Aren't the traffic circle and the elevated portion the same thing/issue?

I don't think so. I think the traffic circle was a response to the closing of some intersections that ODOT deemed to close together.

Neither one is going to happen (i.e. circle and removal of the elevated portion). One thing that seems to be forgotten in this discussion is that the boulevard is also an alternate entryway to downtown from the west. Check out the I-40 discussion and you'll see a lot of complaining about the scarcity of downtown exits. The new boulevard will help that, but not if there are multiple stops and/or circles before you get to downtown. Unfortunately, this is an either/or situation. You can't have it both ways.

That is the suburban view of this yes. The urban view is to create a place worth living that doesn't require the automobile in order to fully function as an adult. Take the car away from my suburban neighbor and she will have all the mobilty and self reliance of my 11 year old son.

Neither one is going to happen (i.e. circle and removal of the elevated portion).

Why do you think that?

We agree that the elevated embankment from Penn to Western is probably too much to ask for (or justify) at this time. However, that can easily be removed (essentially an earthen dike with an asphalt road on top) and the street grid restored as deemed necessary by future generations.

However, the elevated concrete bridge over the needed direct connection to so many key western downtown streets almost ensures that the area will never properly develop.

Regarding it not happening, based on the response we have already gotten from the Feds and the reaction from some of the key people involved, I do think that a "at grade" design between Western and Oklahoma is something that can be won.

But it is going to take the public continuing to write Mr. Mendez and supporting our City Council in standing up to ODOT.

Neither one is going to happen (i.e. circle and removal of the elevated portion). One thing that seems to be forgotten in this discussion is that the boulevard is also an alternate entryway to downtown from the west. Check out the I-40 discussion and you'll see a lot of complaining about the scarcity of downtown exits. The new boulevard will help that, but not if there are multiple stops and/or circles before you get to downtown. Unfortunately, this is an either/or situation. You can't have it both ways.

You make it sound like we've committed to having a giant motor speedway tear through the middle of downtown or something. Please refresh my memory on any commitment to that degree which this city may have made in the past, and how that commitment came to be and who it was made by.

Otherwise, there is no reason that we can't have input into these plans to push for a better boulevard.

Neither one is going to happen (i.e. circle and removal of the elevated portion). One thing that seems to be forgotten in this discussion is that the boulevard is also an alternate entryway to downtown from the west. Check out the I-40 discussion and you'll see a lot of complaining about the scarcity of downtown exits. The new boulevard will help that, but not if there are multiple stops and/or circles before you get to downtown. Unfortunately, this is an either/or situation. You can't have it both ways.

What if you're a pedestrian who wants to access the park, the skydance bridge, the Farmer's Market and any new development that ultimately occurs south of the boulevard? You can take I-40 or Reno if you want to get through downtown quickly, IMO. If you want a 25 mph drive and/or want to walk along the boulevard (hopefully in a landscaped, sidewalked center median), then the Boulevard is for you. Why is why turning it into a large scale model of one of the kiddy car motor speedway toys makes no sense.

Aren't the traffic circle and the elevated portion the same thing/issue?

yes they are ... currently from lee to just west of western is designed to be a big bridge the traffic circle would replace that area and keep it at grade ...


from my point of view i don't care about having a traffic circle ... i just don't want a bridge in that area ...

What if you're a pedestrian who wants to access the park, the skydance bridge, the Farmer's Market and any new development that ultimately occurs south of the boulevard?

To predict the answer you'll get from the poster you quoted: Well you had better own a car or you're SOL.

To predict the answer you'll get from the poster you quoted: Well you had better own a car or you're SOL.

Wrong again, Sparty. I wasn't passing judgment on the traffic circle, I was just telling you what is going to happen and part of the reasoning behind it(btw, not my reasoning but that of my sources). As for traffic circles, I happen to like them, but they are very pedestrian unfriendly. At least at a traffic light a pedestrian has a protected crossing.

A lot of this just comes down to money, not ODOT wanting to create a non-pedestrian friendly thoroughfare.

I was just telling you what is going to happen and part of the reasoning behind it (btw, not my reasoning but that of my sources.)

As pleasing as that may sound (to be in "the know" from your "sources"), I doubt very seriously that they are used to direct contact by large groups of citizens contacting the Federal Government directly who hold the final approvals or an organized, intelligent opposition.

Their vulnernerability, and they know it, is that they do not have their final environmental document sign off.

We know it too.

Usually these projects are too late in the game to change or stop. This one is not, despite their spin (that is making it from them through you to this blog).

This makes me think of Jane Jacobs (Bob Kemper) versus Robert Moses (Gary Ridley).

I'm angry about ODOT and their recalcitrance over regional rail issues. The fact that they had people showing up at our meetings professing to not know our MAPS streetcar runs on steel rails or electricity is just insulting to me and everyone volunteering their time. The fact they new nothing about a Hub Study they helped pay for galls me.

We need them to be a partner. Not a hindrance. I'm 30. I plan to be here or be involved for awhile. Many of their decisions are thus far simple-minded, arrogant, and completely insensitive to the new generation that will have to maintain their bad urban designs for the coming decades. They are completely unaware of where this city is going or where it's concerns are.

Out of touch.

If we wanted IM Pei ideas again we could pull him out of retirement.

I suspect no matter what happens regarding the roundabout, we will end up with a better OKC Boulevard as a result of informational exposure and resulting public debate.

I'll guarantee you that the streetcar will be done right at a minimum.

Wrong again, Sparty. I wasn't passing judgment on the traffic circle, I was just telling you what is going to happen and part of the reasoning behind it(btw, not my reasoning but that of my sources). As for traffic circles, I happen to like them, but they are very pedestrian unfriendly. At least at a traffic light a pedestrian has a protected crossing.

A lot of this just comes down to money, not ODOT wanting to create a non-pedestrian friendly thoroughfare.

I think you should look into a different crystal ball.

Can you explain how traffic circles are unconducive to pedestrian safety whereas they have pretty positive ratings for just that? Also help us see the light on how this will be more expensive than flyover lanes without a single cost study even being undertaken.

I am astounded by your powers of assumption.

What people aren't realizing is that the current plan is an $80 million boulevard. That is still a very expensive boulevard. Flyover lanes and earthen ramps are very expensive, even if you don't want them. The assumption that the less desirable, the less cost is fraught with risk. Sometimes you can identify an option that is so much less desirable without representing worthwhile savings.

I think you should look into a different crystal ball.

Can you explain how traffic circles are unconducive to pedestrian safety whereas they have pretty positive ratings for just that? Also help us see the light on how this will be more expensive than flyover lanes without a single cost study even being undertaken.

I am astounded by your powers of assumption.

This from today's article by Steve Lackmeyer in the Oklahoman:

The letter notes a roundabout would not fit within the existing right of way vacated by the old highway, would require additional property acquisition, business displacement and utility relocation, and need “extensive planning” that would need to be re-evaluated by the Federal Highway Administration.

“Combined,” Evans wrote, “these issues would add multiple years and tens of millions of dollars of cost to the project and delay the completion of the reconnection of downtown Oklahoma City to the Interstate. The additional cost would not be funded through ODOT.”

I personally like the idea of a roundabout at that spot but given the extra time and money that would needed to make it happen I don't see that coming to pass. Even without "sources" it doesn't take a crystal ball to see that a roundabout will not be built. It just comes down to time and, more importantly, money. If you are proposing a funding source along with your roundabout then I'm totally behind you.

As for the safety issue, I am admittedly no expert and haven't read any studies (but would like to if you can post links). I am just basing my opinion on personal experience. If you are talking about roundabouts in residential neighborhoods then I agree with you but I am certainly glad that they have underground access to the Arc de Trioumphe because it would be unreachable otherwise. I realize that your proposal isn't the equivalent to La Place D'etoile but it is still a four lane boulevard and will be very busy. Thus my assertion that it wouldn't be pedestrian friendly.

Note, that letter is from ODOT to the city. Since when does a road on the ground cost "tens of millions more" versus a elevated bridge spanning multiple blocks?

And yes, the scale of the roundabout would affect wheter it encroached outside the exiting right-of-way. What they say would be necessary is excessively large, I warrant intentionally to make such a concept appear less viable.

If you are proposing a funding source along with your roundabout then I'm totally behind you.

There is $15 million in the 2007 City GO bond to deal with aspects of the ODOT plan that the city may not like. This project falls perfectly within the parameters of what that money is for.

Article link. It was on the front page of the early edition and Sundays print.

http://newsok.com/critics-attack-oklahoma-city-boulevard-designs-say-elevation-will-hamper-core-to-shore-development/article/3692562

Article link. It was on the front page of the early edition and Sundays print.

http://newsok.com/critics-attack-oklahoma-city-boulevard-designs-say-elevation-will-hamper-core-to-shore-development/article/3692562

You cannot read the article unless you're a subscriber. I guess the Oklahoman has gone "behind the wall." Too bad they chose this story, as people aren't likely to read it.

Can Steve arrange for Pete to run the full story?

I can get to the link on a mobile device...

You cannot read the article unless you're a subscriber. I guess the Oklahoman has gone "behind the wall." Too bad they chose this story, as people aren't likely to read it.

Can Steve arrange for Pete to run the full story?

No. But everyone can read it tomorrow. The Oklahoman has not gone behind a pay wall - yet. We are giving subscribers first access to what's deemed premium content posted at www.oklahoman.com. An online subscription costs $12 a month (I am a paying subscriber myself). Not really that horrible a price. Those who don't want to subscribe can go the corner store and pick up a copy of the paper, which has maps and other info that won't be included with the NewsOK version. The Oklahoman is the only major newspaper in Oklahoma that hasn't gone to a full paywall. The Journal Record has long had a paywall, ditto for the Tulsa World & Lawton Constitution. Also ditto for the Wall Street Journal, New York Times and Dallas Morning News. The Oklahoman's approach, right now, is not to have a paywall, but rather to reward subscribers by giving them first access and making others wait. As for the mobile access - I suspect that's a glitch that will soon be addressed...

Why are we even doing a boulevard, again?

There is $15 million in the 2007 City GO bond to deal with aspects of the ODOT plan that the city may not like. This project falls perfectly within the parameters of what that money is for.

This is only partially true. There was money set aside for for street improvements, but that was for a much broader area than just the boulevard and I've been told that most of that has been spent on Project 180.

If that is true, it hasn't been even remotely disclosed as of yet to Council members or the general public.

I would suspect though, that there would be enough funds to properly study the issue.

Either way, your comments, if accurate, demonstrate the huge need for more disclosure about what is really going on.

And yes, the scale of the roundabout would affect wheter it encroached outside the exiting right-of-way. What they say would be necessary is excessively large, I warrant intentionally to make such a concept appear less viable.

I must have missed in Steve's article where ODOT said what the right of way needs for a roundabout would be. Could you point that out?

When you say excessively large, do you mean larger than the 18.5 square blocks which are shown on the Market Circle renderings?

Interestingly enough, the Horn Trader building would be toast under just about any roundabout scenario.

Interestingly enough, the Horn Trader building would be toast under just about any roundabout scenario. The Horn Trader location would not be affected as the Rounabout woud be more to the south and westt. Our proposed Roundabouts is not as large as a traffic circle, requiring little additional ROW acquisition and little disruption of business.

Nm

I just don't see why they have to keep the earthen embankment all the way to Western. Its not like they can't bring it down to at grade after passing over Reno with the west interchange flyover connectors.

The Horn Trader location would not be affected as the Rounabout woud be more to the south and east. Our proposed Roundabouts is not as large as a traffic circle, requiring little additional ROW acquisition and little disruption of business.

So the cuatrodemayo rendition is in the trashcan? What's the latest?

Nope. Not at all. But any drawing right now that, whether it's ODOT's chicken scratch, or a volunteer's dreaming is going to be conceptual until there is a full assessment done of the realities on the ground.

Cuatro's concepts illustrate what "thinking outside the box" could potentially do for our community.

I like Horn Traders, and I'm sure that with the right sensitivity to "the approaches" and the exact location and size of the roundabout scaled appropriately, an ideal design can be found.

To be clear, the roundabout version we have proposed is conceptual in nature. There are many flaws and other issues that would have to be addressed should idea ever get off the ground (pun intended). At that point there will be discussion about which streets feed into the roundabout, how wide it is, etc. We would need to take the time to meet with all stakeholders and the public and go through a significant design process. The Market Circle is intended to be a visual aid to communicate an idea to our leaders and the public. It is by no means the perfect solution, but instead one suggested alternative to an elevated boulevard.

Edit: Yes, what Bob said.

I just don't see why they have to keep the earthen embankment all the way to Western. Its not like they can't bring it down to at grade after passing over Reno with the west interchange flyover connectors.

With the convergence of Western, Classen, Exchange, Reno and California a flyover bridge or a circle/roundabout is the only solution. There would be way too many intersections in a short span for ground level boulevard.

In many cities, a "Fivepoints" area was a key location for early development, and a lot of them are experiencing a resurgence. "Little Five" in Atlanta is one of my favorites.

I just don't see why they have to keep the earthen embankment all the way to Western. Its not like they can't bring it down to at grade after passing over Reno with the west interchange flyover connectors.

If we were going to do that it would have made more sense to just build the ramp directly to Reno. Keeping everything at grade would just slow down all those cross streets and the boulevard. Building nothing at all would be better then doing that.

In many cities, a "Fivepoints" area was a key location for early development, and a lot of them are experiencing a resurgence. "Little Five" in Atlanta is one of my favorites.

Okc could have it's 9 points area.

"City Council members only recently learned that the 80 million Boulevard would be more elevated then previously thought..."

ODOT had this map floating for several years now even before construction on the interstate started. http://www.okladot.state.ok.us/newsmedia/i40-okc/maps/20050630a_Corridor-Aerial.pdf

It was pretty obvious what ODOT had in mind. Now ODOT has "time leverage" on their side since most people just now figured out what is going on.

If we were going to do that it would have made more sense to just build the ramp directly to Reno. Keeping everything at grade would just slow down all those cross streets and the boulevard. Building nothing at all would be better then doing that.

It looks like the clock is ticking pretty quickly on this, as according to Steve's article, the Penn to Western section lets to Contract next month.

The Horn Trader location would not be affected as the Rounabout woud be more to the south and westt. Our proposed Roundabouts is not as large as a traffic circle, requiring little additional ROW acquisition and little disruption of business.

Still looking for your proposed roundabout that "requires little additional ROW acquisition and little disruption of business."

Not possible.

[QUOTE=jn1780;555452 It was pretty obvious what ODOT had in mind. Now ODOT has "time leverage" on their side since most people just now figured out what is going on.[/QUOTE]

City Council and you folks sound as bad as the HH residents and the development of "The Edge".

This is absurd. It's clear ODOT has learned nothing from the development disaster that was I-40. But that's not surprising. The biggest benefit to removing the old Crosstown bridge was that it would remove the unnatural barrier between downtown and the Core to Shore area. That barrier caused blight and hindered business development. Now they want to repeat the exact same mistake. It's almost unbelievable.

They say it will take more money and a couple more years if they were to do a roundabout. I'd prefer to spend the time and money right now to get the damn thing right, rather than build another failure that will last for another 50 years.

"City Council members only recently learned that the 80 million Boulevard would be more elevated then previously thought..."

It was pretty obvious what ODOT had in mind. Now ODOT has "time leverage" on their side since most people just now figured out what is going on.

Actually, they don't. They don't have their final environmental document as they have no final plans, particularly for the areas of controversy.

Regarding the City Council, if you think that individuals who are paid $12,000 a year, are going to give up their own personal business time, to scour every public project on their own, then your in a different place my friend.

Buffalo Bill, regarding "Not possible" OKC has pioneered property acquisition and relocation in Urban Renewal and MAPS. For the small additional area necessary, we see very few conflicts of which most can elegantly be solved.

ODOT builds by convention. You should know because your enmeshed in their conventionality process. But this is ultimately a city street. We have a fundamental right to have a say in how it is built.

City Council and you folks sound as bad as the HH residents and the development of "The Edge".

The Edge involved plans that were reported repeatedly in local media, including the density that HH argued they were surprised by. I will say this: I've covered this project repeatedly. I dare anyone to find mention of the boulevard being elevated in any of my stories or reporting any other news outlet. If you can find such public discussion as occurred with The Edge, then I can see the logic in your comparison. If not, I'm confused....

Actually, they don't. They don't have their final environmental document as they have no final plans, particularly for the areas of controversy.

Regarding the City Council, if you think that individuals who are paid $12,000 a year, are going to give up their own personal business time, to scour every public project on their own, then your in a different place my friend.

Buffalo Bill, regarding "Not possible" OKC has pioneered property acquisition and relocation in Urban Renewal and MAPS. For the small additional area necessary, we see very few conflicts of which most can elegantly be solved.

ODOT builds by convention. You should know because your enmeshed in their conventionality process. But this is ultimately a city street. We have a fundamental right to have a say in how it is built.

They do have their R.O.D.

One would think that Council and other interested parties, while not scouring every public project, would pay more attention to a project of this magnitude. $600M. Will totally change the dynamic of the city, however many years of construction time, etc. Couch, Wenger, Cornett, etc knew about it. Now everyone else is pleading ignorance? Give me a break. Weak.

Now this isn't to say that ODOT won't do what's right. They will work with the city to give them what they want. If you have something that shows how Horn Trader isn't dozer bait, put it out there. Likewise, if you can show how a roundabout can be built within existing R/w, show it.

Also, I'm still waiting for:

I must have missed in Steve's article where ODOT said what the right of way needs for a roundabout would be. Could you point that out?

When you say excessively large, do you mean larger than the 18.5 square blocks which are shown on the Market Circle renderings?

The Edge involved plans that were reported repeatedly in local media, including the density that HH argued they were surprised by. I will say this: I've covered this project repeatedly. I dare anyone to find mention of the boulevard being elevated in any of my stories or reporting any other news outlet. If you can find such public discussion as occurred with The Edge, then I can see the logic in your comparison. If not, I'm confused....

Maybe you missed this. EIS has a very public comment portion.

http://www.40forward.com/resources/html_versions/volume_ii.aspx

More specifically:

Reconstructing and maintaining part of the old Crosstown as a boulevard for improved downtown access. It will include some elevated portions as agreed with the City of Oklahoma City.

Aw Steve, you're not confused. You're just being nice.

On my part, in truth I never paid a lick of attention to the western end of the blvd project. Only when folks started kicking about a circle or roundabout was I finally clued into that end was scheduled to remain elevated ... absent some loud and strong work, and perhaps even in spite of such work. Luck to the alternative folks. I fear they'll need a bucket of it.

1. A Record of Decision is not a final environmental document.

2. One would think ODOT would have made a presentation to update our city council, particularly the newly elected members on an $85 million project that they/we will own. (The last one was nearly three years ago).

3. Sure they will build "what the city wants" if our Council is unified and not believing your negative spin.

4. You'll be waiting awhile. We're not roundabout engineers. We would suggest that the city hire someone with significant experience in designed them (not ODOT) and properly vet what appears to be a "common sense solution". But there is plenty of information that suggests that one will work within the space available.

5. Market Circle is an idea to inspire people. It can be done more efficiently.

Maybe you missed this. EIS has a very public comment portion.

http://www.40forward.com/resources/html_versions/volume_ii.aspx

More specifically:

Reconstructing and maintaining part of the old Crosstown as a boulevard for improved downtown access. It will include some elevated portions as agreed with the City of Oklahoma City.

Nowhere in there does it say there will be an elevated portion in the area currently being debated. We've known there would be an elevated portion on the east side (and your quote still doesn't even say that), but the elevated portion on the west side is a surprise to most people.

Finally, what is so difficult for you to understand that the Market Circle rendering is a concept only, mean to inspire discussion, rather than serve as a set-in-stone blueprint? You keep referencing that drawing as if they proposed it to be built exactly like the rendering, rather than as a method to get discussion going about other possibilities.

Luck to the alternative folks. I fear they'll need a bucket of it.

Thanks, we're volunteers. Amazing that people like Buffallo Bill defend mega-organizations like ODOT, with unlimited resources, crying that citizens who care about their neighborhoods and how their tax money is spent as irrelevant obstructionists.

I can tell you despite his emphasis on "the heavy hand" winning, that hand has been bitten hard. Ever here of a "writ of mandamus". Well it's not out of the question. There are a few heavy tools in the box.

The best thing that everyone can do to help is-

1. Write the Federal Highway Administration, Victor Mendez 1200 SE New Jersey Ave. Washington, D.C. 20590 or email victor.mendez@dot.gov and state "I request a public process and for ODOT to provide a range of alternatives".

2. Contact your City Councillor and let them know what you think about all of this.

Thanks, we're volunteers. Amazing that people like Buffallo Bill defend mega-organizations like ODOT, with unlimited resources, crying that citizens who care about their neighborhoods and how their tax money is spent as irrelevant obstructionists.

I can tell you despite his emphasis on "the heavy hand" winning, that hand has been bitten hard. Ever here of a "writ of mandamus". Well it's not out of the question. There are a few heavy tools in the box.

Not defending ODOT. When the BS meter pegs regarding things you state as fact, it needs to be pointed out. Stop making things up on the fly. It does your group no good. Put something out there that is tangible and doable. Get this thing done without resorting to unfounded allegations. Don't do a disservice to this effort.

They do have their R.O.D.

One would think that Council and other interested parties, while not scouring every public project, would pay more attention to a project of this magnitude. $600M. Will totally change the dynamic of the city, however many years of construction time, etc. Couch, Wenger, Cornett, etc knew about it. Now everyone else is pleading ignorance? Give me a break. Weak.

Now this isn't to say that ODOT won't do what's right. They will work with the city to give them what they want. If you have something that shows how Horn Trader isn't dozer bait, put it out there. Likewise, if you can show how a roundabout can be built within existing R/w, show it.

Also, I'm still waiting for:

I must have missed in Steve's article where ODOT said what the right of way needs for a roundabout would be. Could you point that out?

When you say excessively large, do you mean larger than the 18.5 square blocks which are shown on the Market Circle renderings?

I've been asking for information about the boulevard designs for two years. Each time I was told it wasn't designed yet, they had nothing to show me. I inquired quite a bit, and I can't recall a single moment where I heard or saw it would be elevated past Western Avenue.

Not defending ODOT. When the BS meter pegs regarding things you state as fact, it needs to be pointed out. Stop making things up on the fly. It does your group no good. Put something out there that is tangible and doable. Get this thing done without resorting to unfounded allegations. Don't do a disservice to this effort.

It's not BS. We want disclosure. We want options. We want a presentation directly from them. The "flyover" is the obvious issue of controversy. But what about sidewalks, trees, bicycle lanes, landscaping, and transit integration?

What is the roadway made of and will it hold up or will the city end up with an albatross? Is it made up of long-term material that we won't have to worry about for a while?

The roundabout debate has been stealing the show, but this is a much broader issue that ODOT has disclosed little on.

This is absurd. It's clear ODOT has learned nothing from the development disaster that was I-40. But that's not surprising. The biggest benefit to removing the old Crosstown bridge was that it would remove the unnatural barrier between downtown and the Core to Shore area. That barrier caused blight and hindered business development. Now they want to repeat the exact same mistake. It's almost unbelievable.

They say it will take more money and a couple more years if they were to do a roundabout. I'd prefer to spend the time and money right now to get the damn thing right, rather than build another failure that will last for another 50 years.

ODOT plans on movement of traffic, city development is neither their priority or area of expertise. The closest planing for they do for a city is noise management.

With the convergence of Western, Classen, Exchange, Reno and California a flyover bridge or a circle/roundabout is the only solution. There would be way too many intersections in a short span for ground level boulevard.

Hence leading into envisioned traffic circle.


If we were going to do that it would have made more sense to just build the ramp directly to Reno. Keeping everything at grade would just slow down all those cross streets and the boulevard. Building nothing at all would be better then doing that.

That would ultimately be better than ODOT's current plans.

Maybe you missed this. EIS has a very public comment portion.

http://www.40forward.com/resources/html_versions/volume_ii.aspx

More specifically:

Reconstructing and maintaining part of the old Crosstown as a boulevard for improved downtown access. It will include some elevated portions as agreed with the City of Oklahoma City.

No, I didn't miss that at all. Back then, it was my understanding, and that of others, that the elevated portions would be the segment that didn't need to be torn down - the roadway between Agnew and Western Avenue. I'm not arguing for or against it being elevated after Western. But as a reporter who has extensively covered this project, it is dishonest to say there has been a lot of public reporting and disclosure on it being elevated east of Western Avenue.

No, I didn't miss that at all. Back then, it was my understanding, and that of others, that the elevated portions would be the segment that didn't need to be torn down - the roadway between Agnew and Western Avenue. I'm not arguing for or against it being elevated after Western. But as a reporter who has extensively covered this project, it is dishonest to say there has been a lot of public reporting and disclosure on it being elevated east of Western Avenue.
Maybe it's just me, but when I read that the "boulevard" was following the old crosstown alignment, my first thought was, how the hell do they plan on dealing with the intersections of Western, Classen, Reno, Shartel, SW2nd and Lee in such close proximity? It was immediately answered by elevated section, ie bridge.

xx

Bill, are you connected with ODOT or its engineers, contractors? If so, maybe you can help me understand better why my request for an update on the boulevard design two years ago was met with a response of "it's not designed yet."

Maybe it's just me, but when I read that the "boulevard" was following the old crosstown alignment, my first thought was, how the hell do they plan on dealing with the intersections of Western, Classen, Reno, Shartel, SW2nd and Lee in such close proximity? It was immediately answered by elevated section, ie bridge.

And was your second thought, hey, it's not a boulevard anymore, it's a flyover?

^^ Well said Sid. To say the least, the grassroots opposition to just another Crosstown highway when a boulevard was promised has struck a nerve with ODOT.

You have to be careful here. Some people see a rendering or a conceptual drawing and take it as a contract with the people, legally binding and fully practical. :) /sarcasm

Since there is no design done yet the best we do have are concepts. Market Circle is very impressive but I think ODOT's final at-grade concept is the simplest:

From Figure 3.4, Preferred Alternative on page 3-17 of the Final Environmental Impact Statement November 2001 [emphasis added] (http://www.40forward.com/pdfs/feis/05.pdf):

1871

Since there is no design done yet the best we do have are concepts. Market Circle is very impressive but I think ODOT's final at-grade concept is the simplest:

From Figure 3.4, Preferred Alternative on page 3-17 of the Final Environmental Impact Statement November 2001 [emphasis added] (http://www.40forward.com/pdfs/feis/05.pdf):

1871

I would be quite content if they just stayed with that plan.