So what would it take to get a better solution? If exes can get child custody modifications, certainly cities can negotaite changes to EIS / NEPA (/M-O-U-S-E?) stuff.

Most of the traffic squares out there are associated with (a) vintage neighborhoods with perpendicular and parrallel streets with a small one-block square neighborhood park built into the middle of the grid or (b) vintage downtowns with perpendicular and parrallel streets with a small one-block court house area or small plaza or park built into the middle of the grid. Those involve two-lane, non-arterial streets intersecting at right angles that handle low-volume, low-speed traffic. They are not primary 4-lane avenues and boulevards intersecting on a radial pattern. They are not designed to nor do they efficiently move higher volume traffic through the numerous right angle turns that are involved. A traffic square is not the solution for the Boulevard.

Most of the traffic squares out there are associated with (a) vintage neighborhoods with perpendicular and parrallel streets with a small one-block square neighborhood park built into the middle of the grid or (b) vintage downtowns with perpendicular and parrallel streets with a small one-block court house area or small plaza or park built into the middle of the grid. Those involve two-lane, non-arterial streets intersecting at right angles that handle low-volume, low-speed traffic. They are not primary 4-lane avenues and boulevards intersecting on a radial pattern. They are not designed to nor do they efficiently move higher volume traffic through the numerous right angle turns that are involved. A traffic square is not the solution for the Boulevard.

You are right, there doesn't seem to be any high volume traffic squares. Since traffic circles and traffic squares exsited BEFORE the automobile I guess it is safe to assume that they impact the type and density of the surrounding development over long periods of time. Since the vision seems to be to make Market Circle a commerical area it would make sense to build the type of traffic feature that historically produces commercial development.

Logan Sqaure (actually a traffic circle) along Ben Franklin Parkway in Philly is almost void of all people, especially when compared to the number of people on streets just 2 blocks away. The park like setting of the Parkway prevents commercial development from occuring around the traffic circle. I wonder if they had built an actual square instead of circle if it would have produced a market for residential development - like Rittenhouse Sq just 1/2 mile south.

On the other hand, Philly's Courthouse Square handles a pretty large volume of traffic.

The high traffic "squares" or rectangles in fact are a true pain in DC. While they seem to work very well in lower traffic residential areas, the high traffic areas such as Mount Vernon Square are a nightmare, even during the midday, weekends, or late nights.

Circles just seem to be much more efficient. There is a natural flow to things.

But aren't we trying to design this thing so traffic does slow down, doesn't move in the most efficient manner etc. If that is the goal, then ODOT has it right to begin with.

Where is the boulevard EIS and documentation about the NEPA process?

Here's a link: http://www.40forward.com/resources/html_versions/volume_ii.aspx

I believe there are still copies of the document at the locations listed about half way down the web page. 2 big three ring binders if I recall correctly. Last one I saw was a few years ago at the Department of Libraries.

Here's a link: http://www.40forward.com/resources/html_versions/volume_ii.aspx

I believe there are still copies of the document at the locations listed about half way down the web page. 2 big three ring binders if I recall correctly. Last one I saw was a few years ago at the Department of Libraries.


Even better:

http://www.40forward.com/resources/reports.aspx

So what would it take to get a better solution? If exes can get child custody modifications, certainly cities can negotaite changes to EIS / NEPA (/M-O-U-S-E?) stuff.

I think there is a re-evaluation of the original document to determine if there is a "no adverse effect" with the proposed changes. Not sure about this, though.

I do know that it can be a lengthy and/or cumbersome process.

Here's a quick summary of the important relevant sections with regard to the Boulevard:

3.0 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
"This chapter describes the alternatives and summarizes the evaluation process."
3.4.1 Tier One Evaluation
3.4.2 Short List of Build Alternatives Refinement
Alternative D
"A six-lane at-grade boulevard would be constructed 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; however, from west of Walker Avenue to Western Avenue, the existing I-40 bridge structure would be rehabilitated. From Western to Agnew Avenues, the existing I-40 facility would be converted to a divided boulevard."
3.4.6 Tier Two Evaluation
Project Construction Time and Implementation Difficulty
"Alternative D’s Phase I construction would achieve the full traffic flow benefits projected for Alternative D because only the boulevard construction would remain for Phase II."
Access to Downtown
"The proposed boulevard from I-235 to Agnew Avenue will provide improved access to Bricktown and the downtown area from eastbound and westbound traffic."
3.5 Preferred Alternative
"As a result of the Tier-Two evaluation, the ODOT selected Alternative D as the locally preferred alternative because this alternative provides a ten-lane facility approximately 2,200 feet south of the existing I-40 alignment and involves converting the existing I-40 facility to a downtown business route. This business route would maintain the current at-grade freeway from Agnew to Western Avenues and bridge structure from Western Avenue to west of Walker Avenue and reconstruct the existing I-40 facility from west of Walker to I-235 as an at-grade six-lane boulevard with at-grade intersections at the downtown cross streets."
5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
"This chapter presents potential beneficial and adverse social, economic, and environmental effects for the proposed relocation and construction of the I-40 Crosstown Expressway..."
5.2 NOISE IMPACTS AND VIBRATION ANALYSIS
5.2.a Traffic Noise
"The FHWA has established the Noise Abatement Criteria (NAC) for various land use activity areas that are used as one of two means to determine when a traffic noise impact will occur."
"When a traffic noise impact occurs, noise abatement measures must be considered. A noise measure is any positive action taken to reduce an activity area’s traffic noise impact"
"Alternative D’s boulevard alignment was modeled at 45 mph from Robinson Avenue to Classen Boulevard and at 60 mph from Classen Boulevard to Agnew Avenue."
"As shown in Table 5-5, the projected noise levels with Alternative D would approach, equal, or exceed the receptor activity categories B and C’s NAC; therefore, this alternative would result in traffic noise impacts and mitigation measures must be considered in accordance with the 1996 ODOT Policy Directive, “Highway Noise Abatement.” This policy states that mitigation will not be considered for commercial or industrial areas or for those areas that are trending to commercial or industrial land use."
5.2c Vibration Impact Analysis
"There are no federal or state standards or regulations regarding traffic-induced vibration."
5.3 LAND USE IMPACTS
"The existing I-40 facility between the I-235/I-35 interchange and the Agnew/Villa interchange would be replaced under Alternative D with a boulevard. The current at-grade freeway would be converted to a boulevard from Agnew to Western Avenues. From Western Avenue to west of Walker Avenue, the existing I-40 bridge structure would be rehabilitated. From west of Walker Avenue to I-235, the boulevard would be a divided, multi-lane, grade-level facility with at-grade intersections with major cross streets and this is where land use impacts would occur."
"The boulevard's north side for the first two blocks west of the Burlington Northern and Santa Fe railroad would front the new indoor sports arena. The first block on the south side fronts an Oklahoma Gas and Electric facility and that use is not expected to change. The remainder of the boulevard corridor frontage will consist of over six linear blocks of vacant land and approximately seven blocks of commercial, industrial, and some institutional development on either side of the facility, including parking lots. Of the vacant land, most is zoned industrial, but one block is zoned residential, and another is currently unzoned since it falls entirely within the existing ROW. 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 least impact would be no change in existing land use and, no requests for rezoning if market demand were to be stagnant. The greatest impact would be commercial development or mixed commercial and industrial development on all vacant lands and possible commercial redevelopment of existing industrial properties. This would require rezoning currently zoned residential and industrial properties. The current commercial zoning along the north side of the proposed boulevard between the sports arena site and Hudson Avenue is consistent with the ULI’s “Downtown Oklahoma City” plan. Those two blocks are within the plan’s designated downtown entertainment district. Similar development along the south side of the boulevard would also be consistent with the plan, given the area’s designation as a “flex” district, which is designed to capture expanded downtown development. North of the boulevard and west of Hudson Avenue, the ULI plan designates residential, loft apartment redevelopment of appropriate commercial warehouse structures. The land fronting the boulevard in this area includes vacant lots and is zoned for industrial uses. Market incentives and planning and development policies could guide new area development and redevelopment, rather than the expected commercial development. The overall effects of converting existing I-40 to a boulevard could have positive land use impacts on the downtown area."
5.5 HISTORIC AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL PRESERVATION IMPACTS
"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. Impacts to other historic resources would not be likely."
5.14 JOINT DEVELOPMENT
"ODOT recognizes the strategies identified in the City of Oklahoma City's land use and mitigation plan for implementing Alternative D. Alternative D would provide access to Bricktown's south end and downtown. Also, the urban boulevard would provide additional access to potential development sites between Walker and Western Avenues."
5.15 CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS
"For Alternative D, improving the existing alignment to a boulevard is scheduled after the new facility is completed. Vehicles crossing I-40 along this section would experience occasional delays or be directed to alternate crossings."
5.18 VISUAL IMPACTS
"Adding a street-level boulevard along the existing raised facility would also shorten the visual distance between the Riverside neighborhood and the downtown."
5.19 PEDESTRIANS AND BICYCLISTS
"The boulevards associated with Alternatives B-3 and D offer the opportunity for east-west bicycle and pedestrian travel, as well."
"Alternative D would include converting the existing alignment to a landscaped boulevard. This proposed facility was analyzed for its impacts to non-motorist activities. Crossings, which would merit attention as possible bicycle routes, include the same facilities as for Alternative B-3 (Agnew, Pennsylvania, Western, Walker, and Robinson Avenues and Shields Boulevard), with the addition of Reno and Classen. The facility would cross the Bricktown Canal Trail, but would present no greater impact than the existing I-40 facility. Using the I-40 ROW as a boulevard would have slight or no impact upon non-motorist access to nearby public schools. The current alignment is a boundary feature for Capitol Hill, Wilson, and Shidler Elementary School feeder areas, which means that students attending these schools should not have to cross the boulevard. The boulevard alignment is a prominent feature in the Mark Twain Elementary School feeder area. Although changing existing I-40 to a boulevard would result in a less imposing physical barrier for non-motorists, a boulevard would present greater opportunities for non-motorist conflicts with motorists than the present limited-access configuration. These conflicts could be minimized by using signalized crosswalks to allow non-motorist crossings without vehicular turning movements. Other possible safety measures include bicycle lanes, intersection design with places for pedestrians to stand at street corners and on the median, all-way red lights for pedestrian crossings, and raised crosswalks where
larger pedestrian crossing numbers are anticipated. Because other existing pedestrian and bicycle activity centers, including downtown, the Myriad Center, and the Bricktown District, are concentrated north of the existing I-40 alignment, using the present I-40 alignment as a boulevard would divert vehicular traffic away from these non-motorist activities and result in improved safety. The bicycle/pedestrian impacts of the proposed boulevard along the present I-40 alignment would likewise depend upon the ultimate facility design. While a boulevard potentially would represent more opportunities for non-motorist conflicts with vehicles than a controlled-access highway, abutting boulevard land uses and facility design would also be important considerations. Facilities that attract special-event, tourist, shopping, and cultural activities, would necessitate slower speeds and painted and signalized crosswalks. Additionally, where warranted by the pedestrian traffic levels, elevated crosswalks should be considered. Through traffic will be encouraged to use the new I-40 alignment."
5.23c Economic Impacts
"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."
5.24 ADDITIONAL MITIGATION
"Downtown access concerns have been addressed by identifying three boulevard options associated with Alternative D. These options included maintaining the existing I-40 facility; constructing the six-lane at-grade boulevard from I-235, east to Agnew Avenue; and providing a modified boulevard combining the other two options. The preferred option is the modified boulevard that provides a downtown business route. This option involves retaining the current at-grade freeway from Agnew to Western Avenues and
bridge structure from Western to west of Walker Avenues and reconstructing the existing I-40 facility from west of Walker to I-235 as an at-grade six-lane boulevard with at-grade intersections at the downtown cross streets."
USDOT - RECORD OF DECISION
"The decision is to select the preferred alternative, Alternative D, as described in the FEIS."
"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."

The reason that I posted all of that was to show that the Environmental Impact Statement for the new I-40 involved significant analyis of both the new Crosstown and the proposed new Boulevard, as it should since federal money is involved in the consruction of both. As a result, its likely that any significant change in the design of the Boulevard, as described in the FEIS, will require a Supplemental EIS. Changing the design between Walker and Western from simply using a similar bridge structure to lowering the area to grade, whether it involves a roundabout or other solution, brings with it potential new impacts and would certainly be viewed as a significant design change. The additional design and environmental review processes, as well as any additional property acquisitions that would be required, could add 6 months to a year or more to the completion date of the Boulevard, not to mention any additional costs. That's where you'll likely run into a brick wall of opposition to change from ODOT and some within the City. That's not because they necessarily oppose better solutions, they just oppose better solutions that they view as late to the table and that will impact their current plans from a time or cost perspective. For ODOT, it's all about getting it done on time and on budget and that the project is structurally sound and effectively does what it was designed to do, which is move vehicles from point A to point B as efficiently as possible. ODOT is not interested in urban planning or economic development. As for some within the City, they are likely more interested in completing the Boulevard on time to support plans they have already made in the immediate downtown area than seeing it delayed to improve the urban design and encourage competing development to the west.

I'm not saying it can't be done. But it will take significant public and political pressure.

Yeah, I get it, but why? Why does ODOT want to own that anyway? Forgive me if I'm late to the discussion, but what value does that land/road mean to ODOT or the State of Oklahoma?

The Boulevard means nothing to ODOT and they won't own it. Under the EIS, tearing down the old I-40 and building the Boulevard in its place is simply a mitigation requirement they agreed to perform for OKC. As soon as ODOT completes construction of the Boulevard, they will assign the right-of-way and responsibility of maintenance to OKC. That's one of the big hurdles to making any changes at this point. ODOT just wants to get it built and be done with it.

The additional design and environmental review processes, as well as any additional property acquisitions that would be required, could add 6 months to a year or more to the completion date of the Boulevard, not to mention any additional costs. That's where you'll likely run into a brick wall of opposition to change from ODOT and some within the City. That's not because they necessarily oppose better solutions, they just oppose better solutions that they view as late to the table and that will impact their current plans from a time or cost perspective.

Ask anyone who has ever been divorced if they should have spent more time up front making the right decsion. I would rather take 2 extra years and get it right than to get it done now and have to live with a bad decision for 50 years.

But aren't we trying to design this thing so traffic does slow down, doesn't move in the most efficient manner etc. If that is the goal, then ODOT has it right to begin with.

Not sure if serious, but ODOT's plan is similar to an in-town expressway. It's not going to slow anything down. It's actually more of a bypass.

I understand you may not find the traffic circle concept alluring, but your post is a real head scratcher.

Not sure if serious, but ODOT's plan is similar to an in-town expressway. It's not going to slow anything down. It's actually more of a bypass.

I understand you may not find the traffic circle concept alluring, but your post is a real head scratcher.

Doesn't make me scratch my head at all. I understand exactly what Larry is saying and I agree.

Here's a quick summary of the important relevant sections with regard to the Boulevard:

3.0 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
"This chapter describes the alternatives and summarizes the evaluation process."
3.4.1 Tier One Evaluation
3.4.2 Short List of Build Alternatives Refinement
Alternative D
"A six-lane at-grade boulevard would be constructed 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; however, from west of Walker Avenue to Western Avenue, the existing I-40 bridge structure would be rehabilitated. From Western to Agnew Avenues, the existing I-40 facility would be converted to a divided boulevard."
3.4.6 Tier Two Evaluation
5.19 PEDESTRIANS AND BICYCLISTS
"The boulevards associated with Alternatives B-3 and D offer the opportunity for east-west bicycle and pedestrian travel, as well."
"Alternative D would include converting the existing alignment to a landscaped boulevard. This proposed facility was analyzed for its impacts to non-motorist activities. Crossings, which would merit attention as possible bicycle routes, include the same facilities as for Alternative B-3 (Agnew, Pennsylvania, Western, Walker, and Robinson Avenues and Shields Boulevard), with the addition of Reno and Classen. The facility would cross the Bricktown Canal Trail, but would present no greater impact than the existing I-40 facility. Using the I-40 ROW as a boulevard would have slight or no impact upon non-motorist access to nearby public schools. The current alignment is a boundary feature for Capitol Hill, Wilson, and Shidler Elementary School feeder areas, which means that students attending these schools should not have to cross the boulevard. The boulevard alignment is a prominent feature in the Mark Twain Elementary School feeder area. Although changing existing I-40 to a boulevard would result in a less imposing physical barrier for non-motorists, a boulevard would present greater opportunities for non-motorist conflicts with motorists than the present limited-access configuration. These conflicts could be minimized by using signalized crosswalks to allow non-motorist crossings without vehicular turning movements. Other possible safety measures include bicycle lanes, intersection design with places for pedestrians to stand at street corners and on the median, all-way red lights for pedestrian crossings, and raised crosswalks where
larger pedestrian crossing numbers are anticipated. Because other existing pedestrian and bicycle activity centers, including downtown, the Myriad Center, and the Bricktown District, are concentrated north of the existing I-40 alignment, using the present I-40 alignment as a boulevard would divert vehicular traffic away from these non-motorist activities and result in improved safety. The bicycle/pedestrian impacts of the proposed boulevard along the present I-40 alignment would likewise depend upon the ultimate facility design. While a boulevard potentially would represent more opportunities for non-motorist conflicts with vehicles than a controlled-access highway, abutting boulevard land uses and facility design would also be important considerations. Facilities that attract special-event, tourist, shopping, and cultural activities, would necessitate slower speeds and painted and signalized crosswalks. Additionally, where warranted by the pedestrian traffic levels, elevated crosswalks should be considered. Through traffic will be encouraged to use the new I-40 alignment."
5.23c Economic Impacts
"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."
5.24 ADDITIONAL MITIGATION
"Downtown access concerns have been addressed by identifying three boulevard options associated with Alternative D. These options included maintaining the existing I-40 facility; constructing the six-lane at-grade boulevard from I-235, east to Agnew Avenue; and providing a modified boulevard combining the other two options. The preferred option is the modified boulevard that provides a downtown business route. This option involves retaining the current at-grade freeway from Agnew to Western Avenues and
bridge structure from Western to west of Walker Avenues and reconstructing the existing I-40 facility from west of Walker to I-235 as an at-grade six-lane boulevard with at-grade intersections at the downtown cross streets."
USDOT - RECORD OF DECISION
"The decision is to select the preferred alternative, Alternative D, as described in the FEIS."
"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."

Here's what I don't understand about the EIS, is that it does spell out the option with all of the boulevard at-grade. It simply isn't stated as the preferred alternative. Does that mean we have to re-do the EIS after all to maintain the USDOT funding?

I'm also puzzled that ODOT's EIS seems to think that the only pedestrians that actually are a concern are school children walking to school. And of course, the conclusion is that there wouldn't be any of that, however it mentions a litany of schools some 2+ miles away, and makes no mention of the new DOWNTOWN elementary school. Is that a basis for re-doing the EIS and determining that the boulevard section between Walker and Western is suddenly now a concern for non-motorist conflicts with motorists?

Lastly, what the EIS says will be done is a rehabilitated I-40 bridge between Walker and Western. Hello, there is no I-40 bridge left to rehabilitate.

I'm going to conclude that stipulating that the EIS and NEPA work must be totally redone in order for the traffic circle is a bit of a canard. The current plan isn't really following this to a T anyway, in fact, there are some pretty glaring deviations and omissions.

Here's what I don't understand about the EIS, is that it does spell out the option with all of the boulevard at-grade. It simply isn't stated as the preferred alternative. Does that mean we have to re-do the EIS after all to maintain the USDOT funding?

I'm also puzzled that ODOT's EIS seems to think that the only pedestrians that actually are a concern are school children walking to school. And of course, the conclusion is that there wouldn't be any of that, however it mentions a litany of schools some 2+ miles away, and makes no mention of the new DOWNTOWN elementary school. Is that a basis for re-doing the EIS and determining that the boulevard section between Walker and Western is suddenly now a concern for non-motorist conflicts with motorists?

Lastly, what the EIS says will be done is a rehabilitated I-40 bridge between Walker and Western. Hello, there is no I-40 bridge left to rehabilitate.

I'm going to conclude that stipulating that the EIS and NEPA work must be totally redone in order for the traffic circle is a bit of a canard. The current plan isn't really following this to a T anyway, in fact, there are some pretty glaring deviations and omissions.

Here's the specific federal regulations regarding the need for a Supplmental EIS:

Sec. 771.130 Supplemental environmental impact statements.

(a) A draft EIS, final EIS, or supplemental EIS may be supplemented at any time. An EIS shall be supplemented whenever the Administration determines that:

(1) Changes to the proposed action would result in significant environmental impacts that were not evaluated in the EIS; or

(2) New information or circumstances relevant to environmental concerns and bearing on the proposed action or its impacts would result in significant environmental impacts not evaluated in the EIS.

(b) However, a supplemental EIS will not be necessary where:

(1) The changes to the proposed action, new information, or new circumstances result in a lessening of adverse environmental impacts evaluated in the EIS without causing other environmental impacts that are significant and were not evaluated in the EIS; or

(2) The Administration decides to approve an alternative fully evaluated in an approved final EIS but not identified as the preferred alternative. In such a case, a revised ROD shall be prepared and circulated in accordance with Sec. 771.127(b).

(c) Where the Administration is uncertain of the significance of the new impacts, the applicant will develop appropriate environmental studies or, if the Administration deems appropriate, an EA to assess the impacts of the changes, new information, or new circumstances. If, based upon the studies, the Administration determines that a supplemental EIS is not necessary, the Administration shall so indicate in the project file.

(d) A supplement is to be developed using the same process and format (i.e., draft EIS, final EIS, and ROD) as an original EIS, except that scoping is not required.

(e) A supplemental draft EIS may be necessary for UMTA major urban mass transportation investments if there is a substantial change in the level of detail on project impacts during project planning and development. The supplement will address site-specific impacts and refined cost estimates that have been developed since the original draft EIS.

(f) In some cases, a supplemental EIS may be required to address issues of limited scope, such as the extent of proposed mitigation or the evaluation of location or design variations for a limited portion of the overall project. Where this is the case, the preparation of a supplemental EIS shall not necessarily:

(i) Prevent the granting of new approvals;

(ii) Require the withdrawal of previous approvals; or

(iii) Require the suspension of project activities; for any activity not directly affected by the supplement. If the changes in question are of such magnitude to require a reassessment of the entire action, or more than a limited portion of the overall action, the Administration shall suspend any activities which would have an adverse environmental impact or limit the choice of reasonable alternatives, until the supplemental EIS is completed.

Not sure if serious, but ODOT's plan is similar to an in-town expressway. It's not going to slow anything down. It's actually more of a bypass.

I understand you may not find the traffic circle concept alluring, but your post is a real head scratcher.

Sorry if I wasn't clear. Yes, I was serious. And yes, I don't like traffic circles (and will avoid them whenever I can), but I think it is preferred over what they are planning. My point I was trying to make is that the discussion of the Boulevard here and at Council has centered on the desire to redesign it so traffic does slow down, reducing it from 6 lanes to 4, making it pedestrian friendly. Having the equivalent of NW Expressway running though downtown will get traffic from point A to point B quickly but it goes against the stated desires of the City and what they envision the Boulevard eventually becoming. What logic is there in building an elevated highway (all but 8 to 10 blocks) to replace the elevated highway that served as a deterrent all around???

What's interesting about this research is that essentially the environmental has been done for a completely At Grade scenario for a much longer length. It is just that as part of their process, they buried in in the option in the proposal that they knew was not going to be selected. So the argument that I can just know hear them making is that we don't have time to do the environmental for an At Grade Boulevard and stay on our schedule. Whereas, that excuse is "out the window."

If any sort of change for a more pedestrian oriented plan is to occur via pressure from City Leaders, it would probably only need a 30-day public hearing period since the bulk of the work has already been done.

Here's what I don't understand about the EIS, is that it does spell out the option with all of the boulevard at-grade. It simply isn't stated as the preferred alternative. Does that mean we have to re-do the EIS after all to maintain the USDOT funding?

Good work Spartan...you just saved the day.

When I first read your comment above, I wasn't sure what you were talking about. The Preferred Alternative D did not provide for multiple options for the Boulevard design. Only the "rehabilitated" bridge option between Walker and Western was offered. However, your comment and the reference to "the boulevards associated with alternatives B-3 and D" in Section 5.19 of the EIS caused me to go back and take a detailed look at alternative B-3 as well. And guess what it says:

3.4.2 Short List of Build Alternatives Refinement
Alternative B-3
"As an Alternative B variation, Alternative B-3 is south of Alternative B and has similar construction details; however, Alternative B-3 includes a boulevard constructed on the existing I-40 right-of-way from Shields Boulevard to Western Avenue. Downtown access would be at Robinson Avenue, to and from the east to the boulevard. A flyover would provide access to the boulevard from the west. The existing alignment from west of Western Avenue to west of May Avenue would be upgraded to provide ten travel lanes. Cross streets would be Shields Boulevard and Robinson, Hudson, Classen, and Reno Avenues. The I-44/I-40 interchange would remain as is, including the I-40 connection west to Meridian Avenue."

So, ODOT has already conducted the necessary NEPA review requirements for constructing the boulevard at grade between Walker and Western under the EIS for I-40. As posted earlier, the FHWA regulations regarding the need for a Supplemental EIS states:

Sec. 771.130 Supplemental environmental impact statements.

"(b) However, a supplemental EIS will not be necessary where:
(2) The Administration decides to approve an alternative fully evaluated in an approved final EIS but not identified as the preferred alternative. In such a case, a revised ROD shall be prepared and circulated in accordance with Sec. 771.127(b)."

So, clearly ODOT and the FWHA have the authority to approve any alternative fully evaluated under the approved final EIS for I-40 without need for additional environmental review under NEPA, including an EA or Supplemental EIS. They simply issue a revised Record of Decision (ROD) indicating the change in the alternative. In this case, the decision to approve such should be a simple matter, as the change is the substitution of only a small part of the Preffered Alternative D with a part of Alternative B-3.

Here's what I don't understand about the EIS, is that it does spell out the option with all of the boulevard at-grade. It simply isn't stated as the preferred alternative. Does that mean we have to re-do the EIS after all to maintain the USDOT funding?

....

I'm going to conclude that stipulating that the EIS and NEPA work must be totally redone in order for the traffic circle is a bit of a canard. The current plan isn't really following this to a T anyway, in fact, there are some pretty glaring deviations and omissions.

Did they bother to redo the EIS when they found out they couldn't locate the new I-40 mainline fully below grade?

Did they bother to redo the EIS when they found out they couldn't locate the new I-40 mainline fully below grade?

Good point and good question. I've seen nothing to indicate any additional NEPA review was conducted. There should be documentation at ODOT showing that they made a determination in compliance with FHWA environmental regulations:

"(b) However, a supplemental EIS will not be necessary where: (1) The changes to the proposed action, new information, or new circumstances result in a lessening of adverse environmental impacts evaluated in the EIS without causing other environmental impacts that are significant and were not evaluated in the EIS"
"(c) Where the Administration is uncertain of the significance of the new impacts, the applicant will develop appropriate environmental studies or, if the Administration deems appropriate, an EA to assess the impacts of the changes, new information, or new circumstances. If, based upon the studies, the Administration determines that a supplemental EIS is not necessary, the Administration shall so indicate in the project file."

I'm sure ODOT will be more than happy to provide the public with all necessary NEPA documentation pertaining to any significant design changes from the alternatives evaluated under the EIS.

"(b) However, a supplemental EIS will not be necessary where: (1) The changes to the proposed action, new information, or new circumstances result in a lessening of adverse environmental impacts evaluated in the EIS without causing other environmental impacts that are significant and were not evaluated in the EIS"


So not fully depressing the mainline with attendant increases in noise, cutting off visual connections between downtown and the river, to name but a couple of impacts - was a lessening of adverse environmental impacts?

Did they bother to redo the EIS when they found out they couldn't locate the new I-40 mainline fully below grade?

Another important point along the same line...

Under the EIS, one of the primary environmental concerns on projects like this is noise impact. Detailed evaluations were done to establish the potential noise impacts for both the new I-40 location and the Boulevard. The results of those evaluations determined that only limited areas along the new I-40 alignment in the area of the Riverside, Carver and Westlawn Garden neighborhoods required mitigation. That was done through the construction of noise barrier walls.

In regard to the change of the I-40 alignment in the vicinity of the Riverside neighborhood not being fully below-grade as originally proposed, it seems likely that raising the highway level would increase the noise levels. As a result, there should be documentation at ODOT demonstrating that any increase in the noise impacts would be equally mitigated by the noise barrier walls.

As it relates to the Boulevard and potentially changing the preferred alternative from bridging the area between Walker and Western to constructing that portion at-grade, note that Section 5 of the EIS regarding noise impacts states:

"Alternative D’s boulevard alignment was modeled at 45 mph from Robinson Avenue to Classen Boulevard and at 60 mph from Classen Boulevard to Agnew Avenue."

Even at high traffic speeds of 45 mph between Robinson and Classen, it was determined that no mitigation efforts were required due to the fact that the area is primarily commercial and industrial. Consideration is now being given by OKC to establish lower speed limits on the at-grade Boulevard section through downtown. In the event the at-grade section of the Boulevard is extended to Western in place of the bridge structure and a traffic circle or other improved design is constructed, it is likely the lower speed limit section would extend through this section as well.

Therefore noise levels and impacts would actually be much lower for the at-grade alternative in comparison to the noise levels and impacts arrived through modeling of the current prefferred alternative under the EIS. As a result, under FHWA NEPA regulations:

"...a supplemental EIS will not be necessary where...The changes to the proposed action...result in a lessening of adverse environmental impacts evaluated in the EIS without causing other environmental impacts that are significant and were not evaluated in the EIS"

So, even disregarding the fact that ODOT likely already evaluated the at-grade environmental impacts of an at-grade Walker to Western section of the Boulevard under the EIS, ODOT would still not necessarily be required to undertake any additional NEPA review for an at-grade alternative.

I just sent this to Eric:

Hi Eric, my name is (OKCisOK4Me) and I am a frequent poster on www.okctalk.com. There's been considerable back and forth talks on there about building a roundabout/traffic circle on the west end of the new boulevard project.

I sincerely hope you have considered adding it to the project as it would ease congestion of traffic in the Western/Classen/Reno/Exchange area while also giving future development a realistic chance as opposed to having a second elevated boulevard going through this part of town.

I have provided a visual of the proposed traffic circle by one of our regular posters (who used a computer program to make it look professional (whereas, I used my Samsung Note)).

Also, if you have Facebook, be sure to check out Friends for a Better Boulevard, which has lots of new ideas from the general public that you're not going to see at an every day council meeting.

Thank you for your time & I do hope to hear back from you.

Sincerely,
(OKCisOK4Me)

OKCisOK4me - Did you ever get a response from Eric Wenger?

Just sent this to my ward's councilman:


Councilman Ryan,

I am writing to you for the first time in the hope you will strongly consider a new alternate proposal for the boulevard that will replace the I-40 Crosstown elevated freeway. This proposal is a far better design for our city than the least common denominator approach taken by ODOT. The alternate design incorporates an iconic traffic circle at the confluence of Classen, Exchange, and the path of the new boulevard west of the central business district. A link to a presentation of the proposed Market Circle follows:

https://dl.dropbox.com/u/15393885/Final%20Presentation.pdf

Mayor Cornett and the council has stated numerous times a desire for this new boulevard to be something memorable and a catalyst for future private development. ODOT's elevated street design fails on all counts. By eliminating the elevated street proposed by ODOT, I believe the cost will be comparable and Oklahoma City will have an iconic western entrance to the CBD. The proposal includes a design for a large fountain and memorial that will honor Oklahoma's veterans thus becoming a reason for people to visit that area and encourage private development. It also has sufficient room to accommodate future expansion of our new streetcar system to the western edge of downtown.

I believe Oklahoma City has a bright future and has a rare opportunity most cities never get. We can correct mistakes of the past and create a cityscape that will be memorable to visitors, a source of pride for OKC's citizens, and an impetus for others to relocate to our city. We must not merely accept what ODOT wants to thrust upon us; rather we should demand a design that is in the best interest of Oklahoma City.

Thank you for your consideration and I hope you will take the opportunity to look at the proposal.

(I am not the designer of this traffic circle and memorial. I am a member of a group called "Friends for a Better Boulevard" on Facebook where another member posted this for all of us to consider.)

I suspect that the Blvd will be coming up today since Ed Shadid is in the panel.

The film festival concludes on Sunday, June 24 at 2pm with a second screening of Urbanized. The screening will be immediately followed by a panel discussion entitled “Milestones vs. Millstones” moderated George McQuistion. Panelists include Leslie Batchelor, Urban Land Institute & the Center for Economic Development Law; Ed Shadid, OKC Ward 2 City Councilman; Blair Humphreys, Institute for Quality Communities; and Richard McKown, City Center Development, LLC.


General admission is $8 for adults, $6 for seniors and students and $5 for Museum members. For more information on tickets call405-278-8224 (tel:405-278-8224) or visit www.okcmoa.com. The Oklahoma City Museum of Art is located downtown at 415 Couch Drive.

Did they bother to redo the EIS when they found out they couldn't locate the new I-40 mainline fully below grade?

No, either it was not redone, or the new one is secret. I also believe that ODOT similarly bastardized and violated the heck out of the EIS for I-235 and afterward (during I-40 relocation planning) was touting, "Oh this time, this time, we want to follow the EIS."

This is one of many reasons I keep saying to my friends on here that we need an in-person pow wow over some drinks or something, very soon. There are things that need to be gone over that I don't want on this public forum. I'm including this note on here for anyone who passionately likes the Better Boulevard proposal to send me a PM if you want to be involved. I can't promise that you'll run the show for us but in my experience these group are extremely democratic and open, unlike some folks who won't be named on here ha.

OKCisOK4me - Did you ever get a response from Eric Wenger?

Uh, yes, sorry. Basically he said that he's had the suggestion pointed out to him by other concerned citizens...which was basically the jist of the conversation.

i love this presentation minus a few small points... i think it was spartan that has already pointed out the problem with western... it makes it rough for that post thunder game traffic until all of them just end up taking the boulevard all the way back to I-40 for the westbound traffic... the other issue i see is i almost wouldn't have ellison go through... i want to say clegern shouldn't as well, but i'm more open to it because of how it fits in with the rest of the development... but i think having ellison and Klein open just makes too many stops coming up to the circle and one should be removed... seeing as how ellison dies at reno in this example anyways... i think it should be the road to go and keep klein open... but just my opinion.

Reno was always the obstacle that i had when trying to picture a circle in this location... i don't know why i never though of just dropping it to 2nd street for a few blocks... guess you spend so much time trying to think outside of the box that you forget that the best answer might be a simple one found in the box

Seems to me like the EIS was for the boulevard to be at grade through Western. From Figure 3.4, Preferred Alternative on page 3-17 of the Final Environmental Impact Statement November 2001 (http://www.40forward.com/pdfs/feis/05.pdf):

1871

Tier2, what do you make of the onramps remaining in place west of Western on that map?

I, myself, don't like it. They need to level that whole earthen portion of old I-40 and beautify it with a real Future Boulevard. Not, halfass it with existing crappy road structure...

I may have missed it, but what, if any, changes are planned for Reno Ave. once the new boulevard is built/open.

Seems to me like the EIS was for the boulevard to be at grade through Western. From Figure 3.4, Preferred Alternative on page 3-17 of the Final Environmental Impact Statement November 2001 (http://www.40forward.com/pdfs/feis/05.pdf):

1871

Interesting...it does appear from that official image that there was an at-grade Boulevard alternative between Walker and Western.

Additional insight into ODOT's position on the Boulevard issue can be gained from an article in the Gazette from just a year and a half ago in September 2010:

Oklahoma Gazette: This Boulevard is on a Diet (http://www.okgazette.com/oklahoma/article-6701-this-boulevard-is-on-a-diet.html)

From the article:

"We began with some designs at each connection on each side," said David Streb, director of engineering for ODOT. "We began a little bit of design work at (E.K.) Gaylord (Boulevard) and where the future boulevard will come under the north-south railroad. We have begun some preliminary design work in those areas. The meat of the boulevard from Gaylord all the way out to the Agnew area, there has been no design done. We are very close to the process of soliciting consultants to begin that design process."

"In the original document, if you are coming up Byers, you're in the boulevard," Streb said. "You had access to theaters and Bricktown Ballpark. The drawback to that was that Lincoln was then cut off. You couldn't get from Lincoln to Byers. The city really had concerns about that, and frankly, that's because I don't think anyone anticipated the growth that has happened there. You now have a bridge that goes up and over the new interstate."

The boulevard's bookends are the only established designs for the project. The main section, or "meat" as ODOT calls it, is still to be determined.

"There hasn't been much discussion about the design," Streb said.


Clearly ODOT has wide latitude design-wise with the Boulevard with regard to the alternatives presented in the EIS.

Great to see that this idea for better Boulevard design is getting so much traction!

Could anyone post pictures if available of the Layton designed war memorial arch proposed for the old Lincoln Blvd Median? Also, we are looking for photos of historic Blvds here in OKC and traffic circles that used to exist. Classen, Grand, etc.

Also, I heard that ODOT is aware of this blog and the Facebook Page. They are eyeing whats going on in preparation for their upcomming presentation before City Council.

I am loving the traction this is getting from forums and certain journalists. My huge question is:

Is there currently an active, organized campaign to pressure both city leaders and ODOT? The Facebook group and OKCTalk are good organizing mechanisms and some awesome alternatives have been offered. However, if the message isn't getting to the intended targets with the amount of intensity that the status quo offers, then it could be all for nothing. It would be nice to organize a targeted letter-writing campaign to both city and state interests, along with several op-eds to all local media outlets from several different perspectives presenting a consistent message of the alternative - particularly towards those who are inclined to support the status quo.

Of course, this could already be happening and I could have totally missed it, but wanted to raise the point just in case.

Right now, a few individuals have been busy trying to directly educate the City of OKC City Council and expose as much information about how bad it could be if ODOT is allowed to use conventional highway design techniques. *Undoubtedly, this forum, the Facebook Page, and Steve Lackmeyer's blog OKC Central, are the easiest direct ways to reach a broad audience that might have concern.

However, there has been discussion by some of everything from a full-fledged organized campaign with full-blown marketing to actually suing ODOT over their obvious environmental and public education discrepancies in this project.

We have had a direct offer from a marketing company to help propagate a campaign with well-designed ads. *If your interested in helping out in some way, hit me up at friendsforabetterboulevard@gmail.com

I still would be shocked if they get it anything terribly different than the current plan (note, my preference would be the section coming from the west merge into California and the section from the east become 3rd-ish), ODOT projects within a year are hard to not feasible to change even if they want to. Plus if by some miracle we do sell ODOT on a different plan we need the federal officials to approve the plan to be changed.

That's what I'm thinking too, Snowman. I wish we could have gotten this ball rolling a little earlier. I know I'm stubborn, but ODOT? I could forward this info or this thread to them and they'd probably take it to the bathroom and wipe with it...

Ironically, your both wrong. There is time to change it. If you read what Hutch and other have been posting about the environmental, they can do whatever they want even at this stage.

They came to our Subcommittee meeting and stated that the design work is just now starting on the "meat" in the middle.

Choosing an at grade option or anything else reasonable would involve a 30 day public review, but is simply notifying the FWHA that they chose a different option that has already been fully evaluated for environmental mitigation.

They want you to think that there is no time. They want that idea propagated.

Well, hell, in this case, I love being wrong! ;-) Even if it's just a boring ol traffic circle with nothing in there because they couldn't get enough Federal Funding (not like we can budget the costs anyway), I'd still love to see it come to fruition!

They want you to think that there is no time. They want that idea propagated.

Ding ding ding. We have a winner

Thanks to Steve for reposting his article from September 4, 2010 about how the boulevard was reduced to 4 lanes:

FYI to Eric Wenger
http://blog.newsok.com/okccentral/2012/06/28/fyi-to-eric-wenger/

Some key quotes:

“We’re not going to build something the city doesn’t want.' - Gary Ridley

“It needs to be a place and not just a street where we see how fast we can get cars around.” - Mayor Cornett

Thanks to Steve for reposting his article from September 4, 2010 about how the boulevard was reduced to 4 lanes:

FYI to Eric Wenger
http://blog.newsok.com/okccentral/2012/06/28/fyi-to-eric-wenger/

Some key quotes:

“We’re not going to build something the city doesn’t want.' - Gary Ridley

“It needs to be a place and not just a street where we see how fast we can get cars around.” - Mayor Cornett

in fairness i don't think the blvd was actually reduced in lanes at all .... it was going to be 3 lanes each direction with no street parking and now it is going to be 2 lanes each way with parking on both sides ...... either way it is 6 lanes wide

However, the way the curbs (should) bump out at the intersections would mean pedestrians are crossing 4 lanes rather than 6.

And a lane (or buffer) of parked cars creates a significantly more walkable enviroment. It will also help businesses on the two blocks that will be available for at-grade, mixed-use development on the Boulevard.

For all 8 to 10 blocks (according to info from Mr. Wenger). I am curious, how does that seemingly limited length compare to this grand vision the Mayor is wanting ours to be compared?

Plenty of discussion about the Boulevard from the meeting yesterday...

http://soundcloud.com/moderntransitproject-okc/june-27-2012-maps-3-transit

I'm setting up interviews on this topic. I want to get as many questions and concerns addressed as is possible. So here's the deal: I'm welcoming your questions - with a caveat. If you have questions you want asked, provide them in a language that is simple - no offense, but sometimes the discussions on this topic sound like what's heard among Star Trek fans at a Star Trek convention!

Plenty of discussion about the Boulevard from the meeting yesterday...

http://soundcloud.com/moderntransitproject-okc/june-27-2012-maps-3-transit

I read Steve's re-posted article and had quite a WTH moment after attending yesterday's meeting. The obvious disconnect between OKC Staff and ODOT; public statements and blvd planning meetings; and finally the Mayor / Council's vision for this street vs what city staff, ODOT, and their contractors are planning is quite baffling. I encourage anyone who is aware of this issue to share your knowledge with your friends. Then encourage them to write to Mayor Cornett and their council representative. Otherwise we WILL get stuck with an abomination of a quasi-highway that will once again divide downtown OKC contrary to every plan that has been put forth.

Plenty of discussion about the Boulevard from the meeting yesterday...

http://soundcloud.com/moderntransitproject-okc/june-27-2012-maps-3-transit

I'm an hour in and this is quite interesting..

I'm an hour in and this is quite interesting..

I can't listen to a Thunder game on the radio without going crazy so Im gonna pass.

I'm setting up interviews on this topic. I want to get as many questions and concerns addressed as is possible. So here's the deal: I'm welcoming your questions - with a caveat. If you have questions you want asked, provide them in a language that is simple - no offense, but sometimes the discussions on this topic sound like what's heard among Star Trek fans at a Star Trek convention!
(Click on thumbnail below for larger image)
1884

I agree. While we have a big forum here, the majority of people in OKC have no idea. It takes numbers to impress city staff and the Council.

I can't listen to a Thunder game on the radio without going crazy so Im gonna pass.

I agree. I just don't have the time or patience to listen to all of that. If someone who does could post the summarize the pertinent issues that would be great.

I read Steve's re-posted article and had quite a WTH moment after attending yesterday's meeting. The obvious disconnect between OKC Staff and ODOT; public statements and blvd planning meetings; and finally the Mayor / Council's vision for this street vs what city staff, ODOT, and their contractors are planning is quite baffling. I encourage anyone who is aware of this issue to share your knowledge with your friends. Then encourage them to write to Mayor Cornett and their council representative. Otherwise we WILL get stuck with an abomination of a quasi-highway that will once again divide downtown OKC contrary to every plan that has been put forth.

the reality is that even if every one writes/calls the mayor and council ... we Still might get stuck with a badly designed blvd ..

ODOT owns the land and controls the money and design

the reality is that even if every one writes/calls the mayor and council ... we Still might get stuck with a badly designed blvd ..

ODOT owns the land and controls the money and design

Well screw it then. Lets just quit while we're behind...is the sentiment Im getting from you. Never know if a difference can be made if we don't try!

... and we should try, no doubt. I don't, however, envy BoulderSooner's personal view of reality, created by beating his heart up againg somebody's wall, I'm sure.

Well screw it then. Lets just quit while we're behind...is the sentiment Im getting from you. Never know if a difference can be made if we don't try!

i didn't say we shouldn't try ... we should ... just temper your view of what the outcome will be

I'm setting up interviews on this topic. I want to get as many questions and concerns addressed as is possible. So here's the deal: I'm welcoming your questions - with a caveat. If you have questions you want asked, provide them in a language that is simple - no offense, but sometimes the discussions on this topic sound like what's heard among Star Trek fans at a Star Trek convention!

The EIS! NEPA! ROW, blah blah.. :p

Ask them if they have updated traffic counts for Western. Everyday I am on Western to go home, and it's bumper-to-bumper all the way from Sheridan to New I-40. It takes 20 minutes to get through that. I'm not complaining, but ask them what kind of plan there is for improving this area (it is sooo blighted, since New I-40 has made Western the new front-door for downtown, we need to address beautifying this area), taking advantage of its very high traffic counts (which may support retail without needing huge incentives), and so on. I seriously think Western MUST have the highest traffic counts in all of downtown. Anyone who takes I-44 (SW OKC, NW OKC) or I-40 (Yukon, et al.) to go home comes in on Western now, it's a gridlocked mess every day - the opportunist in me says this is an opportunity! Why earthen ramp over that opportunity??

What kind of plan do they have for the area around the Farmer's Market? Are they ok with setting back its restoration as more than an event center by cutting it off even more with a newer version of I-240?

Also ask them if the other plan, for an earthen ramp, would generate much return on investment in terms of private development. Also ask if the ramp would have heightened maintenance issues, that if neglected, would cause it to deteriorate just like the Crosstown did.

Ask them just where there is supposed to be anything "great" about this boulevard as ODOT is proposing. Where is development going to happen? Stuff like that. It seems the traffic circle creates an amazing development opportunity, as well as that postcard view that this city desperately wants to create.