just a fyi .. all the streets along the park and CC have money from the 2007 bond issue for upgrades

just a fyi .. all the streets along the park and CC have money from the 2007 bond issue for upgrades

Yeah, but it wouldn't be enough to make them all awesome... we threw a relatively blind number at it now knowing specifics at the time (2006).

The City of Oklahoma City - 2007 City Bond Election (http://www.okc.gov/bonds2007/BondInformation.aspx?propParam=1&sectParam=Reconstruction&propText=PROPOSITION%201%20%28STREETS%29&sectText=Reconstruction)

Hudson reno to new I40 2.5 mil

Harvey Reno to blvd 1 mil

Robinson reno to sw 15th 3.7 mil

Oklahoma reno to blvd 2.5 mil

any idea how much P180 streets cost per block ... (although you would hope that these sections would cost less)

Here's a good comparison (NW 23rd Streetscape bids):

OKC CONSTRUCTION ITEM #2 PC-0421 STREETSCAPE NW 23RD STREET, TULSA AVENUE TO ANN ARBOR AVENUE: (Eng Est/Atkins North America, Inc. $2,820,263.133)
CGC, LLC $2,542,400.00
Connelly Paving Co. $2,900,884.90
Rudy Const. Co. $2,765,532.30

http://www.okc.gov/clerk/bidtabs/Bid%20Tab%205-29-13.pdf

thanks ..

There won't be an intersection at the new Boulevard and EKG will there?

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.

You're incredulous. When you aren't discrediting that the public actually cares, you're lying that Core2Shire was always at grade (depends on your definition of Core2Shore and whether you've ever seen a wide-open neighborhood develop to the east-west as well), downplaying the FHWA involvement, and making personal charges against Bob Kemper.

That would be a troll, I believe.

There won't be an intersection at the new Boulevard and EKG will there?

To my knowledge there will be an intersection. There would have to be a bridge or tunnel otherwise.

There won't be an intersection at the new Boulevard and EKG will there?

yes in every possible scenario ..

Outstanding work. Clearly the best alternative. Great boulevards. Great access to downtown. Great redevelopment opportunities. Great vision. Why in the world would we want to build it any other way.

If Alternative D is done like it looks in Graphic 1 of Post #1, then I'm all in! Forget the boulevard (the curvy part). I still believe that the western end needs to be brought down to ground level just east of Pennsylvania Avenue, though.

Grid. Grid. Grid!

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)

Wow, this is exceptional. It is clear this is the best option.

Indeed - it isn't even close in my opinion. "Urban renewal" is a term tossed about all the time for dubious reasons and projects - this would do more for urban renewal in Oklahoma City than anything in the last 40 years. It would do what government is supposed to do - provide the bones that facilitates private investment. This truly is THE win-win scenario.

It definitely seems a decent approach. Is it one that has a realistic shot at carrying the day?

I think so kevin. Still not a sure thing by any means, but we are light years ahead of where we were a year ago. Just getting it included in the designs under consideration was significant but the effort doesn't end there.

Indeed - it isn't even close in my opinion. "Urban renewal" is a term tossed about all the time for dubious reasons and projects - this would do more for urban renewal in Oklahoma City than anything in the last 40 years. It would do what government is supposed to do - provide the bones that facilitates private investment. This truly is THE win-win scenario.

this option would help bricktown (via the oklahoma connection) core to shore and the west side of southern core

this option would help bricktown (via the oklahoma connection) core to shore and the west side of southern core

AND still provide easy ingress and egress for downtown workers who commute.

Any progress on this lately or are we at a standstill?

Waiting on word from Federal Highway Administration and ODOT. Still under review.

Wow, is there any estimated timeline at all when this "review" will be finished so we can just build the thing?

Quite frankly the longer this highway is not built the better IMHO. I'm fine with this review process taking as long as possible.

The center portion is being reviewed by Maps 3 committees this week - especially a 1 block section that will be 63' wide with 5 lanes, two bike lanes and maybe a 9' parking space area.

one block? I wanna say odd, but it probably makes sense to someone.

one block? I wanna say odd, but it probably makes sense to someone.

It's in between the park and the convention center's proposed location... being put forth by the park landscape architects.

It's in between the park and the convention center's proposed location... being put forth by the park landscape architects.

so 1 super block long .. robinson to hudson ..

one block? I wanna say odd, but it probably makes sense to someone.

Everyone but the handicapped community.

http://youtu.be/OvoFjirrgYA

Neat

Not to be nitpicky, but they should have tested a signalized four way stop to cover all their bases. I think the roundabout would have come out on top though when it comes to vehicle traffic efficiency.

A few observations:

1) Why didn't they test the U-turn? Oh that's right - you can't do a U-turn at a 4 way stop. Just for fun - they should have done a test for U-turns only.
2) 1 person counting vs. 4 people counting tells you all you need to know.
3) They need more cars to test the round-a-bout effectively. Notice the stacking of cars at the 4-ways stop and with the round-a-bout there were places where cars could go but no car was there to fill the void.

They should have tested double lane roads, where efficiency tends to matter more often, and where more confusion enters the game for roundabouts.

Neat

Not to be nitpicky, but they should have tested a signalized four way stop to cover all their bases. I think the roundabout would have come out on top though when it comes to vehicle traffic efficiency.

Lights are generally geared to safety than efficiency. The only times you see one really efficient is if there is a high disparity in traffic, where one is heavily used all day and is extremely prioritized and only will see limited traffic or traffic is really heavy and they have a longer than what seems standard green cycle.


They should have tested double lane roads, where efficiency tends to matter more often, and where more confusion enters the game for roundabouts.
Ideally it might reduce the need for that second lane, also roundabouts being the only solution can be as bad as never considering if for a solution. They may be good for moving cars more efficiently but costs a bit about giving pedestrians less chance to cross wisely and takes more land than a two/four way stop if if is a low volume intersection.

I have never had a problem crossing the street at a round-a-bout. The lane is only 10 feet wide and thanks to the deflected path the car is usually doing less than 10 MPH. I can easily outrun it and if it did hit me chance are I would survive with nothing more than a bruise, if injured at all.

In our country, we certainly do a lot of things better than anywhere else in the world. However, the efficient movement of people is not one of those things. It is very unfortunate that when we develop a system, we stick to it no matter what. It reminds me of a bit from Jerry Seinfeld from the late 90’s about the Chinese still using the chop stick, even though they’ve seen the fork, they are adamant about using the chop stick. Check it out, it’s pretty good. I think it’s time to stop using the traffic “chop stick.” If the drivers in the test can learn to effectively use a roundabout in 30 minutes, imagine how much more efficient it could be after years of use.

I would argue that the roundabout is friendlier to pedestrians as it requires drivers to slow down to navigate the turn, whereas with a 4-way stop they can fly right through without even thinking about it.

To make it more realistic, they should have picked about five people in the rotation while doing the four way stop to stop short, wait too long and let too many cars go through or be texting on their phone. That would have cut down on the amount of cars going through and made it more like what it is in real life.

To make it more realistic, they should have picked about five people in the rotation while doing the four way stop to stop short, wait too long and let too many cars go through or be texting on their phone. That would have cut down on the amount of cars going through and made it more like what it is in real life.

Don't forget stopping in the middle of the intersection, or start to make a left turn, then go right, then go straight. Someone on the roundabout can go the wrong way.

All mistakes that are made in normal intersections. The difference? When I've responded to those accidents (head-on collisions or 'T-bone'), we are usually taking someone away with on a stretcher. In a roundabout, regardless of the posted speeds outside of the roundabout, traffic in it usually max out at about 15mph (sometimes a tad faster). So the accidents are more the fender-bender style.

Not to mention the angle of impact in roundabouts are oblique rather than closer to perpendicular and the direction of travel is the same. These two factors greatly reduce the force of impact.

OK, so when are we breaking ground and pouring concrete? .... It's time to pull this project through the "fog" of design and get it going. The longer we delay, the longer the economic waters remain stagnant.

Pick the BEST design, and then let's all get behind it, and push.

OK, so when are we breaking ground and pouring concrete? .... It's time to pull this project through the "fog" of design and get it going. The longer we delay, the longer the economic waters remain stagnant.

Pick the BEST design, and then let's all get behind it, and push.

from the new ODOT 8 year plan .. the following are due for 2014

Bridge and Approaches BNSF bridge at Boulevard 7.9 mil let 5/2014
Grade, Draining, bridge and surface Boulevard from BNSF east to I40 6.1 mil let 5/2014
Grade, Draining, bridge and surface XTWN from western to the west side of walker 15 mil let 5/2014
Grade, Draining, bridge and surface XTOWN from just west of walker to west side of EKG 9 mil let 5/2014

from the new ODOT 8 year plan .. the following are due for 2014

Bridge and Approaches BNSF bridge at Boulevard 7.9 mil let 5/2014
Grade, Draining, bridge and surface Boulevard from BNSF east to I40 6.1 mil let 5/2014
Grade, Draining, bridge and surface XTWN from western to the west side of walker 15 mil let 5/2014
Grade, Draining, bridge and surface XTOWN from just west of walker to west side of EKG 9 mil let 5/2014

Why isn't this pulled forward to 12/ 13. They won't have to be billed / make payment until (next calendar year? ). We don't need to wait until then? ...Why are we waiting until 5/14 ? ...please advise.

Why isn't this pulled forward to 12/ 13. They won't have to be billed / make payment until (next calendar year? ). We don't need to wait until then? ...Why are we waiting until 5/14 ? ...please advise.

there is not a final plan for the blvd ... so they can't build it yet

there is not a final plan for the blvd ... so they can't build it yet

90 % off ALL major projects are not 100% design complete. Most start w/ a 60/40 ; 70/30 ; 80/20... Trust me, there are so many things that can be done ( Demo / Utilities / Cite ) that can be mobilized into action. We dont have to wait until 5/14 to "Let a Contract".

90 % off ALL major projects are not 100% design complete. Most start w/ a 60/40 ; 70/30 ; 80/20... Trust me, there are so many things that can be done ( Demo / Utilities / Cite ) that can be mobilized into action. We dont have to wait until 5/14 to "Let a Contract".

Considering 1) there are huge differences between each of the proposals and 2) it isn't in our control (Feds are reviewing), what you want won't happen. Just because you can type it on a message board (over and over and over) doesn't mean it is likely or feasible or best option or anything.

This project is in the hands of the Federal Government. If ODOT had acted responsibly, it wouldn't be. So its their problem, not ours.

Considering 1) there are huge differences between each of the proposals and 2) it isn't in our control (Feds are reviewing), what you want won't happen. Just because you can type it on a message board (over and over and over) doesn't mean it is likely or feasible or best option or anything.

..what you don't understand is " There is always differences between proposals ". That is the nature of Large Invitiatives. There is always (some one reviewing), Like I said before, there many things that can be done to PULL it forward.

I'm not "just typing to see it on a board" , but when you get in that large conference room, they need to put excuses aside, and get this moving. This is the "$1 Billion in Economic Development waiting on a small street". NOW, I ask all of you, why are we not PULLING THIS THING THROUGH ? I don't care who gets the credit, let's just make it happen. :)

This project is in the hands of the Federal Government. If ODOT had acted responsibly, it wouldn't be. So its their problem, not ours.Just out of curiosity, I thought the plan all along was then feds were going to review it, was that not originally in the plan and ODOT did something to force them to review it????

..what you don't understand is " There is always differences between proposals ". That is the nature of Large Invitiatives. There is always (some one reviewing), Like I said before, there many things that can be done to PULL it forward.

I'm not "just typing to see it on a board" , but when you get in that large conference room, they need to put excuses aside, and get this moving. This is the "$1 Billion in Economic Development waiting on a small street". NOW, I ask all of you, why are we not PULLING THIS THING THROUGH ? I don't care who gets the credit, let's just make it happen. :)

So which option do they start with? Returning to the grid? That's extremely different than the original ODOT proposal. Do they start prepping to build a high-speed, elevated boulevard even though it isn't approved? Doing that would negate the grid option. I would much rather see this done right than fast. That was the problem with the original ODOT proposal. They tried to push through something so "it could just get done." Not everything has to happen "RIGHT THIS INSTANT OR, OMG, WE ARE RUINING EVERYTHING!!!"

So which option do they start with? Returning to the grid? That's extremely different than the original ODOT proposal. Do they start prepping to build a high-speed, elevated boulevard even though it isn't approved? Doing that would negate the grid option. I would much rather see this done right than fast. That was the problem with the original ODOT proposal. They tried to push through something so "it could just get done." Not everything has to happen "RIGHT THIS INSTANT OR, OMG, WE ARE RUINING EVERYTHING!!!"

Didn't we just tear down that last "elevated" roadway? ...so I don't see why we need to elevate anything. It is my clear understanding that the (elevated roadways restrict commerce) & place additional barriers to development. So why are we even (discussing that option?).

Didn't we just tear down that last "elevated" roadway? ...so I don't see why we need to elevate anything. It is my clear understanding that the (elevated roadways restrict commerce) & place additional barriers to development. So why are we even (discussing that option?).

Because one of the options has the Boulevard elevated over Western. Have you actually looked at the plans that are being reviewed? If not, why are you demanding something start immediately without even knowing what the possibilities are?

Because one of the options has the Boulevard elevated over Western. Have you actually looked at the plans that are being reviewed? If not, why are you demanding something start immediately without even knowing what the possibilities are?

..and that option is still on the table? Then that certainly makes my point. When the (elevated option) is still under consideration ( this is like having an option of buidling a 15 story building next to the airport..???) It may be an option, but this is not the direction we are going to go.

..and that option is still on the table? Then that certainly makes my point. When the (elevated option) is still under consideration ( this is like having an option of buidling a 15 story building next to the airport..???) It may be an option, but this is not the direction we are going to go.Dallas has a 15 story(possibly large) hotel right in DFW airport city limits and it is awesome, I believe there are actually a few mid rises. Just sayin

..and that option is still on the table? Then that certainly makes my point. When the (elevated option) is still under consideration ( this is like having an option of buidling a 15 story building next to the airport..???) It may be an option, but this is not the direction we are going to go.

I agree that we shouldn't, but the city isn't paying for this so it isn't solely their choice.

This project is in the hands of the Federal Government. If ODOT had acted responsibly, it wouldn't be. So its their problem, not ours.

If this is in OKC Metro, and it is slowing down the Economic Develoment Machine that is in place ( called momentum ), then why would we pull our hands off the Responsiblity Button? ...and this should be a lesson for other initiatives too: Ie. ...going through the RailRoad Industry that is historically slow, and one-sided. Le'ts keep ALL the authority in our own hands, so we can control the outcome w/ greater certainty.

I agree that we shouldn't, but the city isn't paying for this so it isn't solely their choice.

No, it is ALL the cities choice. We are going with the other option, and you can help pay for it later. We are letting the Finance Dept. hold up the Design Dept. ...and contracting.

This is my impression of OKVision4U for everything that hasn't been done yet:

Veruca Salt - I Want It Now (Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory) - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TRTkCHE1sS4)

There are over 1800 posts in this thread. Do yourself (and the rest of us) a favor and read them before you starting posting. If you would take the time to educate yourself, you wouldn't be asking these questions.

There are over 1800 posts in this thread. Do yourself (and the rest of us) a favor and read them before you starting posting. If you would take the time to educate yourself, you wouldn't be asking these questions.

Guys, you will find that I'm that concerned about your opinion ( and reading your 1800 post ). I am only looking for results. High Value Results w/ accountability.

Most projects all projects run into hurdles tha slow them down a bit. I made my point(s) that we need to push harder, and not let up.

Guys, you will find that I'm that concerned about your opinion ( and reading your 1800 post ). I am only looking for results. High Value Results w/ accountability.

Most projects all projects run into hurdles tha slow them down a bit. I made my point(s) that we need to push harder, and not let up.

Your "go get em" spirit is way too high. Are you a member of one of those "praise Jesus out loud" churches?

Your "go get em" spirit is way too high. Are you a member of one of those "praise Jesus out loud" churches?

...Yes I am ! ....and now, I will change my prayer for you.

...Yes I am ! ....and now, I will change my prayer for you.

Oh joy, lol.

Push harder??? Where were you last year? lol

This project is on auto pilot. There is absolutely nothing we can do except continue to write the Feds and wait for the next public meeting.

Oh... and buy Bob Kemper another drink.