Not gonna happen. This is one area in which I believe Mayor Cornett could have exerted more leadership. I know he has to choose his battles wisely, but he's a sharp guy and I think he totally gets what we want. He is, after all, the person who painted the vision of a grand boulevard.

I'm not hung up on the grid option. I just want the area between Western and the eastern terminus to be pedestrian-friendly and desirable for development.

I would be willing to wager we are getting what Jim Couch wants (and probably many influential members of the business community).

As far as development along the boulevard, I would just as soon we continue to densify to the North, East, and West as opposed to the South. I'm really not much of a Core to Shore guy.

I don't think I agree with any of this. This is about engineer's arrogance and Core to Shore is happening whether people like it or not. This is an ODOT boondoggle that sympathizing Public Works engineers and engineers in city management are complicit in.

I think the Mayor and City Council are disappointed in this disaster more and more as they wade through the semantics trying to decipher two dimensional drawings. You should have heard the semantics with Meg Salyer (I have heard the same with the Mayor), about what "at grade" means. In short, "sure its at grade! It's on dirt!" It might be on dirt elevated 20' above Reno Avenue, but its "at grade"!

And things continue to change as Steve has pointed out, the Fred Jones Plant being a great example.

We have to organize and fight

So is turning Western into a cul-de-sac pretty much a done deal?

Is CuatrodeMayo's roundabout idea even a remote possibility?

This is about engineer's arrogance and Core to Shore is happening whether people like it or not.

The consultant I argued with last night (Kieth?) made the point of saying their proposals were in line with the city approved core-to-shore plan and I was like, wait, what? I said that may be a "master plan" type document that was thrown out there for reference, but I don't think the city is bound to it, or that it has some kind of broad approval to proceed as written, yet he argued to the contrary.

Am I wrong about this (I'll stand corrected if so)? Is he correct? Or is the wool being pulled over his eyes by elements with the city to get the answer they want from the consultants?

Sigh. What a disappointment this has become.

Steve's article indicated ODOT is forecasting 58K cars/day to use this. There might be 50K workers in all downtown. Assuming roundtrips, are they thinking this new boulevard will capture more than half of ingoing/outgoing traffic? And funning traffic to/from an I-40 that is largely empty outside 2 hours of the day?

Question for those involved. Given the large financial implications for the city (boulevard generating development=more sales tax for the city) what kind of power does the mayor and city council have in this process at this point? I can't think they are happy with what is being presented.

I don't think I agree with any of this. This is about engineer's arrogance and Core to Shore is happening whether people like it or not. This is an ODOT boondoggle that sympathizing Public Works engineers and engineers in city management are complicit in.I think the Mayor and City Council are disappointed in this disaster more and more as they wade through the semantics trying to decipher two dimensional drawings. You should have heard the semantics with Meg Salyer (I have heard the same with the Mayor), about what "at grade" means. In short, "sure its at grade! It's on dirt!" It might be on dirt elevated 20' above Reno Avenue, but its "at grade"!

And things continue to change as Steve has pointed out, the Fred Jones Plant being a great example.

We have to organize and fight

This is my point. Of course that is what ( engineers want ). Ms. Fallin needs to ( Publicly ) step-in and make this happen. It is the only way we can make certain that our Project 180 Principles are met. Mr. Cornett and Ms. Fallin can have a nice little "presser" and show ALL the people of the State of Oklahoma, this is how we work together for the good of it's citizens. Period.

I don't think I agree with any of this. This is about engineer's arrogance and Core to Shore is happening whether people like it or not. This is an ODOT boondoggle that sympathizing Public Works engineers and engineers in city management are complicit in.

I think the Mayor and City Council are disappointed in this disaster more and more as they wade through the semantics trying to decipher two dimensional drawings. You should have heard the semantics with Meg Salyer (I have heard the same with the Mayor), about what "at grade" means. In short, "sure its at grade! It's on dirt!" It might be on dirt elevated 20' above Reno Avenue, but its "at grade"!

And things continue to change as Steve has pointed out, the Fred Jones Plant being a great example.

We have to organize and fight

OK, so here's my question: can the mayor, Meg, and others request a new design? Presenting designs that include turning Western Ave. into a cup-de-sac seems preposterous. Mayor Cornett is the most popular politician in the state and has enormous political capital. It would seem that he above all would have the pulpit required to demand change, especially with City Council's backing.

So is turning Western into a cul-de-sac pretty much a done deal?

Is CuatrodeMayo's roundabout idea even a remote possibility?

Yes to the cul-de-sac, otherwise you would run your car right into an "at grade" elevated dirt berm. They fought the roundabout with every fabricated, maxed out, vehicle-per-day count they could throw out it. No circle for us sir.

The consultant I argued with last night (Kieth?) made the point of saying their proposals were in line with the city approved core-to-shore plan and I was like, wait, what? I said that may be a "master plan" type document that was thrown out there for reference, but I don't think the city is bound to it, or that it has some kind of broad approval to proceed as written, yet he argued to the contrary.

Am I wrong about this (I'll stand corrected if so)? Is he correct? Or is the wool being pulled over his eyes by elements with the city to get the answer they want from the consultants?

I suspect if they are quoting such a plan they are probably referring to the very first plan. Not the actual plan that has become the reality. Let me see if I can find out more detail about this.

This is my point. Of course that is what ( engineers want ). Ms. Fallin needs to ( Publicly ) step-in and make this happen. It is the only way we can make certain that our Project 180 Principles are met. Mr. Cornett and Ms. Fallin can have a nice little "presser" and show ALL the people of the State of Oklahoma, this is how we work together for the good of it's citizens. Period.

Ms. Fallin / Mr. Cornett need to set the standard that others will follow. ( or we will just get what ODOT pukes out ).

This boulevard represents everything wrong with Oklahoma City, though I realize the true villain is ODOT, not the city. Planners are still living in the 1980s and are expecting that kind of development permanently. I am worried instead of a grand boulevard that OKC can be proud of its going to end up being another embarrassment.

OK, so here's my question: can the mayor, Meg, and others request a new design? Presenting designs that include turning Western Ave. into a cup-de-sac seems preposterous. Mayor Cornett is the most popular politician in the state and has enormous political capital. It would seem that he above all would have the pulpit required to demand change, especially with City Council's backing.

They can. But ODOT doesn't have to do it. Remember, ODOT didn't even go with the wishes of the first city council who chose a different alignment for the Crosstown. ODOT went with what they wanted. The could express a different preference to the Feds and that would be the most significant gesture they could make to change the process.

So the question becomes, do you tell these engineers NO! knowing they have "mathematical justifications" in their back pocket at the ready. Or do you accept Alignment C, compromise, and tell them how you want it made better. Or do you simply waste money and tear it out after they hand the keys over.

I'm confused, because I thought there was going to be a bridge over Western, with the boulevard coming to grade after that. I would have been fine with that.

Speaking to Pahdz's earlier post, I wonder which Downtown Heavyweight is pushing the buttons here.

The only out that I see here for us is to fight fire with fire. The city needs to delay this even longer and hire a consultant tasked with maximizing economic development opportunities. Get the chamber involved. This is an important economic opportunity.

I'm confused, because I thought there was going to be a bridge over Western, with the boulevard coming to grade after that. I would have been fine with that.

Speaking to Pahdz's earlier post, I wonder which Downtown Heavyweight is pushing the buttons here.

I would prefer the roundabouts but I do realize this is OKC and such a concept is unlikely to fly here. However, turning Western into a cul-de-sac has to be the dumbest, most shortsighted, small town idea I've seen proposed. If nothing else, something has to be done to prevent that.

I really don't care about the roundabouts. It was a neat idea but in the end, it's not politically viable. Fine. There have to be other solutions than a cul-de-sac. Again, what happened to the bridge over Western idea? That seemed like a reasonable compromise to me.

The only out that I see here for us is to fight fire with fire. The city needs to delay this even longer and hire a consultant tasked with maximizing economic development opportunities. Get the chamber involved. This is an important economic opportunity.

Are you sure the Chamber isn't behind this "move traffic out of Downtown OKC as fast as possible" approach? If what Pahdz said is true, the impetus for this could be coming from one of the Chamber's biggest supporters.

Western is merged with Classen. The merge is what goes under the bridge.

Here is the e-mail I sent the mayor just now:

I don’t know if you will get this directly or one of your assistants will, but I would like to voice my displeasure in the alternatives for the DT boulevard.

None of them have come even remotely close to what we as a city need to have as a boulevard. You stated years ago that this road would be the gateway to our city to introduce people to OKC who would typically bypass OKC on I-40 on their way out of town.

How can we have a Grand Boulevard that introduces people to our city if it is basically another NW Expressway?

How have you and other members of the council not challenged ODOT to create a street the city can be proud of?

The idea of a six lane highway through downtown is ridiculous. The speed limit will not matter because if it is six lanes and the lanes themselves are wide, people will speed through DT. If we wanted that, we should have just kept I-40 where it was and used the current I-40 area for train connections.

I understand the complication of the Reno/Boulevard/Classen/Western intersection, I really do, but to have a cul-de-sac for Western? Really? I am not an engineer by any means, but I know I could design a better boulevard freehand.

ODOT is building this street, then handing it over to the City of OKC. Let’s make them build a street we don’t have to look back on in two years and say, “Well that was stupid…” Instead of listening to engineers who only care about traffic counts (which is a whole different animal to me because there is no way that street will ever carry 58,000 people per day in two years, let alone ten), let’s listen to planners and consultants who are educated in this sort of thing.

This street is not meant to rapidly get people in and out of downtown. It is meant to be a grand entrance to our city and make people stay down there.

Let’s keep in mind what is going to be built along the boulevard over the next five years: The new convention center, the new central park, the new transit parking garage east of the rail lines in bricktown, any development in the Lumberyard plus any other C2S development as the others open.

If you want this street to be pedestrian friendly, you have to make some sacrifices for traffic. You put the whole city on a diet and as a city, we lost well over a million pounds. Why not introduce the idea of bike lanes and wide sidewalks along the boulevard? This would get people moving on foot or bike instead of just sitting in their car.

And on a personal note, I vote and lobbied for you to become Mayor again. Please prove to me and the other residents of OKC that you can be our leader and get this thing done right the first time.

Signed, (me)

Its actually quite brilliant from a traffic engineering standpoint. They will have to completely reconfigure and build McDonalds a new parking lot. But the cu-de-sac makes it look insane on paper. Classen becomes the prominent thoroughfare to the north of the boulevard and funnels into Western to the south.

Here is the e-mail I sent the mayor just now:

I don’t know if you will get this directly or one of your assistants will, but I would like to voice my displeasure in the alternatives for the DT boulevard.

None of them have come even remotely close to what we as a city need to have as a boulevard. You stated years ago that this road would be the gateway to our city to introduce people to OKC who would typically bypass OKC on I-40 on their way out of town.

How can we have a Grand Boulevard that introduces people to our city if it is basically another NW Expressway?

How have you and other members of the council not challenged ODOT to create a street the city can be proud of?

The idea of a six lane highway through downtown is ridiculous. The speed limit will not matter because if it is six lanes and the lanes themselves are wide, people will speed through DT. If we wanted that, we should have just kept I-40 where it was and used the current I-40 area for train connections.

I understand the complication of the Reno/Boulevard/Classen/Western intersection, I really do, but to have a cul-de-sac for Western? Really? I am not an engineer by any means, but I know I could design a better boulevard freehand.

ODOT is building this street, then handing it over to the City of OKC. Let’s make them build a street we don’t have to look back on in two years and say, “Well that was stupid…” Instead of listening to engineers who only care about traffic counts (which is a whole different animal to me because there is no way that street will ever carry 58,000 people per day in two years, let alone ten), let’s listen to planners and consultants who are educated in this sort of thing.

This street is not meant to rapidly get people in and out of downtown. It is meant to be a grand entrance to our city and make people stay down there.

Let’s keep in mind what is going to be built along the boulevard over the next five years: The new convention center, the new central park, the new transit parking garage east of the rail lines in bricktown, any development in the Lumberyard plus any other C2S development as the others open.

If you want this street to be pedestrian friendly, you have to make some sacrifices for traffic. You put the whole city on a diet and as a city, we lost well over a million pounds. Why not introduce the idea of bike lanes and wide sidewalks along the boulevard? This would get people moving on foot or bike instead of just sitting in their car.

And on a personal note, I vote and lobbied for you to become Mayor again. Please prove to me and the other residents of OKC that you can be our leader and get this thing done right the first time.

Signed, (me)

Warreng, that is so well said. You nailed it.

I feel like the ODOT people would be the guy monitoring the debate at the end of the movie, "Billy Madison":

"What you have just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul."

I feel like the ODOT people would be the guy monitoring the debate at the end of the movie, "Billy Madison":

"What you have just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul."

That was good too.

I think we are at a point where the Mom & Dad ( Ms. Fallin / Mr. Cornett ) need to take the keys away from the teenagers ( ODOT / City Engineers ) and tell them "This is what we want, this is what we expect because it is not even their car".

Its actually quite brilliant from a traffic engineering standpoint. They will have to completely reconfigure and build McDonalds a new parking lot. But the cu-de-sac makes it look insane on paper. Classen becomes the prominent thoroughfare to the north of the boulevard and funnels into Western to the south.

OK. I get it now. I was just looking at the cul-de-sac and not the bigger picture there.

Looking at the grid, I just don't see how that isn't the obvious choice. Just look at all the development potential that is created from restoring the grid. You easily multiply the downtown area several fold. With the curved boulevard and elevated berms, the result is another I-40 splitting downtown into two. The traffic counts are nonsense. The grid allows traffic from the east and west ends to disperse into the multitude of existing streets; instead of funneling people north/south to and from the entrances/exits of the boulevard. The end result of the latter design is definitely very "Expressway-like" and it will be laughable when compared to what was originally visioned for the area. Options A, B, & C do absolutely nothing for real estate development potential. In fact, it kills it in a lot of places.

<sarcasm> The real icing on the cake is Western Avenue being cut-off; we obviously have the best engineers IN THE WORLD right here in OK. </endsarcasm>

This whole process, and ODOT, is just ludicrous.

Although I don't live in the city, I am a huge supporter. I have sent a response to ODOT and to the Mayor. I hope you will as well. If there are other things I can do to help, please let me know.

I tried to use the development growth argument with the grid last night and they wouldn't have it. I explained the in-fill we've experienced all over downtown in the last 20 years and how much more we'd see in the next 20-years if we didn't do something stupid to stymie it. Crickets.

FBB will be strategizing today. We do need more meetings. FBB does not advocate for one design over another but rather that citizen input make the Boulevard "better". Obviously, there is quite a bit left to be desired.

If one group with power to act is advocating a particular outcome and another large group with a voice is mostly saying we want input, the group with the goal oriented agenda has the upper hand (especially when they get to decide.)

I'm not convinced that the grid is the exact way to go, but it would be a massive mistake to go with one of ODOT's "boulevards"...

At this point the grid is the least bad option.

The grid is the best option at this point, I agree. ODOT cannot get away from the idea that this boulevard is to basically be an expressway to get as much traffic in and out of downtown as possible. Their proposal is great if that was the only thing that mattered. However, they don't understand that isn't the point of the Boulevard and if that was what was wanted, there wouldn't have been any point in relocating I-40 to begin with.

Western is merged with Classen. The merge is what goes under the bridge.

It was in the initial options, but Option C (the seemingly favorite option) doesn't even bother to bend Western into California which would make more sense then the culdesac. I don't think Western should be discontinued at all.

Perhaps we will soon be looking at culdesacs in the NW Expresseay, forcing you to go around Lake Hefner, and a culdesac on SW 134th keeping people from going into Moore. I can't believe they would propose this solution to Western Avenue, wow.

Grid.

Not happening unless the FHWA deems it.

Not happening unless the FHWA deems it.

Do our emails need to be directed at the FHWA or ODOT, at this point?

Would it be better to go above ODOT again to the people who are cutting the check?

Yes.

Is Elizabeth Romero still the FHWA/DOT local contact?

Elizabeth.Romero@dot.gov

Would you be happier if it was Classen that dead end? Just an honest question. One of the the two streets have to be closed if it is insisted that the Bouelvard is actually one continues curved road. I think the idea is to make Classen the "busy" road North of the bouelvard.Why does it have to be one or the other? There are plenty of options here. Build an overpass over both roads.... Build a Round-a-bout to serve the roads

To those saying it won't be politically possible: please explain what that means. Every other city can do it. Hell, I heard Dallas is putting in a large round-a-bout in the Uptown area. DALLAS!!!!!!!! There is no reason why we can't have a truly world class round-a-bout that is done right. ODOT doesn't need to do anything about it. I'm sure if OKC got serious, we could send our city planners to Paris, London, or pretty much any other Euro city and have them look at how they build them there and give them the power to design this BLVD.

Seriously, can we at lest let the city planners have one project? Just one. Make it a test and when the BLVD becomes a booming corridor because of it, perhaps the city might take them a little more seriously.

Grid is growing on me.


Sent from my iPhone using TapatalkEven though I'd rather have a 'curvy' road, the grid is seeming like the best option because it doesn't block any major roads.

If one group with power to act is advocating a particular outcome and another large group with a voice is mostly saying we want input, the group with the goal oriented agenda has the upper hand (especially when they get to decide.)

From a political strategy stand point, I agree. We have had several meetings... actually FBB leadership meetings all day discussing last night's meeting and options.

Here's the deal, FBB has limited focused its involvement to two specific areas-

1. Target specific issues in ODOT's earlier proposals that were glaringly wrong
2. Elevate the public's voice about what each one of you constitutes "a better Boulevard".

Here are our successes-

1. We forced a Federal Environmental Review
2. We forced the change to earlier circuitous intersection next to the UHaul Building in Bricktown. The early ODOT proposal required two righthand turns and one left to get around the UHaul Building rather than buying their parking lot and putting a proper intersection at Oklahoma
3. We forced the railroad underpass to be broader to accommodate future commuter tracks to Santa Fe Station
4. We forced the roundabout at Classen and Western to be formally evaluated
5. We forced a linear reduction of the berms and concrete elevated Boulevard originally proposed
6. We forced bicycling, pedestrian activity, transit, and economic development to "become factors" in ODOT's assessment and terminology in their Federal application

I am probably leaving some stuff out.

On a personal level I feel that "the grid" option is only viable if the FHWA forces it on ODOT as the best environmental mitigation of the former original expressway. However, as Steve has pointed out, the grid idea has it's shortcomings as well. On a local political level, I think we are going to end up with "Option C". I think that there are those folks on council who would be sympathetic and leverage support for improvements to Option C.

I completely understand and appreciate those folks who advocate for a grid. Many New Urbanists, planners, and the like obviously think that is the best option. The problem is that ODOT is not made up of planners. They are made up of traffic engineers.

There is limited influential opportunity here. Bob, me, and about a dozen of the folks involved in this for the last several years talked at length today. The general sense among the group of us is that writing your comments about the grid to the FHWA is probably the only way to gain traction on that issue.

The remaining question is how many folks are willing to accept that if we are stuck with "Option C", how many of you are willing to evaluate it and advocate for ways to make it better? Because right now, short of the Feds, it looks as though that is where we are headed. FBB has already made it significantly better. However, the current design makes NW Expressway look good.

Where are the trees, the transit stops, the through intersections, the sidewalks, the fewer lanes? WHERE?

Is Elizabeth Romero still the FHWA/DOT local contact?

Elizabeth.Romero@dot.gov

Yes

Steve is as mad as hell, and he's clearly not going to take it any more.

Good for him!

A Better View of the Boulevard Design "Scored" Highest by ODOT | News OK (http://newsok.com/a-better-view-of-the-boulevard-design-scored-highest-by-odot/article/4747474)

I have seen too many of these "scoring" evaluations by consultants where the scoring makes absolutely no sense. I've about come to the conclusion that they decide in advance what they want and the pick numbers at random to get the result they want.

I hate the idea of any of this road being elevated, but what I hate more is that the only green of significance on this "boulevard" is on the elevated portions. Who is going to walk or ride a bike up a hill that connects with a multi-lane highway? I remember the first pictures we were shown of the boulevard. It showed wide swaths of grass with tables and chairs and people sitting on them. Ever tried to sit in a chair on a hill?

After 2,368 comments on a Boulevard for OKC to replace the former, decaying to the max, elevated "Crosstown Expressway" I can't see anything that exactly balances my (suburban) vision for making it as nice as the improvements to the Myriad Gardens are. A "Boulevard" should be different than what was there before. And it has a lot to do with moving traffic and emotions in a positive direction. Doesn't it?

A "Boulevard" should convey, without the need for words on signage, "Welcome to Oklahoma City".

If people want to experience a KlassicKlusterFukke vis-a-vis Traffic Flow, they only need to venture to the North End. via Freeways and Visit what is happening up around N. Penn/Western/Memorial.

The Boulevard in Downtown OKC should be the anti-thesis of that sort of thing. Shouldn't it?

I think so. (yet, I've been wrong before). =)

Should a traveler be beckoned from the rush of the Interstate Highway to something with a vague resemblance to a roadway reminiscent of, for example, Historic Route 66 . . . wouldn't that be a good thing?

Here's a crazy idea I had this morning. How much effort would it take to get a question on the next state-wide ballet that would make it illegal for ODOT to build roads in municipalities without design approval from the municipality in question?

Here's a crazy idea I had this morning. How much effort would it take to get a question on the next state-wide ballet that would make it illegal for ODOT to build roads in municipalities without design approval from the municipality in question?

I think it technically is illegal. Its just that the city lets itself get bullied and rumberstamps it.

Here's a crazy idea I had this morning. How much effort would it take to get a question on the next state-wide ballet that would make it illegal for ODOT to build roads in municipalities without design approval from the municipality in question?

The state legislature is all about taking jurisdiction AWAY from municipalities. Not the other way around.

The state legislature is all about taking jurisdiction AWAY from municipalities. Not the other way around.

That's why I was imagining a state question, doesn't that side-step the legislature entirely? Or am I missing a part of the process?

Has anyone been able to submit a comment through the comment form? Mine is giving me just plain text saying "Please wait..." on a PDF

That's why I was imagining a state question, doesn't that side-step the legislature entirely? Or am I missing a part of the process?


No I think I misread your original comment.

This ODOT issue stops right at the desk of Ms. Fallin. This is not her fault ( good or bad ), but she certainly has the authority to step-in and make it work. Just like the Fire Storm in Guthrie. You didn't wait on the counties to pull their head out. You stepped in and made the right call.

Why would we ( citizens of Oklahoma ) want to spend our dollars on this for a 4th time ? ... Original I-40. ....New I-40. ...New 6 Lane Highway ( blvd ). ...and then rip-it-out again, to put in an economic friendly Boulevard ?

This is not a City Issue, This is not State Issue, ...This is a Dumb Okie issue. Let's get this right, let's make it beautiful, let's do it now, so we can really expand our economic base now. Ms. Fallin, so goes OKC, so goes the state. We have billions of dollars waiting on a dime here. ( this is the dumb okie part. )

The Boulevard design IS the City's decision. ODOT officials have made that clear on numerous occasions.

In 2012, the City hired Stantec to review various boulevard designs and to make a recommendation to the City as to the best alternative.

http://www.okc.gov/okcblvd/Boulevard%20Dec%202012%20public_meeting_update.pdf

City Council then voted to support Stantec's recommended Alternative A, which is essentially incorporated into ODOT's current Alternative C.

So, as Steve Lackmeyer correctly points out, the real decision on the design of the Boulevard does lie with the City, and more specifically with City Council. Without specific direction from City Council to the City Manager to ODOT to alter course, ODOT's current Alternative C will likely be approved and built by ODOT.

The one hundred million dollar question at this point is whether or not there has been a change in thinking on the part of City leaders with regard to the issue, and whether or not they are willing to reevaluate the project and recommend changes to Alternative C or consider changing their recommendation in favor of Alternative D or a similar solution.

This is what I am submitting to ODOT from the open meeting the public had with them.

https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5153/13961488690_2a15dc56fe_o.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/ngJhbf)
Conceptual Crosstown Blvd (https://flic.kr/p/ngJhbf) by lazio85 (https://www.flickr.com/people/77483833@N04/), on Flickr

Why not continue it all the way.

This is what I am submitting to ODOT from the open meeting the public had with them.

https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5153/13961488690_2a15dc56fe_o.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/ngJhbf)
Conceptual Crosstown Blvd (https://flic.kr/p/ngJhbf) by lazio85 (https://www.flickr.com/people/77483833@N04/), on Flickr

I made a few updates ...

https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2938/13966329099_b1790c359d_o.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/nha64z)
Conceptual Crosstown Blvd (https://flic.kr/p/nha64z) by lazio85 (https://www.flickr.com/people/77483833@N04/), on Flickr

Why do you break Classen up?

Why do you break Classen up?

Classen south of Reno dead end's five blocks south right before Interstate 40, and I placed higher value for it to be the main route North of the Crosstown Blvd as it is today.

The problem with this whole mess is the fixation on connecting both ends to each other. The point of this construction (strictly from an automobile traffic engineering standpoint) SHOULD be the delivering of people to and from downtown, rather than that of creating a thoroughfare. It is a subtle but important difference.

We don't need a bypass, and IF we need any of it, we only need a connection to the highways to the east and to the west. This is why the grid approach makes as much sense as anything at this point.

What would be the best course of action right now for residents who would like to share opinions on the four alternatives ODOT is considering?

The problem with this whole mess is the fixation on connecting both ends to each other. The point of this construction (strictly from an automobile traffic engineering standpoint) SHOULD be the delivering of people to and from downtown, rather than that of creating a thoroughfare. It is a subtle but important difference.

We don't need a bypass, and IF we need any of it, we only need a connection to the highways to the east and to the west. This is why the grid approach makes as much sense as anything at this point.

If this was a perfect world ^that^ would be the only comment in this whole thread.

What would be the best course of action right now for residents who would like to share opinions on the four alternatives ODOT is considering?

Minimum send in the comment form, email your councilperson and the mayor.