I think their at grade plan would have been fine. At least it would not be just a newer barrier to development. That drawing looks pretty decent and would at least create the possibility of improving the boulevard aesthetics in the future. The flyover design is worst possible end state for redevelopment and the streetcar system's possible future expansion. If ODOT would concentrate on that design AND cooperate with the city to integrate the streetcar into the plan, I think most people would be pretty satisfied.

(But I really like the conceptual drawings CuatrodeMayo gave us that sparked our imagination of what could be.)

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


This alternative provides a ten-lane facility approximately 2,200 feet south of the existing I- 40 alignment and involves converting the existing I-40 facility to a downtown business route. This business route would maintain the current at-grade freeway from Agnew to Western Avenues and bridge structure from Western Avenue to west of Walker Avenue and reconstruct the existing I-40 facility from west of Walker to I-235 as an at-grade six-lane boulevard with at-grade intersections at the downtown cross streets.

Sneaky fine print. Sould be noted though that the drawing doesn't match what they put in words. Pretty deceptive if you ask me.

Anyway, what I meant earlier by time leverage is what do you think the general mass of people who are addicted to roads going to say when ODOT tells them alternatives will cause a delay and more money?

Its an uphill battle on the political front.

It was interesting that a couple times the distances between the streets on the west end might for unmanageable intersections, though they will only be slightly shorter in a few places than the ones on the east end. Granted if people don't stop at the stop lines it might make some of the left turns a hassle.

I'm hearing there are worries that a lawsuit could be filed that would delay this even more than a redesign would....

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."

Contractor who pays attention. It wasn't / hasn't been designed, however the intent on what was planned has been around for a long time:

This alternative provides a ten-lane facility approximately 2,200 feet south of the existing I- 40 alignment and involves converting the existing I-40 facility to a downtown business route. This business route would maintain the current at-grade freeway from Agnew to Western Avenues and bridge structure from Western Avenue to west of Walker Avenue and reconstruct the existing I-40 facility from west of Walker to I-235 as an at-grade six-lane boulevard with at-grade intersections at the downtown cross streets.

Contractor who pays attention. It wasn't / hasn't been designed, however the intent on what was planned has been around for a long time:

This alternative provides a ten-lane facility approximately 2,200 feet south of the existing I- 40 alignment and involves converting the existing I-40 facility to a downtown business route. This business route would maintain the current at-grade freeway from Agnew to Western Avenues and bridge structure from Western Avenue to west of Walker Avenue and reconstruct the existing I-40 facility from west of Walker to I-235 as an at-grade six-lane boulevard with at-grade intersections at the downtown cross streets.

You are referencing part of Section 3.5 Preferred Alternative on pages 3.15 of the Final EIS (http://www.40forward.com/pdfs/feis/05.pdf). That full section (on pages 3.15 and 3.16) reads:


3.5 Preferred Alternative
As a result of the Tier-Two evaluation, the ODOT selected Alternative D as the locally preferred
alternative because:

· This alternative provides a ten-lane facility approximately 2,200 feet south of the existing I-
40 alignment and involves converting the existing I-40 facility to a downtown business route.
This business route would maintain the current at-grade freeway from Agnew to Western
Avenues and bridge structure from Western Avenue to west of Walker Avenue and
reconstruct the existing I-40 facility from west of Walker to I-235 as an at-grade six-lane
boulevard with at-grade intersections at the downtown cross streets.
· Alternative D provides the best access to downtown Oklahoma City and Bricktown.
· Full interchanges are proposed at Shields Boulevard and Western Avenue.
· The proposed I-40 facility will be designed for 70-mph and consists of at-grade and semidepressed
sections.
· The overall cost is lower, including user costs and construction costs. The estimated cost
(1998 dollars) (right-of-way/relocation and construction cost) is $236 million. The net user
cost over a 30 year life cycle is a $35 million benefit.
· The project's five to seven year construction period is the shortest of the three build
alternatives.
· Construction activities will least affect traffic, resulting in less disruption to existing
businesses and employees.
· The proposed facility will carry the design year traffic while providing additional service for
both through and local traffic.

Additionally, Alternative D would use an existing transportation corridor rather than acquiring all
proposed additional right-of-way from non-transportation land uses or local-level streets and
roadways. Alternative D involves acquiring an estimated 55 acres of existing zoned land use
(excluding vacant land) for additional right-of-way. Of these 55 acres, seven acres are
residential land use, one acre is commercial land use, and 47 acres are industrial land use.

The Alternative D alignment is shown in Figure 3-4 with the typical sections shown in Figures 3-
5 and 3-6. While Alternative D is the locally preferred alternative, a final selection will occur only
after taking testimony and comments at the public hearing.

The very next page is Figure 3-4 (below), the Alternative D alignment which does not show a flyover. Which concept do you think the public should take as correct in the Final EIS?

1871

I think figure 3.4 is merely an alignment. Hard to show a flyover without a profile view.

I think figure 3.4 is merely an alignment. Hard to show a flyover without a profile view.

I think you'll find Figure 3.4 clearly shows the new bridges for I-40 Business at Pennsylvania and the existing bridges to the west of Western. East of Western the intersections all appear to be at grade with no indication of a flyover or bridge at all.

I think you'll find Figure 3.4 clearly shows the new bridges for I-40 Business at Pennsylvania and the existing bridges to the west of Western. East of Western the intersections all appear to be at grade with no indication of a flyover or bridge at all.

Oh, and FWIW, the map is even clearer on the hardcopy.

Contractor who pays attention. It wasn't / hasn't been designed, however the intent on what was planned has been around for a long time:

This alternative provides a ten-lane facility approximately 2,200 feet south of the existing I- 40 alignment and involves converting the existing I-40 facility to a downtown business route. This business route would maintain the current at-grade freeway from Agnew to Western Avenues and bridge structure from Western Avenue to west of Walker Avenue and reconstruct the existing I-40 facility from west of Walker to I-235 as an at-grade six-lane boulevard with at-grade intersections at the downtown cross streets.

All noted... curious how all this might play out in a lawsuit....

I guess since the eastern terminus of the bridge was undefined, ie "west of Walker" they chose not to show it.

Also, FWIW, they do refer to it as a business route until the east end of the bridge,"west of Walker". It's at this point where it refers to it as a boulevard, both in text, and on the map.

I'm hearing there are worries that a lawsuit could be filed that would delay this even more than a redesign would....

They should be worried...they are very exposed to potential litigation challenging the legitimacy of their environmental review process for the Boulevard under NEPA. If things keep going the way they appear to be headed, I wouldn't be surprised to see a Writ of Prohibition filed in District Court shutting down the project until ODOT fully complies with federal law.

The problem they face is that while they undertook extensive reviews and strictly adhered to NEPA with respect to the Crosstown relocation portion of the project, they barely mentioned the Boulevard in the EIS, and when they did it was only in very general terms.

Any major federal action (includes any state action involving federal money) that has the potential to affect the human environment (not just noise, air, water pollution...historical, cultural, social, business and other impacts are also included) must strictly comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), which requires certain environmental reviews, documention and public input. Those may be in the form of an Environmental Assessment (more general and less time consuming) or an Environmental Impact Statement (more extensive), depending on the nature of the action. Most large highway and road projects, especially in heavily populated areas, requires an EIS, which is what ODOT conducted for the Crosstown.

NEPA has several very important fundamental rules and requirements for properly conducting EA's and EIS's.

1) The agency creating the action to be reviewed under NEPA must not pre-judge the outcome and predetermine an alternative.
2) The agency must develop a reasonable range of alternatives to be reviewed and considered.
3) The agency must seek public comment on its review of the alternatives and seriously consider that input as part of its decision-making process.

The problem for ODOT with regard to the Boulevard is that they tried to slip it under the Crosstown EIS rug and failed to adequately meet NEPA requirements. The $80 million Boulevard project is a major federal action in and to itself. As such, ODOT should have prepared a separate EA or EIS for the Boulevard which reviewed a reasonable range of alternatives and provided for public review and input regarding those alternatives prior to selecting a final preferred alternative. Unfortunately, ODOT did not do that. Instead, they treated the project as a simple mitigation action related to the Crosstown project and failed to develop and review a range of alternatives specific to the Boulevard for public review and comment. To make matters worse, they are now publicly stating that they have not completed a design for the Boulevard and are just now considering various alternatives. If they had properly conformed to NEPA, the various alternatives would have been reviewed already with adequate public scoping and comments and a preferred alternative would have already been selected.

Richard Nixon created the President's Council on Environmental Quality and signed NEPA into law in 1970. Since then, many federal and state agencies have learned all of the tricks in the book on how to administratively comply with NEPA on paper while doing only the bare minimum, or less, to actually comply with its many rules and regulations. They often get away with it because NEPA is a complicated "language" for the general public and many state and local officials to understand. That is until some controversial action creates an eruption of public and offical scrutiny of an agency's action and suddenly its loose NEPA standard operating procedures become a major legal disaster.

Why are we even doing a boulevard, again?

In Steve's story, apparently only Councilman White is asking that same question, but the short answer is "the Mayor said so", he is on the record that downtown "grinds to a halt" without the Central Park/Boulevard. Yet when asked, no one can say exactly why they think that is the case or give any support for the supposed need for the Boulevard. it is a given in their minds and doesn't need to be explained.

In the article ODOT says it needs to be built to relieve the access problems/congested resulting from their purposeful, planned elimination of 6 downtown access points to 2 with the new I-40. Even if it goes according to plan, it isn't going to be done until 2014 anyway. They claim that delaying their plans by considering an at grade alternative will add millions to the cost and years to the project. However that belies the fact that (think it was Steve) that mentioned the City is just wanting to get the most basic road built, have ODOT turn it over to the City's control, then the City will tear it out and build the road it wants. Again adding years and millions/multi-millions to the cost...not to mention the wasted money spent by ODOT to build it in the first place. Shades of Project 180/MAPS 3 Streetcars early on...

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....
i agree here...every article I can recall consistently mentioned that the Boulevard would be following the same footprint as the old crosstown and it would be "at grade" (if the reporters got it wrong, then ODOT should have made sure it was corrected and the correct info reported from that point on). This would imply the access point to the Boulevard would be at the same junction (I-40/I-44(244). If you wanted to get to the Boulevard/Business I-40 route, you continued straight ahead. if you wanted to stay on I-40, you followed the new road.

Yet somewhere along the way they seem to have abandoned the old I40 connection/footprint from there until it reaches the already constructed Boulevard flyover exit (the flyover itself is halfway built) that exists between the Eastbound I-40 between the Agnew and Penn exits. This shortens the Boulevard by 1.5 miles (mol). Seems like it was their intent to use the existing connection of the old I-40 and have it go to "at grade" to the new Boulevard. When/why did it change to the exit between Agnew & Penn?

The ODOT documents aside and the Mayor's/City manger contention that they knew, ALL 8 members of the Council were reportedly uninformed and the general public as well (again through the media). Just because ODOT has a document online doesn't mean that the general public is/was aware of it.

Am reminded of the $30 million for the substation relocation that the Mayor supposedly told everyone about but no one can recall him doing so (and no one, including the Mayor's office) has produced a link to a story or a copy of a speech the Mayor delivered where he claims to have made it known.

They (ODOT) claim that delaying their plans by considering an at grade alternative will add millions to the cost and years to the project.

This is the basic artillery ODOT pulls out anytime they are pressed to do something they would rather not do. It's scare tactics meant to create fear and uncertainty in local officials, who then usually get in line.

As for the "millions" more to build the Boulevard at-grade from Lee Avenue to Western, they must be figuring on paving the at-grade section in gold. ODOT's planned elevated and bridged section will cost approximately $25 million dollars just for the necessary embankment, retaining walls and bridge structure. My guess would be that for the same amount of money you could purchase the small amount of additional right-of-way needed and construct a very nice roundabout, along with the other minor street modifications, and still have money left over for gold-leafing the Veterans Memorial.

I'd be very surprised if anyone at ODOT has ever been involved in designing or constructing a roundabout. They must think we're all lemmings and that we will drink whatever flavor of Kool-Aid they mix in their pitcher.

This is the basic artillery ODOT pulls out anytime they are pressed to do something they would rather not do. It's scare tactics meant to create fear and uncertainty in local officials, who then usually get in line.

As for the "millions" more to build the Boulevard at-grade from Lee Avenue to Western, they must be figuring on paving the at-grade section in gold. ODOT's planned elevated and bridged section will cost approximately $25 million dollars just for the necessary embankment, retaining walls and bridge structure. My guess would be that for the same amount of money you could purchase the small amount of additional right-of-way needed and construct a very nice roundabout, along with the other minor street modifications, and still have money left over for gold-leafing the Veterans Memorial.

I'd be very surprised if anyone at ODOT has ever been involved in designing or constructing a roundabout. They must think we're all lemmings and that we will drink whatever flavor of Kool-Aid they mix in their pitcher.

Perhaps "Buffalo Bill" and Catcherinthewry stand to benefit financially from this unnecessary earthen skyway. Why else would they be debating what is obvious: that the current plans did not receive any proper public vetting? I have to say I'm disappointed in Mayor Cornett, who I generally think does a great job looking out for OKC, for his apparent complicity in this ruse.

Great reporting, Steve. Please don't let up. If what Hutch says is true, there's a strong legal case to mothball this plan -- notwithstanding its clear urban planning shortcomings.

Jim Couch seems to get off easy, however, in Steve's otherwise excellent report. From what I've heard from numerous sources, he leads the City of OKC with an iron fist, and no one is allowed to get "out of line." And by that, I mean people are not allowed to challenge his positions, regardless of their titles or roles. Perhaps he "signed off" on this without informing council. Need I remind OKCTalk posters that his employment is at the pleasure of Council?

The fact that all 8 city council members were duped suggests that this is being shoved down our throats, and that if there was any meaningful public input -- or even disclosure of the plans -- the city councilors didn't even know about it. That doesn't pass the basic smell test. And it is unacceptable.

This is public money (appropriated by the Feds, teabaggers), and the public has a reasonable right to deliberate how it is spent. This is not ODOT's money and it's not Jim Couch's money. As advised upthread, Mr. Mendez should be sent emails and letters of concern, because he is the party responsible for disbursing this money. As stated previously upthread, his email address is victor.mendez@dot.gov.

Hopefully our council members will understand their extremely important role in protecting our downtown's main entry corridor from the West -- and their important oversight role in holding Jim Couch accountable to the citizens of their wards. He is not a dictator, and should not be granted dictatorial status.

Collectively, we've spent billions improving our downtown, and we cannot afford to have our mutual investment go down the drain as a result of this misguided design. Keep the pressure on!

Steve, I just have a couple of questions. After rereading the article, it's not clear to me who signed off on this plan. How did this come to pass? How is it possible that none of our city councilors knew about the elevated plans east of Western? Did Jim Couch just sign off on this and not inform Council?

It truly boggles the mind.

I had to laugh when I read your comment about people pro flyover standing to benefit financially. My husband is from NYC and his dad built high rise apartment buildings so he's got some public works experience. His first comment on hearing about the flyover was "Someone's uncle or cousin is in the dirt business."

Betts: so often true no matter what we are talking about..."follow the money" or family/associate connections...

I had to laugh when I read your comment about people pro flyover standing to benefit financially. My husband is from NYC and his dad built high rise apartment buildings so he's got some public works experience. His first comment on hearing about the flyover was "Someone's uncle or cousin is in the dirt business."

:)

This is the basic artillery ODOT pulls out anytime they are pressed to do something they would rather not do. It's scare tactics meant to create fear and uncertainty in local officials, who then usually get in line.

As for the "millions" more to build the Boulevard at-grade from Lee Avenue to Western, they must be figuring on paving the at-grade section in gold. ODOT's planned elevated and bridged section will cost approximately $25 million dollars just for the necessary embankment, retaining walls and bridge structure. My guess would be that for the same amount of money you could purchase the small amount of additional right-of-way needed and construct a very nice roundabout, along with the other minor street modifications, and still have money left over for gold-leafing the Veterans Memorial.

I'd be very surprised if anyone at ODOT has ever been involved in designing or constructing a roundabout. They must think we're all lemmings and that we will drink whatever flavor of Kool-Aid they mix in their pitcher.

Well said Hutch!

More coverage just added at www.okccentral.com

I am glad someone said it before I did Hutch. Something seems wrong about the intensity of the response to this effort. When did Gene Stipe's associates start building urban highways??? :-D

"Someone's uncle or cousin is in the dirt business."

It's more than that...everyone's business associates, political contributors and country club cronies are in the road and bridge building industry in Oklahoma. If you want to know whose really driving the bus, check out the website and view the members of Restore Trust, an Oklahoma legislative advocacy coalition whose members primarily represent road and bridge building contractors and other affiliated business entities:

RESTORE TRUST (http://www.restoretrust.org/about-us)

Here's their stated mission:

"TRUST is a legislative advocacy coalition dedicated to restoring Oklahoma’s transportation infrastructure. We are committed to creating a culture with Oklahoma state government that values transportation as a key function and priority of state government."

In plain English that means the organization is a lobbying group for the road and bridge building industry in Oklahoma to gain state and federal funding for road and bridge projects and to lobby state transportation and elected officials on how best to spend those funds.

To get an idea of the extensive lobbying and influence efforts of Trust, take a look at their newsletter and notice all of the various persons of influence in the photos with their leaders and members:

SURFACE NEWSLETTER (http://www.restoretrust.org/Websites/trust/Images/Surface2010proof-4.pdf)

Of interest is the fact that Neal McCaleb, former Director of the Oklahoma Department of Transportation, is the President of Restore Trust.

Also of interest is the fact that Gary Ridley was the Executive Director of the Oklahoma Asphalt Paving Association prior to becoming Director at ODOT.

There is obviously a longstanding culture within the leadership of ODOT to feed their own. Does that have any affect on the decision-making processes inside ODOT as to whether or not to construct the Boulevard with bridges or not? I don't know. You tell me. Certainly if the design is changed to an additional at-grade section involving a roundabout, not only will their bridge building associates lose the chance at a $25 million contract, other local consultants who would normally be involved in engineering design may also be left out to dry as Oklahoma City would most likely press to hire an outside engineering firm with expertise in roundabout design and construction.

It's more than that...everyone's business associates, political contributors and country club cronies are in the road and bridge building industry in Oklahoma. If you want to know whose really driving the bus, check out the website and view the members of Restore Trust, an Oklahoma legislative advocacy coalition whose members primarily represent road and bridge building contractors and other affiliated business entities:

RESTORE TRUST (http://www.restoretrust.org/about-us)

Here's their stated mission:

"TRUST is a legislative advocacy coalition dedicated to restoring Oklahoma’s transportation infrastructure. We are committed to creating a culture with Oklahoma state government that values transportation as a key function and priority of state government."

In plain English that means the organization is a lobbying group for the road and bridge building industry in Oklahoma to gain state and federal funding for road and bridge projects and to lobby state transportation and elected officials on how best to spend those funds.

To get an idea of the extensive lobbying and influence efforts of Trust, take a look at their newsletter and notice all of the various persons of influence in the photos with their leaders and members:

SURFACE NEWSLETTER (http://www.restoretrust.org/Websites/trust/Images/Surface2010proof-4.pdf)

Of interest is the fact that Neal McCaleb, former Director of the Oklahoma Department of Transportation, is the President of Restore Trust.

Also of interest is the fact that Gary Ridley was the Executive Director of the Oklahoma Asphalt Paving Association prior to becoming Director at ODOT.

There is obviously a longstanding culture within the leadership of ODOT to feed their own. Does that have any affect on the decision-making processes inside ODOT as to whether or not to construct the Boulevard with bridges or not? I don't know. You tell me. Certainly if the design is changed to an additional at-grade section involving a roundabout, not only will their bridge building associates lose the chance at a $25 million contract, other local consultants who would normally be involved in engineering design may also be left out to dry as Oklahoma City would most likely press to hire an outside engineering firm with expertise in roundabout design and construction.

More conspiratorial nonsense from Hutch. Federal Highway dollars are all the same. If they don't get spent here, they'll get spent somewhere else in the state. Makes no difference to the Contracting community.

More conspiratorial nonsense from Hutch. Federal Highway dollars are all the same. If they don't get spent here, they'll get spent somewhere else in the state. Makes no difference to the Contracting community.

Thanks for posting the information about Restore Trust and Surface Newsletter, Bill. It certainly seems to support that "conspiratorial nonsense" more than it refutes it. I am fairly new at this I didn't quite realize how deeply ingrained the ODOT/contractor/OK Asphalt Assn/ etc "mafia" appear to be in dictating what type of transportation infrastructure will be built in our city and state. Until now.

It is fairly clear that for too long transportation infrastructure = roads in Oklahoma. We need ODOT to become ODOT and not ODOR.

In the article ODOT says it needs to be built to relieve the access problems/congested resulting from their purposeful, planned elimination of 6 downtown access points to 2 with the new I-40.

I thought Larry was too old for new math.

Let's see what we have:

Old Crosstown - EB off ramps at Walker and the old loop to Harvey
New Crosstown - EB off ramps at Western and Shields

Old Crosstown - EB on ramps at Lee and the old loop at Robinson
New Crosstown - EB on ramps at Western and Shields

Old Crosstown - WB off ramps at Robinson and Classen
New Crosstown - WB off ramps at Robinson and Western

Old Crosstown - WB on ramps Robinson and Hudson
New Crosstown - WB on ramps at Shields and Western

TRUST is a legislative advocacy coalition dedicated to restoring Oklahoma’s transportation infrastructure.

So why do they only seem interested in restoring the 'road' portion? Why not restore the interurban rail network that once connected the entire state?

Also of interest is the fact that Gary Ridley was the Executive Director of the Oklahoma Asphalt Paving Association prior to becoming Director at ODOT.

Last I checked, the new crosstown is Concrete Paving.

More conspiratorial nonsense from Hutch. Federal Highway dollars are all the same. If they don't get spent here, they'll get spent somewhere else in the state. Makes no difference to the Contracting community.

Okay..if not "conspiracy" at least collusion.

I thought Larry was too old for new math.

Let's see what we have:

Old Crosstown - EB off ramps at Walker and the old loop to Harvey
New Crosstown - EB off ramps at Western and Shields

Old Crosstown - EB on ramps at Lee and the old loop at Robinson
New Crosstown - EB on ramps at Western and Shields

Old Crosstown - WB off ramps at Robinson and Classen
New Crosstown - WB off ramps at Robinson and Western

Old Crosstown - WB on ramps Robinson and Hudson
New Crosstown - WB on ramps at Shields and Western

Thanks again Bill. If this is the case and we appear to have sufficient access from I40 to downtown, there is no reason to rush the construction of this horrible design ODOR is pushing.

Wow, Ridley's quote on Steve's OKCCentral blog is crazy. Unless taken out of context, it sounds as if he's not listening to anyone who is concerned about this design. The city needs to tell him to stop, as do the Feds.

Steve, still my basic question is: who signed off on these plans? Jim Couch? How is it the Council seemed blindsided?

Thanks again Bill. If this is the case and we appear to have sufficient access from I40 to downtown, there is no reason to rush the construction of this horrible design ODOR is pushing.

I agree. Let's get a design out there that's workable.

This project of ODOR smells like crap!

The most prime real estate in downtown, with the most potential to develop a once in a lifetime gateway to downtown, is going to be destroyed by a elevated boulevard and a convention center that will create a super block, wow.

From Jeff Speck: "OKLAHOMA CITY BOULEVARD - - This development may not happen quickly, but unless the Boulevard is designed as a truly urban thoroughfare - one that eschews highway engineering criteria - it is unlikely to happen at all."

This sums up the primary reasons to eliminate the ODOR elevated plan entirely.

Two documents of note:

ODOT's response to questions by OKC staff (http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/boulevard1.pdf)

Preliminary plan (http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/boulevard2.pdf)

Wow, Ridley's quote on Steve's OKCCentral blog is crazy. Unless taken out of context, it sounds as if he's not listening to anyone who is concerned about this design. The city needs to tell him to stop, as do the Feds.

Steve, still my basic question is: who signed off on these plans? Jim Couch? How is it the Council seemed blindsided?

Couch and the Mayor have represented the city in these talks - I am not aware of city council vote setting policy on this matter.

“Our goal is to complete this project by the end of 2014. You have to hit certain mile stones to make that happen, and we’ve been in talks with the city to make that happen. There should be no surprise we are working expeditiously to make these connect complete to downtown. We’ve been at this quite a long time. We’re moving forward because no one has told us to stop. And why would we stop?”
- Oklahoma Department of Transportation Director Gary Ridley (from Steve Lackmeyer's "More Talk About the Oklahoma City Boulevard")


STOP!!! There, did you hear it that time?

Another avenue to put pressure on ODOT: The Chamber of Commerce

The Chamber has huge clout, particularly with the state. We should be sending similar emails that have been sent directly to ODOT and the city council to the Chamber as well. The argument should be an economic one. A ground level, pedestrian friendly boulevard is much more likely to spur economic development than an elevated boulevard. There are countless examples of this fact, both in research and reality.

Here is the contact info:

http://www.okcchamber.com/index.php?submenu=ContactUs&src=forms&ref=Contact%20Us
http://www.okstatechamber.com/contact

Couch and the Mayor have taken it upon themselves to represent the city - I am not aware of city council vote setting policy on this matter.

If true, The Mayor needs to come clean with the citizens of this city and Couch needs to answer to the Council.

:iagree:

That is what I hope will result from the "Friends for a Better Boulevard" campaign. We need the Mayor and Council to assert themselves on behalf of the city. We have a great opportunity to do something that will greatly benefit our city but no one said it would be the easy thing to do. I hope Mayor Cornett realizes most (all?) people in this "movement" support the vision for the boulevard he championed during the Core to Shore planning process.

A ground level, pedestrian friendly boulevard is much more likely to spur economic development than an elevated boulevard. There are countless examples of this fact, both in research and reality.

This is a no-brainer. If elevated freeways spured economic development then why didn't it work along the old I-40? Which part of downtown is nicer, the south part that had a freeway for 50 years or the north part that didn't have a freeway? How come we need to Core to Shore but not Core to 23rd?

Anyone notice Meg Salyer's weak quote on Steve's blog? Wow. Hard to believe this is happening in her ward. Does she have any backbone to stand up to Couch / Ridley? Her ward will be watching. Closely.

I wrote my Councilman and thanked him for his statement opposing the ODOT plan. I think all of us need to provide the mayor and council positive reinforcement when they take a stand against the poor ODOT design. Often they need to hear positive statements about their actions and not just hear from us when we disagree with them.

I wrote my Councilman and thanked him for his statement opposing the ODOT plan. I think all of us need to provide the mayor and council positive reinforcement when they take a stand against the poor ODOT design. Often they need to hear positive statements about their actions and not just hear from us when we disagree with them.. Yes, we all need to do this.

Perhaps "Buffalo Bill" and Catcherinthewry stand to benefit financially from this unnecessary earthen skyway. Why else would they be debating what is obvious: that the current plans did not receive any proper public vetting?
:lol2:

That's hilarious. I have nothing to gain and I'm not debating anything. I'm just being pragmatic. It comes down to two things as I stated before, 1)ingress/egress and 2) money. What a lot of you seem to have forgotten is that this boulevard was promised as a way into the downtown area. If motorists have to stop numerous times on the way to downtown then it is just duplicating what Reno already does and is not needed. I don't care one way or the other because I don't commute downtown, but if you read the I 40 thread there are a lot of commuters who would like easier access to DT.

Of course, of more importance is the money issue. While I have stated I like the roundabout idea I just don't think it will happen due to the extra costs and time required.

Once more for the record, I would like to see a grade level boulevard with a roundabout in the Western/Reno area as a Grand Entrance. I just don't see it happening. Good luck to you in your efforts, though.

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.

I agree that you're thinking pragmatically, and I'm not going to criticize your paradigm or anything like that - as long as you demonstrate your views respectfully and intelligibly, which you have to your credit, your contribution can be whatever you wish. However I do think you're looking into the same crystal ball that said Bricktown was a stupid idea, the NBA will never come, downtown will never come alive, people will never live downtown, Whole Foods will never come, streetcar will never happen, and on and on. I would suggest instead looking into a crystal ball with the perspective that if the idea is a good one and gains enough traction, it can work in this city. This is a very can-do city at the end of the day, despite all the bitching that I and others engage in, and I'd hate for that bitching to negatively impact people's views of what IS possible.

This is a very can-do city at the end of the day, despite all the bitching that I and others engage in, and I'd hate for that bitching to negatively impact people's views of what IS possible.

Well said Spartan. This is what I choose to focus on rather than the naysaying that is inevitable with something new or not "what we've always done" or not "the way it is done here." OKC has tremendous potential and has a mostly blank slate to work with, ironically thanks to the ill advised actions of the past such as the Pei Plan and the Crosstown.

This is a very can-do city at the end of the day, despite all the bitching that I and others engage in, and I'd hate for that bitching to negatively impact people's views of what IS possible.

I agree and I'm proud of what OKC has become in the last 20 years and the future looks bright. The one thing that is missing from this discussion, however, is the funding for the possible improvements to the boulevard. After reading the entire letter from Gary Evans to Dennis Clowers I'm even less optimistic. But, like I said before, good luck, I like your idea.

I agree and I'm proud of what OKC has become in the last 20 years and the future looks bright. The one thing that is missing from this discussion, however, is the funding for the possible improvements to the boulevard. After reading the entire letter from Gary Evans to Dennis Clowers I'm even less optimistic. But, like I said before, good luck, I like your idea.

Well keep in mind that the proposed boulevard, with the pedestrian and aesthetic enhancements that the city WAS already planning on within the limited scope of walkable area, was an $80 million project. Evidently there is $40 million they thought they had somewhere, and that amount is more than how much I believe exists within the GO bond, which will still be a significant funding source for the city's part. I don't understand why it's not immediately understood the roundabout will be the city's obligation. I'd hate to even see how ODOT could screw that up with 55 mph speed limits and 15-ft wide lanes or something insane.

Well keep in mind that the proposed boulevard, with the pedestrian and aesthetic enhancements that the city WAS already planning on within the limited scope of walkable area, was an $80 million project. Evidently there is $40 million they thought they had somewhere, and that amount is more than how much I believe exists within the GO bond, which will still be a significant funding source for the city's part. I don't understand why it's not immediately understood the roundabout will be the city's obligation. I'd hate to even see how ODOT could screw that up with 55 mph speed limits and 15-ft wide lanes or something insane.

ODOT will bank the traffic circle. Cars will drop into it like a velodrome.

I thought Larry was too old for new math.

Let's see what we have:

Old Crosstown - EB off ramps at Walker and the old loop to Harvey
New Crosstown - EB off ramps at Western and Shields

Old Crosstown - EB on ramps at Lee and the old loop at Robinson
New Crosstown - EB on ramps at Western and Shields

Old Crosstown - WB off ramps at Robinson and Classen
New Crosstown - WB off ramps at Robinson and Western

Old Crosstown - WB on ramps Robinson and Hudson
New Crosstown - WB on ramps at Shields and Western

Did I just imagine all these years the on and off ramps at the old I40 and Western?

Nope. Combined Sheridan and Western exit. The one advantage the Crosstown had was the ability to creatively work in on and off ramps, albeit, in a way that decimated any urban fabric in a 2-block radius.

Nope. Combined Sheridan and Western exit. The one advantage the Crosstown had was the ability to creatively work in on and off ramps, albeit, in a way that decimated any urban fabric in a 2-block radius.

The EB combined Sheridan / Western ramp is being maintained. Pete referenced the Plans above, Post #467. They (the ramp to Sheridan and Walker) were there before, and will be there in the proposed "boulevard".

With all due respect to everyone involved in this thread.... Buffalo Bill honestly identified himself as a contractor, he has expertise in this area, and while you may not agree with his take on all this, I'm personally going back through every comment he has made on this topic because I want to better understand all sides of this issue.

ODOT will bank the traffic circle. Cars will drop into it like a velodrome.
Kewl...make it like Hot Wheels and I might actually give it a try (instead of avoiding it)...LOL

I thought Larry was too old for new math.

Let's see what we have:

Old Crosstown - EB off ramps at Walker and the old loop to Harvey
New Crosstown - EB off ramps at Western and Shields

Old Crosstown - EB on ramps at Lee and the old loop at Robinson
New Crosstown - EB on ramps at Western and Shields

Old Crosstown - WB off ramps at Robinson and Classen
New Crosstown - WB off ramps at Robinson and Western

Old Crosstown - WB on ramps Robinson and Hudson
New Crosstown - WB on ramps at Shields and Western
The numbers I gave are from an article on it in the Oklahoman shortly before/after it opened to traffic. There is only 2 access points from the new alignment into downtown (Western & Shields). Mr. Ridley himself admitted in the recent article about the limited access points (given as the need to get the Boulevard built), but even when they do, you can only count the eastern Boulevard connection as a DT connection since the western end one between Agnew & Penn is too far removed. So in a couple of years, we will be all the way up to 3 access points (a 50% reduction)

ON EDIT: the original article mentioned specifically that there used to be 6 exits and the new only had 2. It was changed at some point. Here is the current info

Read more: http://newsok.com/i-40-crosstown-motorists-adjusting-as-parts-of-old-elevated-roadway-are-torn-down/article/3641195#ixzz20tlH5HdD

Eastbound Crosstown motorists have four exits to choose from to get to the downtown area: Agnew, Pennsylvania, Western and Shields.
The old highway had five exits: Agnew, Pennsylvania and Western, and Walker and Harvey avenues.
Green said although the new route has fewer exits than the elevated Crosstown, the off-ramps are safer and can handle larger volumes of traffic.
“We had more exit ramps in the past than we do now, but those exit ramps don't function efficiently,” he said. “There's a lot of weaving movements across lanes of traffic. Some people are trying to get off and others are trying to get on from ramps that are too close to each other. That's a lot of the reasons why we've reduced the number of ramps that we have — when you have that situation occur it causes congestion out on the interstate. More is not necessarily better.”
The existing Crosstown has five downtown westbound exits: Robinson Avenue, Classen Boulevard, Western, Virginia Avenue and Agnew.
The new westbound I-40 will have exits at Robinson, Western, Pennsylvania and Agnew, as well as eventually the downtown boulevard exit. The westbound downtown boulevard exit will take more than a year to be open to traffic, Green said.

Maybe you should look at a map or drive it to see where and how many access points there are or were. Access now through what was the old crosstown bridge is the same.

Construction of the east connector will improve access to Bricktown, probably through the U-Haul parking lot.