Personally I've had this issue circled from the beginning. As for other peoples' interest, it is more of a question why other issues weren't emotional and people weren't involved in the past. It isn't uncommon for citizens to get emotional in other parts of the country and world.

Unfortunately this is a consumeristic, sports-obsessed city. The idea of a brotherhood was taboo socialist jargon until the Thunder reinvoked it. Hopefully the civic interest that has been awoken will last beyond the Thunder's success. It is unfortunate that the only brotherhood in this city is one that people have to buy a ticket to gain admission into, but hopefully it isn't impermanent.

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

Further, and I'm certainly open for correction here, the Feds decided to throw some money (for a boulevard) at OKC as an incentive to knuckle under and let them move the Crosstown Expressway. OKC caught sight of the offer and wanted a boulevard ever since with one OKC official making it his goal to have it be the grand picture-worthy 1,000 words that are OKC. With unwavering dedication and eyes on the prize of a (1) boulevard to replace the elevated expressway, we marched on happily ... that is until Bob announced that the emperor has not a stitch of clothing on.

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.

Actually 1,476 comments, fwiw......

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.

I think it is an indication the people of OKC care deeply about our city and want the upward trajectory we have been on to continue. Our last few mayors and city council representatives have done a very good job providing a vision for the future of OKC and the city staff has generally done a good job executing that vision. This boulevard is one instance where I think they are making a mistake with long lasting implications. If it is built in such a manner that favors moving vehicles at the expense of all other considerations including the facilitation of growth and development, we will regret that decision for decades.

The current plan including the Option 'A' they are recommending now is one that closes major streets and creates more problems than it solves. Many people, including some deservedly influential ones, still seem to regard downtown as just a huge office park that people drive to rather than a "real" city with residences and retail in addition to the businesses and entertainment we now have. So several people came together and asked if it were possible to attempt to influence this process and hopefully gain a better outcome for the city. That is the genesis of FBB and the reason for nearly 1500 posts on this forum.

I know people in and around OKC really care about their city and that seems to be ever increasing.

There are lots of reasons for this but it can't be overlooked that a ton of improvements have been paid for by the people; all the MAPS stuff, etc.

One interesting consequence is a real sense of investment, in literal terms.

I am still not sure exactly what key words and language are preferred in writing to the Feds. Obviously, there is the form. I will definitely be writing in my own comments for desiring streetcar, transit, and transit hub integration on the central and east end of the boulevard.

And quite frankly, I'm quite pissed off that transit integration, IE Bus HOV lane, stops, stairwell down the earthen embankment to Western, aren't even being discussed by engineers. I'm not surprised. Just continuing to be more and more pissed off with regarding to continued "dinosauric" traffic engineering philosophies that dominate Oklahoma City planning theology.

Express buses are clearly identified in the Fixed guideway Study as the practical way to serve nearly all of Western downtown and this "through movement" or "bypass" could be used for facilitating a meaningful express corridor to the West side of the city. I'm not advocating, but if were forced to have "Option 1" it needs to be meaningfully integrated into long term planning other that for the future induced demand the engineers use to justify it.

IF WE WANT TO BE A WORLD CLASS CITY, WE HAVE TO ACT LIKE A WORLD CLASS CITY

So we have until December 9th to submit our letters?

I am still not sure exactly what key words and language are preferred in writing to the Feds. Obviously, there is the form. I will definitely be writing in my own comments for desiring streetcar, transit, and transit hub integration on the central and east end of the boulevard.

I tried to keep mine short and to the point without criticizing ODOT much. We aren't trying to solve world hunger and the Feds just need to know we don't like what ODOT proposed, why, and what alternative we like better. I also worked in Friends For a Better Boulevard and Two Boulevards on the Grid (since that is my prefered option). I wrote mine pretty quickly so it isn't eloquent, but here is what I wrote.

-----------------------------------

ODOT - After closely following the activities surrounding the new boulevard I would like to voice my support for the "Two Boulevards on The Grid" proposal that came out of discussions on OKCTalk and Friends for a Better Boulevard. Returning this area to its original grid with boulevards along California and SW3rd is the best option for moving traffic and redeveloping the area. The proposal by ODOT and Stantec should not be built.

Prior to the construction of I-40 this part of downtown was highly developed but suffered greatly after the elevated I-40 was put in. For the 60 years I-40 operated along this route no significant development took place, in fact, the elevated I-40 discouraged development because it created a physical and psychological barrier. Creating another partially elevated high speed road to replace it will have the same results.

I understand that downtown currently doesn't have sufficient entrance and exit ramps on the newly built I-40 and that two new interchanges will be built regardless of what happens to the boulevard, but there is no reason those two interchanges have to be connected by the same road. I would prefer 2 boulevards on the grid; one along California Ave on the west and the other along SW3rd on the east and south.

The grid is the most efficient distributor of traffic known to man. California Ave has 7 intersections between Western and Walker, and if the pedestrian path is removed during Stage Center redevelopment there would be 8. Likewise, SW3rd would connect I-40 on the east to Exchange Ave on the west, which would make a new gateway entrance from Stockyard City as well as providing access to the convention center area.

Transportation systems should not sacrifice livable communities and neighborhoods for saving a few minutes on the road. People living in suburban OKC have no more right to leave downtown at 55 mph than the people who own property or choose to live downtown have a right to live in a safe walkable well developed neighborhood.

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

The more and more I look at this, the more pissed I get knowing that this is the perfect solution and it most likely won't be used.

For catcherinthewry and others:

If the city really wants to have their interstate bypass route through the middle of downtown rather than diverting traffic around any potential catastrophe on the new crosstown to I35/I44/I240, the "Two Boulevards on the Grid" provides a better way of doing so than closing streets and buildings walls/bridges. Take a look at the map and it should be fairly clear. The TBOTG design is superior to anything put forth by ODOT and the city - and Stantec since they were restricted from performing baseline analysis on this design.

Occam's Razor definitely applies here......at least it should.

From Councilman Shadid on the Facebook Page http://www.facebook.com/groups/BetterBoulevard/

Fairly profound statement from the FEDS


"In relation to the question of whether the Boulevard has to be able to serve as an uninterrupted bypass or whether the alignment/concept can change (ie: alignments which favor integrating into the existing grid) Elizabeth Romero of the FHWA had the following response to a written request from a citizen today:

In response to your questions about statements made by Mr. Eric Wenger about the Boulevard and the 2002 Record of Decision (ROD) for the I-40 Crosstown Expressway, the exact language in the ROD is this:

“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.”

Construction of an interstate “bypass” facility such as you describe is not a Federal requirement, nor does the ROD or Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) list “a potential bypass for I-40 in emergency situations” as a reason for including the six-lane divided boulevard as a mitigation.

After Mr. Wenger made the statement you are referring to at the meeting, Mr. David Streb, Director of Engineering for the Oklahoma Department of Transportation (ODOT), correctly explained that the six-lane Boulevard is a mitigation required by the ROD. He also noted that that decision can be reconsidered and provided examples where commitments in the ROD have been modified or are being considered for modification to account for changes that have taken place along the corridor since the ROD was executed. One example is the relocation of the pedestrian bridge over I-40 from west of Union Station to east of the station. Another modification currently being considered by ODOT and the City of Oklahoma City is the changing from a six-lane facility to four-lanes on the east side of the corridor.

At present, FHWA and ODOT are in the early stages of an Environmental Assessment (EA) to evaluate the social, environmental, and economic impacts of the Boulevard. Since it has been over 10 years since the original ROD was signed, conditions in the project corridor may have changed, and the development needs of Oklahoma City may have also evolved. One purpose of this EA is to evaluate the original boulevard concept as described in the ROD in light of the current planning and redevelopment priorities established by Oklahoma City.

Please let us know if you have any other questions.

Elizabeth A. Romero
Planning and Technical Services Team Leader
Federal Highway Administration - Oklahoma Division
5801 N. Broadway Extension, Suite 300
Oklahoma City, OK 73118
Office: 405-254-3300"

Wha-bam!

Hmmm - so essentially the city is characterizing a deal with ODOT (See Steve Lackmeyer's story - Flashback: Route Chosen for New Interstate 40 | OKC Central (http://blog.newsok.com/okccentral/2012/07/29/flashback-route-chosen-for-new-interstate-40/)) as a federal requirement? I have read the agreement between ODOT and OKC in its entirety and there is a section about a bypass route. Maybe that made sense back in 1998, but I think most people realize the idea of routing I40 traffic through ANY street downtown makes no sense now. We already have alternate routes around that area of town that would keep traffic away from any catastrophic event that might require closure of I40 and protect the public better by keeping motorists farther away from the area.

This makes me question just about everything the city and ODOT has told us about this process. Were all the required reviews done correctly or did they give just enough of the appearance of compliance that most people wouldn't question it? It certainly looks like they are making statements that sound plausible to most people in the hope no one will really look at what they have done and are still doing.

From Councilman Shadid on the Facebook Page http://www.facebook.com/groups/BetterBoulevard/

Fairly profound statement from the FEDS




This is huge.

The feds actually seem very professional, unlike the local transit planners...

The feds actually seem very professional, unlike the local transit planners...

"Transit planners"? You mean traffic engineers?

Let's just label reno the bypass route and do what we want with the boulevard ie dissipate it into the grid

"Transit planners"? You mean traffic engineers?

Right, thanks for the corrections.. we don't have transit planners. :rolleyes:

(Although I did see where ACOG is hiring a bike/walkability planner)

Let's just label reno the bypass route and do what we want with the boulevard ie dissipate it into the grid

In the highly unlikely event this drastic measure would even be necessary, it would make sense to run eastbound traffic to the Western exit and down the blvd and westbound traffic over to Reno and back on 40 at Agnew. The likelihood of this scenario ever being needed is so slight that if we are going to plan for every possible contingency we need to have a sufficient number of ferry boats standing by to carry I40 traffic down the river if there is an emergency.

The bypass is not a requirement. That chapter is closed and no point in re-fighting that battle. Let's take out victory and move to the next battle. Alas, I'm not even sure what the next battle is since we have easily defeated everything ODOT has thrown at the wall hoping it will stick.

The bypass is not a requirement. That chapter is closed and no point in re-fighting that battle. Let's take out victory and move to the next battle. Alas, I'm not even sure what the next battle is since we have easily defeated everything ODOT has thrown at the wall hoping it will stick.

Stand by - some discoveries have been made after quite a bit of research over the last few days.

Right, thanks for the corrections.. we don't have transit planners. :rolleyes:

(Although I did see where ACOG is hiring a bike/walkability planner)

COTPA does pay someone as a Planner (Planner IV in OKC pay scale/job status)... don't see much result though, do you?

What I can't understand is the people keep speaking time and time again and ALMOST EVERYONE WANTS THE BOULEVARD AT GRADE!!!! So why are they not listening!?

If you haven't done so, please send your comments and emails in. We can change this still.

What I can't understand is the people keep speaking time and time again and ALMOST EVERYONE WANTS THE BOULEVARD AT GRADE!!!! So why are they not listening!?

You can't put a dedication marker on the grid like you can a boulevard or overpass. Don't rule out the desire for a 'legacy'.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3070/3019700133_e57e0ac81d.jpg

You can't put a dedication marker on the grid like you can a boulevard or overpass. Don't rule out the desire for a 'legacy'.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3070/3019700133_e57e0ac81d.jpg

Why did you choose that image?

Why did you choose that image?

No reason - I just went to google and picked one from the search results.

No reason - I just went to google and picked one from the search results.

Well shoot, you had to go and pick one that I'd be defensive about. :)

Well shoot, you had to go and pick one that I'd be defensive about. :)

I swear I didn't know.

Push it somewhere else Patrick - mean while at odot why dont we take the old elevated i40 (http://www.quickmeme.com/meme/3s3jmj/)

I couldn't upload the picture because I didn't have enough room and couldn't delete any of my old attachments either :/ But, I made this on meme site and thought I'd share it. :)

You can't put a dedication marker on the grid like you can a boulevard or overpass. Don't rule out the desire for a 'legacy'.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3070/3019700133_e57e0ac81d.jpg

I am pretty sure they would put a dedication marker on anything they want to, plus with a grid you could put one on every corner in the grid you restored

For catcherinthewry and others:

If the city really wants to have their interstate bypass route through the middle of downtown rather than diverting traffic around any potential catastrophe on the new crosstown to I35/I44/I240, the "Two Boulevards on the Grid" provides a better way of doing so than closing streets and buildings walls/bridges. Take a look at the map and it should be fairly clear. The TBOTG design is superior to anything put forth by ODOT and the city - and Stantec since they were restricted from performing baseline analysis on this design.

Occam's Razor definitely applies here......at least it should.

For CaptDave and others:

Please stop ascribing to me the city's position on the boulevard. If you read all or any of my posts in this thread you will find that I have never taken a position on the boulevard. What I have tried to do is to pass along information that I have received (mostly by asking questions that were originally brought up in this thread) information that was not available in print or elsewhere. I have also provided Pete with other information and I'm sure he would vouch for the accuracy of that information. However, I feel as if many of you want to "kill the messenger" and I'm having a hard time rationalizing why I should continue getting answers to your questions.

As for my position on the boulevard, I just want it to reflect well on the city. I want it to be a good experience for the people who use it as well as those in the adjacent areas that are affected by it. I'm not espousing any plan because I am not an expert and am not sure how or if it is possible to create such an experience.

I think what most people on this board don't realize is that, while most on this board tend to be of the same mind (message boards tend to attract like minded thinkers), most people in OKC don't espouse (or are even familiar with) urbanist principles. So just because you're preaching to the choir here, doesn't mean you are the consensus of the general population.

catcher - my apologies. Evidently I misunderstood your position. You are remarkably close to what I desire for the boulevard - reflect well upon OKC and be a useful infrastructure project that will promote more growth and development in downtown.

Where I differ with you is that I think most people would prefer a different plan for the boulevard if they were fully aware of some of the alternative suggestions. Every time I had been able to explain something different from the ODOT/city plan it has been well received and most people want it to be considered equally with the through street plan. While I do think many urbanist principles apply, there are other possibly better reasons to build the boulevard such that it reconnects our street grid with the new interstate highway better.

I'm not espousing any plan because I am not an expert and am not sure how or if it is possible to create such an experience.
Your honesty is appreciated. Now back to the experts...

For CaptDave and others:

Please stop ascribing to me the city's position on the boulevard. If you read all or any of my posts in this thread you will find that I have never taken a position on the boulevard. What I have tried to do is to pass along information that I have received (mostly by asking questions that were originally brought up in this thread) information that was not available in print or elsewhere. I have also provided Pete with other information and I'm sure he would vouch for the accuracy of that information. However, I feel as if many of you want to "kill the messenger" and I'm having a hard time rationalizing why I should continue getting answers to your questions.

As for my position on the boulevard, I just want it to reflect well on the city. I want it to be a good experience for the people who use it as well as those in the adjacent areas that are affected by it. I'm not espousing any plan because I am not an expert and am not sure how or if it is possible to create such an experience.

I think what most people on this board don't realize is that, while most on this board tend to be of the same mind (message boards tend to attract like minded thinkers), most people in OKC don't espouse (or are even familiar with) urbanist principles. So just because you're preaching to the choir here, doesn't mean you are the consensus of the general population.

Getting 3 emails saying traffic flow is more important is quite telling. FBB turns out several hundred people to each meeting.

You are appreciated, btw.

Your honesty is appreciated. Now back to the experts...

Only someone with a marijuana leaf in his avatar could consider message board posters "experts". It is comparable to posters on a football message board that have all the answers. I have no doubt that some of you are in the city/traffic planning business but most of us on this board are in other fields but are just interested in the future of OKC.

^ The avatar is damaging for credibility, possibly even for entire threads.. no offense. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion and I'd argue it's a legitimate political argument, however, it doesn't help planning causes.

http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/400x/31537176.jpg

^ Excellent!

Only someone with a marijuana leaf in his avatar could consider message board posters "experts". It is comparable to posters on a football message board that have all the answers. I have no doubt that some of you are in the city/traffic planning business but most of us on this board are in other fields but are just interested in the future of OKC.
It was pretty clear from the time that you stated you were not an expert that you wanted others to admit the same. Leave the ad hominem attacks in another thread. This one is called Friends for a Better Boulevard. You can start another one called Angy Man with No Opinions or Expertise.

Btw, if there weren't experts on here, I wouldn't be on here, because it is always fun to learn from "the experts" lol.

Experts are great but you don't need to be one on this issue. Anyone can figure this stuff out just by simply being aware of what has and hasn't worked in OKC over the years. Remember, IM Pei was an expert and is considered by his peers to be one of the all time greats. (sorry - I could barely write that without throwing up in my mouth). And I am sure the people who put in the original I-40 had degrees and everything.

N-NrPOMBKnw

By the way, in case anyone was wondering, 9 out of 10 dentists agree that the boulevard should either be built on the grid or have a legitimate intersection at Western.

Since experts were called into question...

Which design did they approve? And when will it break ground?

Which design did they approve? And when will it break ground?

No final approval yet. The consultant has made a recommendation to city staff and will present it to the City Council in the next couple of weeks. The City will voice its preference to ODOT. Then it is subject to final approval by the FHWA. Construction is already in progress on the east and west off ramps from I-40.

The Space Shuttle program had two disasters while being run by experts. Twice there were independent panels that said the experts were wrong for not listening to the opinions of individuals outside senior management. So being an "expert" on a particular way of doing something isn't everything.

OKC and ODOT's "experts" haven't said anything to warrant me trusting their opinion when I see many examples of other cities across the globe doing things better and differently.

I may be an expert on typewriters. Doesn't do me any good though when most people moved on to computers and printers. lol

If this process had been transparent and open to all alternatives, the outcome would be different. When you plug the same numbers into the same formula you will constantly get the same result.

The experts were told, you have to design a boulevard as a through street end to end. You will have xx,xxx number of cars on this street. You will have grade differences. The street grid is not an option to be considered.

With that criteria, they came up with the 4 best solutions that meet those demands.

If it were an open process and all alternatives studied with no restrictions (or less, anyway), we would most likely be looking at a return to the grid as the recommended option.

The biggest frustration on this project is that they want to build a boulevard that will last 50+ years, but they want to build it in a way that it appeals only to baby boomer commuters.

Downtown companies have acknowledged that it is difficult to recruit the highly educated young professionals that sustain businesses. Yet business leaders and city political leadership wants to build a boulevard for old people, one that young professionals find repulsive. It doesn't take too much speculation to realize that if we listen to old people on this project, the boulevard will be out of fashion before it gets built. And yes, fashion does matter. The most fashionable cities also have the highest incomes, best jobs, highest property values, and highest standards of living. Style is everything to young people.

The frustrating thing is that so much lip service is paid to attracting young professionals, yet their input has been largely ignored on this project, one that will affect them directly and for a much longer period of time than the baby boomers. One young Devon employee from Austin recently asked why there were so many empty lots downtown. It is an obvious turnoff, yet it will likely remain a problem if the grid isn't reinstalled.

LandRunOkie, I understand what you are saying but I am 43 and I have no interest in living in suburbia anymore. It isn't so much a generational thing as it is a common sense cost and benefit thing. We simply no longer have the massive funds necessary to support the expansion and maintenance of suburbia and the sooner we start planning for life after suburbia the better off we will all be. Just look at this short stretch of I-40, $600 billion and counting and that doesn't include the social, environmental, and maintenance costs. That is just the cost of putting down the concrete. We have to stop wasting money like this.

LandRunOkie, I understand what you are saying but I am 43 and I have no interest in living in suburbia anymore. It isn't so much a generational thing as it is a common sense cost and benefit thing. We simply no longer have the massive funds necessary to support the expansion and maintenance of suburbia and the sooner we start planning for life after suburbia the better off we will all be. Just look at this short stretch of I-40, $600 billion and counting and that doesn't include the social, environmental, and maintenance costs. That is just the cost of putting down the concrete. We have to stop wasting money like this.You mean million?

You mean million?

Yes - the I40 relocation cost is over $500 million. I have heard $700 million mentioned but I am not sure if that is a "final" price tag or not.

You mean million?

Million, yes.

Yes - the I40 relocation cost is over $500 million. I have heard $700 million mentioned but I am not sure if that is a "final" price tag or not.


Million, yes.K. If I remember right, the cost to fix all the existing highways was somewhere in the trillions. Struck me as odd though if this highway were to cost that much. lol

The cost to fix just the broken parts of interstate system is $1.75 trillion. The total length is just over 47,000 miles. That is $37 million per mile if the repairs were spread across the whole system, but we know it isn't. Just to fix 4 miles of deficient I-40 in OKC cost nearly $150 million per mile. We can't afford it anymore.

The cost to fix just the broken parts of interstate system is $1.75 trillion.Excluding new bridges and interchanges?

I wish LN would step in and fork some Devon money to take the boulevard to the grid afterall isn't he an urbanist anyways. Maybe some private spending on this project is just what's needed to change people's minds on the grid idea

Interesting idea, but I don't think it would be proper to ask that. City infrastructure is the responsibility of the government. City government should facilitate private business and development. I think Mr Nichols has already done far more for OKC by the way Devon conducts business and various philanthropic actions than anyone could have imagined ten years ago. Let's ask our city leaders to make this boulevard one that will encourage private reinvestment in downtown and let the private sector figure out how to redevelop the land around the boulevard rather than building the street itself.

Letter to the Editor in today's Oklahoman:

Better option for Oklahoma City's new boulevard | NewsOK.com (http://newsok.com/better-option-for-oklahoma-citys-new-boulevard/article/3735595)

Excluding new bridges and interchanges?

Does it matter, we can't afford it either way. You might was well ask if the Lamborghini comes with floormats or are they an option.

The numbers are hard to pin down but keep in mind, out of the 2.7 millions of miles of paved roads the interstate ony has 47,000 miles. So if that 47,000 takes $1.75 trillion then extrapolating that out over the entire paved network it is over $100 trillion. And that is just to repair the deficiencies.

I drove both routes yesterday (California and 3rd). They are very, very short distances. On the maps they look a lot greater in distance. If we build the grid, I predict the Farmers Market and the west side of downtown and west Core to Shore will be very different 10 years from now. The through Boulevard idea will continue to divide them. I'm fully convinced and sold on the grid idea.

Does it matter, we can't afford it either way. You might was well ask if the Lamborghini comes with floormats or are they an option.

The numbers are hard to pin down but keep in mind, out of the 2.7 millions of miles of paved roads the interstate ony has 47,000 miles. So if that 47,000 takes $1.75 trillion then extrapolating that out over the entire paved network it is over $100 trillion. And that is just to repair the deficiencies.

Your extrapolation needs a lot of work. While your point is well taken, unless all paved roads, including residential streets are being rehabilitated with 2 -38' wide slabs of CRCP, it holds no water.