A 25 MPH speed limit does absolutely no good if a street's visual cues tell people to drive 50. Witness Reno as it runs through Bricktown. The built environment should regulate a street's speed; not signs or law enforcement; ask Jeff Speck.

From that article:



I hope they keep that limit a few blocks to the west as well to keep the speeds down near the elementary.well, lower speed limit signs don't do anything. If they want to keep the speed limits lower, they need to make the lanes narrower, placed round-a-bouts, and add other features to encourage slower driving in the area. I personally think 25 is too low and would have at 30 or 35, as most big cities do, but that's me.

I suppose this is as close as we're going to get.

Why not have the bike lanes on the opposite side of the parallel spots? Is general OKC population too dumb and will park over it? Has there been any thought into having the concrete colored on the bike lane?

That article really emphasizes how much the Oklahoman didn't want to ruffle any feathers with the city or state. Lets just talk about a few fluff things and not point out that its still a raised highway disecting our city again besides 6 blocks of a wide boulevard that still creates a huge barrier.

Really dissappointing article.

Now, we are looking at parking spots, a bike lane, two lanes of traffic, a center median, two lanes of traffic, a bike lane and parking spots. If the parking spots and lanes are the narrowest allowed at nine feet, that would make the boulevard 63 feet wide, adding the bike lanes would make it closer to 70 feet. Just wanted to let you all know. Jeff Speck is infuriated right now...

With the ridiculous amount of turning lanes on this monstrosity, the whole point of a 4-lane boulevard is completely lost.

Now, we are looking at parking spots, a bike lane, two lanes of traffic, a center median, two lanes of traffic, a bike lane and parking spots. If the parking spots and lanes are the narrowest allowed at nine feet, that would make the boulevard 63 feet wide, adding the bike lanes would make it closer to 70 feet. Just wanted to let you all know. Jeff Speck is infuriated right now...
Honestly, I wish he had weighed in much earlier in the process. Might have been one of the few individuals who could have influenced this process. This thing was underway even when he did his study and recommendations. The train has left the station now, crying over spilled milk, etc., etc.

Public comments included in the EA report overwhelmingly supported restoring the grid. Check out Better Block OKC's great analysis: Environmental Assessment Assessment: What?s Next for OKC Boulevard | Better Block OKC (http://www.betterblockokc.com/okcblvdea/)

One cool graphic:
9378

Double Post...

Check out Better Block OKC's great analysis: Environmental Assessment Assessment: What?s Next for OKC Boulevard | Better Block OKC (http://www.betterblockokc.com/okcblvdea/)


Bravo, BBOKC!

I am curious how many people voted.

I am curious how many people voted.Also curious about the demographics.

I knew Alt D would be majority, the only people that cared enough to vote - were the ones that wanted Alt. D.

I said back a couple pages ago, and I will say it again - the fact that ODOT bragged about how successful public input was on the process and then in turn barely listens to it is the epitome of decision making around here.

The input process here is borderline therapy, which is clearly not going to those who need it.

This plan is awful and shows very little in the way of what this Boulevard was promised to be.

Can we not just tear it out or modify and redo it once it's done?

Serious question. It says the meeting on November 13 will be at the Bricktown Events Center. Is that the Chevy Events Center or the Crappy "Bricktown" Events Center at the truckstop on Reno and MLK?

Can we not just tear it out or modify and redo it once it's done?

After spending $39M and likely even more to remove the earthen mound portions.

What strikes me the most is the highway nature of the blvd between Classen and Walker.

I knew Alt D would be majority, the only people that cared enough to vote - were the ones that wanted Alt. D.

I said back a couple pages ago, and I will say it again - the fact that ODOT bragged about how successful public input was on the process and then in turn barely listens to it is the epitome of decision making around here.

"Ed-Zachary" . . . (exactly).
(The Developers Always Win . . . The Public Always Loses)
(the fix is always in before any negotiations begin) =)

After spending $39M and likely even more to remove the earthen mound portions.

What strikes me the most is the highway nature of the blvd between Classen and Walker.
Well, the state is spending the 39 mil... not the city, right? So if ODOT spent the money, the only extra money the city would have to spend is tearing it down. Then they can rebuild it to be walkable.

The input process here is borderline therapy, which is clearly not going to those who need it.

This plan is awful and shows very little in the way of what this Boulevard was promised to be.

"Bait and Switch" is an ancient and [less than] honourable technique.
Apparently now we have MasterBait and Switch.
(geez . . . at the very least one would think that people would have a basic, shared concept of roadways labeled "Boulevards" . . . especially TrafficPlanners.)

Not sure I would hold my breath expecting the city to tear down and rebuild a brand new road. We're only getting the current plan anyway because the powers that be in the city want it, and if they wanted something else we would be getting something else (or so I was told earlier in this thread when I pressed on it).

Well, the state is spending the 39 mil... not the city, right? So if ODOT spent the money, the only extra money the city would have to spend is tearing it down. Then they can rebuild it to be walkable.

It's still our taxpayer money... why waste it?

"Ed-Zachary" . . . (exactly).
(The Developers Always Win . . . The Public Always Loses)
(the fix is always in before any negotiations begin) =)

Developers certainly aren't winning with Alternative C. Alternative D would leave about 10 acres more of square blocks that would probably be handed over from ODOT ownership to OCURA RFP processes.

As I asked in another thread, what can be done now? Letters, attend meetings, protests?

ODOT clearly does not take citizens seriously. What would that take?

It's still our taxpayer money... why waste it?true

Can we not just tear it out or modify and redo it once it's done?

Or just do it right the first time. You know, the "fiscally responsible" thing to do.......... but you are likely right. You and my kids (if they stay here) will be stuck with fixing this and I bet the fix will look a lot like Alt D.

As I asked in another thread, what can be done now? Letters, attend meetings, protests?

ODOT clearly does not take citizens seriously. What would that take?

Well its probably a waste of time at this point. Don't have any support from the city and 60 percent of the population doesn't care one way or another.

Well, the state is spending the 39 mil... not the city, right? So if ODOT spent the money, the only extra money the city would have to spend is tearing it down. Then they can rebuild it to be walkable.

The city is just as eager to get this "highway" built just as much as ODOT. Its the city's consultant that it hired that came up with this current design.

I think the idea that 40% of the populace cares about which boulevard project we end up with is optimistic. I honestly doubt that 40% of the people here even know or care that a boulevard project is being discussed, much less care about the grid vs. freeway lite debate. The number of people who actually CARE is probably a single-digit percentile.

The majority of people who I talk to about this basically want another fast way to get out of downtown, to which I always reply, "What do you think I-40 is for?" "Yeah, but it is too far south..." "Six blocks?" Now, granted, most of these people live in NW OKC or Edmond and really don't care about downtown, they just work there and want to be able to get in and out of downtown as fast as possible.

^^^^^^^^^
Yep.

The issue I'm having with the decision is they keep citing commuters needing another way to get out of downtown during rush hour. I've been part of that traffic and it isn't that bad. I just don't understand their logic.

I've said this before. It appears the train has already left the station on this. ODOT could care less about walkability, placemaking, image, etc. They are concerned about one thing - quick and efficient movement of cars in and out of downtown. With that being fact, let them build this boulevard primarily for suburbanites. OKC should shift the focus to revamping Reno into the showcase urban boulevard so many have wanted this to be. Is that not a good idea?

As I asked in another thread, what can be done now? Letters, attend meetings, protests?

ODOT clearly does not take citizens seriously. What would that take?

I don't know. We've done the first two...a lot. There has been significant vocal opposition to the plan, but it has fallen on (mostly) deaf ears. ODOT and the City are in agreement on what they want, so I don't see any way that direction will change. Go to the meeting on the 13th and make your voice heard (but probably ignored).

Nobody has tried protesting, that I'm aware of. #OccupytheBoulevard, anyone? :)

I've said this before. It appears the train has already left the station on this. ODOT could care less about walkability, placemaking, image, etc. They are concerned about one thing - quick and efficient movement of cars in and out of downtown. With that being fact, let them build this boulevard primarily for suburbanites. OKC should shift the focus to revamping Reno into the showcase urban boulevard so many have wanted this to be. Is that not a good idea?

What's more frustrating to me is that they said they wanted to listen and build what the city wanted and whatever was best for the people of OKC. Then they did whatever the f#$k they wanted...

What's more frustrating to me is that they said they wanted to listen and build what the city wanted and whatever was best for the people of OKC. Then they did whatever the f#$k they wanted...

Well, "best for the people of OKC" could mean what's best for people who live at NW 178th and Rockwell.

Serious question. It says the meeting on November 13 will be at the Bricktown Events Center. Is that the Chevy Events Center or the Crappy "Bricktown" Events Center at the truckstop on Reno and MLK?

No one answered my question. I don't want to go to the wrong place. :)

No one answered my question. I don't want to go to the wrong place. :)

DATE: November 13, 2014
TIME: 5:00 PM - 7:30 PM
LOCATION: Chevy Bricktown Events Center
429 E. California
Oklahoma City, OK 73104

Public Hearing: 13th of November, 2014 (http://www.odot.org/meetings/a2014/141113/index.htm)

Thanks.

I've said this before. It appears the train has already left the station on this. ODOT could care less about walkability, placemaking, image, etc. They are concerned about one thing - quick and efficient movement of cars in and out of downtown. With that being fact, let them build this boulevard primarily for suburbanites. OKC should shift the focus to revamping Reno into the showcase urban boulevard so many have wanted this to be. Is that not a good idea?As far as I'm concerned, ODOT doesn't need to worry about walkability. They build highways. They need to stick to that. They don't need to be designing boulevards in cities.

As far as I'm concerned, ODOT doesn't need to worry about walkability. They build highways. They need to stick to that. They don't need to be designing boulevards in cities.

And I don't think they usually do, but this was part of the I-40 relocation and ODOT's money, so they had to have a hand in it.

As far as I'm concerned, ODOT doesn't need to worry about walkability. They build highways. They need to stick to that. They don't need to be designing boulevards in cities.

Last I checked "transportation" did not only mean highways.

Last I checked "transportation" did not only mean highways.never said it did. But I bet the majority of ODOT's construction is highways. I know they assist with city road projects, but that is just with funding and oversight, not design. I also think rail should be its own department.

never said it did. But I bet the majority of ODOT's construction is highways. I know they assist with city road projects, but that is just with funding and oversight, not design. I also think rail should be its own department.

Not going to argue what things should be, because I agree with you. Until the state splits things apart, ODOT is the only transportation agency for Oklahoma and should act like it encompasses all modes of transportation and not just highways.

Not going to argue what things should be, because I agree with you. Until the state splits things apart, ODOT is the only transportation agency for Oklahoma and should act like it encompasses all modes of transportation and not just highways.I understand.

The majority of people who I talk to about this basically want another fast way to get out of downtown, to which I always reply, "What do you think I-40 is for?" "Yeah, but it is too far south..." "Six blocks?" Now, granted, most of these people live in NW OKC or Edmond and really don't care about downtown, they just work there and want to be able to get in and out of downtown as fast as possible.

And that is exactly who ODOT engineers have in mind and that is who this boulevard is being built for. These are people who probably prefer driving from store to store within a strip center rather than walking. With ODOT involved, the idea that this was ever going to be the urbanists' boulevard was unrealistic.

I suppose this is as close as we're going to get.

Why not have the bike lanes on the opposite side of the parallel spots? Is general OKC population too dumb and will park over it? Has there been any thought into having the concrete colored on the bike lane?

I'm going to prepare some material in support of flip-flopping the bike lanes and parallel parking lanes. Just because you have bike lanes next to a freeway does not make that a safe or welcoming place to ride a bike.

Pardon my ignorance guys.. but I can't seem to find the plans for the option they are going with.. can someone direct me please.

Pardon my ignorance guys.. but I can't seem to find the plans for the option they are going with.. can someone direct me please.

So if I'm reading correctly they are going with Alternate C

City of Oklahoma City | Public Information & Marketing (http://www.okc.gov/okcblvd/)

The Oklahoma Department of Transportation isn’t quite ready yet to settle on the final plan for a crosstown boulevard into downtown Oklahoma City, at least not until a little more public feedback on Nov. 13.

Read more: ODOT, OKC seek input on crosstown boulevard | The Journal Record (http://journalrecord.com/2014/11/06/odot-okc-seek-input-on-crosstown-boulevard-general-news/#ixzz3IMnHRhJL)

The overwhelming majority of the people voicing their opinion have been in favor of Alt D. What else is there to discuss? The same people will be at the meetings again voicing their comments.

ODOT has already made up their mind and are now just waxing the PR train to make it look like there was all of these successful meetings with public input that aligns with their already-made decision.

Or is this just me?

I like the thought of D, but in reality, there are more people to consider than just the vocal urbanist. The boulevard needs to be a fit for all comers I think.

I like the thought of D, but in reality, there are more people to consider than just the vocal urbanist. The boulevard needs to be a fit for all comers I think.

Like who needs it? Are there people stuck downtown right now that can't get out without this boulevard? Is this boulevard going to dramatically change everyone's commute?

Like who needs it? Are there people stuck downtown right now that can't get out without this boulevard? Is this boulevard going to dramatically change everyone's commute?

Dramatically? No. I never said that.

I like the thought of D, but in reality, there are more people to consider than just the vocal urbanist. The boulevard needs to be a fit for all comers I think.

Part of the problem with any of the options trying to connect S 3rd to California is it really does not serve anyone well the ways they are designed. In most cases if you are moving in or out of the city it is still better to use i40, it blocks a lot of travel paths, manages to take up a lot of what could be valuable land while doing so and does not exactly help what develops adjacent to it between walker and western.

Dramatically? No. I never said that.

So then why can't this be fore the urbanists who live there? Why do we need to cater to employees that work downtown if it isn't going to do much to help them. They see little change but it can potentially harm the urban environment. Neutral for them, bad for everyone else. No one wins here.

So then why can't this be fore the urbanists who live there? Why do we need to cater to employees that work downtown if it isn't going to do much to help them. They see little change but it can potentially harm the urban environment. Neutral for them, bad for everyone else. No one wins here.

There are a hell of a lot more people commuting to and from downtown daily than the number who both live and work downtown, so to completely **** on that segment of the population is not fair either. All I said was I understand D and like the option, but in my measly opinion the better option is to make it work for all OKC citizens best you can. (by the way this isn't an endorsement of the current option C presented, just a general though).

There are a hell of a lot more people commuting to and from downtown daily than the number who both live and work downtown, so to completely **** on that segment of the population is not fair either. All I said was I understand D and like the option, but in my measly opinion the better option is to make it work for all OKC citizens best you can. (by the way this isn't an endorsement of the current option C presented, just a general though).

How is it ****ting on that group? Are they begging for another way to get into downtown? Is their current commute extremely burdensome right now?

No and no. Honestly, you and I both know this that probably 90% of the people working down there are going home each night to their hood don't even know what's going on downtown (or the Boulevard for that matter) other than it's "the place they work." They are the silent majority in this argument, even though they aren't really arguing (since ODOT is apparently doing it for them).

What I'm saying is, you're never going to get every employee downtown to live downtown, and with continued growth expected in the core, you're going to get both an increase in downtown residents and most likely commuting employees as well. How does the grid handle that? Maybe fine (I don't have the time to read traffic studies...maybe I should shut up then), I don't know. When we start getting the infill we all want down there, would the grid be so jammed that then everyone is complaining? Just questions man.

The Oklahoma Department of Transportation isn’t quite ready yet to settle on the final plan for a crosstown boulevard into downtown Oklahoma City, at least not until a little more public feedback on Nov. 13.

Read more: ODOT, OKC seek input on crosstown boulevard | The Journal Record (http://journalrecord.com/2014/11/06/odot-okc-seek-input-on-crosstown-boulevard-general-news/#ixzz3IMnHRhJL)

Here is the full article:

ODOT, OKC seek input on crosstown boulevard

By: Brian Brus The Journal RecordNovember 6, 2014

OKLAHOMA CITY – The Oklahoma Department of Transportation isn’t quite ready yet to settle on the final plan for a crosstown boulevard into downtown Oklahoma City, at least not until a little more public feedback on Nov. 13.

The department and the Oklahoma City municipal government, in cooperation with the Federal Highway Administration, have scheduled a public meeting to present findings of an environmental assessment for the Oklahoma City Boulevard that will replace the old Interstate 40, which now runs closer to the Oklahoma River. The meeting will also provide an opportunity for residents to tell officials which alternative they prefer in the final plan.

The meeting will be from 5 p.m. to 7:30 p.m. at the Chevy Bricktown Events Center downtown, 429 E. California Ave., department spokesman Cole Hackett said.

It’s been about 10 years since city and state officials began considering what would become of the land left vacant when I-40 shifted south. Early discussions were based on the premise that I-40 was primarily a state department expense and that development in its wake would fall to the municipal government. State investment was justified by designing the boulevard as an emergency bypass traffic route, a plan that was still identified online Thursday at City Hall’s website.

That plan, proposed by the Transportation Department in accordance with the FHA’s guidelines, has since been modified from six lanes to four, Hackett said. As the department has worked through details such as on-ramp placement and grade level with city officials, the focus of state involvement has shifted slightly.

“It’s not necessarily a backup thoroughfare,” he said. “The purpose has always been to reconnect downtown with I-40. With that in mind, we want to make sure that reconnection matches Oklahoma City’s goals and objectives for that area.”

The state’s overall cost of the project, including connections to I-40, is about $80 million, Hackett said. Some of those funds have already been spent on the connections on the east and west ends of the planned boulevard.

Information on the project and the environmental assessment can be viewed on the department’s website at Oklahoma Dept. of Transportation (http://www.odot.org). That assessment clarifies the project’s purpose and need, the different design alternatives discussed in previous meetings, and the currently preferred design, Alternative C.

The city intends to use the boulevard as an anchor for economic development and link to the downtown and new central park. Hackett said that until the environmental assessment and public feedback phase is complete, work cannot progress.