Would you support it? I would. I think this would go a long way in ultimately creating a larger core that could tie in with the adventure district and HSC.

So what would be your ideas? How much do you think it would cost to create a tunnel? My guess would be close to a billion. Quite honestly, I think it could flow fine if we just made a six lane, high speed, limited access underground highway in place of what we have now.

Too deep of a subject for me.

Ummmmmm....NO. Maybe between where it comes down from the bridges south of 23rd to like south of 6th Street but again that would be like the Big Dig in Boston and it would be a waste of money considering they've already redone most of 235 north of 23rd.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If we were playing cities in motion it would be neat, but the billions It would cost just doesn't fly.

Given what ODOT considers a boulevard it would not be removing a barrier anyway.

If we were playing cities in motion it would be neat, but the billions It would cost just doesn't fly.

Very true. If there was that much money to spare, it could be put to much better use in OKC.

even with 235 buried, you'd still have the santa fe tracks to deal with. -M

A very large expense with a very minimal return... and as mentioned previously, given the "success" (or lack thereof) of other such highway tunnel projects elsewhere, it would be a huge money pit and ultimately an irrational and unreasonable waste of good dollars that could be much better spent improving other highways and interchanges throughout the metro... and state.

At some point in time, people need to think about the realistic practicality of their pie-in-the-sky suggestions, for their own credibility as much as anything else.

I think if done right... It could be made into a corridor that would connect the east side of 235 with the core and put a BLVD. similar to the one I suggested for Crosstown BLVD. could see potentially a billion or so in new development.

As far as better uses for the money, I agree actually. But do know, someone will always have a better use with money than you, I, or anyone here will.

I think if done right... It could be made into a corridor that would connect the east side of 235 with the core and put a BLVD. similar to the one I suggested for Crosstown BLVD. could see potentially a billion or so in new development.
Let's first see how the development around Core2Shore develops before we dream about "investing" a "a billion or so" in 235 reconstruction in the blind faith that we'll then see "potentionally a billion or so" in new development.


As far as better uses for the money, I agree actually. But do know, someone will always have a better use with money than you, I, or anyone here will.
With so much crumbling infrastructure, it would be hard for anyone to argue in good faith that investing "a billion or so" in an already proven money pit road construction idea outweighs all the immediate, critical road improvements necessary around the metro. With federal funds drying up, it's time to start thinking more wisely and practically with such investments of road funding.

It's a good idea in theory. Impractical though given the financial cuts ODOT has taken recently and the idiocy of their engineering department. I would rather use that money to redo major interchanges, most specifically I-40/I-44 and I-240/I-35 with 4-level stacks. Then I would also widen I-235 to eight lanes between 36th St and I-44 where it is currently only four lanes. You should be able to get from Edmond to downtown OKC without having to change lanes once if you don't want to. If there was money left over, I would widen I-35 in NE OKC between I-40 and where it merges with I-44 to six lanes.

This happening is less likely than the BNSF line being turned into a trench line through Edmond between 33rd & Danforth.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I like the concept and the possibilities, as a non-rush-hour-user, but I would hate to be stuck in that tunnel at rush hour, and I doubt it would ever realize it's non-bureaucratic potential.

I'm not concerned with the poll. I'm not concerned with the poll at all.

I would prefer they just retire I-235 when its current life-span expires and put back what was once there.

I would prefer they just retire I-235 when its current life-span expires and put back what was once there.I actually thought about adding that as a poll option, but didn't... :p

I would prefer they just retire I-235 when its current life-span expires and put back what was once there.
This coming from someone who doesn't live here and drive that route on a daily basis?

This coming from someone who doesn't live here and drive that route on a daily basis?

Since it is built with federal tax dollars, half of which comes from the general budget, I feel qualified to comment on the subject. If it causes a problem with your commute then live closer to work. Multiple real-world examples show that when freeways are removed the traffic simply evaporates and doesn't appear else ware.

http://www.cnu.org/highways

Since it is built with federal tax dollars, half of which comes from the general budget, I feel qualified to comment on the subject. If it causes a problem with your commute then live closer to work.
Since I help contribute those federal tax dollars, then they can keep it up.

Since I help contribute those federal tax dollars, then they can keep it up.

The good news for you is that they will never remove I-235 even if it makes financial sense to do so. That is just how government works.

I-235 is a necessary evil. It would be a nightmare getting people from north OKC and Edmond into downtown without it. If anything, it needs to be widened betwixt 36th St and I-44.

we should fill in space already in place before adding more

I like CuatrodeMayo's concept of I-235 only partially buried near downtown.
http://andrewkstewart.files.wordpress.com/2013/12/i-235_final.jpg

we should fill in space already in place before adding more

Things like I-235 are what is keeping the in-fill from happening. It creates both a barrier to development near it and provides easy access to sprawling land on the fringe. Remove it and you would be amazed how quickly all the in-fill land fills up. You should see how dense this area was before I-235 was put in.

At some point I-235 is going to out-live its lifespan and need to be replaced. If I-40 is any indication it will cost upwards of a billion dollar by then - and you have to ask - is it worth a billion dollars?

From the Better Boulevard people.

What OKC would look like with I-235 gone.

http://www.betterblockokc.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/BroadwayGif.gif[/QUOTE]

For those of you that think it should be removed, what exactly would you propose we do with the 100K+ people that use it as a main artery through the middle of OKC? It's the main connector between south and north. We don't exactly have a transportation system that could absorb that traffic. If anything, the southern end near I-40 needs to be expanded to correct completely stupid lane merging/shuffling.

There aren't any "alternatives" either. I-35 is close at the I-40 side, but it's much further away at the 44 side. Not to mention then you're just pushing traffic over to a different road. You'd split between 44 (which is already far exceeding capacity) and 35 which isn't built to handle any more than it is now...with another stupid 35S flow.

I'm not the least bit worried that it will ever go away, but I don't really see how it's acting as a barrier. Homes were taken out for the construction, not businesses...almost exclusively. It killed a thriving African American community. If you take the highway out now, what you'll find is a bunch of wealthy (mostly older white) folks moving into the upscale town homes and lofts that will be built there. Yeah, don't think that would piss me off if I were a former resident at allll....sarcasm.

If you bury it, you can't put it deep enough in Oklahoma for it to allow anything to be built on top of it. So as Cuatro's picture showed, yeah you'll get some green space, but you have to cut off access to/from the road to claim back room on either side from the ramps. But if you look at the area just north of the image from JTF, you'll see a MUCH different use of space. The elevated sections have buildings right up to the columns. ODOT did a much better job of preserving things....but again, it's commercial space. For some reason they deemed it more important to maintain than the residential space. It's actually a quite dense construction with the rail yard, drainage system (that wasn't there before), etc. If you don't believe me, just go check out a google map of today. The image above is the absolute "worst case" section of the highway. The rail line serves as MUCH more of a barrier than the highway. OSSM exists in that same section BECAUSE of the highway "clearing" work. And freeing up that residential space is actually part of what's been instrumental in building the Health Complex. Can't have it both ways folks.

For those of you that think it should be removed, what exactly would you propose we do with the 100K+ people that use it as a main artery through the middle of OKC? It's the main connector between south and north. We don't exactly have a transportation system that could absorb that traffic. If anything, the southern end near I-40 needs to be expanded to correct completely stupid lane merging/shuffling.


Studies in cities after cities that have removed urban freeways shows that all the people who are using the road STOP driving. Those car trips don't go anywhere - they simply evaporate. This is the magic of induced demand. Build a road and people drive, remove the road and people stop driving. Just look at the 95,000 cars a day ODOT says will use the new OKC boulevard. Where are those 95,000 cars today? Answer, they don't exist and they won't exist unless the road is built. There is a common misconception that roads are widened in a response to demand, but really it is the other way around - demand increase in response to increased capacity.

Studies in cities after cities that have removed urban freeways shows that all the people who are using the road STOP driving. Those car trips don't go anywhere - they simply evaporate. This is the magic of induced demand. Build a road and people drive, remove the road and people stop driving. Just look at the 95,000 cars a day ODOT says will use the new OKC boulevard. Where are those 95,000 cars today? Answer, they don't exist and they won't exist unless the road is built. There is a common misconception that roads are widened in a response to demand, but really it is the other way around - demand increase in response to increased capacity.

Ok, but the problem is, this is Oklahoma City, not all those cities where those urban studies were created. OKC metro area is an auto culture.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S5

Ok, but the problem is, this is Oklahoma City, not all those cities where those urban studies were created. OKC metro area is an auto culture.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S5

6 Freeway Removals That Changed Their Cities Forever (http://gizmodo.com/6-freeway-demolitions-that-changed-their-cities-forever-1548314937)

This isn't an auto culture? You are half right - it isn't an auto culture NOW. If Dallas succeeds in removing I-345 I wonder how many people in OKC will change their position on I-235.

Before
http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--ZNwLSUqa--/c_fit,fl_progressive,q_80,w_636/wofvpkx2jlpu4voagmmg.jpg

After
http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--Pkimt5b_--/c_fit,fl_progressive,q_80,w_636/xjqtsvr1qb6axuvjgeqo.jpg

Ok, but the problem is, this is Oklahoma City, not all those cities where those urban studies were created. OKC metro area is an auto culture.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S5

Right. It's impossible to compare OKC to other cities because we are a complete anomaly. No city has ever been like us and no city ever will be. Studies don't apply to us because we're ~*different*~

That before pic isn't Dallas, there's mountains off in the distance. Try again!

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S5

That before pic isn't Dallas, there's mountains off in the distance. Try again!

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S5

Who said Dallas? Those pictures are from China, bub.

*Korea

Who said Dallas? Those pictures are from China, bub.

He said and I quote "if Dallas succeeds in removing I345...". I assumed before and after pics were of said Dallas freeway.

Missed ya last night at the FBT get together. Out of town on business?

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S5

He said and I quote "if Dallas succeeds in removing I345...". I assumed before and after pics were of said Dallas freeway.

It's all good. I called it China when it's actually Korea.

Welcome neo to the OklahomaCityTalk forum!

I'm glad you found us and hope you will take the opportunity to spread the word. We appreciate any suggestions you may have good or bad.

Take Care,

OKTALK

I thought it looked funny ;-)

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S5

Ok, but the problem is, this is Oklahoma City, not all those cities where those urban studies were created. OKC metro area is an auto culture.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S5

OKC metro has been a car culture, but that is changing. As has been noted here before, Millenials aren't as interested in driving and in fact, look for ways to give it up. I have 4 children who are Millenials, one son-in-law and two significant others. Between the 7 of them there are 3 cars. And that's not because we chose not to buy them cars. They actually owned them and sold them and were thrilled to do so. Times are changing, even in Oklahoma City. As we have more mass transit options available, I think you'll find more and more people either choosing not to own cars or looking for places to live and recreate where they can do minimal driving. It's time to change the way we think about roads and transit.

He said and I quote "if Dallas succeeds in removing I345...". I assumed before and after pics were of said Dallas freeway.

Missed ya last night at the FBT get together. Out of town on business?

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S5

Sorry for the confusion. The picture were from South Korea. Property owners in Dallas are trying to get I-345 removed.

Homepage - A New Dallas :: A New Dallas (http://www.anewdallas.com/)

http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--sd6y8xGt--/c_fit,fl_progressive,q_80,w_636/rdpzu3yqnogq613b4y23.jpg

http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--4cCKaqpp--/c_fit,fl_progressive,q_80,w_636/tl8frsplzvgtb6zlnjip.jpg

OKC metro has been a car culture, but that is changing. As has been noted here before, Millenials aren't as interested in driving and in fact, look for ways to give it up. I have 4 children who are Millenials, one son-in-law and two significant others. Between the 7 of them there are 3 cars. And that's not because we chose not to buy them cars. They actually owned them and sold them and were thrilled to do so. Times are changing, even in Oklahoma City. As we have more mass transit options available, I think you'll find more and more people either choosing not to own cars or looking for places to live and recreate where they can do minimal driving. It's time to change the way we think about roads and transit.

Oh yeah, don't get me wrong, I'm between those generations. While knowing I need that vehicle to travel out into the field, when I do come home (preferably Downtown OKC), I want to not have to use it while home.

I hung out with your son last night and he's a cool customer. ;-)

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S5

Looking realistically at this, in order to move OKC away from auto focuses to other forms of transportation will require doing things in steps. We would absolutely have it to have commuter/light rail deployed. I could see tearing out 235 only in the case where new rail lines could be put down along its footprint to provide a much more direct rail routing from Edmond. We would obviously need park and ride lots along it to start and slowly phase them out over time.

Will rail still lagging behind, removing 235 just simply won't be a real option for awhile. If at all...the state capitol folks probably wouldn't like to give their highway up.

I thought it looked funny ;-)

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S5

Where did this quote come from?

In theory, how would this happen? Since 235 is only three lanes across, would they put everything to one side with no exiting up to 10th street, demolish one side, dig down to build the highway, then switch everything over to do the same thing on the other side? And when all that is finished, they would still need to basically add a roof overhead with the ability to hold millions of pounds of homes/parks, etc above. Yeah, I don't think people would think too kindly of that happening when all we hear about is how bad all the other roads are in the city and then you are spending a couple of billion on burying something that was perfectly fine where it was for some development.

Looking realistically at this, in order to move OKC away from auto focuses to other forms of transportation will require doing things in steps. We would absolutely have it to have commuter/light rail deployed. I could see tearing out 235 only in the case where new rail lines could be put down along its footprint to provide a much more direct rail routing from Edmond. We would obviously need park and ride lots along it to start and slowly phase them out over time.

Will rail still lagging behind, removing 235 just simply won't be a real option for awhile. If at all...the state capitol folks probably wouldn't like to give their highway up.

The only proposal is to remove I-235 when its life expectancy runs out. No one wants to remove it now, but at some point it is going to have to be replaced, so instead of replacing it why not start building OKC for the future generations instead of the past generations? Commuter rail from Norman to Edmond will be in place long before I-235 needs replacement. If people living in Edmond need to go downtown post 235 they can take the train - or drive on a city street from I-44 to downtown.

Where did this quote come from?

JTF said it about 7 posts back.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S5

JTF said it about 7 posts back.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S5

Unless I'm missing something this is your quote.

7901

The only proposal is to remove I-235 when its life expectancy runs out. No one wants to remove it now, but at some point it is going to have to be replaced, so instead of replacing it why not start building OKC for the future generations instead of the past generations? Commuter rail from Norman to Edmond will be in place long before I-235 needs replacement. If people living in Edmond need to go downtown post 235 they can take the train - or drive on a city street from I-44 to downtown.
Whatever it is you're smoking, you need to share...

Are you doubting how soon commuter rail will be in place or that people are incapable of driving on a city street?

commuter rail and 235 can coexist together

The only proposal is to remove I-235 when its life expectancy runs out. No one wants to remove it now, but at some point it is going to have to be replaced, so instead of replacing it why not start building OKC for the future generations instead of the past generations?

One need only look at the Boulevard discussion to see how it will probably end. OKC is blowing a once in a generation chance to fundamentally change the course of its development yet they are placing building a singular escape route to the suburbs over every other consideration. But the turd will be nice and shiny.

One need only look at the Boulevard discussion to see how it will probably end. OKC is blowing a once in a generation chance to fundamentally change the course of its development yet they are placing building a singular escape route to the suburbs over every other consideration. But the turd will be nice and shiny.

That is why we need to be out in front on I-235. Instead of letting ODOT set the agenda we need to be setting the agenda. Let ODOT pick their own battles. Everyone knows I-235 will need to be replaced at some point so lets plan for that now instead of just responding to ODOTs plans after the fact.

Unless I'm missing something this is your quote.

7901

whoa, where did that come from?

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S5

whoa, where did that come from?


Ha, my point exactly. That post is from '04.

The only proposal is to remove I-235 when its life expectancy runs out. No one wants to remove it now, but at some point it is going to have to be replaced, so instead of replacing it why not start building OKC for the future generations instead of the past generations? Commuter rail from Norman to Edmond will be in place long before I-235 needs replacement. If people living in Edmond need to go downtown post 235 they can take the train - or drive on a city street from I-44 to downtown.What f I don't want to take a train? I enjoy driving... It's not like every street is a highway so why make harder on those that want to drive?

Are you doubting how soon commuter rail will be in place or that people are incapable of driving on a city street?There are tons of city streets out there. Worry about those, not the few highway we have.

What f I don't want to take a train? I enjoy driving... It's not like every street is a highway so why make harder on those that want to drive?

Then you would have no less than 5 options to get into downtown from the north. You could take Classen, Lincoln, Western, Santa Fe, or a new and improved Broadway. The creek along side I-235 could then be restored and daylighted, a bike path put in, a new park created.

Then you would have no less than 5 options to get into downtown from the north. You could take Classen, Lincoln, Western, Santa Fe, or a new and improved Broadway.

Or if you really, really want to drive on a highway one could go east to 35 or west to Hefner Parkway/44.

That's weird. I didn't join until '08. Blame Tapatalk lol.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S5

Then you would have no less than 5 options to get into downtown from the north. You could take Classen, Lincoln, Western, Santa Fe, or a new and improved Broadway. The creek along side I-235 could then be restored and daylighted, a bike path put in, a new park created.Then I have stop at lights, go 30-50 MPH slower than I would on the freeway etc. I'll keep the freeway. As you stated, there are already options for people who want to live without freeways and they can build urban housing there.

why do I get the feeling that if Edmond wasn't on the other end of the highway this wouldn't even be a debate..

why do I get the feeling that if Edmond wasn't on the other end of the highway this wouldn't even be a debate..
Edmond is not the only locale north of I-44.