View Full Version : Friends for a Better Boulevard
DoctorTaco 05-23-2014, 08:21 AM More time to get the Chamber form letters in.
Yes all of us concerned folks need to redouble our efforts at public education/advocacy. I will attempt to get some additional friends and family to submit comments.
Since it is ridiculously easy to volunteer other people's time and effort, I'll go ahead and say it would be awesome for the FBB people to hold more public education events similar to the impromptu one held at Coffee Slingers.
Anonymous. 05-23-2014, 08:46 AM Step in the right direction, but it is just a crowd pleaser?
Could the "Facts" sound any more demeaning and defensive?
This part really makes me mad because it's simply not true.
"Advanced design features such as sidewalks, bicycle and pedestrian accommodations and other roadway features will be developed for consideration with input from Oklahoma City and the community and can be incorporated into any of the four conceptual designs being considered."
Hutch 05-23-2014, 09:04 AM More time for additional comment letters to ODOT and the FHWA is certainly a good thing. However, even more important at this point is also directly contacting OKC Councilmembers.
City Council has the greatest voice and influence as to which alternative will be selected, including recommendations for additional changes to those alternatives. The extension of the official comment period provides the opportunity for City Council to publicly review and discuss the four ODOT alternatives and to make an official recommendation as to their preference, including any changes they desire. Although City Council previously reviewed and voted to support one of Stantec's alternatives...Alternative A...which is similar to ODOT's Alternative C...that is not the same action as reviewing the four ODOT alternatives...which includes a "grid" alternative not previously reviewed and discussed by Council...and making an official recommendation of one of those alternatives, including any changes, under the FHWA's NEPA process.
Tier2City 05-23-2014, 10:26 AM More time for additional comment letters to ODOT and the FHWA is certainly a good thing. However, even more important at this point is also directly contacting OKC Councilmembers.
City Council has the greatest voice and influence as to which alternative will be selected, including recommendations for additional changes to those alternatives. The extension of the official comment period provides the opportunity for City Council to publicly review and discuss the four ODOT alternatives and to make an official recommendation as to their preference, including any changes they desire. Although City Council previously reviewed and voted to support one of Stantec's alternatives...Alternative A...which is similar to ODOT's Alternative C...that is not the same action as reviewing the four ODOT alternatives...which includes a "grid" alternative not previously reviewed and discussed by Council...and making an official recommendation of one of those alternatives, including any changes, under the FHWA's NEPA process.
Interesting. Council's previous recommendation was based on a selection of options that did not include the grid. So if Council doesn't revote on the current alternatives presented by ODOT - which do now include a return to the grid option - where does that leave things in terms of NEPA legal challenges?
Hutch 05-23-2014, 11:26 AM Interesting. Council's previous recommendation was based on a selection of options that did not include the grid. So if Council doesn't revote on the current alternatives presented by ODOT - which do now include a return to the grid option - where does that leave things in terms of NEPA legal challenges?
Good question. I'm not an attorney, so I'm probably not the best one to try to answer it. But I do have quite a bit of personal experience dealing with NEPA.
From a NEPA perspective, I'm not sure that Council is even required to offer an opinion, although that would probably not be looked at very favorably by the public. Their previous review and selection of the Stantec option was simply Council expressing an opinion on the recommendations of their hired consultant. That recommendation was offered prior to ODOT's latest reviews and presentations for the four official alignment options under the NEPA review process, which now includes a "grid" alternative. The fact that Council did not previously consider a grid alternative when reviewing and selecting one of Stantec's options may have little consequence legally under NEPA. However, this particular NEPA process for the Boulevard seems a little unusual, as it is technically an ODOT governed process, yet OKC appears to be equally involved as a partner in coordinating the technical reviews and public processes. So, that could have some bearing on the answer to your question.
At the very least from a public service and political perspective, it would seem that Council has an obligation to officially review and make a recommendation on the four current ODOT alternatives being provided for under the official NEPA process regardless of their earlier selection of one of Stantec's options.
Urban Pioneer 05-23-2014, 11:45 AM since it is ridiculously easy to volunteer other people's time and effort, i'll go ahead and say it would be awesome for the fbb people to hold more public education events similar to the impromptu one held at coffee slingers.
lol
warreng88 05-23-2014, 01:15 PM Could the "Facts" sound any more demeaning and defensive?
Completely agree. I picture Dwight from The Office reading them to me...
Hutch 05-23-2014, 03:00 PM ...where does that leave things in terms of NEPA legal challenges?
One more thing about NEPA...where most agencies get into legal trouble is by prejudging alternatives and predetermining the outcome of the process in favor of a specific action. There are very strict requirements for conducting environmental reviews under NEPA to ensure there is no preexisting bias toward any particular alternative and that there is no bias involved in the evaluation and decision-making process.
Tier2City 05-23-2014, 06:05 PM One more thing about NEPA...where most agencies get into legal trouble is by prejudging alternatives and predetermining the outcome of the process in favor of a specific action. There are very strict requirements for conducting environmental reviews under NEPA to ensure there is no preexisting bias toward any particular alternative and that there is no bias involved in the evaluation and decision-making process.
So is this preexisting bias towards an alternative?
ODOT just tweeted this:
ODOT@OKDOT·12m
OKC- Is getting in & out of downtown an issue? Send in your comments about the future OKC Blvd. by May 21 at Open House: 7th of May, 2014 (http://ow.ly/wKEcp)
Very guided/managed "question" from ODOT. I believe a trial lawyer would call that a "leading" question...
Hutch 05-23-2014, 08:22 PM So is this preexisting bias towards an alternative?
I'm neither a NEPA attorney nor a Twitter user. Without looking at all of ODOT's Tweets in regard to the solicitation of public comments, I can't say if the specific example looks like a preexisting bias or not. If this is but one type of question among a great many inquiring of the public of many varied potential environmental concerns, then I would have to say there is no bias. However, if there is a predominance of the same type of question trying to illicit the same type of response that would support one type of alternative over another, then I would be concerned there is a preexisting bias and a purposeful effort to influence the nature of public comments in order to skew the results in support of a certain alternative.
If a significant percentage of ODOT's Tweets are questioning whether the public is concerned about getting in and out of downtown, it would certainly raise questions as to whether or not they are trying to influence comments in favor of Alternative C or other throughway-type design. It shouldn't be too difficult to count all of their Tweets, categorize them and then look at the percentages with regard to specific questions.
betts 05-23-2014, 11:50 PM Here's another good one:
ODOT (@OKDOT)
5/14/14, 9:05 AM
OKC- Want to improve your commute to work or events in downtown? Send in comments on future OKC Blvd. by 5/21 at ow.ly/wLcxr
Most of the tweets are either generic "give us your input on the boulevard" or they are directed to "commuters". There are no tweets that mention bicycles or pedestrians that do not also mention cars.
Hutch 05-24-2014, 09:54 AM Here's another good one:
ODOT (@OKDOT)
5/14/14, 9:05 AM
OKC- Want to improve your commute to work or events in downtown? Send in comments on future OKC Blvd. by 5/21 at ow.ly/wLcxr
Most of the tweets are either generic "give us your input on the boulevard" or they are directed to "commuters". There are no tweets that mention bicycles or pedestrians that do not also mention cars.
I'd be curious to know if they are also Tweeting questions like:
Is street connectivity between Downtown, Film Row, Farmers Market and Core to Shore an issue?
Is walkability between Downtown, Film Row, Farmers Market and Core to Shore an issue?
Is walkability between Downtown and the MAPS 3 Park an issue?
Is walkability between Core to Shore and John Rex Elementary School an issue?
Is future economic development in Film Row, Farmers Market and Core to Shore an issue?
Are visual impacts and physical barriers due to grade elevations and bridges an issue?
Since it's been clear for some time that there is considerable public support for a "grid" type alternative, as opposed to a through-way design, you would expect to see Tweets similar to the above if there is a non-biased approach to soliciting comments by raising questions and concerns about the project. Repeatedly Tweeting "give us your input" and "is getting in and out of downtown an issue" would certainly raise a red flag about the existence of a bias and whether the purpose of their Tweets is to solicit a greater number of comments in favor of a particular solution.
Again, one of the major problems some agencies get into with NEPA is purposefully skewing things to support a particular predetermined outcome. Sometimes its more subtle...sometimes its very blatant. They love getting federal money to pay for their projects, but they can't stand having to deal with the federal NEPA process. Over the years, they have figured out how to hold their noses through the process and do the minimum necessary to jump through the federal requirement hoops. It's not uncommon for them to enter the process with a certain outcome already somewhat predetermined and to "work" the process in such a way as to arrive at the desired outcome. Unfortunately, it happens all too frequently. Without considerable public involvement and oversight, they often end up receiving federal approval for the alternative they set out to achieve.
Tier2City 05-24-2014, 11:05 AM Don't worry - all is not lost:
Steve's OKC Central
@stevelackmeyer
Eric Wenger is the most pedestrian, placemaking friendly public works director in OKC history - Councilman Ed Shadid
Urban Pioneer 05-24-2014, 12:06 PM I just posted this to the FBB Facebook page. It is another great article by Steve. Because of the number of citizens that follow this project on OKCTALK, I am also posting it here. You can however join the Friends for a Better Boulevard Facebook Group by clicking this link- https://www.facebook.com/groups/BetterBoulevard/
We would love to have you as a participant as this project moves into actual design.
"Another great article by Steve Lackmeyer. I would emphasize that FBB does support both options, C and D. We are also delighted that A Better Block and others have become involved and applaud them for their strong endorsement of the "D", grid option. We do not specifically support C but encourage all comments to include ideas or criticisms about it since ODOT is pressing forward with that design based on their scoring matrix. Cover all your bases folks. You can even submit multiple comment forms as you learn about the project and have new concerns or ideas for improvements to make the Boulevard a BETTER boulevard for our community.
And by the way, thanks to Steve Lackmeyer for keeping tabs using the Open Records Act. I guess these comment tabulations are only based on attendees to the meeting as I would assume even more have flooded in since this campaign renewed itself."
http://newsok.com/records-reveal-split-on-oklahoma-city-boulevard-designs-as-comment-period-is-extended/article/4850463
Tier2City 05-24-2014, 12:06 PM Records reveal split on Oklahoma City boulevard designs as comment period is extended | NewsOK.com (http://m.newsok.com/article/4850463)
Urban Pioneer 05-24-2014, 12:10 PM Join the FBB Group here- https://www.facebook.com/groups/BetterBoulevard/
Spartan 05-24-2014, 01:17 PM So records obtained by the Oklahoman show that basically only 20 people wrote in an official comment. That goes to show that many posters on this site would rather grow their post count than express a viewpoint that actually means something.
I am disappointed if that is accurate.
heyerdahl 05-24-2014, 01:52 PM I believe the article only had access to the physical comments that were submitted at the ODOT public house, not any sent electronically in the last two weeks.
Urban Pioneer 05-24-2014, 02:04 PM Exactly. Elizabeth Romero at the FHWA suggested that the feds alone were receiving several dozen every day.
Spartan 05-24-2014, 02:12 PM Oh okay, good. So why doesn't the Oklahoman request to see FHWA's letters? That would be significantly more telling.
The article barely distinguished between which letters they requested. Otherwise it was a well done piece.
LakeEffect 05-29-2014, 09:58 AM Better Block OKC has another fantastic post up about the boulevard proposal, this time about commuting. How the OKC Boulevard Will Impact Commuters | Better Block OKC (http://www.betterblockokc.com/boulevardcommute/)
Urban Pioneer 05-29-2014, 10:23 AM The folks over there are fighting hard making their case for "D". We applaud them in their efforts.
shawnw 05-29-2014, 10:26 AM Elizabeth with the FHWA forwarded the email I sent her to ODOT asking them to add it to their public comments.
Urban Pioneer 05-29-2014, 10:31 AM Reading their post, it is also obvious that they understand the political motivations, opinions, and beliefs that some of our key "stakeholders" and employers downtown, that have helped ODOT push "C".
Spartan 05-29-2014, 11:21 AM Elizabeth with the FHWA forwarded the email I sent her to ODOT asking them to add it to their public comments.
I got one too.
Just the facts 05-29-2014, 11:21 AM Better Block OKC has another fantastic post up about the boulevard proposal, this time about commuting. How the OKC Boulevard Will Impact Commuters | Better Block OKC (http://www.betterblockokc.com/boulevardcommute/)
That is out-freaking-standing.
Tier2City 05-30-2014, 04:42 PM Additional information posted on ODOT’s website at Open House: 7th of May, 2014 (http://www.odot.org/meetings/a2014/140507/Additional%20Information.htm) "in order to help address questions and eliminate confusion on the project."
Spartan 05-30-2014, 07:25 PM So glad they eliminated that confusion.
On a side note I wonder why the Devon Garage was selected as a control point in their example.
5alive 05-31-2014, 04:52 PM Just curious...those of you who sent emails...did you get much response? I received an email from Elizabeth Romero and Frank Roesler...plus a postcard today from ODOT.
Even if it is just a form letter, I feel somewhere, somehow we are getting their attention.7997
LakeEffect 05-31-2014, 08:49 PM Just curious...those of you who sent emails...did you get much response? I received an email from Elizabeth Romero and Frank Roesler...plus a postcard today from ODOT.
Even if it is just a form letter, I feel somewhere, somehow we are getting their attention.7997
Same communications here.
I am quite annoyed with ODOT's continued "we've extended the comment time beyond the standard 14 days..." It sounds so defensive and defiant at the same time.
MustangGT 06-01-2014, 10:21 AM Alternative D as it is with NO modifications or changes. It is time to get on with this.
Spartan 06-01-2014, 02:29 PM Agreed. Some us including FBB have let political realities box them Ito supporting an alternative we don't really like because it's better than A and B. That's letting ODOT drive the agenda here, which is amazing bc FBB really drive te agenda for a while.
Better Block is way out ahead on this. D is a fine proposal and there is no reason we shouldn't all be behind that.
DavidD_NorthOKC 06-01-2014, 03:26 PM I am of the conviction that anything other than Alternative 'D' is a loss for the city and will hinder redevelopment in the area that became blighted due to the old Crosstown. Don't forget FBB is the only reason Alternative 'D' is even an option.
I wish Better Block had chimed in sooner honestly. They are saying exactly what I've been thinking for over a year now. I hope they will have a presence at City Hall when the Council votes on their choice to move forward. Their recent drawings/maps provide the visual impact I think will be needed to sway the Council. If there is any chance of swaying them.......
Those who refuse to learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them. Unfortunately it appears the "stakeholders" refuse to learn those lessons and will insist on the city repeating the mistakes of the past. What has more influence on the city council? Stakeholders or doing the right thing?
soonerguru 06-01-2014, 04:05 PM Agreed. Some us including FBB have let political realities box them Ito supporting an alternative we don't really like because it's better than A and B. That's letting ODOT drive the agenda here, which is amazing bc FBB really drive te agenda for a while.
Better Block is way out ahead on this. D is a fine proposal and there is no reason we shouldn't all be behind that.
Put down the bong.
:)
Spartan 06-01-2014, 04:45 PM Put down the bong.
:)
FBB supports Alternative C ("with modifications") and Better Block supports Alternative D. It's that simple, and please, my lungs are nowhere near strong enough for a bong. :P
The argument for supporting Alt C boils down to being afraid to get behind Alt D for fear that it isn't a winner. I think it can be, and apparently, so does Better Block.
boitoirich 06-01-2014, 06:34 PM I love the work FBB has done and continues to do on behalf of making the city a more livable place. No one has fought harder in this process (other than maybe ODOT), and whatever we end up with is going to be a hell of a lot better than what was about to be forced onto us. I know FBB is doing the pragmatic and responsible thing here; I don't fault the group at all because if (when?) we do end up with C, it will be a much better C with their input than without it. That being said, I am a little saddened that we would even consider it as an option. Anyone exiting I-40 at the current Crosstown Boulevard exit can see the writing on the wall for what we will get. It looks like we'll get a wider version of Edmond's Broadway which, though it does what it can to mitigate the effects of transitioning from highway to boulevard, could not be considered a safe, inviting, complete space.
The fact that the boulevard itself is unnecessary should be enough to kill the proposal. Incredibly, it is not. The fact that what is proposed hinders the ability to link Bricktown to the Oklahoma River should be enough to kill it; that is severs downtown from new investments to its south such as the park should be enough to kill it; the fact that prioritizes east-west movement rather than north-south should be enough to write it off as a terrible idea. Yet, we're on page 105 of this discussion.
Sure, I'll write letters and fill out forms, but I don't believe we're being listened to in any meaningful way. It seems a foregone conclusion that we will end up with an inexplicable stroad with a bike lane (maybe) tearing across downtown. This is one reason OKC needs a strong, semi-independent Planning Department (ala Vancouver) and states need to give their larger cities more autonomy.
Urban Pioneer 06-02-2014, 10:10 AM Agreed. Some us including FBB have let political realities box them Ito supporting an alternative we don't really like because it's better than A and B. That's letting ODOT drive the agenda here, which is amazing bc FBB really drive te agenda for a while.
Better Block is way out ahead on this. D is a fine proposal and there is no reason we shouldn't all be behind that.
I find this offensive. Actually extremely offensive. We have not endorsed C or D. Our reason for existence is to push for the public process that has been had. It has enabled the Better Block people to even have a voice in this.
And here's the deal with D, to "win D" it is going to have to be the result of the federal government rejecting ODOT's "C" submittal. And the problem is that if you poll our city council, a majority of them want an actual boulevard. They are considered the elected representatives of the people impacted and thus have a significant voice in this. And.... the only way FBB can directly take on ODOT's traffic projections for a grid alternative is through significant legal costs and dispute their traffic volume scoring matrix for justifying the "C" design.
FBB has made the boulevard significantly "better". We have created the public process that did not exist. Anyone who thinks that we are caving and letting ODOT "push us around" has no idea of the hours spent battling this behind the scenes and pressing the federal government to force ODOT to do their job.
Our official position is, support the alignment that you prefer, C or D, and be sure to express what you think would make C "better". That's not caving, that covering ALL of our bases.
Hutch 06-02-2014, 11:01 AM FBB has made the boulevard significantly "better". We have created the public process that did not exist. Anyone who thinks that we are caving and letting ODOT "push us around" has no idea of the hours spent battling this behind the scenes and pressing the federal government to force ODOT to do their job.
Our official position is, support the alignment that you prefer, C or D, and be sure to express what you think would make C "better". That's not caving, that covering ALL of our bases.
I have to agree. FBB has stated their support for everyone pressing for D. They have also stated that based on the politics involved that it appears unlikely D will be selected. As a result, they have urged everyone supporting D to continue to do so, but to also provide comments on how C should be modified in the event D is not selected. Wise strategy in my opinion.
It's important to understand who is driving the bus here. And it's not simply ODOT. The main reason that ODOT is recommending C has more to do with City engineers and City Council than it does with ODOT. It was the City that hired Stantec to evaluate the various potential options and recommend a design. And it was City engineers that set the parameters for Stantec's reviews. And it was City Council that voted to approve Stantec's recommended design, which became ODOT's Alternative C.
So, it's the City that is driving the design bus. If you support Alternative D or Alternative C with modifications, the only way either of those is going to happen is through the expressed will of City Council. That means you'd better be contacting your Council representatives. Just remember though that Council is also hearing from City engineers who are telling them that if they recommend D, there will be huge traffic problems in the future. And the City engineers have ODOT's traffic modeling to back them up.
One more thing to note. The NEPA process is not necessarily a democratic one. Just because the majority of the public provide comments in support of a particular alternative does not mean the agency conducting the process is required to choose that particular alternative. It's perfectly acceptable for the agency to choose a different alternative if based on their professional judgment it better meets the purposes and goals set out for the project that is under environmental review. As long as the agency properly adheres to the requirements of the NEPA process, they have great latitude in selecting the preferred alternative. And if the agency adhered to all of the requirements, the federal agency overseeing the NEPA process review will almost always approve the recommendation. So, while the FHWA can force ODOT to comply with the NEPA process, it's unlikely they will overrule ODOT's preferred alternative if they have complied with all NEPA requirements.
SouthwestAviator 06-02-2014, 11:03 AM We want to make sure that maximum public input occurs on whichever option is ultimately selected, C or D. By taking a specific stance and endorsing either alternative, we would potentially limit our ability to positively influence the design of whichever alternative is selected.
Better Block's timing in helping make the case for the grid could not come at a better time. If they had been too early into the process, they probably would have had less influence on the public submissions to ODOT, FHWA, and the city council. Remember, much of the early debate centered around whether a roundabout was a solution for the Western, Classen, and boulevard intersection. Having a solid argument made for Option D at this time is a great addition to the process. We actually contacted some of their members and asked that they get involved.
And no, we haven't caved. Not in the slightest. But we are going for maximum positive effect on whichever option is selected. Let the public process bear itself out.
Another thing, I am please to report that I do believe that we are being heard. We have received some preliminary commitments from the city about what they expect out of ODOT should Option C actually be selected and also we have made great progress over the past week obtaining early commitments to better connectivity through the Farmer's Market district. Either Jeff or me will post how that process is going. Our goal now is to finish the public comment period out strong with everyone having their chance to submit their opinions. When we get done with that and have an idea of where this is headed, we will reevaluate our strategy. We are also going to continue to pursue which entity is committing to what, where the funding is coming from, and when exactly will these commitments be fulfilled. These issues of who is doing what pertain to both C and D. And what I mean is which entity, city or state, is making specific improvements which improve the urbanity, connectivity, and pedestrian friendliness of the areas to be impacted.
Through your continued support, I think you will be pleasantly surprised at what we can accomplish together.
Tier2City 06-02-2014, 11:21 AM I can see how some people might think it's still lipstick on a pig.
Hutch 06-02-2014, 11:36 AM I can see how some people might think it's still lipstick on a pig.
It may very well be. But at this point, I think we've done all we can from a NEPA process perspective. The only way things are going to change is if City Council weighs in and makes it happen.
soonerguru 06-02-2014, 11:55 AM I have to agree. FBB has stated their support for everyone pressing for D. They have also stated that based on the politics involved that it appears unlikely D will be selected. As a result, they have urged everyone supporting D to continue to do so, but to also provide comments on how C should be modified in the event D is not selected. Wise strategy in my opinion.
It's important to understand who is driving the bus here. And it's not simply ODOT. The main reason that ODOT is recommending C has more to do with City engineers and City Council than it does with ODOT. It was the City that hired Stantec to evaluate the various potential options and recommend a design. And it was City engineers that set the parameters for Stantec's reviews. And it was City Council that voted to approve Stantec's recommended design, which became ODOT's Alternative C.
So, it's the City that is driving the design bus. If you support Alternative D or Alternative C with modifications, the only way either of those is going to happen is through the expressed will of City Council. That means you'd better be contacting your Council representatives. Just remember though that Council is also hearing from City engineers who are telling them that if they recommend D, there will be huge traffic problems in the future. And the City engineers have ODOT's traffic modeling to back them up.
One more thing to note. The NEPA process is not necessarily a democratic one. Just because the majority of the public provide comments in support of a particular alternative does not mean the agency conducting the process is required to choose that particular alternative. It's perfectly acceptable for the agency to choose a different alternative if based on their professional judgment it better meets the purposes and goals set out for the project that is under environmental review. As long as the agency properly adheres to the requirements of the NEPA process, they have great latitude in selecting the preferred alternative. And if the agency adhered to all of the requirements, the federal agency overseeing the NEPA process review will almost always approve the recommendation. So, while the FHWA can force ODOT to comply with the NEPA process, it's unlikely they will overrule ODOT's preferred alternative if they have complied with all NEPA requirements.
This is sane, rational, and likely to succeed. Others prefer tilting at windmills. I understand some of the passions expressed here, but it is insulting to you and others considering how hard and effectively you've worked. Thank you for responding graciously with facts and acting like an adult.
jn1780 06-02-2014, 12:16 PM I remember saying way back when we first found out that an elevated overpass was proposed that we have been too kind on the city. The city let ODOT do all this with their blessing.
Just the facts 06-02-2014, 12:36 PM I find this offensive. Actually extremely offensive. We have not endorsed C or D.
From your post on the FBB page:
Many of us are advocating for several specific improvements to the "Option C" proposal as well as advocating for Option D.
I am for one of two things happening:
Option D OR letting ODOT and the City Council doing whatever the hell they want so long as it includes a giant bronze plaque listing all the names of those responsible so they can be held accountable for the dismal failure by future generations. If I thought some water-down boulevard was the solution I would have supported that, but the worst possible outcome is some screwed up road with New/Old Urbanist finger prints on it. Either do it right or get out of the way and let ODOT screw it up all their own.
Urban Pioneer 06-02-2014, 01:07 PM "Many of us" is not an endorsement. If we decide to endorse C or D specifically, we will issue a press release. Right now, we advocate that you have the right to have input in the matter.
While I appreciate your passion, believe it or not, not everyone agrees with your perspectives.
Just the facts 06-02-2014, 01:14 PM 'Many of us' is not, but 'advocating' is.
ad·vo·cate: publicly recommend or support
en·dorse·ment: an act of giving one's public approval or support to someone or something
Urban Pioneer 06-02-2014, 01:19 PM Like I said, if FBB wants to endorse a specific alternative, we will issue a press release.
soonerguru 06-02-2014, 01:22 PM Some of you should ask yourselves: "How often does 'my way or the highway' (no pun intended) work out in complex political negotiations?" Also, when insiders who have knowledge of the political levers being pulled provide you information, perhaps you should consider listening. And finally, consider nuance.
Just the facts 06-02-2014, 01:24 PM Like I said, if FBB wants to endorse a specific alternative, we will issue a press release.
If nothing else, I am all about seeing both sides of the issue. So on the FBB page you wrote the following:
Due to our efforts, ODOT has extended the public comment period to June 13th. We have had quite a bit of trouble making their automatic forms work. Here is the link for those of you who can make it work-
http://www.okladot.state.ok.us/meetings/a2014/140507/commentform.pdf
Many of us are advocating for several specific improvements to the "Option C" proposal as well as advocating for Option D. Several of these ideas came through the meeting last night.
1. Introducing a proper four-way intersection at Lee
2. Closing 3rd street between Lee and Walker
3. Removing parallel parking lanes in front of the park and Convention Center to reduce the distance a pedestrian has to cross the street at that critical location.
4. Introducing a median in front of the Park/Convention Center site instead of one, singular, continuous turn lane.
5. Promoting a mid-block crosswalk to continue the "Harvey Spine" across that section, through the proposed median, and into the park.
6. Introducing a roundabout at Exchange and Western instead of closing Exchange.
The 3rd street issue is particularly disheartening as a proper grid solution would potentially make prominent connectivity to the Farmer's Market area much likely. Thanks to David Wanzer for pointing that out right now. We just rolled out the plans again at Coffee Slingers. I will post the pictures. ODOT's suggestion for a one way street as this location really causes a challenge and a terrible intersection at Lee for pedestrians.
So you wrote this as private citizen Jeff and not FBB Jeff and this view does not represent any official position by FBB? If so, that's cool and I can live with that but it did come off as a FBB position, at least to me (and I think to Spartan as well).
Urban Pioneer 06-02-2014, 02:06 PM "Many of us" is reference to what happened at that meeting that FBB held at the Sieber Apartments and the impromptu meeting that occurred the next morning in Coffee Slingers. I was explaining my observation of what happened in those two meetings with seemingly the majority of input from those who attended. No one contested those observations. I used the phrase "Many of us" to be respectful in the event that if someone attended and had a different opinion or additional observations and simply did not voice it.
Our official position is that we support the public having input into the process. If C is your preference, fine. If D is your preference, fine. But based on our observations, we officially suggest that if you support D, you also consider adding comments or submitting an additional form on how you think C could be made better.
"Many of us" are observations about specific "improvements" that seemed agreeable to the majority of FBB'ers that attended those two meetings.
Just the facts 06-02-2014, 02:11 PM Thanks for clearing that up Urban Pioneer. I indeed did misread what you were saying. Now back to our regular programming.
Spartan 06-02-2014, 02:19 PM I find this offensive. Actually extremely offensive. We have not endorsed C or D. Our reason for existence is to push for the public process that has been had. It has enabled the Better Block people to even have a voice in this.
And here's the deal with D, to "win D" it is going to have to be the result of the federal government rejecting ODOT's "C" submittal. And the problem is that if you poll our city council, a majority of them want an actual boulevard. They are considered the elected representatives of the people impacted and thus have a significant voice in this. And.... the only way FBB can directly take on ODOT's traffic projections for a grid alternative is through significant legal costs and dispute their traffic volume scoring matrix for justifying the "C" design.
FBB has made the boulevard significantly "better". We have created the public process that did not exist. Anyone who thinks that we are caving and letting ODOT "push us around" has no idea of the hours spent battling this behind the scenes and pressing the federal government to force ODOT to do their job.
Our official position is, support the alignment that you prefer, C or D, and be sure to express what you think would make C "better". That's not caving, that covering ALL of our bases.
You find what offensive? Are you punking me?
I can't get past that. If you could extrapolate on that I could move on to your other points because you just lost me right at the beginning.
Urban Pioneer 06-02-2014, 02:36 PM I'm not going to bother.
Just the facts 06-02-2014, 02:45 PM I think this should clear up any and all confusion: The group is called Friends for a Better Boulevard NOT Friends for The Grid. If you support the idea of a grid the Better Block group is your horse. FBB existed to make the process more open and transparent which it is hoped would result in a better boulevard.
DavidD_NorthOKC 06-02-2014, 02:48 PM I think it would be helpful for everyone to remember that without the efforts of FBB, ODOT would nearly be done building their horrendous 1990's design - now.
There has always been room for different ideas within FBB, but all of them are centered around the goal of forcing the city and ODOT to listen and reconsider what truly would have been disastrous. I am solidly in the Alternative 'D' camp but acknowledge 'C' with improvements is still far better than ODOT's original proposal.
Spartan 06-02-2014, 05:31 PM I'm not going to bother.
Are you smoking crack or something? I didn't insult you and hold FBB in very high regard. I hold you in high regard, as long as you get off crack.
I was just saying I think you have more leverage here than you realize, just from the outside looking in.
Urban Pioneer 06-02-2014, 06:16 PM LOL. Ok bro. Ok. I will cut down on my vices.
No, in all honesty, I think we are maximizing our leverage even if it might appear to all that we are not doing so. Let's talk offline over beers in Cleveland or when you come back to OKC. I need to fly up that way anyway.
And also... the Better Block folks are doing a great job making the argument for the grid and there is stuff going on I simply am not going to post on OKC TALK that we are doing. Best to all and thanks for taking an interest in this issue.
soonerguru 06-02-2014, 06:46 PM Are you smoking crack or something? I didn't insult you and hold FBB in very high regard. I hold you in high regard, as long as you get off crack.
I was just saying I think you have more leverage here than you realize, just from the outside looking in.
Are you mainlining smack?
:)
Spartan 06-02-2014, 06:49 PM I appreciate that but I distinctly remember arguing against D and that doesn't help any leverage with ODOT. And I'm down!
|
|