We are only talking about the middle segment - not to 'do' or 'not do' the boulevard. The boulevard is being built, the question is will it be one long continuous boulevard bisecting the grid, or will it follow the grid.

Had to take a closer look on Google Earth, but I get it now. D is the preferred alternative.

Time for a twitter campaign of #WeWantTheD


.....idk....

uhh...no. That sounds way too pornish LMAO

Time for a twitter campaign of #WeWantTheD


.....idk....

I love the idea, but that hashtag is just wrong... haha

Option D is serving as the "Do Nothing" alternative which is required in all NEPA assessments. However, I'm curious, did they present is as actually doing nothing (leave it as it sits as of the end of new I-40 construction) or road construction to restore the grid. If it's the former, Option D is a guaranteed looser.

The grid does not need major work to be restored, there is only like two blocks of one street which are not already in place.

These were posted on the FBB facebook page (https://www.facebook.com/groups/BetterBoulevard/?hc_location=stream)

https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/1011358_4966710640770_1041392296_n.jpg

https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/1015153_10151715129685309_933773448_o.jpg

My question is who gets control of the land where I-40 once was?

If alternative D is chosen, then the grid also needs to be restored west of Western (at ground level).

I really like this one as it runs right down Exchange, next to the old Farmers Market building. That makes it much more likely that that area will be redeveloped.

I really like this one as it runs right down Exchange, next to the old Farmers Market building. That makes it much more likely that that area will be redeveloped.

That is one of my favorite attributes of the simple orientation of Option 'D'. Essentially we end up with two boulevards with outstanding views as you drive into town from the interstate - the Crystal Bridge on California and the Farmer's Market on 3rd.

I know there is a lot of industrial facilities in the area around the Farmer's Market now, but it would be nice to see if some sort of feature such as a roundabout could be used at Exchange and 3rd. The city actually proposed this in an earlier meeting and it might be a great way to kick off redevelopment in the FM area.

i really like this Option D. my only questions is the western half... when does it hit ground level instead of being elevated? i know that it will be elevated at the far western end but want it down at normal street level as soon as possible

If alternative D is chosen, then the grid also needs to be restored west of Western (at ground level).

I agree 100%. There is no reason to elevate that portion either. That would provide 10 more intersections to disperse traffic.

You can't create the kind of value that buildings like the Farmers' Market have with new construction. That's the kind of architectural site that serves as an anchor for a whole neighborhood, by giving character and a sense of history. There is no reason at all that you couldn't have development similar to Midtown and Deep Deuce in that area in 10 years. Angling the Boulevard down that path virtually guarantees it. Creating another elevated barrier between those areas virtually guarantees that it won't happen.

i really like this Option D. my only questions is the western half... when does it hit ground level instead of being elevated? i know that it will be elevated at the far western end but want it down at normal street level as soon as possible


Well, unless there is a movement to have the western segment design changed it will be still be an elevated berm all the way to klein with ramps added at Virgina. Everyone is fixated on Western to Gaylord though so I'm pretty sure nothing will change here since ODOT is pushing out this design for letting next month.

Well, unless there is a movement to have the western segment design changed it will be still be an elevated berm all the way to klein with ramps added at Virgina. Everyone is fixated on Western to Gaylord though so I'm pretty sure nothing will change here since ODOT is pushing out this design for letting next month.

Even if they do the grid, I would be shocked if it was not still incorporating a bridge over western, with Fred Jones being the first street it might intersect at grade with.

i really like this Option D. my only questions is the western half... when does it hit ground level instead of being elevated? i know that it will be elevated at the far western end but want it down at normal street level as soon as possible

The western section reaches ground level a little west of Klein.

Even if they do the grid, I would be shocked if it was not still incorporating a bridge over western, with Fred Jones being the first street it might intersect at grade with.

It is possible to be at ground level before Western. More to come on this Snowman.

Even if they do the grid, I would be shocked if it was not still incorporating a bridge over western, with Fred Jones being the first street it might intersect at grade with.

I think it would be better if the boulevard went under Western and the first intersection was at Classen. People can branch off to three different routes from here.

I think it would be better if the boulevard went under Western and the first intersection was at Classen. People can branch off to three different routes from here.

Grade would be way too steep for that. Not enough distance between Western and Classen.

Downtown Boulevard Back to Four Options | OKC Central (http://blog.newsok.com/okccentral/2013/06/20/downtown-boulevard-back-to-four-options/)

Steve writes "Final thought: the new boulevard won’t open in 2014. Write it down now." Not sure this is new. Michael McNutt wrote this in The Oklahoman on January 7th this year:

Downtown OKC boulevard completion won't be until 2016 | News OK (http://newsok.com/downtown-okc-boulevard-completion-wont-be-until-2016/article/3743995)

I guess at that time ODOT thought things might get delayed.

ODOT mentioning they may still considering shifting from California with the grid, I hope they consider shifting to/from Sheridan along with all the shifting it south plans.

Steve writes "Final thought: the new boulevard won’t open in 2014. Write it down now." Not sure this is new. Michael McNutt wrote this in The Oklahoman on January 7th this year:

Downtown OKC boulevard completion won't be until 2016 | News OK (http://newsok.com/downtown-okc-boulevard-completion-wont-be-until-2016/article/3743995)

I guess at that time ODOT thought things might get delayed.

Depends on what option they go with. Their about to get started on the east and west ends and it wont take long if it is decided to go with the grid.

Downtown Boulevard Back to Four Options | News OK (http://newsok.com/downtown-boulevard-back-to-four-options/article/3854900)

Answers to Steve's four questions.

1) California Ave will not change in length because of what is happening at the Stage Center site. That section of street is already close.
2) 20 years ago all of downtown was a homeless shelter. California Ave will improve just like the rest of downtown has improved, which should help Film Row 1 block away.
3) The convention center, Union Park, and the arena will still have a boulevard running by them with ample access to 4 interstate ramps.
4) I actually can't believe this is a serious question so I won't bother answering.

I have also heard some rumblings of tying the I-40 West portion into Sheridan instead of California. There are two ways to do that. One would be to create flyovers - which we are trying to avoid, and the second way is to make a signalized intersection with left turn lanes. I ask why do that. Making everyone go from the I-40 ramp to Sheridan at a single intersection would cause significant rush hour back-ups and probably play right into ODOT's hands. Just leave the connection at California Ave and the drivers will have 7 different routes to transition over to Sheridan. Remove the elevated portion west of Western and there would be 10 more ways to do it. 17 ways for cars to go is better than 1 way.

on edit:
Sorry, my counting is off - it is 20 ways. 20 is better than 17 which is better than 1.

It makes no sense to replace one diagonal shift to the south for one to the north to Sheridan. The Two Boulevards on the Grid is all about restoring as many connections as possible - this is accomplished by eliminating the diagonal section between Western and Lee. By doing this, maximum flexibility in routes is attained along with a very large area of land for redevelopment. This option also eliminates the right turn only slip lanes from the other options providing even more connections for people to go north or south to their destinations rather than limiting their options needlessly. Simple solutions are generally better - direct, at grade connections to California and 3rd Street are the most effective (and least costly) ways to meet every goal of the boulevard project.

I have also heard some rumblings of tying the I-40 West portion into Sheridan instead of California. There are two ways to do that. One would be to create flyovers - which we are trying to avoid, and the second way is to make a signalized intersection with left turn lanes. I ask why do that. Making everyone go from the I-40 ramp to Sheridan at a single intersection would cause significant rush hour back-ups and probably play right into ODOT's hands. Just leave the connection at California Ave and the drivers will have 7 different routes to transition over to Sheridan. Remove the elevated portion west of Western and there would be 10 more ways to do it. 17 ways for cars to go is better than 1 way.

on edit:
Sorry, my counting is off - it is 20 ways. 20 is better than 17 which is better than 1.

Amen! You may have more intersections with the grid option (which I'm for), but people have more choices and traffic will disperse! much better than pushing everyone 1 way in/out

Amen! You may have more intersections with the grid option (which I'm for), but people have more choices and traffic will disperse! much better than pushing everyone 1 way in/out

And heaven forbid there is an accident at that 1 intersection.

And heaven forbid there is an accident at that 1 intersection.

However it is done, there is just one street that it will line up with at first, which will have queueing no matter what when the light is red. While I like it just connecting with California, I would take connecting Sheridan verses any of the options connecting it further south (which they seem stuck on 3rd) that causes a major disruption in the grid and makes itself a worse option to ever use the boulevard to access large parts of downtown verses using Shields/Gaylord exit coming from the west or the Western exit coming from the east.

^ I agree with that. Connecting to Sheridan is far less disrupting to traffic patterns than the Western to Lee section in the "old" plan. But my personal preference is still the straight, simple connection to California from the west and building the grand boulevard we have all heard about along the 3rd Street right of way.

^ I agree with that. Connecting to Sheridan is far less disrupting to traffic patterns than the Western to Lee section in the "old" plan. But my personal preference is still the straight, simple connection to California from the west and building the grand boulevard we have all heard about along the 3rd Street roght of way.

I agree with connecting to California from the west and building along the 3rd St. ROW. They could make SW 3rd the Grand Blvd. from Bass Pro all the way to Klein, where they could have the roundabout/traffic circle. It would be awesome. Then they could go about reconnecting the grid along the way, everybody wins. Except for Lower Bricktown.

Then they could go about reconnecting the grid along the way, everybody wins. Except for Lower Bricktown.

It is too bad ODOT didn't try something different on the I-40 east connection.

I agree with connecting to California from the west and building along the 3rd St. ROW. They could make SW 3rd the Grand Blvd. from Bass Pro all the way to Klein, where they could have the roundabout/traffic circle. It would be awesome. Then they could go about reconnecting the grid along the way, everybody wins. Except for Lower Bricktown.

the blvd connection at the east end will be above grade until about half way past harkins theatres with a turn into bricktown at hopefully oklahoma

It is too bad ODOT didn't try something different on the I-40 east connection.

I was thinking that exact thing when I was looking at Google Maps this morning. They really butchered that interchange. Of course, that's nothing new for ODOT.

the blvd connection at the east end will be above grade until about half way past harkins theatres with a turn into bricktown at hopefully oklahoma

Exactly why I said everybody wins except Lower Bricktown.

I love the idea of a straight shot down 3rd street and a straight shot down California. Simplicity does have some merit, KISS - Keep It Simple Stupid.

They still need to bring it down to grade from/to the West connection as quickly as they can...the way it is now they have reused the old crosstown elevated path (you know that elevated old road that was a danger and HAD to be replaced with a new alignment, it couldn't be redecked etc) across Penn continuing on to Western.

the blvd connection at the east end will be above grade until about half way past harkins theatres with a turn into bricktown at hopefully oklahoma

At the east end the blvd will be above grade from Toby Keith's to the east.

There isn't much they can do with lower Bricktown anyway since its blocked from Reno because of the Canal except for Oklahoma and they still need to get the ROW from Uhaul for that. There is also the railroad viaduct going through blocking things off.

There isn't much they can do with lower Bricktown anyway since its blocked from Reno because of the Canal except for Oklahoma and they still need to get the ROW from Uhaul for that. There is also the railroad viaduct going through blocking things off.

That's why they're going to build a bridge for that part of the viaduct for the boulevard to go under the tracks.

From DCStreets.blog.org (http://dc.streetsblog.org/2013/06/24/fhwa-oklahoma-dot-must-consider-restoring-street-grid-in-downtown-okc/):



Oklahoma DOT Must Consider Restoring Street Grid in Downtown OKC
by Angie Schmitt
June 24, 2013

In a rare victory against state DOT standard operating procedure, residents of Oklahoma City last week managed to compel the Oklahoma Department of Transportation to consider a redeveloped street grid as an alternative to a wide, high-speed boulevard through the city’s downtown.

A highly-organized group of volunteers calling themselves Friends of a Better Boulevard has been challenging Oklahoma DOT’s plans for an area near downtown where the I-40 elevated highway was recently torn down. ODOT had originally proposed an elevated highway-like road through the “core-to-shore” area, where the city had been planning a walkable, mixed-use neighborhood.

So far, the OKC advocates, with the support of City Councilman Ed Shadid, keep on winning.

Their first victory was challenging the state’s environmental analysis for I-40. The state had conducted a single environmental impact study for the I-40 teardown, the construction of the boulevard that would take its place, and an I-40 replacement highway nearby. But advocates successfully argued that the $85 million boulevard project was large enough to deserve its own environmental impact statement.

Now, in another major victory, OKC advocates have changed the DOT’s “alternatives analysis” process — part of the environmental impact study. This process is meant to evaluate a set of options for the project; generally state DOTs just trot out of a handful of similar road plans with slightly different alignments. But Friends of a Better Boulevard and its allies argued that the DOT should add a proposal that differs significantly from the “boulevard” plan: the reconstruction and enhancement of the original street grid, known as “Alternate D.” And last week, FHWA intervened on the advocates’ behalf and ordered the state to add Alternate D to the analysis.

“The Federal Highway Administration has clearly told ODOT that they must respect the widespread outcry from the people of OKC to study the option,” Shadid told his Facebook followers Wednesday. “By trying to funnel traffic to one high speed corridor in which cars cannot exit to reach potential development along the boulevard, one impedes economic development as well as forgoes the creation of walkable destinations and place-making that might otherwise be possible.”

Friends of a Better Boulevard’s Bob Kemper, a former ODOT engineer, said the wide boulevard would divide downtown, much like the structure it replaced.

“We just thought that was the wrong way to go,” he said. Kemper said the grid option “seems to be the favorite plan of the majority of folks in Oklahoma City.”

Kemper said he just hopes ODOT doesn’t use inflated traffic modeling to rule out the concept.

Between now and July 2, Friends of a Better Boulevard is hosting a letter-writing campaign to public officials to show support for Alternate D.

Good stuff, I'm thinking. Chalk up a big plus for Ed Shadid, in my book. Of course, this is just a preliminary victory for the "grid" proponents, but, hey, it's a huge step in the right direction.

Good stuff, I'm thinking. Chalk up a big plus for Ed Shadid, in my book. Of course, this is just a preliminary victory for the "grid" proponents, but, hey, it's a huge step in the right direction.

Ed made an important contribution but he was one of many. A lot of people toiled hard on this issue, not least on collecting and preparing much of the information and arguments that Ed presented.

Ed made an important contribution but he was one of many. A lot of people toiled hard on this issue, not least on collecting and preparing much of the information and arguments that Ed presented.
I completely agree ... Ed was one of many who toiled hard on this issue. The article's statement, "the widespread outcry from the people of OKC," speaks to the many others involved with this. I'm just wanting to give Shadid credit where credit is due, which is something that several in OkcTalk, lately, seem to have difficulty being willing to do these days. To some here, he has come to be anathema. Obviously, I'm not one of the members of that group.

I completely agree ... Ed was one of many who toiled hard on this issue. I'm just want to give him credit where credit is due, which is something that several in OkcTalk, lately, seem to have difficulty being willing to do these days.

That's fine. But will he give credit to everyone else?

That's fine. But will he give credit to everyone else?
Huh? Did you see something where he pretended to take all of the credit? I've yet to see ANY issue where Shadid basks himself in glory ... let alone taking credit for the accomplishments of other citizens. If you didn't have a source wherein Shadid took credit for this development to the exclusion of other involved citizens, that's a completely absurd remark for you to make. If you did, please post it ... with a link.

From DCStreets.blog.org (http://dc.streetsblog.org/2013/06/24/fhwa-oklahoma-dot-must-consider-restoring-street-grid-in-downtown-okc/):



Oklahoma DOT Must Consider Restoring Street Grid in Downtown OKC
by Angie Schmitt
June 24, 2013

In a rare victory against state DOT standard operating procedure, residents of Oklahoma City last week managed to compel the Oklahoma Department of Transportation to consider a redeveloped street grid as an alternative to a wide, high-speed boulevard through the city’s downtown.

A highly-organized group of volunteers calling themselves Friends of a Better Boulevard has been challenging Oklahoma DOT’s plans for an area near downtown where the I-40 elevated highway was recently torn down. ODOT had originally proposed an elevated highway-like road through the “core-to-shore” area, where the city had been planning a walkable, mixed-use neighborhood.

So far, the OKC advocates, with the support of City Councilman Ed Shadid, keep on winning.

Their first victory was challenging the state’s environmental analysis for I-40. The state had conducted a single environmental impact study for the I-40 teardown, the construction of the boulevard that would take its place, and an I-40 replacement highway nearby. But advocates successfully argued that the $85 million boulevard project was large enough to deserve its own environmental impact statement.

Now, in another major victory, OKC advocates have changed the DOT’s “alternatives analysis” process — part of the environmental impact study. This process is meant to evaluate a set of options for the project; generally state DOTs just trot out of a handful of similar road plans with slightly different alignments. But Friends of a Better Boulevard and its allies argued that the DOT should add a proposal that differs significantly from the “boulevard” plan: the reconstruction and enhancement of the original street grid, known as “Alternate D.” And last week, FHWA intervened on the advocates’ behalf and ordered the state to add Alternate D to the analysis.

“The Federal Highway Administration has clearly told ODOT that they must respect the widespread outcry from the people of OKC to study the option,” Shadid told his Facebook followers Wednesday. “By trying to funnel traffic to one high speed corridor in which cars cannot exit to reach potential development along the boulevard, one impedes economic development as well as forgoes the creation of walkable destinations and place-making that might otherwise be possible.”

Friends of a Better Boulevard’s Bob Kemper, a former ODOT engineer, said the wide boulevard would divide downtown, much like the structure it replaced.

“We just thought that was the wrong way to go,” he said. Kemper said the grid option “seems to be the favorite plan of the majority of folks in Oklahoma City.”

Kemper said he just hopes ODOT doesn’t use inflated traffic modeling to rule out the concept.

Between now and July 2, Friends of a Better Boulevard is hosting a letter-writing campaign to public officials to show support for Alternate D.

.

This article by Angie Schmitt is so full of half-truths and wrong information that it borders on the ridiculous.

Since you evidently know the other half of the truth, what is it?

This article by Angie Schmitt is so full of half-truths and wrong information that it borders on the ridiculous.

Please enlighten us with the truth then.

The only thing I see that sounds inaccurate is the statement
ODOT had originally proposed an elevated highway-like road through the “core-to-shore” area, where the city had been planning a walkable, mixed-use neighborhood.

The elevated section was not really affecting much of the core-to-shore area.

Please enlighten us with the truth then.

I'm sure it sounds good to trot out the us against them mentality, but it rings hollow here.

The first image in the article, subtitled: "Advocates in Oklahoma City have proposed this grid pattern as an alternative to a wide, highway-like boulevard for downtown. Recently, FHWA forced ODOT consider the grid proposal. Image: ODOT"

This is a plan that came from the OKC Consulting Engineer, not from advocates. No 10 lane roundabout. The FHWA didn't "force" ODOT to consider it; it was simply one of the myriad of options that came out from the vetting process of 40 or so scenarios.

"In a rare victory against state DOT standard operating procedure".

ODOT changes plans in urban areas constantly. It is anything but "rare". What is implied by "standard operating procedure"? Who knows. ODOT never does anything in urban areas that is not entirely complicit with local governments desires.

"an elevated highway-like road through the “core-to-shore” area, where the city had been planning a walkable, mixed-use neighborhood"

Wrong. No elevated road has ever been proposed through the core to shore area. What had been the result of the EIS was exactly what the city had desired at the time of the ROD, 6 lanes at grade.

"And last week, FHWA intervened on the advocates’ behalf and ordered the state to add Alternate D to the analysis."

Again, just a part of the vetting process from the city's Consultant.

"Bob Kemper, a former ODOT engineer"

Good advocate, but not a former ODOT Engineer, not an Engineer.

"favorite plan of the majority of folks in Oklahoma City.”

How would we know? See the MAPs for suburbia thread. The majority of folks in OKC probably couldn't care less and just want to get home from the Thunder games faster.

BB - you are 2 for 6 which would be a decent batting average but is worse than half truth.

BB - you are 2 for 6 which would be a decent batting average but is worse than half truth.

Then why don't you tell us what BB had right and wrong. I don't know much about Kemper but I think BB was right on the other 5.

Well Dave, what did BB say that was incorrect? The biggest laugh I had from the article was the part about the wide spread outcry.

1, 2, 4, & 5.

Then why don't you tell us what BB had right and wrong. I don't know much about Kemper but I think BB was right on the other 5.

Bob is probably a bright guy. He was a draftsman at ODOT. He's not an engineer any more than I'm a doctor.

https://www.ok.gov/pels/search/search.php

Well Dave, what did BB say that was incorrect? The biggest laugh I had from the article was the part about the wide spread outcry.

There were at least 40 people at the public meeting a few days ago. Widespread indeed.

What should happen with the Boulevard in downtown OKC? (http://www.okcfox.com/story/22726811/what-should-happen-with-the-boulevard-in-downtown-okc)

There were at least 40 people at the public meeting a few days ago. Widespread indeed.

There were more than 40. This was a meeting that was cancelled due to the tornado and moved to a later date. The first meeting was extremely well attended - the best attended public meeting I have been to since I've been attending public meetings.

And, while some people are not attenders of public meetings, every single person whom I told about the boulevard plans, regardless of where they live or their political leanings, said precisely the same thing, which I find fascinating. I've never heard such unanimity of comments on a subject in my life. "Why would they want to do that?"

My issue with ODOT and city staff is that they directed what options Stantec (the consultant, for those who don't want to go back and read this whole thread) could examine. All most of us want is the grid evaluated and scored along with the rest of the options. And, the primary scoring should not promote quickly moving people in and out of downtown, as that is not what we want. Scoring should be highest for pedestrian accessability to Core to Shore, environs and the park as well as walkability, bikeability. The boulevard should be as much for people as cars.

From Bob. This is FBB's letter headed off to ODOT and the Federal Highway Admin today. Today is the last day to get your letters in for this step of the process. I submitted one as well regarding the Santa Fe Station Boulevard approach bridge and streetcar accommodations.


"FBB applauds the efforts of ODOT to develop and review an additional boulevard design alternative that provides for greater integration with the original street grid network of the downtown area impacted by the project. We believe that a properly designed Alternative D will not only provide for an outstanding boulevard(s) for Oklahoma City, but will also provide the greatest and most beneficial access to the entire downtown area of all alternatives under consideration. Further, we believe that a properly evaluated Alternative D will show the greatest and most beneficial environmental impacts, including potential economic development, to the entire downtown area of all alternatives under consideration.

The fundamental basis for the boulevard project under the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the I-40 Crosstown Expressway (Crosstown) was to mitigate the potential negative impacts to the downtown area as a result of reduced vehicular access due to the relocation of the Crosstown. This is confirmed in “Chapter 3.0 – Alternatives Considered” of the FEIS for the Crosstown, where the primary rationale for the boulevard project is described:

3.4.6. Tier Two Evaluation – Access to Downtown – Alternative D

“The proposed boulevard from I-235 to Agnew Avenue will provide improved access to Bricktown and the downtown area from eastbound and westbound traffic.”

Further, in “Chapter 5.0 – Environmental Impacts” of the FEIS, several potential beneficial environmental impacts of the boulevard project are described:

5.3 – Land Use Impacts – Alternative D

“Transforming the existing facility to a grade-level boulevard with at-grade access to cross streets, would provide the incentive for commercial development on vacant land and, commercial redevelopment of existing industrial properties along the boulevard would increase. The overall effects of converting existing I-40 to a boulevard could have positive land use impacts on the downtown area.”

5.5 – Historical and Archeological Preservation Impacts – Alternative D

“Developing a grade-level boulevard serving the downtown area along the current I-40 alignment would change the SW 3rd Street Industrial District’s visual setting. The change may bring the district closer to the original historic context, which included grade-level city streets. Therefore, this is anticipated to be a beneficial impact.”

5.23 – Socio-Economic Impacts – Alternative D

“The property tax base in the affected study area could be enhanced by potential commercial development and redevelopment in available areas along the proposed boulevard under Alternative D. New development on vacant properties could make redevelopment of adjacent existing properties more attractive and could rais the property values. Enhanced access to areas near the proposed facilities would reduce transportation costs, for travel to and from these areas, thereby making residential and business location more attractive and resulting in potentially higher property values.”

FBB notes that the purpose of the boulevard project is to provide greater access to the entire downtown area being impacted by the relocation of the Crosstown. Further, we note that the potential beneficial environmental impacts for providing that access are the direct result of developing a grade-level boulevard with at-grade access to cross streets. FBB believes that purpose and the resulting benefits can best be achieved by development of one or more linear boulevards reintegrated into the original downtown street grid, as opposed to the various curvilinear boulevard designs previously under consideration.

FBB also notes that nowhere in the FEIS or the accompanying Record of Decision (ROD) is the purpose of the boulevard project described as providing for a bypass for the purposes of moving vehicular traffic as quickly as possible into and out of the downtown area in order to eliminate traffic congestion or for emergency situations. Federal Highway Administration officials have confirmed that there is no requirement under the FEIS and the ROD for the boulevard to serve as a bypass facility.

FBB urges ODOT to conduct a thorough and unbiased evaluation of the various technical criteria associated with Alternative D, including design considerations, traffic modeling and analysis, and land use and other environmental impacts. Further, we urge ODOT to undertake a just and equitable analysis of its findings in determining a preferred alternative for the boulevard project in order to ensure the greatest access and beneficial environmental impacts for the entire downtown area.

Sincerely,

Bob Kemper
Friends for a Better Boulevard"

Contained in the links below is the 1st draft of the ODOT Alternative "D" (the grid-based option) as modified and developed by Friends for a Better Boulevard:

http://i153.photobucket.com/albums/s225/CuatrodeMayo/image_zps1b120613.jpg
http://i153.photobucket.com/albums/s225/CuatrodeMayo/image_zpsfe66b73b.jpg

https://www.dropbox.com/s/kumukvk9p5j6ic6/OKC%20boulevard_DESIGN.pdf
https://www.dropbox.com/s/3eehzhjbm0yoz61/OKC%20boulevard_Diagram.pdf
(Be warned; each file is about 30 MB)

Nice work Cuatro. What grabs my attention is the amount of land that is available for redevelopment and the number of reconnected streets that are possible when the boulevards follow the grid.

Very nicely done. Dave really captured my sentiments by pointing out how much new land becomes available.