves is that the new I-40 was designed incorrectly (when they removed access points). ODOT's Gary Ridley admitted as much. If they had designed it right or fixed I-40, there would be no need for the Boulevard solution. Lets screw up 2 projects instead of 1. I-40 was designed to interact on the most basic level with DT, it's primary purpose according to an ODOT document was as a "pass thru" (getting drivers easily from one side of the Metro to the other).


Wenger added that consultants considered about 40 potential designs before making their recommendation. To illustrate his point that consultants tried to think of everything, he revealed that even scrapping the boulevard altogether was considered, although that idea was quickly dismissed.
Why was scrapping the Boulevard completely dismissed. To date NO ONE has presented ANY evidence that the Boulevard is NEEDED. They should have scrapped it, returned the area to the street grid, sold the property and get redevelopment going, collecting property taxes etc. Used the money that was going to go to the Boulevard into filling the funding shortfalls of P180 and have several "Boulevards" all leading into DT.

What a cluster you-know-what.

Why was scrapping the Boulevard completely dismissed. To date NO ONE has presented ANY evidence that the Boulevard is NEEDED. They should have scrapped it, returned the area to the street grid, sold the property and get redevelopment going, collecting property taxes etc. Used the money that was going to go to the Boulevard into filling the funding shortfalls of P180 and have several "Boulevards" all leading into DT.

I preferred the simple solution as well. California, Reno, AND 3rd as the three streets primarily used for east/west access. We will see what the presentation shows next week.

Well, they planned it as a "getaway" for over 15 years. They certainly are not going to change course and restore it to the grid when their putting the finishing touches on the big ramp structures on the west end.

I understand the 2 steps forward and 1 step back, but why does the 1 step back have to be so darn big? Why can't they screw up the small stuff instead?

Well, they planned it as a "getaway" for over 15 years. They certainly are not going to change course and restore it to the grid when their putting the finishing touches on the big ramp structures on the west end.
I agree. they aren't going to do it now, but this is an example of them rushing it thru and saying, "we cant change things now, we have already proceeded to far..."

I wonder if Harkins Theatre is going to do something about making the current 'rear' of their building more attractive? It will butt up right against the Boulevard and quite frankly, look very odd when passing by for those who have no entered through the canal entry before.

I love the over-sized semi cutting across the roundabout (page 22 - bottom left photo). Wonder whose idea was to include that. I fully expect oversized semis on I-40 to make regular short-cuts through downtown OKC using the new boulevard. I knew ODOT thought we were stupid but this is pretty darn insulting. I guess with the new iconic boulevard being 75% grade seperated it should be able to haul-@55 through downtown using the short cut.

As I had previously reported, this is the option (Alternative A) they are recommending:


http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/optiona4.jpg


http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/optiona1.jpg


http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/optiona2.jpg


http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/optiona3.jpg

Just saw Shadid post on his Facebook and Twitter, he wants everyone to throughly vet and discuss all the designs then go to the meeting. https://www.facebook.com/events/417393601664537/

Very disappointed honestly. Effectively the same "getaway" design originally proposed by ODOT but eliminating Classen south of the boulevard. I am still 100% convinced the simple act of using California to link to the berm west of Western, eliminating the NW "transition" section, connecting 3rd to I-40 between Bricktown and the Boathouse District, and restoring the street grid everywhere else is by far the best design for the present and future development.

I take it from the renderings they don't expect any boulevard front businesses. Did they not know we are trying to develop this area? Where is the on-street parking?

I wish the city would say if this is the best you got then build the cheapest thing you can because we are going to take it out the second you leave.

What is a modified intersection?

What is a modified intersection?

One that currently exists but under that plan would be modified to fit the new traffic pattern, most of them looks like it is where one of the streets that previously connected is closed.

One that currently exists but under that plan would be modified to fit the new traffic pattern, most of them looks like it is where one of the streets that previously connected is closed.

Gotcha. Thanks, I was thinking a hybrid intersection.

I really like Alternative B. Classen to Western overpass looks pretty sweet.

This is like watching a train wreck - from inside the train.

The lack of renderings for Alternatives C and D is horribly ridiculous, shows immense bias, and communicates that they are not taking their job seriously (of actually providing multiple options for discussion).

They screwed up starting at Page 15. The access zone is nowhere near that far East. It starts about 8 blocks further West, and the Transition zone truly ought to start at Western and end beyond Blackwelder. The "Confluence" Zone is only the Confluence zone because the sum number of roads in the area...not because of what actual traffic occurs or will occur on those streets any time in the near future.

You know when you watch a Thunder game on TV between the game/commercials and you see how fast they have to speed up the film to make it look like any sort of traffic is going on compared to even the mid-sized cities...Yeah, that's what it's going to look like on the Boulevard for the next 25 years...

I take it from the renderings they don't expect any boulevard front businesses. Did they not know we are trying to develop this area? Where is the on-street parking?

I wish the city would say if this is the best you got then build the cheapest thing you can because we are going to take it out the second you leave.

If they go with one of the first two options, on-street parking won't do any good when the road is elevated or depressed. If there's one bright spot is that I'm sure everything east of Reno could have on-street parking.

I like Alternate B as well. NOT A FAN of Alternate A. I'm suspect that's the one Wenger is pushing.

All those dang trees. A pointlessly large median. Separation of the Boulevard from the fabric of the city. I just can't understand why they want to make it an inclusive road sheltering drivers from the outside world. The Classen Western merger reappearance of Classen nonsense is stupid too.

in a word, bleah

Here is a simple solution. Award the contract for $50 million dollars and anything the contractors don't spend on this project they get to keep. You would see a return to the grid be instantly favored.

I am not a fan of Exchange being taken out either and creating another superblock.

How different is Alternate A from what they were going to do before FFB got involved?

If I had to choose between A and B, my vote would go to B.

Bridging Classen/Western over the Boulevard creates a whole new energy and feel for the area and less of an appearance of division than bridging the Boulevard over Western. That’s because (a) the bridging structure is north south and not east west, and (b) it appears the design offers partial below-grade construction of the Boulevard under the bridge which provides for reduced bridge height above-grade and less visual dividing impact. Further, it just has more of a modern urban boulevard planning design appearance and feel to it than Alternative A, which looks and feels more like a basic public works engineering solution. In my opinion, Alternative B extends the sought after iconic nature of the Boulevard past Western. Alternative A does not impart that same feeling. Alternative B looks like a design for 2012. Alternative A looks like a solution for 1978.

2954 2955

A, B, C and D appear to be the same design with the only difference being the Western-Boulevard solution. Alternative A overpasses Western as an above-grade solution. Alternative B underpasses Western as a below-grade solution. Alternative C simply adds an additional at-grade intersection at Western. Alternative D provides for an at-grade roundabout at Western in place of the intersection. The fact that only A and B have renderings suggests that C and D are at the bottom of the preferred alternative list. That's unfortunate, because both of those designs appear to be very viable at-grade solutions. Hopefully full renderings of those two options will be presented at the public meeting.

A, B, C and D appear to be the same design with the only difference being the Western-Boulevard solution. Alternative A overpasses Western as an above-grade solution. Alternative B underpasses Western as a below-grade solution. Alternative C simply adds an additional at-grade intersection at Western. Alternative D provides for an at-grade roundabout at Western in place of the intersection. The fact that only A and B have renderings suggests that C and D are at the bottom of the preferred alternative list. That's unfortunate, because both of those designs appear to be very viable at-grade solutions. Hopefully full renderings of those two options will be presented at the public meeting.

My thoughts as well. These are all variations on a single theme, and the theme is not what the next generation of OKC urban dwellers sees as its theme.

Honestly, Stantec's "preferred" option doesn't do anything particularly well. They recommend removing all the connections to the boulevard west of Westen and eliminating Exchange connecting to Reno. The only positive I see is the elevated section is a little shorter - but it creates a poorly designed surface level intersection at Reno and the Boulevard. That intersection will be the source of numerous complaints in the future if built as illustrated. Were they told to recommend a design worse than ODOT's original bad idea? This design will still drastically reduce future development in the Farmer's Market District AND make connecting the CBD, C2S, Farmer's Mkt, and Stockyard areas much more difficult if not impossible. It will also negatively affect existing businesses in the area. It defies logic and reason that our city spent a large sum of our money just to tell us to hush and let the "experts" do as they wish.

...It defies logic and reason that our city spent a large sum of our money just to tell us to hush and let the "experts" do as they wish.

Or, was it money well spent to demonstrate to those who dare intervene it just ain't worth the effort to try again? Perhaps it depends on where one sits in relation to the source of unfettered power.

WTF are we looking @?


These "renderings" show nothing that resembles what is supposed to be the 'Boulevard'. The update even mentions 15 foot sidewalks and street parking.... Ummmm then why is it not in the graphics???


This has got to be the earliest or early April Fools.

Honestly, Stantec's "preferred" option doesn't do anything particularly well. They recommend removing all the connections to the boulevard west of Westen and eliminating Exchange connecting to Reno. The only positive I see is the elevated section is a little shorter - but it creates a poorly designed surface level intersection at Reno and the Boulevard. That intersection will be the source of numerous complaints in the future if built as illustrated. Were they told to recommend a design worse than ODOT's original bad idea? This design will still drastically reduce future development in the Farmer's Market District AND make connecting the CBD, C2S, Farmer's Mkt, and Stockyard areas much more difficult if not impossible. It will also negatively affect existing businesses in the area. It defies logic and reason that our city spent a large sum of our money just to tell us to hush and let the "experts" do as they wish.

The "range of alternatives" (A, B, C and D) being presented and the "Preferred Alternative" (A) are not of Stantec's choosing. Those decisions have been made by City and ODOT engineers.

I don't suppose we're going to be allowed to know what all the other designs were that they apparently looked at and why they were rejected?

The "range of alternatives" (A, B, C and D) being presented and the "Preferred Alternative" (A) are not of Stantec's choosing. Those decisions have been made by City and ODOT engineers.

Thank you for that clarification. That will be helpful moving forward.

I don't suppose we're going to be allowed to know what all the other designs were that they apparently looked at and why they were rejected?

Something to ask at the meeting and in comments to Council, ODOT, etc.

I don't suppose we're going to be allowed to know what all the other designs were that they apparently looked at and why they were rejected?

I am very interested in the analysis of the simple, three street design using California and 3rd Street to connect to I-40 and Reno running between them. There would be far less impact on existing businesses AND promote redevelopment far better than ANY design requiring that "transitional" section runnning to the northwest. Was it even seriously considered?

Exactly. The trees are not actually part of any theme. They actually look a little silly like they are because they frame nothing but asphalt. There is no public space that they compliment.

This comment is kind of like griping out a kid who misses a game winning shot. You have to be gentle or you'll destroy their confidence. Baby steps.


I don't suppose we're going to be allowed to know what all the other designs were that they apparently looked at and why they were rejected?
I don't have answers about the abandonment of the grid concept, but I can throw out some names. Larry Nichols. Meg Salyer. Kirk Humphreys. All have a vested interest in maintaining appearances downtown, not growing the SW part of downtown. Oversupply of develop-able land means lower prices/ rents.

Exactly. The trees are not actually part of any theme. They actually look a little silly like they are because they frame nothing but asphalt. There is no public space that they compliment.

I guess they are there so people can drive in the shade (with their A/C on).

This comment is kind of like griping out a kid who misses a game winning shot. You have to be gentle or you'll destroy their confidence. Baby steps.


I don't have answers about the abandonment of the grid concept, but I can throw out some names. Larry Nichols. Meg Salyer. Kirk Humphreys. All have a vested interest in maintaining appearances downtown, not growing the SW part of downtown. Oversupply of develop-able land means lower prices/ rents.

I'm calling BS on your answers. Kirk especially needs SW downtown to improve so that the value of the airpark increases and his development there becomes viable. I also don't agree with baby steps. Baby steps are patronizing. Baby steps encourage mediocrity.

In terms of this city's tree situation (especially downtown), mediocrity would be a vast improvement.

The proposed alternatives are only visually different from the ODOT proposal. I am disappointed that there appears to be no north-south access between Walker and Western\Classen. At least with a bridge there was a chance for a pedestrian path.

The "range of alternatives" (A, B, C and D) being presented and the "Preferred Alternative" (A) are not of Stantec's choosing. Those decisions have been made by City and ODOT engineers.

IIRC, Stantec is going to run the meeting. I'm sure that was chosen so that the City and ODOT wouldn't be in any hot seats. Even with this, this is no time for FBB to back down or lose any steam. To paraphrase Sid, there is no point in hurrying this project that could be the very future of OKC's development.

When is the lipstick on the pig show taking place?

I believe that this summer, there was significant consideration given to a proposal that kept the boulevard above grade between Western & Walker. The images available seem to put it at grade immediately east of Western?

When is the lipstick on the pig show taking place?

Dec 3, 5:30 at Bricktown Coca Cola Events Center.

I believe that this summer, there was significant consideration given to a proposal that kept the boulevard above grade between Western & Walker. The images available seem to put it at grade immediately east of Western?

Not immediately...the length of road, based on the renderings, that it seems the Boulevard will need east of Western to taper down to grade is at least a block, maybe 2...businesses will not front the Boulevard x-distance from the start of the elevation. It's why Alternative B is infinitely better, because at least Street-front development is possible all the way up to Western (Provided they don't build the entirely stupid wall that lines the Boulevard on either side of the bridge.)

Also, closing Exchange was the first thing I noticed in all 4 renderings...what a HORRIBLE idea. That block will become totally incapacitated for any good development. There's absolutely no reason to close it either.

In my opinion FBB needs to get the citizen power aligned solidly behind supporting the grid option. I would like to hear their professional analysis of this viable option and learn why it was not presented as an alternative.

I think citizens should avoid bringing up roundabouts at the upcoming meeting. Emotions/fears about roundabouts (whether correct or not) have overshadowed the real problem so far.

In my opinion FBB needs to get the citizen power aligned solidly behind supporting the grid option. I would like to hear their professional analysis of this viable option and learn why it was not presented as an alternative.

I think citizens should avoid bringing up roundabouts at the upcoming meeting. Emotions/fears about roundabouts (whether correct or not) have overshadowed the real problem so far.

I think there is some truth in your statement about roundabouts overshadowing the primary issues with the ODOT/OKCPW design. I am gathering my thoughts to try to have some sensible, and hopefully persuasive, remarks that will bring restoring the grid back into the list of options.

In addition to the grid, I would like to have seen a cylindrical ramp on the east part of the boulevard between the canal and the railroad track adjacent to I-40 so that this portion of road could be brought down to grade in as little distance as possible.

Like this but much much much smaller.

http://static.flickr.com/39/217686984_38b6204466_o.jpg