The boulevard is not at grade. The consultants, City, and ODOT are clearly not listening to what the citizens want.

They left out the buffaloes on the underpass wall... geez doesn't Stantec know anything?

I just can't accept an underpass/overpass that doesn't have buffaloes on it.

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.

As nice as further citizen organizing sounds, the technical reason they are using to justify the elevated and depressed options are inflated traffic counts, not fear about roundabouts. The roundabout option may have received some flack on this thread, but I'd warrant that the general public was quite accepting of the concept. At least they seemed to be at the Farmer's Market meeting.

The problem is the farcical, completely unsubstantiated traffic numbers. Citizens are not in an authoritative position to fight on those grounds. As I mentioned in my earlier posts, engineers egos are "at play" trying to "save face" against broad public resistance to their core beliefs in traffic engineering. The completely false existing traffic counts and completely unsubstantiated future projections are designed to help them justify their preferred design.

That should be obvious by now.

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.

Yeah, they can work on designs for five years, but nothing will look good based on the so-called "requirements" the city and ODOT put on them.
And Stantec's customer is the city government with the citizens having limited influence.


Urban Pioneer said it best in the post above.

As nice as further citizen organizing sounds, the technical reason they are using to justify the elevated and depressed options are inflated traffic counts, not fear about roundabouts. The roundabout option may have received some flack on this thread, but I'd warrant that the general public was quite accepting of the concept. At least they seemed to be at the Farmer's Market meeting.

The problem is the farcical, completely unsubstantiated traffic numbers. Citizens are not in an authoritative position to fight on those grounds. As I mentioned in my earlier posts, engineers egos are "at play" trying to "save face" against broad public resistance to their core beliefs in traffic engineering. The completely false existing traffic counts and completely unsubstantiated future projections are designed to help them justify their preferred design.

That should be obvious by now.

Is there any way to expose how farcical it is? That would seem to be an important part in the puzzle. Particularly ask them to show where these counts are coming from, and how they relate to the other roads. It would seem easy to show how if the Boulevard is really going to move 90,000 cars a day, that I-40 is going to be desolate...because that seems to be where they're getting the traffic count.

Just received a document that shows the 40 (!) different options presented by Santec in the first round.

I don't know how the final four were chosen, but you'll see when I post all of them, there were many options, not just four slight variations of one theme.

The public needs to understand how we went from these 40 different alternatives to really just the one.

It's time to clean house in City Hall if you ask me. This was just a massive failure and should send a signal that we simply can not work with these people. The engineers are running the show and are not willing to give a single inch.

Bump for this graphic. The amount of land returned for development- particularly the two entire square blocks adjacent to the convention center site at 3rd and Walker- should justify this proposal on its own. This is an elegant urban solution rather than trying to follow the scar of the Crosstown.

http://i153.photobucket.com/albums/s225/CuatrodeMayo/market%20circle/MarketCircle-SchemeE.jpg

One good idea from Stantec was the Classen/Western reroute- could be incorporated to this plan.

Then what we need to do is confer on the best option, print it on a big poster board, and turn the town hall meeting into a raucous sporting event ;-) .

Other
Development
Option.
Thanks!

Anyone else notice that apparently the consultants have also recommended bulldozing City Place, FNC, SandRidge Tower, Leadership Square, and a number of other perfectly good civic landmarks...?

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

Eerie

Okay here they are:



http://www.okctalk.com/images/wikiphotos/option1a.jpg


http://www.okctalk.com/images/wikiphotos/option1b.jpg


http://www.okctalk.com/images/wikiphotos/option2.jpg


http://www.okctalk.com/images/wikiphotos/option3.jpg


http://www.okctalk.com/images/wikiphotos/option4a.jpg


http://www.okctalk.com/images/wikiphotos/option4b.jpg


http://www.okctalk.com/images/wikiphotos/option5a.jpg


http://www.okctalk.com/images/wikiphotos/option5b.jpg


http://www.okctalk.com/images/wikiphotos/option5c.jpg


http://www.okctalk.com/images/wikiphotos/option6.jpg


http://www.okctalk.com/images/wikiphotos/option7.jpg


http://www.okctalk.com/images/wikiphotos/option8.jpg


http://www.okctalk.com/images/wikiphotos/option9.jpg


http://www.okctalk.com/images/wikiphotos/option10.jpg


http://www.okctalk.com/images/wikiphotos/option11a.jpg


http://www.okctalk.com/images/wikiphotos/option11b.jpg


http://www.okctalk.com/images/wikiphotos/option12a.jpg


http://www.okctalk.com/images/wikiphotos/option12b.jpg


http://www.okctalk.com/images/wikiphotos/option13a.jpg


http://www.okctalk.com/images/wikiphotos/option13b.jpg


http://www.okctalk.com/images/wikiphotos/option14a.jpg


http://www.okctalk.com/images/wikiphotos/option14b.jpg


http://www.okctalk.com/images/wikiphotos/option15.jpg


http://www.okctalk.com/images/wikiphotos/option16.jpg


http://www.okctalk.com/images/wikiphotos/option17.jpg


http://www.okctalk.com/images/wikiphotos/option18.jpg


http://www.okctalk.com/images/wikiphotos/option18w.jpg


http://www.okctalk.com/images/wikiphotos/option18ae.jpg


http://www.okctalk.com/images/wikiphotos/option18bw.jpg


http://www.okctalk.com/images/wikiphotos/option18ce.jpg


http://www.okctalk.com/images/wikiphotos/option18de.jpg


http://www.okctalk.com/images/wikiphotos/option19.jpg


http://www.okctalk.com/images/wikiphotos/option19w.jpg


http://www.okctalk.com/images/wikiphotos/option19e.jpg


http://www.okctalk.com/images/wikiphotos/option20e.jpg


http://www.okctalk.com/images/wikiphotos/option20w.jpg


http://www.okctalk.com/images/wikiphotos/option21w.jpg


http://www.okctalk.com/images/wikiphotos/option21e.jpg


http://www.okctalk.com/images/wikiphotos/option22w.jpg


http://www.okctalk.com/images/wikiphotos/option22e.jpg

Bump for this graphic. The amount of land returned for development- particularly the two entire square blocks adjacent to the convention center site at 3rd and Walker- should justify this proposal on its own. This is an elegant urban solution rather than trying to follow the scar of the Crosstown.

http://i153.photobucket.com/albums/s225/CuatrodeMayo/market%20circle/MarketCircle-SchemeE.jpg

One good idea from Stantec was the Classen/Western reroute- could be incorporated to this plan.

http://www.okctalk.com/images/wikiphotos/option13a.jpg

What is wrong with Option 13A? Where is the analysis of that option? How does having three main east-west thoroughfares not move traffic more efficiently than one? As a minimum, where is the explanation for eliminating it from consideration? The long term benefits of this simple solution should be apparent - lower costs for maintenance being one of the obvious ones.

This is the plan I believe is best for the development and redevelopment of our city. I wish I knew how to impart enlightenment on our Public Works and City Manager engineers to comprehend cities everywhere are removing divisive highways from their downtown and realizing benefits in a very short period. The traffic counts they used for this "analysis" had no basis in reality now or in the near future. It is inexcusable for a group of public "servants" to perpetuate this fraud on the taxpayers.

double post, sorry

Alternative 9, only make sw 3 / exchange a high speed (45mph) westbound getaway. Of course would require on ramp @ exchange

I like Option 14A. Intersections to keep the traffic slowed down, pedestrians to cross safely. Also creates more smaller blocks and frontage and the opportunity for some cool urban flatiron development.

http://www.okctalk.com/images/wikiphotos/option13a.jpg

What is wrong with Option 13A? Where is the analysis of that option? How does having three main east-west thoroughfares not move traffic more efficiently than one? As a minimum, where is the explanation for eliminating it from consideration? The long term benefits of this simple solution should be apparent - lower costs for maintenance being one of the obvious ones.

This is the plan I believe is best for the development and redevelopment of our city. I wish I knew how to impart enlightenment on our Public Works and City Manager engineers to comprehend cities everywhere are removing divisive highways from their downtown and realizing benefits in a very short period. The traffic counts they used for this "analysis" had no basis in reality now or in the near future. It is inexcusable for a group of public "servants" to perpetuate this fraud on the taxpayers.

The question that should be asked is why the requirements that the Blvd and Western be one continuous through road added? I can see one needing to be through, but not both.

Edit: Oh yeah, I forgot, Reno also had that requirement.

I like Option 14A. Intersections to keep the traffic slowed down, pedestrians to cross safely. Also creates more smaller blocks and frontage and the opportunity for some cool urban flatiron development.

Haha! Me too!

http://i153.photobucket.com/albums/s225/CuatrodeMayo/market%20circle/MarketCircle-SchemeE.jpg

Winner winner chicken dinner.

Some quick observations (not intended to be interpreted as advocacy or criticism of any of these options):
- State and city engineers are not keen on eliminating any portions of Reno Avenue. I don't sense the majority of the city council wants to see it interrupted either.
- State and city engineers are very opposed to not building the entire boulevard. Planners I've spoken to are divided on the idea. A majority of the city council will likely oppose not building the whole boulevard.
- The engineers really hate the roundabout idea. Some planners I've spoken to note that of the roundabouts shown in presentations, none of them seemed to encourage walkability, pedestrian crossings or urban scale development.
- The chosen scheme does bring traffic, and street improvements, through the Farmers Market area that was to be blocked off by the original ODOT schematic.
- Some interesting discussions about the boulevard as it goes through the park area seems to be getting overlooked...

Winner winner chicken dinner.

A combination of 13a and 22east.

- The engineers really hate the roundabout idea. Some planners I've spoken to note that of the roundabouts shown in presentations, none of them seemed to encourage walkability, pedestrian crossings or urban scale development.

- Some interesting discussions about the boulevard as it goes through the park area seems to be getting overlooked...

1. Yeah it's obvious the current OKC Robert Moses'es-IE Wenger and Streb, Ridley and Couch, must be hating on the roundabout. I think Paul Brum's ghost is visiting somewhere in there too. Perhaps if we added a giant concrete drainage ditch that apparition would go away.

Who's "roundabouts in presentations"? Andrew Stewart's "Cuatro's" designs? He volunteered his time. How about the "concerned planners" actually developing some of their own designs instead of proselytizing from behind a cubicle or an OU podium and cowing to the Public Works Department?

2. Who is and where are these "interesting" discussions on the park area boulevard section being had that are being missed?

Not hating on you Steve, just tired of the bull****

Pete, it might be a little much to ask but what do you think about doing a poll here as well as on the Facebook page? Post all options and ask people to vote for their favorite. Perhaps the results could be provided at the meeting. We could all ask everyone we knew to look at the options and vote.

Let's get some metrics on our engagement.


Help me figure out how to set this up as a poll...

We can only have 25 choices and there are 40 of them.

Perhaps split it into two groups of 20 and allow people to vote twice?

That's all well and good- polling and such. But having gone through these processes with the Feds and environmental, you need to be polling the four options that are destined for actual submission to the Feds.

A, B, C, or D? Debating everything else is a waste of time.

A and B are grade separated.

C is a conventional intersection

D is a roundabout

Note C and D are not rendered.

That's all well and good- polling and such. But having gone through these processes with the Feds and environmental, you need to be polling the four options that are destined for actual submission to the Feds.

A, B, C, or D? Debating everything else is a waste of time.

A and B are grade separated.

C is a conventional intersection

D is a roundabout

Note C and D are not rendered.

I urge you to include Cuatro's Option 'E' as an alternative to anything presented by ODOT and / or Public Works.

1. Yeah it's obvious the current OKC Robert Moses'es-IE Wenger and Streb, Ridley and Couch, must be hating on the roundabout. I think Paul Brum's ghost is visiting somewhere in there too. Perhaps if we added a giant concrete drainage ditch that apparition would go away.

Who's "roundabouts in presentations"? Andrew Stewart's "Cuatro's" designs? He volunteered his time. How about the "concerned planners" actually developing some of their own designs instead of proselytizing from behind a cubicle or an OU podium and cowing to the Public Works Department?

2. Who is and where are these "interesting" discussions on the park area boulevard section being had that are being missed?

Not hating on you Steve, just tired of the bull****

The presentations from the town hall meeting at Farmers Market where there were photos and live video shown of existing roundabouts with no surrounding development, not Stewart's renderings. And in response to the veiled "OU" comment... no, I'm not referring to who you apparently think I am.
As for C & D not having the same treatment as A & B.... well, we can guess why they did that...

Thanks for the clarification. There are several people proselytizing behind OU podiums. Lol. And I swear Paul Brum (former legendary Public Works director) is appearing in the shadows.

How about "2. Who is and where are these "interesting" discussions on the park area boulevard section being had that are being missed?"

Short of a return to the grid, I think option B is the best. Allowing the boulevard to go under Western would eliminate any above grade structure at the intersection of Western and Blvd. This would accomplish the important task of keeping the city visually continuous. If people can see across the blvd it will mitigate the schism effect all roadways built not-at-grade cause to some degree.

Thanks for the clarification. There are several people proselytizing behind OU podiums. Lol. And I swear Paul Brum (former legendary Public Works director) is appearing in the shadows.

How about "2. Who is and where are these "interesting" discussions on the park area boulevard section being had that are being missed?"

On several of the proposals the boulevard stops before it gets to the park. It dead ends at Walker on the west and Robinson on the east. I think another one has it going underground from Walker to points east. Someone had to suggest those options.

Oklahoma City Boulevard recommendation has raised portion only at Western | NewsOK.com (http://newsok.com/oklahoma-city-boulevard-recommendation-has-raised-portion-only-at-western/article/3733317)

On several of the proposals the boulevard stops before it gets to the park. It dead ends at Walker on the west and Robinson on the east. I think another one has it going underground from Walker to points east. Someone had to suggest those options.

Well, I suggested it once... :) Entering the Boulevard Fray « Urban Lake Effect (http://urbanlakeeffect.wordpress.com/2012/08/03/entering-the-boulevard-fray/)

Well, I suggested it once... :) Entering the Boulevard Fray « Urban Lake Effect (http://urbanlakeeffect.wordpress.com/2012/08/03/entering-the-boulevard-fray/)

Thanks for the link. The biggest problem with not putting in a street between the Ford dealer site and the park is that it takes 2 superblocks and turns them into an even larger mega-superblock. That is going in the opposite direction of where we should be going. We need to be removing superblocks not making out current ones even bigger.

Thanks for the link. The biggest problem with not putting in a street between the Ford dealer site and the park is that it takes 2 superblocks and turns them into an even larger mega-superblock. That is going in the opposite direction of where we should be going. We need to be removing superblocks not making out current ones even bigger.

Not necessarily. I don't see problem with a superblock if it's a park and designed with internal amenities that make it desirable and walkable. If it's buildings (and parking), I certainly don't like it.

Also a friendly note - for those that prefer the grid, don't finish that off by saying ", but if I had to pick one it would be X". You either find the alternatives unacceptable or you don't. If as group, people go into this meeting picking one from the list as a second choice we will end up with something from the list - and they are all unacceptable. There is no need to accept the premise that the 4 finalist, or even the 40 contestants are our only choices.

In case anyone would like it, here is a link to all traffic counts in the state. They are planning for this road to carry more cars than is currently on I-44 through the north part of the City.

http://www.acogok.org/programs_and_services/transportation_and_data_services/TrafficCounts/

i liked 13A, 14A, and 22.

That's all well and good- polling and such. But having gone through these processes with the Feds and environmental, you need to be polling the four options that are destined for actual submission to the Feds.

A, B, C, or D? Debating everything else is a waste of time.

Urban and Steve understand the political reality of the situation.

The reason for success to the this point was that the public was focused on the same objective...that the original plan was horribly unacceptable and had to be changed...and that ODOT and the City had not considered more proper urban designs and lacked the expertise to do so. City Council overwhelmingly agreed and pressed the City Manager to hire a respected national consultant. The consultant was asked to generate and review 40alternatives. Those were obviously presented and discussed privately between the consultants, City Manager, City engineers, City planners, and were evenutally reduced to the current 4 alternatives through some form of negotiated decision-making between City Council and City staff.

The official party line will be that the final 4 alternatives (A, B, C and D) and the Preferred Alternative (A) are the recommendations of the consultant, based on their thorough review of every potential option and their expert evaluation of the impacts of those alternatives on traffic flow, pedestrian activity, business owners, and future economic development. The reality is the Preferred Alternative is a settlement representing a middle-ground solution that the City feels addresses concerns raised by the public without going outside the conservative comfort zone of the City Manager, City Engineers and ODOT.

Notwithstanding the above, the public CAN still change the final decision. However, to succeed would most likely require a large majority offering support for one of the other three recommended alternatives (B, C or D). At this point in the process and given the fact that some on City Council have to some degree already accepted the decision, it is unlikley that the public can persuade City Council to direct the City Manager to send Stantec and City engineers back to the drawing board to revisit some of the other 40 alternatives or to develop additional variations. Many on council tentatively supported the reevaluation in the first place due to concerns over construction timelines. The majority of Council will not agree to taking more time to further review the alternatives. However, it is still possible to convince a majority to select B, C or D instead of A as the final design.

To accomplish that, the public will need to do several things. First, show up in very large numbers and participate in the public meeting and express opposition to A and support for B, C or D. Second, provide an overwhelming number of written comments to ODOT, the City and the Feds supporting B, C or D and opposing A. And, third contact City Council members in large numbers and support B, C or D and opposing.

To really be effective, everyone would need to agree on which of the remaining three alternatives to support. That may be the hardest part.

If the 'political reality' is that there is only a choice of those 4 - then OKC loses no matter what. That is some screwed up 'political reality'. I say let ODOT pick and the we put a giant sign that reads "the following 1 mile of road was designed by ...." and list all the people who are responsible. That way future generations will know who messed it up. You break it, you own it.

To really be effective, everyone would need to agree on which of the remaining three alternatives to support. That may be the hardest part.

Especially since we don't have rendering of options C or D... unless i have missed them somewhere

It is concerning that no renderings have been made publicly available for options C & D as far as we are aware. By not providing renderings, it generates an unfair bias between the two options that the city Public Works Department and ODOT would be willing to live with.

BOTH A & B BEING GRADE SEPARATED

Undoubtedly, the campaign so far has generated a "Better Boulevard" with a better restructuring of the street alignments (Classen merging in to Western), more crosswalks, and a proposed roundabout at the convoluted triangular intersection at the Farmer's Market. So everyone should be proud of what has been accomplished in terms of a Better Boulevard.

However, with that said, this campaign is orienting towards recommending that citizens press our City Council and stress at Monday's public meeting, that our Locally Preferred Alternative is either Options C or D. The Friends for a Better Boulevard Campaign has always held at its core, a desire for an "At-Grade" solution.

While further debate on the overall design is always encouraged, its time to chalk up our wins and press forward with a politically salient path towards the "At-Grade" options they are willing to give us, C or D.

If nothing else, C and D give us the option to fix the mess they are creating by not eliminating the "Transitional" segment. If the entire road is built at grade, at least there will not be any over or under passes to be torn down when the city realizes the obvious, simple solution was best from the beginning.

If the 'political reality' is that there is only a choice of those 4 - then OKC loses no matter what. That is some screwed up 'political reality'.Reality is usually screwed up. That's guaranteed by the second law of thermodynamics!

Reality is usually screwed up. That's guaranteed by the second law of thermodynamics!

in all energy exchanges, if no energy enters or leaves the system, the potential energy of the state will always be less than that of the initial state??? how does that relate to Reality being usually screwed up?

Reality is usually screwed up. That's guaranteed by the second law of thermodynamics!

Tru Dat. When choosing between the least of two evils, you always end up choosing evil. No thanks. I would rather dust my hands off, take my ball, and go home. People can mess things up without me being involved.

in all energy exchanges, if no energy enters or leaves the system, the potential energy of the state will always be less than that of the initial state??? how does that relate to Reality being usually screwed up?

I took to mean that everything decays into chaos.

If nothing else, C and D give us the option to fix the mess they are creating by not eliminating the "Transitional" segment. If the entire road is built at grade, at least there will not be any over or under passes to be torn down when the city realizes the obvious, simple solution was best from the beginning.

Both C & D achieve the primary goal of FBB and all of those who have contributed to this effort, which is to find a workable at-grade solution for the Boulevard. Those two options may not be perfect from an ideal design perspective, but the fact is we have two viable at-grade solutions that solve the primary concern and we should press ahead and try to ensure that one of those two solutions is the final alternative approved by City Council. Count me in.

I'd encourage everyone (if you have not already started doing so) to start writing letters, sending emails, filling out the comment cards, and go to the meetings.

2999

2999

Why are we still focusing on demanding one of the four provided initially? We have 40 to choose from, more if we reject all assumptions...

Urban and Steve understand the political reality of the situation.

The reason for success to the this point was that the public was focused on the same objective...that the original plan was horribly unacceptable and had to be changed...and that ODOT and the City had not considered more proper urban designs and lacked the expertise to do so. City Council overwhelmingly agreed and pressed the City Manager to hire a respected national consultant. The consultant was asked to generate and review 40alternatives. Those were obviously presented and discussed privately between the consultants, City Manager, City engineers, City planners, and were evenutally reduced to the current 4 alternatives through some form of negotiated decision-making between City Council and City staff.

The official party line will be that the final 4 alternatives (A, B, C and D) and the Preferred Alternative (A) are the recommendations of the consultant, based on their thorough review of every potential option and their expert evaluation of the impacts of those alternatives on traffic flow, pedestrian activity, business owners, and future economic development. The reality is the Preferred Alternative is a settlement representing a middle-ground solution that the City feels addresses concerns raised by the public without going outside the conservative comfort zone of the City Manager, City Engineers and ODOT.

Notwithstanding the above, the public CAN still change the final decision. However, to succeed would most likely require a large majority offering support for one of the other three recommended alternatives (B, C or D). At this point in the process and given the fact that some on City Council have to some degree already accepted the decision, it is unlikley that the public can persuade City Council to direct the City Manager to send Stantec and City engineers back to the drawing board to revisit some of the other 40 alternatives or to develop additional variations. Many on council tentatively supported the reevaluation in the first place due to concerns over construction timelines. The majority of Council will not agree to taking more time to further review the alternatives. However, it is still possible to convince a majority to select B, C or D instead of A as the final design.

To accomplish that, the public will need to do several things. First, show up in very large numbers and participate in the public meeting and express opposition to A and support for B, C or D. Second, provide an overwhelming number of written comments to ODOT, the City and the Feds supporting B, C or D and opposing A. And, third contact City Council members in large numbers and support B, C or D and opposing.

To really be effective, everyone would need to agree on which of the remaining three alternatives to support. That may be the hardest part.

Because of this. Several of us have been through this process before.

If you have a City Council who will weigh all 40 options, have a debate about it, and willing to take on City Staff, then we could get to a more "organic" solution derived from citizen input.

But City Council isn't going to take on staff. They're going to be presented with four options. Two of those options are already fading out of the light, C & D, as City Engineering Staff and ODOT prepare focus on A & B.

C & D are exactly the kind of options that most of the people volunteering their time wanted. An at-grade solution

If you have a City Council who will weigh all 40 options, have a debate about it, and willing to take on City Staff, then we could get to a more "organic" solution derived from citizen input.

But City Council isn't going to take on staff.

Yes, but this is a fight for another day and the process involved here still should face considerable scrutiny.

So, support C or D and see if we can get a shift there, but also keep in mind that the only reason we are here in the first place is that citizen activists got organized and spoke up, and we have at least one city councilperson who is willing to challenge some of Jim Couch's unilateral assertions and decisions.


If Alternative A ends up being rammed through (and there has already been plenty of manipulation in aid of that goal) it might finally force a mini-revolution against Couch and his band of engineers. But even if C or D prevails, this whole exercise has brought into very sharp focus a way of doing things that HAS to change.

keep in mind that the only reason we are here in the first place is that citizen activists got organized and spoke up, and we have at least one city councilperson who is willing to challenge some of Jim Couch's unilateral assertions and decisions.

Absolutely. Obviously citizen activism is the core motivator behind the momentum that we have had thus far.

The issue is that only they are in the position to reduce the options to a "range of alternatives." As long as they provide the public and the City Council with a "range of alternatives" (being the four options) they have adequately met the criteria now forced upon them by the Federal Highway Administration.

We have two options on the table that are reasonable and meet the objective of the campaign by volunteers.

The larger issue regarding process, Jim Couch, and how decisions are typically and historically strong-armed by the Public Works Department, is a matter between the people, their City Council, and the ballot box.

Right now, the question is what is the political path to the Better Boulevard. And it seems to be to fight for C and/or D. "On the ground" solutions.

Excellent points.


But I hope the larger issue won't be completely lost here, as this could/should be a turning point.

It is concerning that no renderings have been made publicly available for options C & D as far as we are aware. By not providing renderings, it generates an unfair bias between the two options that the city Public Works Department and ODOT would be willing to live with.

BOTH A & B BEING GRADE SEPARATED

Undoubtedly, the campaign so far has generated a "Better Boulevard" with a better restructuring of the street alignments (Classen merging in to Western), more crosswalks, and a proposed roundabout at the convoluted triangular intersection at the Farmer's Market. So everyone should be proud of what has been accomplished in terms of a Better Boulevard.

However, with that said, this campaign is orienting towards recommending that citizens press our City Council and stress at Monday's public meeting, that our Locally Preferred Alternative is either Options C or D. The Friends for a Better Boulevard Campaign has always held at its core, a desire for an "At-Grade" solution.

While further debate on the overall design is always encouraged, its time to chalk up our wins and press forward with a politically salient path towards the "At-Grade" options they are willing to give us, C or D.

Excellent points.


But I hope the larger issue won't be completely lost here, as this could/should be a turning point.

Pete, I think many people involved in the FBB movement will not fade into the background regardless of the outcome. This series of events has exposed the strong arm tactics you mention to a pretty good number of people that maybe hadn't paid much attention previously. I hope we will see our elected leaders step up and take stronger stances opposing those tactics.

Why are we still focusing on demanding one of the four provided initially? We have 40 to choose from, more if we reject all assumptions...

I think it is a recognition of the likely outcomes at this point cafeboeuf. I am one of the strongest proponents of "Scheme E" or restoring the grid, but I recognize that might be beyond reach at this time. At least C or D doesn't erect a stupid bridge to be torn down when we finally realize the folly of not seriously considering other options.

2999

How about.. Demand A Meaningful Name? Oh wait, different issue..

Well it is decision time. I think Alternative C is better than D because a traditional intersection is more pedestrian friendly than a roundabout. Also the people who commute on Western every day evidently aren't smart enough to use Shields, so they may not be able to figure out a roundabout either.

How about.. Demand A Meaningful Name? Oh wait, different issue..

I think the final design should determine the name.... let those responsible take the credit - or the blame. :-)

Well it is decision time. I think Alternative C is better than D because a traditional intersection is more pedestrian friendly than a roundabout. Also the people who commute on Western every day evidently aren't smart enough to use Shields, so they may not be able to figure out a roundabout either.

Shields is like driving through the gutter...