I am putting together a citizen support group for a better design for the new OKC Boulevard than what is currently proposed.

If your on Facebook, feel free to join the group. If your not, please post your ideas and pics for the Boulevard here. We are looking for great ideas to circulate. Hopefully, in the coming weeks and months there will be an opportunity to put them forth and somehow get them incorporated into the final design.

At least, it appears that the is a solid discussion with ODOT forthcoming by the City
Council. Now is the time to get these ideas out there.

http://www.facebook.com/groups/483683684978845/

I want to be the first to go on record that the obvious solution is an 8 lane roundabout that jams together the traffic of the new boulevard, Reno, Exchange, Western, Classen, and maybe California.

The best option is no boulevard at all, but good luck with your effort. Anything is better than what they have planned - even Buffalo Bills 8 lane roundabout (because that will atleast keep traffic slow and encourage pedestrain activity). There is a 10 lane interstate just a few blocks away - if someone needs to go 55 mph (or more) they can go do it over there.

Joined.

The best option is no boulevard at all, but good luck with your effort. Anything is better than what they have planned - even Buffalo Bills 8 lane roundabout (because that will atleast keep traffic slow and encourage pedestrain activity). There is a 10 lane interstate just a few blocks away - if someone needs to go 55 mph (or more) they can go do it over there.

You're going to need the new boulevard when they plan on turning Reno into a 2 lane road through Bricktown or no one is getting out of there come game nights.

Unfortunately it is a little late to do anything major about it; first any changes need approval by the federal highway administration, second its is damned hard to get any changes in ODOT projects this close to construction (four years out is about the minimum for plausibility).

You're going to need the new boulevard when they plan on turning Reno into a 2 lane road through Bricktown or no one is getting out of there come game nights.

Spend the money from the boulevard on a regonal rail system and everyone can leave their cars at home. One line of track can carry the same volume as 15 lanes of interstate.

Unfortunately it is a little late to do anything major about it; first any changes need approval by the federal highway administration, second its is damned hard to get any changes in ODOT projects this close to construction (four years out is about the minimum for plausibility).

Difficult indeed. But what is interesting is where they are in direct violation of their environmental and NEPA with the FEDS. Specifically this whole Bricktown connection discussion. Three turn required via Compress over direct access via Oklahoma? Really?

The best option is no boulevard at all, but good luck with your effort. Anything is better than what they have planned - even Buffalo Bills 8 lane roundabout (because that will atleast keep traffic slow and encourage pedestrain activity). There is a 10 lane interstate just a few blocks away - if someone needs to go 55 mph (or more) they can go do it over there.
Agree 1000%

Return the old crosstown path to private ownership, get them back on the property tax rolls and urge development. Where streets existed, return those to the GRID...then you don't have odd angled streets intersecting others and eliminating the need for a traffic circle(s). Spend the multi-millions that were to go to the Boulevard and improve those remaining streets...maybe make up for the funding shortfalls of Project 180 and complete that as promised.

Spend the money from the boulevard on a regonal rail system and everyone can leave their cars at home. One line of track can carry the same volume as 15 lanes of interstate.

That would be awesome and I strongly agree. Unfortunately, as someone else previously stated, I don't think the funds for this can be used elsewhere.

Wow, 320 members in just two days? Congrats Bob!

I think we need to come up with as many case examples where a traffic circle or decorative intersection has incentivized infill development. While it's a screwed-up 6-way intersection that isn't a traffic circle, Fort Worth's arts district may be worth looking at.

All posts on Fort Worthology tagged with 7th Street:
http://fortworthology.com/tag/7th-street/

You're going to need the new boulevard when they plan on turning Reno into a 2 lane road through Bricktown or no one is getting out of there come game nights.

The bottom line is that we are getting a boulevard. Whether or not it is no more than an elongated entrance and exit ramp from 1-40, or the real article, the money has been appropriated; something will be built, and the plans have yet to be finalized. The question becomes: Do we want another elevated highway into and dividing the entrance into Downtown? Or do we want citizen input for a reasonable alternative?

Under preesure from OKC, ODOT brought the boulevard down from six lanes to four. The point being that ODOT will listen if there is support from the City. The west end and the east end of the proposed boulevard plans are ill-conceived. Time is short. However, there is growing support from citizens and the City Council for an alternative.

http://www.okgazette.com/oklahoma/article-15372-street-heat.html

Mayor Mick Cornett said he has known for several years that the boulevard would have to go above grade near that intersection, and that it would help concentrate development.
“I know it’s not necessarily been communicated throughout the community because not everybody cares that much about a road that’s several years away,” Cornett said.
Wenger said keeping the boulevard at grade through that intersection would be nearly impossible. The city and ODOT, he said, are reviewing options of whether to build the above-grade section on columns or on an earthen ramp.
“There is a portion of the boulevard that will go over the top of those roads,” Wenger said. “I think maybe that surprised some on [May 29], but it has been that way for sometime.”
Sounds similar to the Mayor's insistence that he told folks about the $30 million for the substation relocation….for someone who was in the media, communication at City Hall and especially around the horseshoe, seems to be lacking...and can be easily rectified.

Everyone at City Hall has known about the boulevard since at least November of 2001, when the Final EIS was released. See item S1, paragraph 2.

This isn't new:

http://www.40forward.com/pdfs/feis/02.pdf

I agree. I don't see any reason to grind on Mayor Cornett. He successfully lobbied with broad public support to get ODOT to finally reduce the concept from a 6 lane design down to a four lane project. I followed this project myself since moving here 12 years ago. It has always been elevated at both ends.

I'm not saying that it should be elevated. I think that the public has a right to question whether there are alternatives to that. But for those who studied the plans carefully as I am sure he did, it has always been elevated.

Let not propagate that this is some new idea hidden away. That is too conspiracy oriented. It is just that it is now actually receiving some well deserved scrutiny.

I would say that they (ODOT) must have caught wind some time ago to resistance to their ideas. The renderings and animation of the Boulevard disappeared from view when advocacy began for reducing the size of their concept. So if there is anything to be disgruntled it about, is that they have removed those earlier materials from the 40 Forward website. And really... it shouldn't be called a Boulevard if its in the air.

I think they should have kept it as 6 lanes and made underpasses for pedestrian traffic. with the growth that downtown OKC will experience over just the coming decade will flood out a 2 lane reno and 4 lane boulevard.

If Cornett truly wants to argue that putting it back above grade past Lee will "help concentrate development" then it is time to get rid of him and replace him with someone more honest, who uses less drugs.

There's a brand new 10 lane highway 3 blocks away from it. I think if there is that much congestion, people will just go down to the new I-40 via Shields and Robinson. Plus 140' long tunnels with stairs are probably not the best and safest pedestrian experiences. It would require elevators for ADA accessibility as well.

If Cornett truly wants to argue that putting it back above grade past Lee will "help concentrate development" then it is time to get rid of him and replace him with someone more honest, who uses less drugs.

Why? He's right. It will focus development. It is essentially and elongated highway ramp straight to the new park, Convention Center, and CBD. Not sure I see the criminality in that statement that you do.

It just becomes a question of whether you want a Boulevard through the west side of downtown as well. It is a public debate that is just now being had and needs to be had. And quite frankly, a lot of the "experts" haven't been very vocal about it with the exception of the Core to Shore discussions.

If your upset about this because its been branded a Boulevard when half of it is in the air, then be upset at ODOT and focus your energy on what you think is the best design for our fair city.

Why? He's right. It will focus development. It is essentially and elongated highway ramp straight to the new park, Convention Center, and CBD. Not sure I see the criminality in that statement that you do.

It just becomes a question of whether you want a Boulevard through the west side of downtown as well. It is a public debate that is just now being had and needs to be had. And quite frankly, a lot of the "experts" haven't been very vocal about it with the exception of the Core to Shore discussions.

If your upset about this because its been branded a Boulevard when half of it is in the air, then be upset at ODOT and focus your energy on what you think is the best design for our fair city.

The boulevard is a joke and it's not just ODOT, the city is implicated as well. All the triumvirate of Couch, Cornett, and Wenger do is make excuses for why it has to be this way. They are going to do everything possible to not have to consider the traffic circle idea. And as for the boulevard, let me get this straight..

The city plans to build a grand Champs d'Elysses by having a street with 55 mph speed limits that comes down from ramps at Oklahoma Ave, then briefly goes below grade to go under the BNSF tracks, doesn't intersect with Shields, then the only portion of "real boulevard" which is a mere 5 blocks long will actually be curved to increase space within the ROW for the convention center that will hog the main frontage and prevent park-side development, and then instead of interacting with a very busy set of streets west of downtown, it will have an earthen ramp a la I-240 and meet back up with the interstate. Oh yeah and it's going to be named Oklahoma City Boulevard.

Is anyone laughing at this?? Cornett says the limited actual boulevard will concentrate development, he must be laughing. Couch said at City Council the other day that curving it to increase space for the CC will actually be pleasing to drivers, he must be laughing his arse off. Wenger doesn't seem to think that a concrete ramp or earthen ramp is a big deal, he must be laughing. The ODOT engineers weren't aware that streetcar would have RAILS, they must be laughing the hardest.

Frankly this just needs to be written off in advance as a huge failure. Perhaps all of the city's new parking garages can line this "boulevard." The real shame is that the streetcar route is bastardized to go out of its way to interact with the new boulevard due to political pressure. I would just as soon have nothing on this joke of a boulevard if it's really going to turn out this way.

And I do believe that after a certain point, such heavy doses of illogical and flat-out lying to protect a convention center agenda is criminal, because the collateral damage happens to be the most enormous wasted opportunity in this city's history.

The streetcar is going there to provide a direct interface to the Convention Center building along Robinson and to provide direct access to the park. Reno is a P180 completed street. It will cost us more to go there. Plus, it becomes a pedestrian clogged "plaza" during major events that could potentially disrupt streetcar service timing and consistency.

Plus, it becomes a pedestrian clogged "plaza" during major events that could potentially disrupt streetcar service timing and consistency.

Sounds like it would also be at danger of producing a surprisingly strong sense of place in OKC.

I understand leveling with these inept officials because it would be unfortunate to burn bridges for the streetcar project. However, I refuse to do it because the streetcar obviously isn't affected by my relationship with people who need to be gotten rid of anyway. In terms of public policy, what is going on right now is criminal. Those aren't my words, and at first I didn't like having those words "put in my mouth" to represent what I'm saying, but the more I thought about it that is exactly the word that should be used. The leadership is so bad it's gotten criminal.

I still can not believe Eric Wenger was just promoted to Public Works Director in the middle of all of this. His abysmal track record doesn't even qualify him to be public dog catcher.

I'm not holding anything back that I would "level" with anybody. I'm being frank and honest.

Well here's the implications that I see for the streetcar and for the park, two very good projects in their own right, and we're not even talking about having a good boulevard for the sake of a boulevard anymore (which shockingly was never the paradigm to begin with): Anything along this boulevard will be a massive failure because this boulevard is such a piece of crap in planning, and if that doesn't affect the streetcar and the park, I don't know what would.

The bad design won't even "concentrate development" within the 5 blocks (or really 5 blocks minus 2 because of CC) because the entire thing will act as a hindrance to development. It will repel good development more than it will attract it, and it does not need to be this way. This boulevard CAN be saved, there is just not political will to do so with our absolutely worthless triumvirate.

Urban: Didn't mean to sound like there is some conspiracy here ...it is the lack of communication...especially with Council members much less the general public ...I don't remember anything in the media that suggested that the Boulevard would be elevated. It was consistently described as being "at grade" and following the footprint of the old crosstown. I agree that public discussion is needed but it is really past time for that...at least in ODOT's mind. There is going to have to be some sort of elevation simply because ODOT has already built the ramps from the new Crosstown...highly unlikely that they are going to reverse course at this point. We've already spent all of this money can't go back now (better to ask forgiveness than permission), no matter how much the public complains. Just like they aren't going to do anything about the dismal restricted access from the old crosstown to the new (from 6 points down to 2). So, I have to agree with most of what Spartan said. And I have to disagree with the streetcar clipping one corner of the Park qualifies as "direct access". That would be better achieved by running the length of the upper Park and swinging through Union Station and then back up (as depicted in an the early proposed "route" that I re-posted in the other thread).

I have to disagree with the streetcar clipping one corner of the Park qualifies as "direct access". That would be better achieved by running the length of the upper Park and swinging through Union Station and then back up (as depicted in an the early proposed "route" that I re-posted above).

The early route in during the campaign was not a promise. It was simply a concept drawing. Again, here is the reason that I gave on the streetcar thread as to why we are considering access from the NE corner of the park sufficient.

And, aren't people supposed to walk anyways to, from, and in a park? I mean, we think that they will walk three blocks generally speaking from the streetcar line in any direction anyways. That gets them pretty much anywhere in the "upper park" and to Union Station. Not sure why you continue to think we need to go all over it.

#2763 (http://www.okctalk.com/showthread.php?t=20121&p=544385#post544385)
"Larry, to be quite honest regarding the Park and Union Station,I doubt that we have the money to go further down there. Plus, on our primary line we are trying to get as many people as quickly from the future Intermodal Hub into the CBD without going too far out of our way. The assumption is that connecting to Santa-Fe Station will be helping distribute future commuters coming in from Edmond, Norman, Midwest City. We are serving C2S while still not taking people too far out of their way on to their jobs. I realize that is looking out into the future, but because this is a permanent system, we are thinking that way.

Besides, in the future the entire distance of the new MAPS 3 Park will be presumably served by the future extension of the streetcar system to the river or Capitol Hill."

Because it is logical, even Betts and I were in agreement on that point (she may have changed her mind since then), and I respectfully disagree that clipping the edge is "sufficient".

I think it is logical to think that people will walk from the corner to where they want to go. It is not logical to go all the way to the south for future commuters trying to get quickly to their jobs in the CBD. Yes, we will continue to disagree on this.

They are going to do everything possible to not have to consider the traffic circle idea.

Good. As I've mentioned numerous times before, a traffic circle may look nice but that's about it. Standard intersections - good. Traffic circles - bad.

Why?

Good. As I've mentioned numerous times before, a traffic circle may look nice but that's about it. Standard intersections - good. Traffic circles - bad.

An entity in or around Detroit conducted a study and concluded that, while not a universal band-aid in all situations, traffic circles are often quite preferable to standard intersections. Certainly that does not mean that we want Bubba or Joe Bob to come in and do their best, but rather to work to see if this is one of those situations that would be better served by a traffic circle and work to design the right one.

An entity in or around Detroit conducted a study and concluded that, while not a universal band-aid in all situations, traffic circles are often quite preferable to standard intersections. Certainly that does not mean that we want Bubba or Joe Bob to come in and do their best, but rather to work to see if this is one of those situations that would be better served by a traffic circle and work to design the right one.

Exactly. There are a number of cases in which a traffic circle is not the best option, personally, I think there are two factors: First, we do need more around OKC just to get drivers more familiar with the concept to increase the safety of each location, but beyond a general overview of each one helping the concept of traffic circles in Central Oklahoma (Norman has several, also) - a nuanced perspective reveals that they are most functional when the streets entering the circle are fairly equal in terms of traffic volume and thus the distribution evens out. This will most certainly be the case where you have so many busy streets converging like Classen, Western, Exchange, Reno, and the Boulevard at once on the edge of downtown. This is THE most perfect place for us to have a grand central traffic circle, to do what has worked so well on 10th but on a grander scale. And then to sit back and watch the fruits of investment pick up around such an impressive physical feature. We could literally scrap C2S (we should) and replace it with this new traffic circle plan and get better development out of it, probably.

Aside from the two on 10th, there is the Stiles traffic circle by the DOC and PHF, Western Avenue has one possibly two funded (at Grand for sure), Norman has one on E. Main Street by Griffin Memorial that is new, a few behind the Ed Noble Pkwy (arguably one of the more tasteful sprawl corridors), and Edmond may have a few as well. I think people are going to have to accept that traffic circles are working (accidents have decreased drastically at 10th and Walker) and adding significant real estate value around them because they are decorative and project a strong sense of place. For instance, I just grabbed dinner at Irma's tonight and was amazed at the people on Cafe do Brazil's deck enjoying the view and the crowd that Kaiser's had on its patio tonight, enjoying drinks right on the traffic circle.

10th and Walker would not be as impressive without the traffic circle. This is a matter of learning from what we have done right and applying it to new situations (ie., what we did not do with the Civic Center Park after we got the Myriad redesign so right). We are getting very adept at getting one thing right, and then preventing success from becoming precedent on similar projects and then screwing up the next one in a huge way.

Here is a link to the Federal Highway Administration's view on the efficacy and safety of Roundabouts compared to signalized intersections: http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/intersection/roundabouts/presentations/safety_aspects/long.pdf

...and Edmond may have a few as well.

They don't. Roundabouts are waaaay too progressive for Edmond.

I've had this discussion about traffic circles or roundabouts in several other threads and no one has changed my mind. I've done my own research as both a driver and pedestrian in numerous traffic circles in Europe where they've been around forever. There are some rural roundabouts that aren't terrible but if you're a pedestrian, especially in most urban traffic circles in Europe, it can be a life altering experience to traverse them. I've not seen any that I felt were safer or more efficient than a standard intersection would be. They look nice and lend themselves to landscaping, statues, and fountains. That's about all they're good for.

Anecdotal evidence wins the thread. I'd rather keep the discussion to the topic at hand (ideas for a better boulevard).

I agree and my opinion is that plans for a better boulevard should not include a traffic circle and was presenting my reasoning. If that takes the thread off topic I greatly apologize.

Even Baghdad has traffic circles...

Here's my idea - what if a streetcar "Phase 1c" can be integrated into this fantasy traffic circle?

http://oi45.tinypic.com/346nfao.jpg

Obviously I swapped the City Arts Center and Convention Center, which I think tremendously benefits both projects. I added a streetcar line going west through Film Row, as most of us wanted originally to begin with. I designated SW 3rd a historic district. And I gave OKC Blvd a name and I think it should be decided whether we want either this boulevard or Reno to be the arterial street heading west past the traffic circle.

CC benefits: Generic convention centers are a dead concept, these are failing everywhere - the new trend is CCs targeted toward a specific industry that a city is primed for, such as Medical Marts, and specifically combining a "medical mart" or "aerospace mart" (or whatever we decide we want to focus on) with a generic convention center. Moving the CC to 10th and Broadway gives it streetcar access, highway access, a backside to go cheap on, a frontside to put emphasis on, room for a CC hotel or even a hotel row, and a location anchoring the MDB that could be a potential economic development asset for downtown.

City Arts Center benefits: I'm envisioning two triangular buildings somewhat reminiscent to the boathouses in design, juxtaposed each anchoring important intersections such as the boulevard and Robinson, with an expansive green lawn running in between connecting the Myriad and Central parks. The green lawn could even be done on the cheap as the views would be incredible and this could be the location of our "grand lawn," with a walking trail connecting the two arts buildings. This also moves the City Arts Center into the Arts District.

I also think that this strip of land to the west and southwest is more important for us to focus on than we realize. First of all, there could be some cool synergy created between the Arts District, the Central Park, the massive traffic circle, and Film Row - exactly the way in which we probably want to brand our downtown and city. Beyond that, I think some existing projects like the new OCPD and the new downtown elementary suddenly make a lot more sense if there is more focus on this area. Also, I like the way there is a full I-40 exit at Western that feeds directly into the traffic circle. I also think more than we realize, this traffic circle will be bounded by impressive buildings and even more so as it develops around it - but already existing are great brick buildings along SW3rd, the Farmer's Market, and the Fred Jones factory.

And what better way to have a boulevard than to actually put things along it, incorporate it into our city's grand proposals, have the streetcar running along it, and have it span longer than 5 blocks.

Nick, why aren't you employed by the city of OKC? Fantastic proposal.

Thanks! In retrospect, I also think nothing would spur action on the quiet zone more than moving the CC up that way. :cheersmf:

You probably won't be surprised that I like all of it except the traffic circle. LOL

Nick, I think that you have identified on your map a great and appropriate reason for a broad public discussion about the western boulevard design, the Farmer's Market building. It is woefully disconnected from many of the other great things going on downtown.

I've looked into the traffic circle idea a little more and I do like it as long as the circle/circles are wide enough we also need to put as much of this crosstown as possible on the ground that was the failure of the original 40 and will be the failure of the crosstown if it does proceed as stated. I still think that there should be pedestrian underpasses along the way at the very least at robinson and walker to allow people from conventions and games to safely cross in mass without disturbing the high traffic flow that occurs at the same time.

And Nick I like that streetcar proposal especially since in a latter streetcar funding we could extend it up and down classen and western linking more jobs, residences, enterainment, to downtown. would be sweet if they moved the bus that runs alng that line to an unserved part of OKC once the streetcar is in place.

I also think that the street car should go up Walker instead of Robinson to serv a larger area in the beginning It would help with getting more development on the west side of downtown too.

I would really, really like to see a pedestrian underpass at Robinson, if nowhere else. It seems like a simple solution to what will likely be a high-pedestrian traffic corridor. I'm surprised that ODOT hasn't thought of that.

Nick, I think that you have identified on your map a great and appropriate reason for a broad public discussion about the western boulevard design, the Farmer's Market building. It is woefully disconnected from many of the other great things going on downtown.

Thanks Jeff, my family goes way back with the Farmer's Public Market, and I always admired the building.. it is an important link between downtown and the south side. It's also one of downtown's most beautiful buildings.

http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5106/5784593051_ef6830239c_n.jpg


I would really, really like to see a pedestrian underpass at Robinson, if nowhere else. It seems like a simple solution to what will likely be a high-pedestrian traffic corridor. I'm surprised that ODOT hasn't thought of that.

A pedestrian underpass? That sounds like giving up on the boulevard being pedestrian-friendly which I thought was the whole point of this in the first place. Right now the traffic counts on this boulevard are 0.

Here are tram roundabouts in Brussels:
http://hampage.hu/trams/brusszel/img_0620.jpg
http://hampage.hu/trams/brusszel/img_0071.jpg

You could do double or single track, but I don't see the point of double track in a traffic circle. More common in Europe though is to just slice the traffic circle, and perhaps this is where the streetcar could turn and go up Classen. This is in Marseille.

http://www.viennaslide.com/p/0520-france/Marseille/Marseille_211_Sadi_Carnot_2008-08-23_02.jpg

If we returned the old crosstown to the historic, established street grid would there even be a need for a traffic circle (would that get rid of the multiple streets meeting at one point)? I have made my opinions known about traffic circles and HATE them, will avoid them if at all possible. We used to have them and they were taken out due to "safety concerns" but are being returned due to "advancements in technology" making them "safer". Again I ask how does technology do anything about safety with a traffic circle??? In any event, this seems like like the best and possibly cheapest solution (granted there would be the wasted construction cost and deconstruction cost of the half completed connections ODOT has already built) to this mess and would make for a "Better Boulevard"

Larry, how would you spur development and sense of place where the Crosstown used to be? That is the question - I don't understand why anybody thinks this is about a road.

Of course it's not about a road, it's about you, Nick.

I'm sorry, but Cornett's statement was crap. It will not "concentrate" development. There will be no development. This is a cluster----. Attending DeadCenter with my family, we were visually trying to understand what moron would want the "highway boulevard" to be elevated as far east as Lee Blvd. This will stunt the growth of the western side of Downtown. This makes no sense.

I have an idea: since none of our city leadership has a clue how to create / synergize urban development, why don't we bring in some people who do, and listen to them?

This is a joke that this is being passed off as anything tangentially related to urban development. There will be gas stations, bums and fast food joints.

Those pretty renderings are fiction and Cornett, Couch, ODOT, and everyone else at City Hall who make decisions and ignore all input know it and they're trying to pass off this garbage as some kind of plan. It's an outrage.

Of course it's not about a road, it's about you, Nick.

Wow. You haven't been here very long to make such a pointedly jerky comment. Where is your drawing?

Of course it's not about a road, it's about you, Nick.

Who the **** are you? Could you please explain how anything is about me. I've told anyone who has asked me or sent me an email in the past month that Cuatro de Mayo, who has also has a real name, came up with the traffic circle sketch that has been going around.

If it's about any one person, it's Wenger, who needs to be fired and sent to Tulsa.

I'm sorry, but Cornett's statement was crap. It will not "concentrate" development. There will be no development. This is a cluster----. Attending DeadCenter with my family, we were visually trying to understand what moron would want the "highway boulevard" to be elevated as far east as Lee Blvd. This will stunt the growth of the western side of Downtown. This makes no sense.


If elevated high-speed roads created development how come the areas around the old I-40 never had any quality development? How come no one seems to understand that you can't create development around cars doing 60 mph?

Did you guys know that the speed limit on the recently redone NE Oklahoma Avenue through Deep Deuce and A-Alley is 40 mph? I saw that today and I was shocked, but not really.

Did you guys know that the speed limit on the recently redone NE Oklahoma Avenue through Deep Deuce and A-Alley is 40 mph? I saw that today and I was shocked, but not really.

Nothing says pedestrian safety like 3000 pounds moving 40 mph. However, the set speed limit should actually be irrelevant. A well designed urban street shouldn't need a speed limit because the proper application of traffic calming measures should keep speeds at a safe level. Once this area fills in those on-street parking spaces will fill up and that will slow traffic down, regardless of what the speed limit signs says. Walnut will be a different story if they keep it 4 lanes and no on-street parking.

There is no on-street parking on Oklahoma north of 4th. There is a dedicated bike lane though.

Larry, how would you spur development and sense of place where the Crosstown used to be? That is the question - I don't understand why anybody thinks this is about a road.
I guess I am questioning the need for yet another place to "spur development"...we already have plenty of that and are needing infill development etc to get to the Urban Utopia that I hear some ardent posters suggesting. How does the Boulevard help in that regard? I have asked this question of the Mayor, City Manager, various Council people what is the NEED for the Boulevard, yet another DT street? I have yet to hear of any reasoning for it. it is just a given in their minds. The Mayor stated (not a direct quote), that if the Park & Boulevard doesn't happen, downtown grinds to a halt. Why? We were without both for 100+ years and hasn't seemed to stop it in its tracks yet. And while on the subject of development (sorry if this upsets Urban or others), but isn't that precisely what the Streetcars are supposed to foster? The 8 to 1 return on investment? Several people have asked "why would we go down the Park to Union Station?". To spur the development that the City is wanting with the Park and the blighted area that is commonly known as Core to Shore. While the Park itself is supposed to help in that regard, the Streetcar is complimentary to it (as it would be with all of the MAPS projects). Those same folks convinced me that the Streetcar is what would do that and now the route chosen is along already developed properties. Seems to me somewhere along the way, they lost track (no pun intended) of what the purpose was. Granted that may have been at the direction of the Council. And if it was, that is the political/bureaucratic reality they are having to deal with. Unfortunately, it is what we are all going to have to live with for decades to come. I want the Streetcar to be a success, but the proposed route seems destined for failure. And a very expensive one at that. We have to get it right the 1st time. only time will tell.

I want the Streetcar to be a success, but the proposed route seems destined for failure.

That is your opinion Larry. And not one widely shared.

There is a pretty wide consensus the convention center and especially this boulevard will be a failure. There is however also a pretty wide consensus that the streetcar project has done good planning.

Who the **** are you? Could you please explain how anything is about me. I've told anyone who has asked me or sent me an email in the past month that Cuatro de Mayo, who has also has a real name, came up with the traffic circle sketch that has been going around.

If it's about any one person, it's Wenger, who needs to be fired and sent to Tulsa.

Actually, I came up with the traffic circle. He just used his architectural skills and program to make it look better ;-)