Eric Wenger's second response to my e-mail. Here was my reply and below was his response:

"Eric, thank you for your response.

My understanding of the boulevard (with your help) is there would be a bridge over Western, then for it to dip under the Santa Fe rail line with a four lane road in between and then rise back up to connect to I-40/235, would that be accurate? If so, we have a school just west of the Myriad Gardens, a huge park that is going to be built south of the new boulevard and possibly housing built in and around that area for families. Now, think about a person living in housing adjacent to the park and walking their child to school north across the boulevard. Are there going to be proper crosswalks for people to get across the street without getting run over by some crazy guy trying to get home from work?

Another thing ODOT has stated is that they expect traffic to increase as employment and residential living increases downtown. What they are not taking into account are the future developments in transportation such as our increased use of buses, the streetcar and the eventual use of light/commuter rail.

Now, you said, “the alternative that meets the majority of Oklahoma City’s criteria is Alternate “C” which is a 4 lane design (2 lanes in each direction) with a landscaped median, reduced speed, wide sidewalks and parallel parking on both sides of the street.” But, when looking at the pdf from odot.org, the area south of the proposed convention center (north of the new central park) and south of the Chesapeake Energy Arena, those four blocks are six lanes due to long turn lanes with no landscaped medians in the middle. Also, the majority of the area south of Bricktown is three lanes on the north side and two on the south side for a total of five lanes. Why is it so necessary for these areas to be six lanes when they are so close to where we expect people to be congregating and living?

The mayor has promoted healthy living in OKC for quite some time now and we need this street to move some people, but it does not have to move 58,825 a day in and out of downtown, regardless of how far in the future we are looking, that is I-40 is for. What I would like to see from the area specifically between Hudson and EK Gaylord is a four lane street with short turn lanes, wide, landscaped medians, bike lanes and street parking on either side with a speed limit not to exceed 25 mph.

Again, thank you for your response and understanding where I am coming from. I am a huge advocate for the city and I only want what’s best for us and our children. This street will help shape the future of OKC for years to come. Let’s get it right the first time."

And his response:

"Yes, your understanding is correct and the City is supporting the new Boulevard to be a 4-lane design (2 lanes in each direction) that is pedestrian friendly, encourages development provides connectivity to downtown. As I mentioned in my previous email, the best example that I can offer of a street in downtown is Reno Boulevard that was recently re-constructed as part of Project 180. The lanes were narrowed to 11 feet, enhanced crosswalks were provided at each intersection and widened sidewalks were added to the amenity zones that created a pedestrian and bicycle friendly corridor in the downtown area. The new Boulevard will also include 11’ lanes and many of the same design features found on Reno Avenue. Enhanced crosswalks will be included, and between the new MAPS 3 Park and the new MAPS 3 Convention Center, preliminary designs are being made to include a mid-block pedestrian crossing. This crossing could be similar to the one that was developed between the new Devon Tower and the Myriad Botanical Gardens. The speed limit on the Boulevard through downtown area is also proposed at 25 mph to further enhance the safety.

As downtown Oklahoma City continues to grow, there are expectations that traffic will increase. The design of the new Boulevard will include the necessary details to accommodate the MAPS 3 streetcar should the proposed route or future extensions be desired. The railroad underpass at EK Gaylord has taken into account the height of the streetcar, and with the parallel parking that has been proposed, future streetcar stops on the Boulevard can also be made. Although not part of the Boulevard project, the new Oklahoma City Intermodal Hub will be constructed at the existing Santa Fe Depot on EK Gaylord between Reno and Sheridan. It is paramount that the City provide a highly accessible hub that can be reached by bike, pedestrian, car and other modes of transportation while also being connected to the downtown streets including the new Boulevard.

As for the images provide by ODOT, I agree these may be confusing. The actual design of the Boulevard has not been completed as ODOT is still working to address questions that were raised last year during the public meeting process. The environmental study which is currently underway includes evaluating multiple alternates, but once completed, the City will be able to work closely with ODOT on the actual design. The design will focus on the details including turn lanes, many which are currently shown on the images but have not yet been fully detailed. I believe it is the turn lanes shown on the images that make it appear certain alternatives have 6 lanes instead of 4. Again, I emphasize the City is committed to a 4-lane design, with the possibility of left turn lanes at certain intersections, much like Reno Avenue which is already in place in downtown.

ODOT has recently posted a Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) worksheet and rendering of the alternatives on their website. You can reach their website by visiting the City’s website at City of Oklahoma City | News (http://www.okc.gov). I think the additional information is helpful, so I encourage you to visit at your convenience.

Thanks again for your interest in the project and for your comments and suggestions.

Eric"

I got that also

I got that also

Exact wording?

On further review, no, not exact wording

On further review, no, not exact wording

Eric probably has Alternative A, B and C email responses ;-)

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S5

They'll call this an accident, I'm sure. But it's an accident like getting cancer after smoking all your life is an accident. Pedestrian struck at NW Expressway and Meridian:
Person struck by vehicle in northwest Oklahoma City | News OK (http://newsok.com/person-struck-by-vehicle-in-northwest-oklahoma-city/article/4884709)

All this, and more! Coming to downtown OKC soon! This message brought to you by ODOT.

Additional information including renderings:

Open House: 7th of May, 2014 (http://www.okladot.state.ok.us/meetings/a2014/140507/Additional%20Information.htm)

Thanks for posting this Cuatro!

Those renderings and "visualizations" really show how superior D is to all options. Multiple easily crossable intersections by pedestrains, or giant diagonal intersections with awkward medians?

I can read drawings and this is exactly what I feared "C" would look like. It is excessively huge. Simply extending the urban fabric depicted in front of the park and east of Walker (Project 180 aethetics), would be a huge help if C is indeed chosen.

Pretty thrilled that they rendered out and put some effort into "D". Also, we have received confirmation this morning that the rumor being spread around in the past by certain City officials that Boulevard money cannot be spent to carry out D, is false.

Federal money can be spent to implement "D" and would be considered an appropriate use of mitigation monies should that option be selected.

It's really not even funny how much better D's visualization looks....ODOT didn't even try to show any kind of pedestrian crossings at the boulevard in the diagonal portions for C's visualizations.

yay D!

As I scrolled down, I was really expecting to see D all messed up to make it look like a bad option. But after seeing this, now more than ever D is my favorite and the best to get around all parts of downtown, midtown, etc.

D really looks great! I'm happily surprised by ODOT on this one.

Pretty much the same here. I already preferred D, but it's a tad hilarious that ODOT's own renderings make me like it even more.

Man, if that doesn't sell Option D has the best possible alternative then nothing will. Just look at all the tax revenue generating street frontage that opens up.

http://www.okladot.state.ok.us/meetings/a2014/140507/FAQ_Table.jpg

Is it just me, or does this graphic make it look like Alt D is inferior when it comes to sidewalks/crosswalks?

Why does it say "existing"? Many of these streeets have no sidewalk or one sidewalk (most likely terrible condition), and virtually zero actual crosswalks. I cannot imagine them restoring streets and not put sidewalks/crosswalks. This should not be any different than the other options under this catgeory.

I took it to mean new vs. existing (even if the existing have to be replaced). The fact that the existing sidewalks are need of repair is even a better reason why we should fix what we have and not create even more that we obviously can't afford to maintain. If I can't afford to mow my lawn my solution should not be to create more lawn.

It actually is truly amazing this is even an option

http://www.okladot.state.ok.us/meetings/a2014/140507/Boulevard_Option_A_Cam_01_final.jpg

I mean, this is pretty much the EXACT same thing as the old I-40. If ODOT is going to build another highway next to a new highway, at least be truthful and say, ''hey, we just thought it'd be nice to have two major highways a mile away from each other".

http://www.okladot.state.ok.us/meetings/a2014/140507/Boulevard_Option_C_Cam_04_final.jpg

Shartel doesn't even cross, but that could easily be fixed I guess.

It actually is truly amazing this is even an option

http://www.okladot.state.ok.us/meetings/a2014/140507/Boulevard_Option_A_Cam_01_final.jpg

I mean, this is pretty much the EXACT same thing as the old I-40. If ODOT is going to build another highway next to a new highway, at least be truthful and say, ''hey, we just thought it'd be nice to have two major highways a mile away from each other".

The point of A is to make you like C.

Yep. It's an old graphic designer trick. If someone is doing logo/branding for you and giving you a series of options to choose from, they will create the one they like the best and then they will throw in a couple of intentionally-bad options to "steer" you to their preferred selection.

Shartel doesn't even cross, but that could easily be fixed I guess.

Shartel is so close to the reno intersection that Im not sure a crossing is needed there. However, there definitely needs to be one at Lee, no ifs ands or buts about it.

Tier2City, true. But it also tells you something else. If "A" is a legitimate proposal because it falls within the federally approved budget, then where is all of the federal for that massive bridge going?

An "at grade" street level road is far less expensive than a continuous elevated bridge. Where is the money going in "C"?

Guess my point is that the "final design" ought to have the kind of budget available for it for Project 180 quality streetscapes for either C or D.

Yep. It's an old graphic designer trick.

I can assure you graphic designers aren't the only creatives who do whatever it takes to get what they want...

:D

The political problem that I see with ODOT's design for D is that they have failed to show SE 3rd as much of an iconic boulevard. Unless I'm mistaken, earlier support for a grid design was not just based on eliminating the curvilinear and elevated sections in order to reestablish the original street network. It also involved reconstructing SE 3rd and California Avenue as iconic linear boulevards into downtown from the east and west. Unfortunately, ODOT's rendering for D shows SE 3rd passing east between the Convention Center, Chesapeake Arena and the Park as a simple, undivided four-lane street. There are not even left hand turn lanes provided at the major intersections. You can be sure that a grid alternative that does not provide for an well-designed, iconic boulevard through the central section of downtown is most likely doomed, as many of the major downtown interests will view a simple undivided four-way street through that area as unappealing and the traffic engineers will use the lack of turn lanes and other limitations as an excuse for why the alternative is unacceptable from a traffic congestion point of view.

If a reasonable attempt to show 3rd and California rebuilt as dual boulevards had been made in the rendering and simulations, it would have been very difficult to make a case against that option. By doing the bare minimum with the illustrations and attempting to avoid showing a reasonable representation of what many people have proposed, ODOT is prejudicing the process again - even if it was done by some implied request by the city.

California would be landscaped on the verges, with a canopy of trees from Western until termination at Stage Center Tower. SW 3rd, meanwhile, would be widened (slightly) from Walker going east using the ROW from the old Crosstown in order to form a median. Presently, Alternative D only gives SW 3rd a median from Robinson to EK Gaylord.

Got my notice in the mail today that the Boulevard comments are accepted until June 13.

The political problem that I see with ODOT's design for D is that they have failed to show SE 3rd as much of an iconic boulevard. Unless I'm mistaken, earlier support for a grid design was not just based on eliminating the curvilinear and elevated sections in order to reestablish the original street network. It also involved reconstructing SE 3rd and California Avenue as iconic linear boulevards into downtown from the east and west. Unfortunately, ODOT's rendering for D shows SE 3rd passing east between the Convention Center, Chesapeake Arena and the Park as a simple, undivided four-lane street. There are not even left hand turn lanes provided at the major intersections. You can be sure that a grid alternative that does not provide for an well-designed, iconic boulevard through the central section of downtown is most likely doomed, as many of the major downtown interests will view a simple undivided four-way street through that area as unappealing and the traffic engineers will use the lack of turn lanes and other limitations as an excuse for why the alternative is unacceptable from a traffic congestion point of view.

And yet traffic is moving fine on Broadway with only 3 lanes. Who will be driving on the Boulevard anyway? People don't drive to conventions. They either fly and take a taxi, or drive to their hotel and walk (or take the streetcar) to the convention center. Why would you take the boulevard to drive anywhere when you've got I-40 on one side and Reno on the other?

And yet traffic is moving fine on Broadway with only 3 lanes. Who will be driving on the Boulevard anyway? People don't drive to conventions. They either fly and take a taxi, or drive to their hotel and walk (or take the streetcar) to the convention center. Why would you take the boulevard to drive anywhere when you've got I-40 on one side and Reno on the other?

The vast majority of OKC conventions attract only local residents, but you are right that multiple interstate are just blocks away and we already know that the grid if the superior distributor of traffic. I might also add that those masses of people headed to the convention center are actually headed to a parking garage and then walk to the convention center - so a highway headed right to the front door of the convention center is worthless (unless ODOT is expecting the new iconic boulevard to be lined with parking lots/garages).

The vast majority of OKC conventions attract only local residents, but you are right that multiple interstate are just blocks away and we already know that the grid if the superior distributor of traffic. I might also add that those masses of people headed to the convention center are actually headed to a parking garage and then walk to the convention center - so a highway headed right to the front door of the convention center is worthless (unless ODOT is expecting the new iconic boulevard to be lined with parking lots/garages).

What do you mean by local?

If a reasonable attempt to show 3rd and California rebuilt as dual boulevards had been made in the rendering and simulations, it would have been very difficult to make a case against that option. By doing the bare minimum with the illustrations and attempting to avoid showing a reasonable representation of what many people have proposed, ODOT is prejudicing the process again - even if it was done by some implied request by the city.

I'd have to agree. ODOT could easily have designed SW 3rd for Alternative D as a more functional iconic divided boulevard. But they didn't. If the traffic modeling is based on the current design, it's no wonder congestion appears in the future.

Another problem this raises is that for all those who support D and have sent comments in favor of that alternative, you have essentially endorsed a design for SW 3rd that appears to be politically and functionally not viable. And you probably didn't even realize you were doing so. You've essentially been trapped into supporting a grid alternative that ODOT knows is not workable from a traffic standpoint and will not receive the necessary support from downtown interests and City Council to be selected.

It appears that not only does C require modifications if it is to be acceptable to those pressing for better connectivity and walkability, but so does D for those who desire a grand iconic boulevard along SW 3rd that can also meet current and future traffic demands.

For those who support D, it might be a good idea to send additional comments to ODOT, the FHWA and City Council expressing the need to modify D to provide for a more iconic and functional boulevard design along SW 3rd, as well as California. Remember, the challenge isn't necessarily convincing ODOT its the best design. The challenge is convincing a majority on City Council, as well as the major downtown interests, that its the best design. Unfortunately, ODOT's current design for D appears to be a detriment in that regard.

Also, keep in mind that we're not at the end of the Environmental Assessment process. After this comment period is concluded, ODOT should take all of the comments provided into consideration and make appropriate changes to all of the alternatives, as necessary. They should then hold one more public meeting to present the final versions of all of the alternatives and then provide a final comment period before making a final decision and sending their recommendation to the FHWA for approval.

The public has just 7 more days to offer comments in order to influence the final design versions of all of the alternatives that will be presented in the next month or so. So if you want C or D to be the best it can be in order to have the best chance of securing the necessary support to be selected as the preferred alternative, you need to send in your comments by June 13th.

The vast majority of OKC conventions attract only local residents, but you are right that multiple interstate are just blocks away and we already know that the grid if the superior distributor of traffic. I might also add that those masses of people headed to the convention center are actually headed to a parking garage and then walk to the convention center - so a highway headed right to the front door of the convention center is worthless (unless ODOT is expecting the new iconic boulevard to be lined with parking lots/garages).What do you mean by local?

I mean that the vast majority of attendees live in metro-OKC. For example, tomorrow is the Ruffles and Rust Expo at Cox. 99.999% of the attendees will live in metro OKC and that 0.001% will live somewhere else in Oklahoma. No one is flying in from Chicago to attend it.

I mean that the vast majority of attendees live in metro-OKC. For example, tomorrow is the Ruffles and Rust Expo at Cox. 99.999% of the attendees will live in metro OKC and that 0.001% will live somewhere else in Oklahoma. No one is flying in from Chicago to attend it.

I was curious how you'd evaluated each conference around the year. I think many are more regional than purely metro... plus a few more nationwide ones.

I was curious how you'd evaluated each conference around the year. I think many are more regional than purely metro... plus a few more nationwide ones.

I won't go into here but 2 years ago I went through every event held at the Cox Center and found the attendance. I posted the results of that in one of the Convention Center threads. When you get a chance go to Cox Event schedule and check it out. The single biggest draw was Baron's hockey which some could argue were the same 6,000 people being counted 38 times.

I'd have to agree. ODOT could easily have designed SW 3rd for Alternative D as a more functional iconic divided boulevard. But they didn't. If the traffic modeling is based on the current design, it's no wonder congestion appears in the future.

Another problem this raises is that for all those who support D and have sent comments in favor of that alternative, you have essentially endorsed a design for SW 3rd that appears to be politically and functionally not viable. And you probably didn't even realize you were doing so. You've essentially been trapped into supporting a grid alternative that ODOT knows is not workable from a traffic standpoint and will not receive the necessary support from downtown interests and City Council to be selected.

It appears that not only does C require modifications if it is to be acceptable to those pressing for better connectivity and walkability, but so does D for those who desire a grand iconic boulevard along SW 3rd that can also meet current and future traffic demands.

For those who support D, it might be a good idea to send additional comments to ODOT, the FHWA and City Council expressing the need to modify D to provide for a more iconic and functional boulevard design along SW 3rd, as well as California. Remember, the challenge isn't necessarily convincing ODOT its the best design. The challenge is convincing a majority on City Council, as well as the major downtown interests, that its the best design. Unfortunately, ODOT's current design for D appears to be a detriment in that regard.

Also, keep in mind that we're not at the end of the Environmental Assessment process. After this comment period is concluded, ODOT should take all of the comments provided into consideration and make appropriate changes to all of the alternatives, as necessary. They should then hold one more public meeting to present the final versions of all of the alternatives and then provide a final comment period before making a final decision and sending their recommendation to the FHWA for approval.

The public has just 7 more days to offer comments in order to influence the final design versions of all of the alternatives that will be presented in the next month or so. So if you want C or D to be the best it can be in order to have the best chance of securing the necessary support to be selected as the preferred alternative, you need to send in your comments by June 13th.

This is an absolutely great alternative technical perspective. I am posting it to the FBB site.

Honestly, as much as I have said I really like roads that are curved more so than the grid, I really can't deny option D is really the way to go now.

https://scontent-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpf1/t1.0-9/10353584_846626345367325_8860578618380273814_n.jpg

It's amazing how much better this picture makes it. From Better Block OKC Facebook page

https://www.facebook.com/BetterBlockOKC/photos/a.370509206312377.101264.341914635838501/846626345367325/?type=1

I was asked to post this (huge file that takes a while to load -- or you can just download it):

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/alternated.pdf

Excellent analysis.


Instead of continuing to blight portions of the project area by continued isolation due to a large physical barrier, be it a bridge, embankment or wide divided highway with no opportunities for pedestrians to cross, federal funding can and should be used to improve the traffic flow and streetscape on multiple streets and blocks to provide greater connectivity and access throughout the entire area. We are especially fortunate that City of Oklahoma City Public Works staff have now acquired considerable hard-won experience at rebuilding high quality urban streetscapes.

I love it.

Who wrote that, or do they prefer to remain anonymous?

Who wrote that, or do they prefer to remain anonymous?

Better Block maybe? They have turned out some excellent work on this lately. Whomever is responsible has done the city a great service and might have provided the analysis that can sway enough of our elected leaders to listen to someone other than "stakeholders" with very narrow interests.

That needs to be submitted to ODOT and FHWA in its entirety. I wish I could claim it for it is an outstanding piece. I will definitely make sure my Councilman gets it and follow up to inquire if he read it.

Better Block maybe? They have turned out some excellent work on this lately. Whomever is responsible has done the city a great service and might have provided the analysis that can sway enough of our elected leaders to listen to someone other than "stakeholders" with very narrow interests.

That needs to be submitted to ODOT and FHWA in its entirety. I wish I could claim it for it is an outstanding piece. I will definitely make sure my Councilman gets it and follow up to inquire if he read it.

Better Block would be touting that publicly had they written it... they're smart about using the logo, etc.

I'll echo David D.'s sentiment that that needs to be submitted in its entirety to the FHWA and ODOT if it has not already been.

Who wrote that, or do they prefer to remain anonymous?

My guess for the mystery writer is Blair Humphreys. He knows his stuff, but also might fear that his association with the Wheeler District might make him look biased (because any Boulevard plan besides "D" hurts the connectivity of Wheeler to the rest of DT).

Who wrote that, or do they prefer to remain anonymous?

At this point, the message is what's important...not the messenger. Friday is the deadline for public comments to ODOT. If you support D, I'd be writing comments to ODOT...FHWA...City Council passing on the information contained in that posting or other postings, including those on the Better Block blog. The only way information like that gets any official consideration is if its submitted in a timely manner as part of the public comment process. And its perfectly acceptable to submit more than one comment.

It's not Blair. I'm sure he would like to be directly involved owing to his knowledge and training, but I think he is keeping this particular debate at arm's length for the reasons mentioned above. There are some other very talented folks in town who collaborated on that.

I guess I have read too many of this person's past technical documents. I know exactly who it is. But if they wish to remain anonymous, FBB will honor their wish. We will however, be grabbing it and sending these comments to to the FHWA, ODOT, City Council, and Mayor.

At this point, the message is what's important...not the messenger. Friday is the deadline for public comments to ODOT. If you support D, I'd be writing comments to ODOT...FHWA...City Council passing on the information contained in that posting or other postings, including those on the Better Block blog. The only way information like that gets any official consideration is if its submitted in a timely manner as part of the public comment process. And its perfectly acceptable to submit more than one comment.

I just wanted to thank this person (or persons).

I just wanted to thank this person (or persons).

I am going to thank him/her/them by sending it to as many people in a position to influence the boulevard design as possible. FHWA, Mayor, City Council, ODOT, Couch, Wenger at least.

I wonder if it might be possible to get Stantec to run the traffic simulation for a correctly designed Option 'D' - one that would include adequate left turn lanes on California and 3rd Street, sufficient traffic lanes on California and 3rd, proper signal synchronization, and most importantly the entire street grid reconnected where the old Crosstown and the other ODOT options disrupted the smooth dispersal of traffic into OKC's best traffic feature - the easy to understand, well connected grid.

Maybe Better Block could contact Stantec about this? Stantec already has the basic information and need only refine California and 3rd into properly designed streets without the limitation placed on them by the city -the one that state the boulevard HAD to be a through movement. Better Block people? Maybe? Worth a shot? Please?

Stantec isn't going to do anything unless they have payment and a work order from the City Manager or Public Works Director.

Nothing says another entity could not ask (and pay) Stantec to run the model with a properly designed Option 'D'. I know no one on the city payroll is going to ask for anything that will reveal the "stakeholders" are wrong - because at least one of them is on the same board as those stakeholders.

That brings up an interesting question though. Are we doing what is really best for the city, or are we doing what a handful of people want because there are city employees too close to those "stakeholders"? I'm not into the conspiratorial nonsense, but the city prejudiced the evaluation process with the "through movement" requirement they placed on Stantec just as much as ODOT has done so with the latest set of options. For some reason no one in city hall or ODOT seems to want an objective review of the options available.

That doesn't make sense given all the talk about making downtown Oklahoma City walkable and an enjoyable place to be. Or maybe it was just talk and OKC "stakeholders" really think Northwest Expressway is the ultimate in urban planning and design.

But only ODOT is accountable to the FHWA for conducting an objective NEPA review process. That is why the letters and public input are so important over the next day or two.

From today's Gazette:
http://npaper-wehaa.com/oklahoma-gazette#2014/06/11/?article=2251092

Building better streets the best way
BY JEFF BEZDEK

The Oklahoma City Boulevard project is an extraordinary opportunity to renew a blighted area of our city and reconnect our downtown with the Oklahoma River, the OKC Farmers Market District, Capitol Hill and the recently announced Wheeler District. It is an opportunity to establish planning precedents and prepare these areas for success as our downtown continues to grow and prosper. It is also a decision that will impact the viability of the nearly one billion-dollar investment of MAPS 3 and other taxpayer monies in the area around the former I-40 Crosstown.

So why would we even consider doing this wrong and reestablishing a physical barrier that bifurcates these burgeoning areas?

The fear stems from 20th-century thinking that a downtown without a bypass will suffer horrible congestion. The cultural problem is with the Oklahoma Department of Transportation (ODOT). As one of the largest state agencies, ODOT is overseen by nonelected officials and operates with unappropriated funding. As a result, the agency functions with limited public and legislative oversight.

Friends for a Better Boulevard (FBB) and citizen support helped change that. As a result, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) required ODOT to undergo a new environmental assessment on the project, which has provided the public and city leaders greater opportunity to offer meaningful input to ensure that this project is built in a “better” way.

It is not FBB’s intent to delay the project. We think that this area of downtown should be reconnected and revitalized as soon as possible. We also believe that there are legitimate concerns on how to handle additional traffic downtown.

The question now is, How will this play out? A large number of people support not building the curvilinear portion of the boulevard and instead reestablishing the street grid. Unfortunately, project engineers do not support that type of design. At issue is the traffic modeling used by ODOT to justify the boulevard. While I think the numbers are inflated and incorrect, there is no way to fight the issue beyond the ongoing public process without incurring significant legal expense.

I encourage you to submit your opinions for or against the street grid, or curvilinear development, to ODOT and the FWHA through Friday. Find the comment form for both at okladot.state.ok.us/meetings/a2014/140507/commentform.pdf (http://www.okladot.state.ok.us/meetings/a2014/140507/commentform.pdf).

FBB has avoided endorsing a specific plan. We have instead pressed for an extended public comment period and proper environmental review. One reason for the surge of activism on this issue has been the absence from ODOT on details regarding traffic control, sidewalks, bike lanes, crosswalks, transit stops, landscaping and improved urban connectivity that provides proper mitigation and prevents the boulevard project from creating another barrier that divides our city.

Mayor Mick Cornett has pledged that he wants the boulevard to be OKC’s “grandest street.” The question is, Is anyone at ODOT listening?

Jeff Bezdek is President of Bezdek + Associates and is cofounder of Friends for a Better Boulevard with Bob Kemper.

Also, we have received confirmation this morning that the rumor being spread around in the past by certain City officials that Boulevard money cannot be spent to carry out D, is false.

Federal money can be spent to implement "D" and would be considered an appropriate use of mitigation monies should that option be selected.

There continues to be questions and concerns expressed by the public regarding this issue. So, I am posting the following email response that I received from the FHWA concerning the matter, as they have submitted it to ODOT and made it part of the official public record.

Clearly, there are numerous street and intersection improvements identified in both Alternative C and D that fall significantly outside of the original footprint and right-of-way of the original I-40 alignment. The FHWA has confirmed that federal funding applies to all of those improvements. Under the new Environmental Assessment being conducted by ODOT, federal funding obviously would apply to any additional proposed street and intersection improvements to either C or D that serve to mitigate the environmental impacts, including socioeconomic and other impacts to the community, resulting from the relocation of the old I-40 AND the design and construction of the new boulevard project.

(My emphasis added)


From: Elizabeth.Romero@dot.gov [mailto:Elizabeth.Romero@dot.gov]
Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2014 11:34 AM
To: m-coordinator@odot.org
Cc: Elizabeth.Romero@dot.gov; mariohutch@sbcglobal.net
Subject: FW: Federal Funding for Boulevard

The FHWA Oklahoma Division has received this e-mail and we are requesting that you accept and consider this public comment as part of the public involvement process for the proposed Oklahoma City Crosstown Boulevard Project.

Thank you,

Elizabeth A. Romero
Planning and Technical Services Team Leader
Federal Highway Administration – Oklahoma Division
5801 N. Broadway Extension, Suite 300
Oklahoma City, OK 73118
Office: 405-254-3300


From: Romero, Elizabeth (FHWA)
Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2014 11:28 AM
To: Marion Hutchison
Cc: Romero, Elizabeth (FHWA)
Subject: RE: Federal Funding for Boulevard

Mr. Hutchinson,

I received your phone call along with this e-mail and I am using this e-mail to respond to both.

All alternatives currently under consideration in the OKC Crosstown Boulevard environmental assessment (EA) are eligible for federal funding.

Thank you,

Elizabeth A. Romero
Planning and Technical Services Team Leader
Federal Highway Administration – Oklahoma Division
5801 N. Broadway Extension, Suite 300
Oklahoma City, OK 73118
Office: 405-254-3300


From: Marion Hutchison [mailto:mariohutch@sbcglobal.net]
Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2014 12:22 PM
To: Romero, Elizabeth (FHWA)
Subject: RE: Federal Funding for Boulevard

Ms. Romero:

I left you another message today concerning the question of the applicability of federal funding that I addressed in my previous email and that we discussed on the phone last week. Mr. Bob Kemper, Chair of Friends for a Better Boulevard, called me this morning to tell me that he had just met with ODOT Director Mike Patterson to discuss the Crosstown Boulevard project. As part of that discussion, Mr. Kemper asked Mr. Patterson about the extent to which ODOT can use federal funding for Alternative D. Mr. Patterson told Mr. Kemper that based on the original I-40 agreements with the FHWA that it was his understanding that federal funding only applies to work done specifically within the right-of-way of the original I-40 alignment and that federal money can’t be spent on anything outside that right-of-way, which would include a substantial amount of the work necessary for implementing Alternative D.

It would seem that any work necessary to implement Alternative D for the purposes of mitigating the environmental impacts of the relocation of the original I-40, including reestablishment of the street network in order to provide necessary access, connectivity and mobility in the affected area should qualify for federal funds regardless of whether or not it specifically lies within the original I-40 right-of-way.

Could you once again please clarify this issue for me. I would appreciate it if you would address my question directly, as opposed to forwarding it to ODOT, as it is clear what their position is on the issue. My concern is that they are relying on the intent of documents more than a decade old, and that due to the same change in conditions that precipitated the current additional Environmental Assessment work on the project, including the consideration of new alternatives, that there has also been a necessary change in the specifics of how the federal funding for the project may be applied.

This is an extremely important matter, as the determination of the extent of the applicability of federal funding to the various alternatives has a tremendous impact on the support given to those various alternatives by the public, City of Oklahoma City and ODOT.

At your earliest convenience, can you please let me know whether or not the federal funding for the boulevard project is applicable to various components of Alternative D that serve mitigation purposes and lie outside the footprint of the original I-40 right-of-way.

Thanks again for your assistance.

Marion Hutchison

Well and the real problem is, that certain key engineers at the city have propogated ODOT's pespective about being unable to spend funds outside of the original alignment. Propagated this perspective not only with many in the public, but also the City Council.

And as a result, there are several City Council members who do believe it, and it obviously may not even be true.

Today is the day! This is a critical opportunity to influence the project development process for the OKC Crosstown Boulevard project.

There have been some great postings and analyses written in the last few weeks. Just because you may have already submitted a comment doesn't mean you can't submit another one. For a couple of minutes of your time you can make sure that key decision makers and your political representatives are aware of these important issues. You can simply cut and paste any of the links below into a quick email and request that the issues raised in these postings be substantively addressed as part of the Environmental Assessment.

Send your email to:

ODOT: m-coordinator@odot.org
FHWA: elizabeth.romero@dot.gov
Mayor: mayor@okc.gov
your council person: ward(n)@okc.gov (e.g., if you live in Meg Salyer's ward, Ward 6, then email ward6@okc.gov)

The OKC Boulevard: Why We Choose Alternative D
http://www.betterblockokc.com/the-okc-boulevard-why-we-choose-alternative-d/

ODOT's Traffic Projections for the OKC Boulevard
http://www.betterblockokc.com/blvdtraffic/

How the OKC Boulevard Will Impact Commuters
http://www.betterblockokc.com/boulevardcommute/

New Visuals from ODOT
http://www.betterblockokc.com/new-visuals-from-odot/

More Questions than Answers on the Downtown Boulevard
http://www.newsok.com/more-questions-than-answers-on-the-downtown-boulevard/article/4747385

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

Design Changes Proposed for Downtown Boulevard
http://www.newsok.com/design-changes-proposed-for-downtown-boulevard/article/4845069

Analysis of the Current Alternative D for the Crosstown Boulevard Project
http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/alternated.pdf

Thank you for compiling all these unanswered questions for everyone to consider Southwest Aviator. All these issues and concerns have gone unanswered by ODOT for some reason. The Federal Highway Administration has once again exposed ODOT for misleading the public and city engineers for misleading elected city officials - federal funds CAN be used to improve California and 3rd Street to reconfigure them as dual boulevards AND to reconnect the street grid destroyed by the old I-40. This is clearly within reasonable expectation as mitigation for removing the old Crosstown freeway.

For everyone that still hopes to impact the final decision, this represents an opportunity to influence that decision even though we may not be a "stakeholder" as defined by a few city leaders. The environmental review process REQUIRES public concerns to be addressed in a substantive manner as SWA stated. This means they cannot legally blow off legitimate public concerns hoping to run out the clock. Every link SWA posted are legitimate public concerns ODOT has failed to address.

My suggestion is to simply copy and paste the links and other information in SWA's post in an email to ODOT and the FHWA asking them to address each of the concerns raised as required by NEPA. This will force ODOT to make a good faith effort (or at least get closer to one) in designing Alternative 'D' at the same level of detail and effort as their preferred alternative. Only after that is finally done can any objective evaluation be conducted to determine the best design for Oklahoma City.

Once a truly objective analysis is possible, I remain confident Alternative 'D' / "The Grid" will be proven far superior to anything ODOT or city engineers have presented both from a traffic capacity standpoint, but especially a development and walkability perspective. I encourage everyone who has any interest in this to keep making your voice heard - it has worked amazingly well over the last couple of years and we have accomplished much. Use today's opportunity to take the information SWA provided and demand answers from the public officials who are supposed to be working for the greatest public benefit; not just for a few "stakeholders".

Got a response from Eric Wenger today. Don't really know if it's automated or authentic but being that I emailed him before the "first" deadline, it may be real cause that's a long delay.

Got a response from Eric Wenger today. Don't really know if it's automated or authentic but being that I emailed him before the "first" deadline, it may be real cause that's a long delay.

I received one as well today.

Proceeding with care: Stockyards City merchants worry about downtown boulevard | The Journal Record (http://journalrecord.com/2014/07/11/proceeding-with-care-stockyards-city-merchants-worry-about-downtown-boulevard-general-news/)

So they weren't consulted for input?

No access here, can someone summarize their concerns?