View Full Version : Friends for a Better Boulevard



Pages : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 [23] 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48

Just the facts
11-30-2012, 11:14 PM
I agree with Sid and cafebeouf. My ticket is good all the way to the end of the line and that is how long I plan to stay on the train.

Just the facts
12-01-2012, 12:02 AM
Better yet - make it part of MAPS IV. By then we should know where the CC ends up :)

CaptDave
12-01-2012, 07:56 AM
How's this for a solution... give this project over to the MAPS3 Vommittees to form a subcommittee made up of people from the current subcommittees. Essentially, let MAPS3 adopt the project.

Just remove the 'burden' from the city and let them hash it out over the next couple of years. I'd feel much better and at least we'd get audio recordings from Jeff of discussions through the process.


Better yet - make it part of MAPS IV. By then we should know where the CC ends up :)

Why not let ODOT build the thing using funds already allocated? At least the sections that are not contentious would be built at no cost to the city. Then use a MAPS type mechanism to remove the "transitional" segment and anything not at grade. It would be a hybrid of MAPS and FBB. We could call it "MAPSFFBB" - MAPS For Fixing a Bad Boulevard.

Just the facts
12-01-2012, 08:31 AM
You are assuming there are no sections that are not contentious. I don't think I have seen any plans for the middle or east sections. They might be just as bad or worse. Personally, I don't care for the 2000' elevated section by Lower Bricktown. I would prefer that they do a spiral ramp between the railroad and canal and get the road down to grade before it crosses the canal. That would allow the boulevard to actually be a boulevard and provide access to the Coop site, which will also allow the coop and LB to visually connect with each other.

catch22
12-01-2012, 09:20 AM
You are assuming there are no sections that are not contentious. I don't think I have seen any plans for the middle or east sections. They might be just as bad or worse. Personally, I don't care for the 2000' elevated section by Lower Bricktown. I would prefer that they do a spiral ramp between the railroad and canal and get the road down to grade before it crosses the canal. That would allow the boulevard to actually be a boulevard and provide access to the Coop site, which will also allow the coop and LB to visually connect with each other.

We have to pick our battles, JTF. I've been taught growing up to only pick battles you can win or at least save face. I guarantee mentioning of a serious movement for a spiral down ramp is a non starter to ODOT.

catch22
12-01-2012, 09:23 AM
http://gyazo.com/59e6c0469e387d99b03a244377b903f3.png?1354375300

Even though the KFOR/Channel 4 poll has not been open long and is an extremely small sample, there is a trend emerging.

CaptDave
12-01-2012, 09:27 AM
You are assuming there are no sections that are not contentious. I don't think I have seen any plans for the middle or east sections. They might be just as bad or worse. Personally, I don't care for the 2000' elevated section by Lower Bricktown. I would prefer that they do a spiral ramp between the railroad and canal and get the road down to grade before it crosses the canal. That would allow the boulevard to actually be a boulevard and provide access to the Coop site, which will also allow the coop and LB to visually connect with each other.

I think the spiral is a neat idea also JTF, but that section is lower on the priority list for now. The reasons you give for getting the street on the ground are ones I agree with, but the land in that area is several years away from being developable. The land between the BNSF viaduct to Western is ready in the immediate future if the boulevard isn't built in such a way to prevent it. If the entire road west of the viaduct to the Farmer's Market district is at grade AND that silly "transistional" segment is eliminated, I think the city will reap enormous benefits in the near term. Picking our battles as catch22 stated.

OKCisOK4me
12-01-2012, 09:40 AM
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...

This city will never be first-rate world class without world class city and state employees that aren't afraid to think outside the box. Obviously they're about as bass ackward as Sally Kern.

CaptDave
12-01-2012, 09:47 AM
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.

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

I don't think anyone seriously wants to eliminate parts of Reno. I know it was in a couple earlier proposed designs but I think those were mostly to illustrate possibilities.

I think most people are focused on the section they are talking about elevating or depressing - either one creates an unnecessary, divisive scar in the city that will hinder development - again. Anything that is at grade is something we can work with and is much easier to improve or correct in the future at much lower cost. I think most people think most of the proposed design adjacent to the park is pretty good except for building the CC on the north side of that section but that is for another discussion.

Bellaboo
12-01-2012, 09:54 AM
This city will never be first-rate world class without world class city and state employees that aren't afraid to think outside the box. Obviously they're about as bass ackward as Sally Kern.

Welcome aboard 'Ray of Sunshine'. LOL

catcherinthewry
12-01-2012, 10:46 AM
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/

No they are not. The 90,000 number that has irresponsibly been thrown around here and taken for gospel is nowhere close to accurate. I was told by a very good source that the number they used was 30,000.

The big problem here is that the rendering of the proposal was made public but not the method used to arrive at it. Go to the meeting and let Stantec and Wenger explain the process.

P.S. This is not directed at JTF, but at all the people throwing 90,000 out there.

Just the facts
12-01-2012, 12:12 PM
No they are not. The 90,000 number that has irresponsibly been thrown around here and taken for gospel is nowhere close to accurate. I was told by a very good source that the number they used was 30,000.

The big problem here is that the rendering of the proposal was made public but not the method used to arrive at it. Go to the meeting and let Stantec and Wenger explain the process.

P.S. This is not directed at JTF, but at all the people throwing 90,000 out there.

I don't know what to say other than this:

Oklahoma City group questions highway engineers' roundabout design | NewsOK.com (http://newsok.com/oklahoma-city-group-questions-highway-engineers-roundabout-design/article/3696173)


Evans [the State Highway Director] warns a roundabout might not be able to handle an estimated 94,000 vehicles a day expected to travel the boulevard in 2035

...

Evans estimated that the boulevard, when it opens, will carry 58,825 vehicles a day in and out of downtown. That figure tops one of the busiest stretches of the six-lane Northwest Expressway between Meridian and MacArthur, which carried 53,769 cars daily in 2011.

The 2035 estimate of 94,000 cars daily on the boulevard, meanwhile, would top the 92,900 daily traffic counts recorded on Interstate 44 between Broadway Extension and Western Avenue.

catcherinthewry
12-01-2012, 05:00 PM
I don't know what to say other than this:

Oklahoma City group questions highway engineers' roundabout design | NewsOK.com (http://newsok.com/oklahoma-city-group-questions-highway-engineers-roundabout-design/article/3696173)

How about this? Go to the meeting and hear Stantec say they used 30,000. The article you cite was written before Stantec was ever hired.

Thanks for answering where the 90,000 number came from, though. I've followed this thread closely for quite some time and didn't know where that number came from

Just the facts
12-01-2012, 06:12 PM
I guess the next question is, are they predicting a start of 30,000 like ODOT predicted a start of 58,000? The 94,000 used by ODOT was after 20 years - but they designed the road to handle the 94,000. If so, that would mean Stantec is designing a road for 66,000 cars a day after 20 years if they use the same growth rate. The busiest road downtown is currently Western at 17,000 cars per day. Reno and Sheridan combined only have 17,000.

Spartan
12-01-2012, 08:59 PM
I'm not going to calculate it but using the same growth rate would be closer to 50k.

CuatrodeMayo
12-01-2012, 09:03 PM
Not to mention the boulevard carries exactly 0 cars per day presently. Other than rush hour backups at Western, we aren't exacltly in the middle of a CarMegddon...I'm not sure where 30,000 cars are going to magically appear from.

Just the facts
12-01-2012, 09:20 PM
Not to mention the boulevard carries exactly 0 cars per day presently. Other than rush hour backups at Western, we aren't exacltly in the middle of a CarMegddon...I'm not sure where 30,000 cars are going to magically appear from.

This^. If anyone needs proof that making roads creates traffic you don't need to look any further.

CaptDave
12-01-2012, 10:16 PM
Not to mention the boulevard carries exactly 0 cars per day presently. Other than rush hour backups at Western, we aren't exacltly in the middle of a CarMegddon...I'm not sure where 30,000 cars are going to magically appear from.

A street grid has the "strange" effect of dispersing large number of vehicles rather effectively......

LandRunOkie
12-02-2012, 08:05 AM
No they are not. The 90,000 number that has irresponsibly been thrown around here and taken for gospel is nowhere close to accurate. I was told by a very good source that the number they used was 30,000.
The correct number in these estimates is 100%. That's the number of times the oil companies have successfully countermanded public sentiment in this city. Larry Nichols, Tom Ward, and Harold Hamm don't want their workers lollygagging in traffic they want them figuring out ways to get that nasty shale sludge out of the ground!

No one on this forum has blamed anyone but grumpy old traffic engineers for opposing the Friends movement. The oil companies are the reason the 40 options aren't still on the table. And they are the reason a lack of organized support for one of the four choices will result in Alternative A.

I have a suggestion for a name as well: Karen Silkwood Boulevard

Snowman
12-02-2012, 08:18 AM
The correct number in these estimates is 100%. That's the number of times the oil companies have successfully countermanded public sentiment in this city. Larry Nichols, Tom Ward, and Harold Hamm don't want their workers lollygagging in traffic they want them figuring out ways to get that nasty shale sludge out of the ground!

No one on this forum has blamed anyone but grumpy old traffic engineers for opposing the Friends movement. The oil companies are the reason the 40 options aren't still on the table. And they are the reason a lack of organized support for one of the four choices will result in Alternative A.

If Devon, Sand ridge or Continental Resources wanted to manipulated it for their interest, their is a more effective way to do it. The west side merging into Sheridan would improve access to the west metro for them, people coming from the east section of the boulevard makes no difference if it connects or not to get to their headquarters.

Just the facts
12-02-2012, 09:25 AM
If Devon, Sand ridge or Continental Resources wanted to manipulated it for their interest, their is a more effective way to do it. The west side merging into Sheridan would improve access to the west metro for them, people coming from the east section of the boulevard makes no difference if it connects or not to get to their headquarters.

I'm not an oil company conspiracy theorist on this issue but they are too busy building radiant office complexes to want a major road through their area.

catcherinthewry
12-02-2012, 09:38 AM
The correct number in these estimates is 100%. That's the number of times the oil companies have successfully countermanded public sentiment in this city. Larry Nichols, Tom Ward, and Harold Hamm don't want their workers lollygagging in traffic they want them figuring out ways to get that nasty shale sludge out of the ground!

No one on this forum has blamed anyone but grumpy old traffic engineers for opposing the Friends movement. The oil companies are the reason the 40 options aren't still on the table. And they are the reason a lack of organized support for one of the four choices will result in Alternative A.

I have a suggestion for a name as well: Karen Silkwood Boulevard

Wow! I think that aluminum foil hat you're wearing is a little too tight.

Steve
12-02-2012, 10:51 AM
The 90,000 figure was provided to me by ODOT in the same round of interviews in which they provided a map of a roundabout that they said was copied from a graphic posted on the Friends for a Better Boulevard Facebook page. I've not seen any indication that the discussion of this design has involved the CEO's of downtown's major corporate players.

Snowman
12-02-2012, 11:08 AM
I'm not an oil company conspiracy theorist on this issue but they are too busy building radiant office complexes to want a major road through their area.

Why are you saying that to me, the post I was replying to was the one implying oil companies trying to influence the decision?

My point was the path chosen is not the most preferential to them for access to the freeway and if they don't care about access to their headquarters then ODOT's preferential option is no better or worse than many of the options.

CaptDave
12-02-2012, 11:20 AM
From Councilman Shadid:

"The Stantec presentation indicates that the evaluation criteria they were working with restricted them to considering the Boulevard as a through movement; that, in my mind, is when the best alternatives were eliminated."

This is the key to this entire discussion. Our city leaders - City Manager? Public Works? Mayor? Council? - poisoned the well from the start of the Stantec analysis. Why were the consultants hired to objectively evaluate the BEST design for our city at the behest of the citizens of Oklahoma City instructed to eliminate what is likely the simplest, least expensive, and most effective design? This restriction was, and is, unacceptable. To say I am livid is an understatement.

catcherinthewry
12-02-2012, 12:19 PM
From Councilman Shadid:

"The Stantec presentation indicates that the evaluation criteria they were working with restricted them to considering the Boulevard as a through movement; that, in my mind, is when the best alternatives were eliminated."

This is the key to this entire discussion. Our city leaders - City Manager? Public Works? Mayor? Council? - poisoned the well from the start of the Stantec analysis. Why were the consultants hired to objectively evaluate the BEST design for our city at the behest of the citizens of Oklahoma City instructed to eliminate what is likely the simplest, least expensive, and most effective design? This restriction was, and is, unacceptable. To say I am livid is an understatement.

Do you know what the evaluation criteria were or how they were obtained? If so, please share them. If not then to state that city leaders "poisoned the well from the start" is just an uninformed statement.

Like I said earlier, the problem with these alternatives and the city's preferred solution is that how they arrived at them has not been explained. They should have included their methods when revealing their selection. But they didn't so we will have to wait until Monday night to find out. Then, if you don't like what they recommend, feel free to criticize from an educated perspective.

CaptDave
12-02-2012, 12:32 PM
Do you know what the evaluation criteria were or how they were obtained? If so, please share them. If not then to state that city leaders "poisoned the well from the start" is just an uninformed statement.

Like I said earlier, the problem with these alternatives and the city's preferred solution is that how they arrived at them has not been explained. They should have included their methods when revealing their selection. But they didn't so we will have to wait until Monday night to find out. Then, if you don't like what they recommend, feel free to criticize from an educated perspective.

My primary point is Stantec was restricted in what they were "allowed" to evaluate. They were told specifically not to analyze reconnecting the two entrances from I-40 to the street grid. They were told they had to include the transitional segment that necessitates segregating a large section of downtown from the city center - again. That section of "the boulevard" is the primary problem with the design from the beginning. The city council directed city staff to hire a consultant to objectively evaluate all alternatives to the original ODOT design.

Someone in city staff/leadership then decided to restrict the analysis to criteria that could only arrive at a predestined conclusion. Who? Why? Just because a city official wasn't elected, it does not mean they do not answer to the citizens they supposedly serve. The citizens of OKC have not been well served by what is looking more and more like a sham of a process.

BTW - I am making these statements from a fairly educated perspective. If you have anything to add that might shed some light on the topic, feel free to do so.

catch22
12-02-2012, 03:05 PM
I really wish I was off work on Monday evening....

Plutonic Panda
12-02-2012, 04:04 PM
So what is most likely going to happen with this? Is there a strong chance it will be a nice development and pedestrain friendly road or just another throughway?

catch22
12-02-2012, 04:26 PM
So what is most likely going to happen with this? Is there a strong chance it will be a nice development and pedestrain friendly road or just another throughway?

Option A is most likely. But still show your support in every possible way for C or D as those are on the table and its still not too late. This is an uphill battle, but a worthy battle, anyway.

Plutonic Panda
12-02-2012, 05:02 PM
Option A is most likely. But still show your support in every possible way for C or D as those are on the table and its still not too late. This is an uphill battle, but a worthy battle, anyway.That sucks. I'll show up tomorrow for the town hall meeting, but I don't if I can do anything as I live in Edmond.But, I'll try anyways. I wonder if option a ends up happening, maybe the city will redo it like some have suggested on here. It seems it would be popular among voters passing it through due to all the support at the meetings.

catcherinthewry
12-02-2012, 05:28 PM
My primary point is Stantec was restricted in what they were "allowed" to evaluate. They were told specifically not to analyze reconnecting the two entrances from I-40 to the street grid. They were told they had to include the transitional segment that necessitates segregating a large section of downtown from the city center - again. That section of "the boulevard" is the primary problem with the design from the beginning. The city council directed city staff to hire a consultant to objectively evaluate all alternatives to the original ODOT design.

Someone in city staff/leadership then decided to restrict the analysis to criteria that could only arrive at a predestined conclusion. Who? Why? Just because a city official wasn't elected, it does not mean they do not answer to the citizens they supposedly serve. The citizens of OKC have not been well served by what is looking more and more like a sham of a process.

BTW - I am making these statements from a fairly educated perspective. If you have anything to add that might shed some light on the topic, feel free to do so.

I did some follow up and have been told that Stantec was actually given no initial restrictions, hence the 40 wide ranging initial options including return to grid options (although probably not as soon as some may have wanted).

The reason that return to grid was not considered was that it was a federal mandate to replace the old I 40 with a "boulevard" that would act as a bypass if it were necessary to shut down the new I 40. Neither ODOT, nor the city nor any evil, shadowy entity could change that mandate. So you need to redirect your anger at the Federal Highway Administration and away from city staff/leadership.

LandRunOkie
12-02-2012, 05:58 PM
What follow up could you possibly be doing. First you act like you have some secret information that they used 30,000, not 90,000. Then you call somebody else uneducated without knowing him. Now you are trying to call Ed Shadid a liar. Time for me put you on ignore (how do I do that?)

jn1780
12-02-2012, 06:14 PM
The reason that return to grid was not considered was that it was a federal mandate to replace the old I 40 with a "boulevard" that would act as a bypass if it were necessary to shut down the new I 40. Neither ODOT, nor the city nor any evil, shadowy entity could change that mandate. So you need to redirect your anger at the Federal Highway Administration and away from city staff/leadership.

Where is the documentation on this? The funny thing is that it was probably ODOT who made the original recommendation that a boulevard and interstate was needed. Then congress passed the highway funding bill that included funds for a new interstate and boulevard. And all of the sudden it becomes a Federal mandate that project include a boulevard.

catcherinthewry
12-02-2012, 06:19 PM
What follow up could you possibly be doing. First you act like you have some secret information that they used 30,000, not 90,000. Then you call somebody else uneducated without knowing him. Now you are trying to call Ed Shadid a liar. Time for me put you on ignore (how do I do that?)

Feel free to ignore me and go back to your oil company conspiracy theories. Go to the meeting tomorrow night and you'll find out that I have good information.

I would like to clarify the 90,000/30,000 debate though. The 90,000 number was the number that would travel the new boulevard if the new I 40 were shut down. If that is what people were trying say earlier I apologize for my misunderstanding them.

As for Shadid, here is his earlier quote:

"The Stantec presentation indicates that the evaluation criteria they were working with restricted them to considering the Boulevard as a through movement; that, in my mind, is when the best alternatives were eliminated."

I'm not sure where you thought I was calling him a liar. The criteria they were working with DID restrict them to considering the Boulevard as a through movement. I just stated that those criteria were imposed upon them by the Feds, not by the city or by ODOT.

Just the facts
12-02-2012, 06:43 PM
I-240 and I-44 via I-235 (or I-35) are both by-passes if I-40 was every shut down. Where was the by-pass for the old I-40? And if I-240, I-44 and I-40 were all shut down - there is still the Kilpatrick Turnpike.

CaptDave
12-02-2012, 07:02 PM
I-240 and I-44 via I-235 (or I-35) are both by-passes if I-40 was every shut down. Where was the by-pass for the old I-40? And if I-240, I-44 and I-40 were all shut down - there is still the Kilpatrick Turnpike.

Beat me to it JTF. The bypass criteria is contrived (to put it kindly) if indeed it were part of the considerations for the boulevard design. However, it sounds just plausible enough that most people will not question it without thinking about the relatively extensive highway network that encircles this city.

What did traffic do when the old Crosstown (half the size of the new I40) had to be closed for a MVA or another hole in the deck? There are sufficient alternate routes AND more lanes on the new I40 to handle all but the most catastrophic situations.

Furthermore, where was this "requirement" in June/July? The primary consideration the city provided was traffic after a Thunder game. That was quickly debunked as false bordering on disingenuous. There was no mention of any bypass criteria during the July 31 City Council meeting nor the August 21 Public Meeting held by ODOT. When, and from whom, did this new criteria emerge?

Spartan
12-02-2012, 07:54 PM
I'll give you a hint...he sits at the middle of the horseshoe.

Hutch
12-02-2012, 09:39 PM
The reason that return to grid was not considered was that it was a federal mandate to replace the old I 40 with a "boulevard" that would act as a bypass if it were necessary to shut down the new I 40.

There is no federal law requiring ODOT to construct a boulevard through Oklahoma City to serve as a bypass in the event Interstate 40 is shutdown.

The only federal decision specifically addressing the new I-40 Crosstown and the Boulevard is the Record of Decision (http://www.40forward.com/pdfs/rod_050102.pdf) (ROD) issued by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) on May 1, 2002 approving ODOT's Preferred Alternative D under the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Crosstown. Here's all that is said about construction of a boulevard in the ROD:

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

That's it. There is nothing in the ROD that requires the Boulevard to serve as a bypass in the event I-40 is shutdown, and the FHWA has no preference or requirement as to the design and purpose of a city street. Their only concern is that ODOT comply with all NEPA requirements in any state or municipal project involving federal money.

ODOT and Oklahoma City are not being forced by the federal goverment to construct a boulevard as a bypass, or even to construct a boulevard at all. That's a decision being made strictly by ODOT and Oklahoma City leaders.

OKCisOK4me
12-03-2012, 10:38 AM
Saw on the news that they'd be streaming the meeting tonight on u-stream but they didn't provide a link. Does anyone know it?

jedicurt
12-03-2012, 11:30 AM
hopefully i will be able to stream it from work... i'll be there in spirit, sadly, not in person

Just the facts
12-03-2012, 12:29 PM
hopefully i will be able to stream it from work... i'll be there in spirit, sadly, not in person

If you can't do it from work you can install the U-Stream app on your smart phone.

Tier2City
12-03-2012, 01:22 PM
YES! It's the Traffic Engineering Drinking Game!

This will help you get through it all tonight while the lipstick is being put on.

Take one shot if any of these questions are answered:

What was the actual traffic count for the old I-40 where the Boulevard will be?
What is the design capacity of the new I-40?
What were the previous traffic counts for all E-W streets near the new Boulevard where traffic is currently dispersing to?
What are the current traffic counts for all those E-W streets that are now handling Boulevard traffic?
Why were no renderings of Options C & D made?
Why exactly was the grid option rejected?
When was the "Boulevard must remain as a through movement" requirement inserted? Why? By who?
If the 30,000 number is "correct" why was the ODOT 94,000 figure so wrong?
What's up with that oversize load? Why isn't it on I-40? How many times are loads like that going to come through this area in 30 years?
What would it take to convert Alternative C to Alternative A at some later date when these traffic counts actually happen?

Take two shots if any of these questions are answered:
Will there be buffaloes?
What's the impact on walkability and connectivity?
How much induced traffic is expected?
Why was this particular traffic model selected?
What sensitivity analyses have been conducted on the traffic model?
What are the biggest drivers and uncertainties in this model for future traffic predictions?

Take three shots if Stantec explain what projects they have worked on in the last two decades where actual traffic flow has turned out to be nowhere near what they predicted.

Disclaimer - don't try this at home or anywhere else. Not to worry though - no one will be getting drunk tonight as I'm sure it'll be quite a sobering experience...

Feel free to add anything else that you'd like to see answered tonight.

Just the facts
12-03-2012, 01:32 PM
I'll add one.

Where are these 30,000/59,000/94,000 cars today?

From the Oklahoman:


Evans estimated that the boulevard, when it opens, will carry 58,825 vehicles a day in and out of downtown.

That is more cars than currently go downtown everyday. So we are to believe that in the next 24 months downtown traffic is going to more than double?

jedicurt
12-03-2012, 01:58 PM
If you can't do it from work you can install the U-Stream app on your smart phone.

Ah Ha... hadn't thought of that. thanks for the idea. i'll install it now!

SouthwestAviator
12-03-2012, 02:24 PM
Pete White- Comments about the boulevard start about /3rds of the way in.

Gwin Faulconer Lippert Show 12-02-12 Segment 1 - KTOK (http://www.ktok.com/player/?station=KTOK-AM&program_name=podcast&program_id=GwinnFaulconerLippert.xml&mid=22676891)

Me-

Gwin Faulconer Lippert Show 12-02-12 Segment 3 - KTOK (http://www.ktok.com/player/?mid=22676895&station=KTOK-AM&program_id=GwinnFaulconerLippert.xml&program_name=podcast)

Plutonic Panda
12-03-2012, 02:41 PM
I'll add one.

Where are these 30,000/59,000/94,000 cars today?

From the Oklahoman:



That is more cars than currently go downtown everyday. So we are to believe that in the next 24 months downtown traffic is going to more than double?As crazy as it seems, I have talked to people that heard that and believed ODOT's traffic counts. :/

Just the facts
12-03-2012, 02:46 PM
Pete White- Comments about the boulevard start about /3rds of the way in.

Gwin Faulconer Lippert Show 12-02-12 Segment 1 - KTOK (http://www.ktok.com/player/?station=KTOK-AM&program_name=podcast&program_id=GwinnFaulconerLippert.xml&mid=22676891)

Me-

Gwin Faulconer Lippert Show 12-02-12 Segment 3 - KTOK (http://www.ktok.com/player/?mid=22676895&station=KTOK-AM&program_id=GwinnFaulconerLippert.xml&program_name=podcast)


"They used today's traffic counts" - Pete White on the simulation of a roundabout and why it won't work.

Really, and what exactly is today's traffic count on the boulevard?

Stew
12-03-2012, 03:05 PM
I don't usually agree with the urbanist lobby on here and for the most part i tend to put my lot with the paid experts and not concerned citizens but on this issue I find it impossible to be an apologist for the city/ODOT. I think there are many like me. I hope the concerned citizens score a victory on this issue.

catch22
12-03-2012, 07:31 PM
Any initial reactions/commentary on the presentation?

RickOKC
12-03-2012, 07:39 PM
The question and answer time is still ongoing...

Spartan
12-03-2012, 08:31 PM
I cringed at a lot of the questions. Phil Hughes showed up... As did an industrial business owner wanting to keep urban design out. McDermid gave some interesting remarks.

It's pretty evident that nobody is thinking of this boulevard as an economic development/real estate catalyst.

An important distinction is that the consultants said all four final options move traffic sufficiently. The first two just move traffic better. Translation - perhaps the best strategy would be pushing for the two at-grade solutions C and D since they had the contractors seal of approval.

soonerliberal
12-03-2012, 08:38 PM
It's pretty evident that nobody is thinking of this boulevard as an economic development/real estate catalyst.


Any reason the Chamber of Commerce isn't amping up the pressure on this?

Spartan
12-03-2012, 08:40 PM
I don't think they're plugged into urban design and don't really consider downtown development mission critical anymore. Devon and SR do that now, so get out of the way of the adults building energy HQs needing commuter pathways out of downtown.

Some of these folks truly have tunnel vision and can only see north/south and can't comprehend what may be to the west or east..

I also think because of how the downtown design community (Supporters of Shadid, streetcars, etc) has been at odds with the Chamber junta, there's not a lot of good will between sides to pick up eachother's causes.

Just the facts
12-03-2012, 08:55 PM
It's pretty evident that nobody is thinking of this boulevard as an economic development/real estate catalyst.


Engineers aren't tasked with economic development. They are ill-equipped for that job. That is why planners should have been given control of this job from day one. This is what happens when you let engineers define AND solve the problem. The private sector doesn't work this way.

Spartan
12-03-2012, 09:01 PM
Engineers aren't asked with economic development. They are ill-equipped for that job.

Amazing.. Guess they can't do everything!

LandRunOkie
12-03-2012, 09:24 PM
They had a lot more negative things to say about alternative C than I expected. One of them was pollution from standing traffic. Considering the boulevard and Western aren't going to have heavy traffic at the same times, it seems like a problem that could be solved with adjusting traffic light timing.

Just the facts
12-03-2012, 09:29 PM
They had a lot more negative things to say about alternative C than I expected. One of them was pollution from standing traffic. Considering the boulevard and Western aren't going to have heavy traffic at the same times, it seems like a problem that could be solved with adjusting traffic light timing.

LOL - man they will grasp at any straw floating by in the wind. This is how you know they don't have a good justification for their choice. Did anyone ask how exactly a road carrying 94,000 cars a day has less pollutants than a road that doesn't even exist carrying 0 cars per day? I mean, it isn't like they are widening an existing road. This road doesn't exist today at all.

Spartan
12-03-2012, 09:46 PM
LOL - man they will grasp at any straw floating by in the wind. This is how you know they don't have a good justification for their choice. Did anyone ask how exactly a road carrying 94,000 cars a day has less pollutants than a road that doesn't even exist carrying 0 cars per day? I mean, it isn't like they are widening an existing road. This road doesn't exist today at all.

Maybe the current traffic counts for California would be a good basis though LOL

ljbab728
12-03-2012, 11:51 PM
Recommended Oklahoma City Boulevard design meets skepticism | NewsOK.com (http://newsok.com/recommended-oklahoma-city-boulevard-design-meets-skepticism/article/3734412)