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

They've been completely out to lunch on this entire issue. I'm guessing through their silence we can infer they're favoring the Couch solution set, whatever that ends up being. Strange because the chamber / mayor have been pitching the boulevard as some kind of utopian retail destination for years. I think this whole thing is a ruse, has always been a ruse, and there was never any intended follow through to either design a grand boulevard (laughing here a little) or a quality urban destination.

This was just developer/chamber/promoter/politician/monorail-pitcher talk. Sorry if that sounds cynical, but they obviously have presented no vision whatsoever and don't appear to be the least bit engaged, which is strange considering how much of a visible entry / gateway this road will be for our city.

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.

Be careful. While Shadid has been at odds with the Chamber, the streetcar people have generally not.

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.

KFOR NewsChannel 4
By Ali Meyer
Story posted 2012.12.03 at 07:51 PM CST

"...Ward 6 council member Meg Salyer attended the meeting Monday night.

"What we've tried to do is take those two concepts and blend them together for everyone concerned," Salyer said...."

As legendary radio broadcaster Paul Harvey used to say, "And now you know the rest of the story."

Step 1 - Define what downtown needs (engineers need not apply - you are on the solution side of the equation).

It either needs people to get in and out fast or it needs to be developed. We can't do both. I thought this question was answered with things like C2S, P180, relocating I-40, and such but I guess not. The old I-40 is proof that a rapid exit from downtown does not lead to development. But if you look at the areas north and east of downtown they are thriving without the introduction of rapid travel routes. In fact, the slower the traffic the better the area seems to develope.

The primary issue is the way this disussion started. We should have asked (demanded?) the city and Stantec use a restored grid as the baseline analysis. Then compare all other options to the well developed street grid OKC is so fortunate to have in place. If it can be definitively proven Option A, B, C, or D are better designs, then provide the data to the public. The city attempted to dodge a very specific question from the Q&A session last night and merely demonstrated their unwillingness to even consider that simplest, least expensive, and in my opinion best design for the street complex that will replace the Crosstown.

Really good discussion on this subject going on at the City Council meeting.

See live tweets here:

https://twitter.com/OKC_Beat

Larry McAtee: Using computer models is the best guess that we have.

No, the best guess you have is reality. We don't need computer models to know that traffic easily flows through the rest of downtown which is 100% surrounded by a grid. A computer model is only as good as the programming and the data input (see BCS for proof of that).

Here are all the tweets from the discussion of the boulevard at today's city council meeting:


One thing that just passed is the official notice of the city's election next year.

Wards 1 (Gary Marrs), 3 (Larry McAtee), 4 (Pete White) and 7 (Skip Kelly) are up in 2013.

I do not know of any official word from any of those four that they are or are not running for re-election.

.@edshadid says that print journalism and live tweeting are both important for civic discourse. Thanks again, councilman!

Shadid is bringing up the boulevard meeting. Starts by saying city staff and Stantec did a good job, but that there were missed opps.

Shadid thinks things could have been explained better in the meeting, specifically some of the intersections and at-grade issues.

Shadid: We're making a decision that will have consequences for decades, and a significant factor is the computer models we're using.

Shadid: We're making decisions based only on peak traffic volumes, but that's only two hours per day.

Shadid: Explain the model, what numbers we're putting into it. Then run sequential studies.

Shadid says, for example, we're making assumptions on 30,000 vehicles per day. What if we assume 28,000 per day, does that make an impact?

Shadid: I think we all know there's some subjectivity. How far off are some of the other options from working?

Shadid, like many people at the meeting last night, support a full integration of the boulevard into the existing grid.

Shadid: At least look at it (grid integration). Try and see how it would play out.

California Avenue's path is the one grid advocates are saying the boulevard should pass through.

Gary Marrs: We built fewer entrances onto I-40 because of plans for the boulevard. Always the plan for blvd to connect to I-40 on both ends.

Marrs: We still have a lot of downtown employees we need to get in and out of downtown every day.

Marrs: The fact we've already discussed narrowing and lowering the boulevard shows we're listening to concerns.

Marrs: To disregard the boulevard as a key factor in how the new I-40 operates is a mistake. It concerns me people think we don't need it.

Marrs: People are not looking at the overall big picture. The boulevard is one part of how we get people to and through downtown.

Marrs: And if you say people are tweaking results to get something, you want to just get someone to tweak them the other way?

Marrs: Would it be nice aesthetically if every road was two lanes with parking and bike paths? That's what some people want.

Marrs: But that doesn't accommodate getting commuters in and out of downtown.

@coworkerfellow Most people at the meeting seemed unhappy with the compromise.

@AuRevoirGiraffe should be. some people have browser problems, but i don't know enough to troubleshoot.

Larry McAtee: Using computer models is the best guess that we have.

McAtee: There was no tweaking of the data put into this computer model. This is a plan trying to balance a lot of factors.

Pete White: If we look at what the blvd looked like before this started and what it looks like now, it's a victory.

White: If we stop right now, more people will be pleased than if we had not had this dialogue.

White: The dialogue isn't finished. We need to continue to look at options.

White: I don't want this to degenerate into pointing fingers. We've gone through this process and made positive changes.

White: We're not going to make everybody happy. But we've done a good job making more people happy on this boulevard, and I'm proud of that.

Fascinating debate right now, IMO. The boulevard encapsulates almost every planning debate in this city.

Meg Salyer: I think there's an expectation that we're going to get something grand with the boulevard.
Skip Kelly is decrying some of the conditions facing people in his ward, specifically crime and education.

Kelly: This isn't always going to be a northeast Oklahoma City issue or a black community issue. We need a collaborative effort.

For some background on NE OKC's education issues, check out this shocking @carriejacobs story: Douglass transcript findings spur call for wider auditing | NewsOK.com (http://okne.ws/UeNw2Z)

Pat Ryan: (Back to the boulevard.) This will result in a compromise, which will result in what people need, if not what all people want.

@OKC_Beat And yet the City's planners aren't involved in making the recommendations...
24m Paul Ryckbost, AICP ‏@cafeboeuf

@coworkerfellow that's not a bad comparison.

@nocando4 planners, not managers. There sometimes is a divide between what city planners and city engineers think is best.

@nocando4 And for whatever reason, city Planning Department doesn't have as big of a role as some people want it to in some civic projects.

I did not like the way that discussion went. Sounds like the council is ready to settle for mediocrity (or a disaster) without holding city staff accountable for not objectively evaluating ALL options as directed by the council on 31 July. If Stantec would run the simulation on a restored grid one of two things will happen: 1) the "gridders" will be proven right and the design will need to be extensively revamped, or 2) the data might show Option 'A' really is better and ODOT and city staff get to smirk and make smug comments about those FBB people. Ah yeah - they do that already.

If I can be shown a simulation with realistic, unbiased data input that shows a restored grid is not be the best option, I would stop asking these questions and advocate for making the Option 'A' design the best it can be. Unfortunately the manner this process has been conducted creates more questions and suspicion than providing answers that will garner public support.

City Council has never been willing to challenge Couch.

He's been very astute in terms of lining up support on these big issues long before it gets to the council meetings.

Residents, officials discuss plans for downtown Boulevard at Monday meeting - Oklahoma City - OKC - KOCO.com (http://www.koco.com/news/oklahomanews/okc/Residents-officials-discuss-plans-for-downtown-Boulevard-at-Monday-meeting/-/11777584/17648454/-/xbh4qxz/-/index.html)

City Council has never been willing to challenge Couch.

He's been very astute in terms of lining up support on these big issues long before it gets to the council meetings.

Much to the detriment of Oklahoma City.

We need citizens to hold our elected leaders accountable for holding unelected city staff acountable. Some of them seem to think they are not accountable to the citizens that pay their salary. They are accountable even if indirectly - our elected officials are failing us in this regard. My opinion is evolving to closer to the one you have articulated in the P180 discussion.

The only way the status quo is going to change is to get some fresh blood on the Council.

But even then, many are not willing to rock the boat (Meg Salyer, as an example).

Gary Marrs: We built fewer entrances onto I-40 because of plans for the boulevard. Always the plan for blvd to connect to I-40 on both ends.

Marrs: We still have a lot of downtown employees we need to get in and out of downtown every day.

Marrs: The fact we've already discussed narrowing and lowering the boulevard shows we're listening to concerns.

Marrs: To disregard the boulevard as a key factor in how the new I-40 operates is a mistake. It concerns me people think we don't need it.

Marrs: People are not looking at the overall big picture. The boulevard is one part of how we get people to and through downtown.



Gary Marrs isn't getting it, or doesn't want to get it. There will still be two connections to I-40. No one is saying remove the two entrance/exits, but there is no reason both of those interchanges need to be connected on both ends by the same road. Make 2 boulevards - one along California (or even cut it over to Reno or Sheridan) and one along SW3rd. Just don't make the connector.

Gary Marrs is isn't getting, or isn't wanting to get it. There will still be two connections to I-40. No one is saying remove the two entrance/exits. There is no reason both of those interchanges need to be connected on both ends by the same road.

It has become very clear the city council AND staff either do not understand the concept of a restored grid and the benefits thereof; or they are so wedded to this idea that this new street MUST be a through movement they are unwilling to even consider other options. They are trying to force outdated concepts on a situation where there is an obvious, better solution. I am trying to understand their position, but they have not provided sufficient justification for the insistence on this one option for me to believe they have actually considered all design possibilities with any degree of objectivity.

It has become very clear the city council AND staff either do not understand the concept of a restored grid and the benefits thereof; or they are so wedded to this idea that this new street MUST be a through movement they are unwilling to even consider other options. They are trying to force outdated concepts on a situation where there is an obvious, better solution. I am trying to understand their position, but they have not provided sufficient justification for the insistence on this one option for me to believe they have actually considered all design possibilities with any degree of objectivity.

It take a special kind of person to keep believing in something that either isn't true or doesn't work. Once a better way is identified it should be embraced by everyone. I'll admit I am pretty opinionated and think I am always right (just ask my wife - or darn near everyone on OKCTalk) but once someone shows me a better way or that I was wrong, I instantly adopt and apply the new knowledge by making it my own. I don't know why more people aren't like that.

I agree JTF - I have changed from my initial thoughts on this street. I was 100% sure the roundabout concept could work at Western, Classen, and Blvd but after thinking about the property boundaries I began to think this may not be the best design. Then I was driving around the area in question and looked eastward down California where the connection to I40 would be and I had a epiphany. The view down California toward Myriad Gardens could be developed into an iconic street for motorists arriving to downtown from the west. Then let's build the boulevard described by Mayor Cornett along the SW 3rd right of way but extend that all the way to Exchange where we can eventually run the streetcar to Stockyards City. With the $30 million we won't spend on an unnecessary bridge over Western, we could create two very special streets that would be grand entrances to downtown AND still accomodate all the vehicular traffic along four main east-west streets (Sheridan, California, Reno, and SW 3rd/Boulevard). Every option the city and ODOT has presented forces us to close major E-W streets thereby causing the traffic problems they are trying to solve.

It is very clear that forcing a through movement where one is not necessary is causing every problem encountered in this process. The "Confluence" problem is created by the "transitional" segment of the design Stantec was instructed to analyze. Stantec clearly has the expertise to do an excellent job, so why not give them freedom to really evaluate the fully restored street grid option?

Then I was driving around the area in question and looked eastward down California where the connection to I40 would be and I had a epiphany. The view down California toward Myriad Gardens could be developed into an iconic street for motorists arriving to downtown from the west. Then let's build the boulevard described by Mayor Cornett along the SW 3rd right of way but extend that all the way to Exchange where we can eventually run the streetcar to Stockyards City.

Pure gold right there.

The view down California toward Myriad Gardens could be developed into an iconic street for motorists arriving to downtown from the west. Then let's build the boulevard described by Mayor Cornett along the SW 3rd right of way but extend that all the way to Exchange ...

With the $30 million we won't spend on an unnecessary bridge over Western, we could create two very special streets that would be grand entrances to downtown AND still accomodate all the vehicular traffic along four main east-west streets (Sheridan, California, Reno, and SW 3rd/Boulevard). Every option the city and ODOT has presented forces us to close major E-W streets thereby causing the traffic problems they are trying to solve.


This is the solution that solves both the transportation issues AND the economic development issues.

Is there enough ROW on 3rd?

For a good protion of it is the old I-40 right of way. Only the last 4 blocks would need widening and we wouldn't want to keep any of the metal industrial buildings anyhow. There are a couple of 2 story brick buildings that could redeveloped.

Shadid seems to get it.
Four other seats are coming up for election, should there be four candidates willing and available who also get it.
Not suggesting wrestling a seat out from under any incumbent is ever a cakewalk, but the math sure is.
1 gets it seat + 4 new gets it seats = 5 gets it seats.


Just laying this down and walking away, because I am merely an observer, not an OKC voter.

The view down California toward Myriad Gardens could be developed into an iconic street for motorists arriving to downtown from the west. Then let's build the boulevard described by Mayor Cornett along the SW 3rd right of way but extend that all the way to Exchange ...

... we could create two very special streets that would be grand entrances to downtown

I know that there are much more thoughtful and scientific ideas behind what the boulevard should be, but to me the idea of an iconic boulevard conjures up images of a parade route. Neither an elevated nor a depressed boulevard fits that image. I want the OKC Boulevard to host the parade that celebrates the NBA Champions Oklahoma City Thunder. I want a St Patrick's Day Parade, Hallowe'en Parade and a Gay Pride Parade to run down the boulevard. I want the parade route to be CaptDave's SW 3rd St and it can join up with the Stockyards City Christmas Parade.

Is there enough ROW on 3rd?

There are presently two traffic lanes with on street parking on SW 3rd from Lee to Western, and two traffic lanes to Exchange. There will be enough land between Lee and Walker to transition from the standard city street right of way to the much wider "boulevard" to the east. From a satellite photo, it appears to be sufficient space to accomodate automotive traffic and streetcar along that axis. The businesses in that areas do not appear to depend on street parking for their customers.

I've always wanted to see 3rd extended east too to create a new street wall in Lower Bricktown.

I like this as well. I think it is likely once the boulevard is in place. Hopefully Harkins will find a way to better relate to the new boulevard if there isn't enough space to build between the blvd and theater. The planners and engineers have done a good job in this area given the constraints of connecting the street level to the interstate ramps. I think JTF's spiral idea is very cool but have no idea if it is feasible at that location. I think we are beyond the point that could be incorporated though since there is so much ramp already built.

Oh - I failed to state this clearly - we would still have Reno running between the California and SW 3rd Streets. If someone really wants a through street - we already have one. The Project 180 upgrades along Reno are very nice and could be extended all the way to the Farmer's Market District. If for some reason it is too difficult to run streetcar down SW 3rd all the way to Exchange, it could run down Reno to Exchange. I think development would explode along these three axes if our city leaders will set the conditions for it to happen.

Additionally, it would enhance, rather than degrade, the infrastructure used by the existing businesses in the industrial area west of Shartel. One of the lamest rebuttals I have heard during this entire discussion claims FBB supporters want to run the light industrial businesses out and nothing is further from the truth. There is no reason a nice street with a streetcar cannot run through an area such as exists east of the Farmer's Market.

So who among you guys are running for which wards? That's the only question left at this point.

The biggest problem that I see with the current proposed design is the ghettoization of the area between western ave. and the park; and the proposed boulevard and the new I-40 alignment. All the current proposals for this area make it hard to reach and awful for future development. Specifically, there are currently 6 north/south streets into this area (Western, Classen, Shartel, Lee, Walker and Hudson). Of those 6 three will be cut off by the proposed "bi-way", Classen, Shartel and Lee. That will make it more difficult to connect to the area from the north. Of the 4 east/west streets (SW 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th) two will be cut by the proposed raceway (I mean boulevard), SW 2nd and 3rd streets. Keep in mind that there will be NO access to this area from the east because of the park. As a result the Boulevard half of the streets into this area will be cut. In order to develop this area the grid needs to be restored.

One thing that just passed is the official notice of the city's election next year.

Wards 1 (Gary Marrs), 3 (Larry McAtee), 4 (Pete White) and 7 (Skip Kelly) are up in 2013.

Ward 1 is staunchly conservative from the voting maps I've seen. The other incumbents have certainly left the door ajar for an urbanist candidate to challenge. Here's the ward map. (http://www.okc.gov/council/wardmap/wardmap.pdf) I would be on board with Sid if he decided to run.
Do people have to live within the ward they're running for or just within city limits? It would be hard to find qualified candidates who will work for 12,000/year in the NE/SW/far SE part of city.

Pete White has definitely punted on this issue, but overall he should have been better than that. I hope he runs for reelection, the others I hope we can get rid of, I just don't see how.

Yes, you absolutely have to live in the ward.

City Council has never been willing to challenge Couch.

He's been very astute in terms of lining up support on these big issues long before it gets to the council meetings.

Therein lies the problem. He should have been replaced several years ago instead of being given raises. The last one was unanimously approved. Can't imagine Councilman Shadid voting for it so maybe he wasn't present for that vote.

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).
Unfortunately, that isn't true, there were several restrictions reported in the paper recently.


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.
I would like to see documentation on this. If no Boulevard were to be build there are multiple "bypasses" one can use to get around a closed I-40. Even if the "mandate" did exist at some point, mandates can be changed.

ON EDIT: Hutch gave a very good response to this

I do recall back when this was in the planning stages, then Mayor Humphreys was against keeping the current alignment as it was too expensive to maintain (over $1 million/yr). Then when the route was chosen, he wanted to keep the old crosstown as a "business route". The logic was missing as most of the damage done to our highways is by semis, mostly semis would be taking the business route. If we couldn't afford the $1 maint before, how could we suddenly afford it now???

You must live in the ward you represent. And thanks for the nod, but I'm not qualified to run. For more information: City of Oklahoma City | Council Election Cycle (http://www.okc.gov/clerk/elections/council_elections.html)

Maybe you could setup a puppet regime and wield power from behind the curtain.

I'm not that smart. Or wealthy. ;-)

No problem there. All we need is Spartan to label you a junta or cabal. The rest will take care of itself. :)

In light of the issues that emerged last night I'd really encourage people to first re-read Steve's Flashback piece from December 1998 (http://blog.newsok.com/okccentral/2012/07/29/flashback-route-chosen-for-new-interstate-40 (http://blog.newsok.com/okccentral/2012/07/29/flashback-route-chosen-for-new-interstate-40/)) when the I-40 relocation route was chosen. It's also worth reading Steve's piece from the end of July this year that gives some important context about downtown in 1998 (http://blog.newsok.com/okccentral/2012/07/27/context-1998 (http://blog.newsok.com/okccentral/2012/07/27/context-1998/)).

With that in mind if you're going to watch just 6 minutes of the video from last night (now up on the City's home page at http://okc.gov (http://okc.gov/)) then watch Blair Humphreys' questions between 0:57:00 and 1:03:30. You can see Eric Wenger making it very clear that the boulevard must be an emergency I-40 bypass (I guess it would be I-440 under the AASHTO interstate numbering system?) is a Federal Highway Administration requirement. You can also see David Streb very grudgingly admit that return to the grid would be possible since the Environmental Impact Statement has to be revisited but David continues to push the agreements between ODOT and Council from that time. I'm sure David can't be happy with Blair's questions - those "agreements" or "commitments" were between Neal McCaleb and Blair's father!

Steve posted this entertaining video commentary by Sean Cummings on his blog.

Sean Cummings on the Boulevard | OKC Central (http://blog.newsok.com/okccentral/2012/12/04/8643/)

Maybe you could setup a puppet regime and wield power from behind the curtain.

That's not running for office is it? That seems more akin to being hired as a city manager or something like it.

How cool would it be if Unfrsakn could get some HD footage of the same area down there, for the record?

ATTENTION ATTENTION ATTENTION ATTENTION

Friends, this is how we persuade OKC/ODOT to build the Boulevard in a manner that is acceptable to the 600 people on this FB Group or other concerned citizens on OKCTalk, but we only have twelve days to act.

The Federal Highway Administration operates somewhat like a court of law. The judge can only decide a case based on the evidence presnted. Not from evidence presented on a FB group, not from a message board, not from a blog, not from a newspaper article, or a radio and TV interview; they must have your written comments in front of them.

If you are serious about a Better Boulevard you must get your comment written and in front of them...now. Ten letters won't influence them but 200, 300, 400, a 1000 or more letters will. Please get your family and friends to make their comments and mail them in ASAP.

This is the most important step you can take. Please act now.

Comment form: http://www.odot.org/meetings/a2012/121203/commentform_e.pdf

I think they'd only be swayed with 90,000 letters since that seems to be a number they like...

^ Ha ha - too funny. Let's hope we can convince at least 5 members of the city council to remove the blinders and give the "Two Boulevards on the Grid" design an honest assessment.

"Two Boulevards on the Grid"

I love that name.

Unfortunately, that isn't true, there were several restrictions reported in the paper recently.

Of course there were eventually restrictions, but I said no INITIAL restrictions. If there had been restrictions from the beginning, Stantec would've come up with far fewer options. There were several stages in the consultation. With each successive stage the options were fine tuned and narrowed in number. That's the way consulting works.



I would like to see documentation on this. If no Boulevard were to be build there are multiple "bypasses" one can use to get around a closed I-40. Even if the "mandate" did exist at some point, mandates can be changed.


"You can see Eric Wenger making it very clear that the boulevard must be an emergency I-40 bypass"

Got this from post 1447. The quote was from Monday night's meeting.

What Wenger said was that the city was bound by an agreement with Federal DOT called a ROD (?) to build the boulevard as a bypass. Some lady questioned him on the necessity of a bypass and he gave her a funny look and went to the next question. It isn't clear that the feds required a bypass, only that the ROD specified a bypass. I asked a Federal official about this today but haven't heard back yet.

In fairness to him, she should have asked him the direct question "Do the Federal officials require a bypass" instead of saying "I don't think they require a bypass". It's much harder to dodge a direct question than a statement.

"You can see Eric Wenger making it very clear that the boulevard must be an emergency I-40 bypass"

Got this from post 1447. The quote was from Monday night's meeting.

There is no requirement for this street to be an alternate interstate highway in the Federal Highway Administrations Record of Decision. Even if there were such a requirement in the RoD, it is going to be changed anyway since the city is modifying it from a 6 lanes to 4. The entire "alternate interstate" fallacy stems from a conversation that occurred over ten years ago between Neal McCaleb and former Mayor Humphries.

I do not think the people who are buying that line have really thought about the road network in OKC. Ten years ago and until it was finally demolished, I40 was an elevated 4 lane highway that had chunks of road deck falling out of it regularly. There was nowhere for motorists to go if there was a hole in the roadway or a wreck on the bridge deck. Now we have TEN lanes of interstate on the ground - it is highly unlikely the entire interstate will need to be closed. Additionally, there are numerous alternate routes already in place that can handle the traffic volume on I40 MUCH better than a street through downtown can - does I235, I35, I44, I240, and the Turnpike sound familiar? A few programmable signs outside the interstate loops surrounding OKC would be sufficient to warn drivers to divert around any problem if it was ever necessary.

The city has changed dramatically since then and the city has stated it wished to bring more activity and development back to downtown. Building a slightly modified IM Pei derivative makes no sense whatsoever. We realize now that highways dividing downtown was a bad idea then, and an even worse idea now.

Eric is a good guy and he is trying to do his job as he has been directed. I like him and he has always been willing to discuss this with me even though we don't agree. I tend to give him a break because I think he just wants to get this done regardless of the final design.

Could it be, perhaps, propaganda for another 6lane elevated high speed (highway) that ODOT clearly wants?

Could it be, perhaps, propaganda for another 6lane elevated high speed (highway) that ODOT clearly wants?

The City and ODOT are grasping at straws, I wouldn't call it propaganda per se. They have their minds set on building it and are using whatever reasoning possible to get it done. That's why we are hearing outrageous reasoning, they literally are grasping at finding a good justification for why we need it.

Here's the flier that was passed out at the Boulevard meeting on 03Dec.

3027

Jacksonville is just starting the re-construction of our downtown elevated freeway. Guess what, no by-pass and it is being replace with another elevated freeway.

Cleveland is talking about removing the elevated freeway that separates downtown from the lakeside.

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

I might venture to surmise that some folks think that denizens of OKC proper (of which i am not one) still think that OKCUbanites will buy into anything. I hope they are sadly mistaken. Especially those of either side who never have to drive or appreciate the results of the planning or lack thereof. It seems to me there are two basic issues: Elevated/Non-Elevated and Cross-Over Traffic Concerns (management thereof). A "Boulevard" above Street Level is not a "Boulevard" it is a remake of a redo of a previously failed and corrected "plan" that seemed like a good idea at the time. I vote for elevating Western to a bridge over the Proposal and putting in some Roundabouts to Add Character to the Drive/Detour. I would also suggest investing in CellphoneUseMonitors (of the Virtual Kind) to make up for the lack of Red Lights/Failure to Pay Full Attention to Driving while looking for some curbside parking between the trees and the shops.

All joking aside: Folks inside the core of OKCUrbanity here need to pay attention to the Call for Action, above, and fill in the friggin' form. I would, but I don't get to vote for The OKC Govt. BigWigs . . .

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

Con su permiso . . . A re-write of the accidental double post, above:
It has been said that "the developers always win" . . . this can be good or otherwise.
It has also been said that "no good deed goes unpunished".
And then there is that thing from "Debt of Honor" that says: "if it isn't written down it never happened" . . .

Actual, caring, concerned citizens of OKC have an opportunity here not to repeat the mistakes of the past.
It's been said that "The Developers" always win" . . .
It's been said that "No Good Deed goes unpunished" . . .
It has been suggested that now is a good time to "Fill In the Friggin' Form" (fer cryin' out loud).

You know that On-Grade, with Shops and Parking and Proper Traffic Control is a Good Thing.
Don't let THEM do something that will have to be re-done ad infinitum until whenever . . .

Fill in The Form (fer cryin' out loud) . . .

All joking aside: Folks inside the core of OKCUrbanity here need to pay attention to the Call for Action, above, and fill in the friggin' form. I would, but I don't get to vote for The OKC Govt. BigWigs . . .

Done, but you don't have to live in OKC to fill out the form. It goes to the Oklahoma Department of Transportation, not to OKC. Besides, this is built with federal funds so if you live in the US it is your money.

To be sure the Federal Highway Administration is aware of the comments, please send a copy of your comment form to the following address:

Oklahoma Division
Federal Highway Administration
5801 N Broadway Ext., Suite 300
Oklahoma City, OK 73118

The FHWA is the final authority over this project whether ODOT or OKC Staff wishes to believe it or not.

To add to that, you can email and fax them

email: Oklahoma.FHWA@dot.gov
fax: (405) 254-3302

Thank you JTF. I forgot that part.

With the discussion centered on boulevard details (elevation, access, speeds, width, etc.), can someone remind me why the boulevard is needed in the first place? It's eastern terminus is downtown, but what's to the west that justifies the boulevard at all?

I don't see that it's a road leading anywhere. There isn't a dense residential neighborhood to the west, or a dense commercial district. Developers aren't lining up saying "if only there was a road connecting this area to the CBD, then we would spend all of this money and develop the area." I don't see the synergy that - if the west would be connected to the CBD - then the combination of the two would be more valuable than they are today.

We recall 25-ish years ago when the Kilpatrick Turnpike first opened and very few motorists drove on it. But it was built through a corridor with a new regional mall, good demographics and lots of land, and connected western OKC, Yukon & Mustang to the Turner Turnpike & I-35. Commercial development followed, traffic counts increased, and it is being widened right now. I just don't see any of those things, either along the boulevard's path, or at the western terminus of the boulevard.

With the discussion centered on boulevard details (elevation, access, speeds, width, etc.), can someone remind me why the boulevard is needed in the first place? It's eastern terminus is downtown, but what's to the west that justifies the boulevard at all?

I don't see that it's a road leading anywhere. There isn't a dense residential neighborhood to the west, or a dense commercial district. Developers aren't lining up saying "if only there was a road connecting this area to the CBD, then we would spend all of this money and develop the area." I don't see the synergy that - if the west would be connected to the CBD - then the combination of the two would be more valuable than they are today.

We recall 25-ish years ago when the Kilpatrick Turnpike first opened and very few motorists drove on it. But it was built through a corridor with a new regional mall, good demographics and lots of land, and connected western OKC, Yukon & Mustang to the Turner Turnpike & I-35. Commercial development followed, traffic counts increased, and it is being widened right now. I just don't see any of those things, either along the boulevard's path, or at the western terminus of the boulevard.

the east end of the BLVD goes to the boat house distrist and I40

the east end of the BLVD goes to the boat house distrist and I40

Thanks. That brings up more questions, but I'll just wait for an answer to my original one.

OKCTalker - your central question is the reason many people favor simply connecting the off ramps from I40 to our existing street grid. The I40 bypass justification is a fabricated requirement from a discussion that occurred 10 years ago between the city and ODOT. There is NO federal requirement to provide an emergency bypass for I40 through downtown.

I think it makes a lot of sense to build the boulevard envisioned by Mayor Cornett along the SW 3rd Street axis. It will move people past the Chesapeake Arena, Central Park, Convention Center (but hopefully at a different address than currently planned) and will facilitate redevelopment of the Core to Shore development district. If we extend the boulevard westward to Exchange, we also reconnect the Farmer's Market district with downtown after it was isloated by the Crosstown 50 years ago. You can see the result of cutting off large sections of downtown merely by driving around the area south of where the Crosstown stood.

Then to accomodate motorists and other traffic wishing to come into and depart from downtown to west I40, we should spend the funds allocated to construct a connection to the street grid on California in the vicinity of Western. There is primarily light industrial (and some heavy industrial on Reno) in that area now but it will naturally become desirable for redevelopment in the future. We need to have a vision other than "what is has always been" for this project simply because the design will either facilitate development or be just another bad decision our kids will shake their heads at and fix one day.

CaptDave - Thanks for your response. The historical perspective helps, as does your articulation of I-40 off ramps & I-40 W/B on ramps connecting to the current grid, and moving traffic through C2S.

What's still lost on me is the justification for so much emotion over this, one measure of which is this thread's 1,274 comments.