New boulevard in Oklahoma City won’t see stimulus

[Larry OKC]

NewsOK

New boulevard in Oklahoma City won’t see stimulus (Oklahoman, 11/29/09)

It is related and could impact MAPS 3 since the Mayor has said it the Boulevard is critical to C2S and he often links the Park with the Boulevard (opening together etc).

Can repost the text of the article here if needed, but the link is easier

[betts]

I still think the boulevard, as planned, is a mistake.

[Spartan]

Betts is right.

However, ODOT is going to pay for the boulevard--supposedly. Will ODOT come through on their "promise" -- unlikely. Will that help people realize we don't need the "boulevard" -- hopefully.

Anytime you are spending $30 million on a stretch of street that is a mile and a half long you need to reexamine your budget. What makes the street so special? Are there rails in it? No. Is it accommodating a huge amount of traffic? No.

You don't just build a $30 million boulevard for the sake of building a $30 million boulevard. That's stupid, Cornett.

[mugofbeer]

Betts is right.

However, ODOT is going to pay for the boulevard--supposedly. Will ODOT come through on their "promise" -- unlikely. Will that help people realize we don't need the "boulevard" -- hopefully.

Anytime you are spending $30 million on a stretch of street that is a mile and a half long you need to reexamine your budget. What makes the street so special? Are there rails in it? No. Is it accommodating a huge amount of traffic? No.

You don't just build a $30 million boulevard for the sake of building a $30 million boulevard. That's stupid, Cornett.

There are many things in life that are not necessities. Did we "need" the canals downtown? NO..... Did we "need" to dam up the river and make lakes? OF COURSE NOT. Did San Antonio "need" to make the Riverwalk? Did St. Louis "need" to build the archway? OF COURSE NOT. They were all done as attractive desires and as some sort of symbol of their cities.

The boulevard is to be built as a scenic gateway to downtown. Its a statement of the value we give to our city and is to be something of some future value to the city once trees, small ponds, perhaps a canal extension matures. Remember how silly the people once thought the Botanical Tube was when it was built? Now that the trees have matured, its a beautiful park that now needs some maintenance.

[Spartan]

There are many things in life that are not necessities. Did we "need" the canals downtown? NO..... Did we "need" to dam up the river and make lakes? OF COURSE NOT. Did San Antonio "need" to make the Riverwalk? Did St. Louis "need" to build the archway? OF COURSE NOT. They were all done as attractive desires and as some sort of symbol of their cities.

The boulevard is to be built as a scenic gateway to downtown. Its a statement of the value we give to our city and is to be something of some future value to the city once trees, small ponds, perhaps a canal extension matures. Remember how silly the people once thought the Botanical Tube was when it was built? Now that the trees have matured, its a beautiful park that now needs some maintenance.

I think we have a misunderstanding here. I'm a big proponent of the downtown wishlist and MAPS 3. However I'm still a dollar and cents kind of guy, and a pragmatic budget hawk. I still expect projects to be valuable investments, represent the best bang for the buck, and the boulevard is NOT that. Trust me. This boulevard is just a big boondoggle, just like everything that the Crosstown Expressway relocation project has touched. It's become our version of the Big Dig.

[mugofbeer]

the Crosstown Expressway relocation project has touched. It's become our version of the Big Dig.

Oh, now thats just a wee bit of an exaggeration don't you think?

The Crosstown project is coming along fine and only a lack of funding commitments are keeping it from being completed more quickly. If you are referring to cost increases since it was first a concept, well, thank environmental studies and simple inflation for that. The Big Dig was a project built in a horrible environment for such an undertaking.

As for the Boulevard, I also want the most bang for the buck just as I think we've gotten from the other MAPS projects. However, to build a landmark scenic boulevard through OKC's downtown would be a wonderful addition. I stand by my comments.

[RedDirt717]

There are many things in life that are not necessities. Did we "need" the canals downtown? NO..... Did we "need" to dam up the river and make lakes? OF COURSE NOT. Did San Antonio "need" to make the Riverwalk? Did St. Louis "need" to build the archway? OF COURSE NOT. They were all done as attractive desires and as some sort of symbol of their cities.

The boulevard is to be built as a scenic gateway to downtown. Its a statement of the value we give to our city and is to be something of some future value to the city once trees, small ponds, perhaps a canal extension matures. Remember how silly the people once thought the Botanical Tube was when it was built? Now that the trees have matured, its a beautiful park that now needs some maintenance.

I was up in the air about this, but I'm sold now. Thanks Mug.

[eef]

I don't get the boulevard. Why spend money on a big street when you want people to walk more downtown?

[betts]

If we're going to have a boulevard, I'd like to see rails on it. If it is truly going to be as wide as planned, then it's not designed strictly for aesthetics. It would be simple, since the boulevard hasn't been constructed yet, to make it the east-west line of the streetcar. I also think, if MAPS doesn't pass, that the boulevard is going to be the city's only new project, and they're going to focus on it rather intensely. Maybe that's a good thing. Maybe that could be the focus for new development. But, regardless, let's make it pedestrian friendly and fewer lanes.

[Spartan]

The article said the estimated cost of the boulevard is $80 million.. so it's gone up a LOT since I last heard. What's the cause for that?

[Larry OKC]

The article said the estimated cost of the boulevard is $80 million.. so it's gone up a LOT since I last heard. What's the cause for that?

I hadn't been able to locate much cost info on the Boulevard. The one article I did find a while back put the cost at $100M, so the $80M is a drop from that. But the $100M may have included the tearing down of the current crosstown, since that part has been funded, they may have sub-divided the Boulevard even further (like they did when it was originally part of the relocation $236M)

[betts]

Getting fawncier as we speak. As I said, if MAPS doesn't pass, then it's the city's baby, and it may get fawncier yet.

[purplemonkeythief]

Getting fawncier as we speak. As I said, if MAPS doesn't pass, then it's the city's baby, and it may get fawncier yet.

Link proving this will happen?

[betts]

Link proving this will happen?

You want a link for my opinion? I don't think the technology has been invented yet.

[betts]

Actually mug, I think the boulevard has potential, and it is my opinion that if MAPS doesn't pass it will become the focus of the city's efforts because quite frankly, what else will they have to focus on. I simply think it is an error to put too many lanes in it. I think the focus should be on the median. If that's the case it could be very cool.

[mugofbeer]

Actually mug, I think the boulevard has potential, and it is my opinion that if MAPS doesn't pass it will become the focus of the city's efforts because quite frankly, what else will they have to focus on. I simply think it is an error to put too many lanes in it. I think the focus should be on the median. If that's the case it could be very cool.

Oh, I agree. It shouldn't be carrying 100,000 cars a day. Downtown traffic should be fanned to other streets.

If MAPS doesn't pass, you don't think they will just re-caste it in some more palatable form to bring out again?

[Spartan]

The project has ballooned from $236 million total when proposed to over $640 million and that does not include the $80 million (originally $30 million, and still not close to breaking ground) for the boulevard.. Where is the accountability? Where is the honesty (from ODOT)? I know I'm crying over a project that's already underway, and not to beat a dead horse, but I'm surprised I'm the only one outraged about the pricetag that just keeps going up and up and up.

You say the Big Dig is unique from this because the Big Dig was a bad environment for a Big Dig. Well, this too. The water table isn't as low as they had planned for (in fact that had no clue how low the water table was when they started digging) so as a result the project can not be as depressed as it was supposed to be. The highway will NOT be hidden from site as it goes through C2S and it will be near ground level as it cuts through the park.

It was just a joke of a planning process in the first place. They just wanted to spend some money, line some pockets, and cash in their retirement. Leaving the massive problems with our highway network for someone else to fix.

[mugofbeer]

The project has ballooned from $236 million total when proposed to over $640 million and that does not include the $80 million (originally $30 million, and still not close to breaking ground) for the boulevard.. Where is the accountability? Where is the honesty (from ODOT)? I know I'm crying over a project that's already underway, and not to beat a dead horse, but I'm surprised I'm the only one outraged about the pricetag that just keeps going up and up and up.

You say the Big Dig is unique from this because the Big Dig was a bad environment for a Big Dig. Well, this too. The water table isn't as low as they had planned for (in fact that had no clue how low the water table was when they started digging) so as a result the project can not be as depressed as it was supposed to be. The highway will NOT be hidden from site as it goes through C2S and it will be near ground level as it cuts through the park.

It was just a joke of a planning process in the first place. They just wanted to spend some money, line some pockets, and cash in their retirement. Leaving the massive problems with our highway network for someone else to fix.

Provide me with a timeline and reasons for the ballooning cost. What was the rate of inflation over the period of time that it was originally proposed to the time construction started? What changes in design and route happened? How much did the environmental impact studies and the lawsuits (if any) cost the project?

Go down with a structural engineer and take a look at the crosstown bridges. The engineer will show you the bridges are literally crumbling to pieces. They carry triple the forcasted traffic and far more heavy trucks than they were supposed to. We will be lucky if they last until the new route is built. Explain to me how this project is lining pockets? How can it? Its a hiway that generates 0-money. Give some proof anyone is profiting from this project over and above normal contractor project profits - otherwise, you're just making it all up.

OKC isn't the only city relocating a close-in interstate. Ft. Worth moved I-30 a few blocks south for the same reason we did.

[Larry OKC]

Also, I recall an article that said the City would have some costs involved that wouldn't be covered by ODOT (utility relocation, landscaping etc)...could that be where your $30M number came from?? Unfortunately, don't seem to have that article saved or bookmarked so doing it from the sketchiest of details.

[Larry OKC]

found the article that put the project amount at $100M

Funding OK'd in Crosstown highway plan Money is still needed to tear down old one, department official says. (9/20/2008)

The department hasn't found a source yet for about $100 million needed for [1] tearing down the current Crosstown Expressway, [2] building a boulevard in its place and [3] an interchange at Byers and Lincoln Boulevard, Ridley said.

From the linked article starting the thread, looks like they have further subdivided the Boulevard:
[1] has been funded = $8.7M
[2] still unfunded = $80M
[3] is funded = $17M

So while it looked like the estimates had gone down from $100M to $80M, they just keep subdividing it (actually the cost has gone up some from the $100M figure to $105.7M (mol)



What is the total cost of the 1-40 relocation project? This starts to get messy...

"If a Planned Boulevard is Built …" (4/29/09)

"The project’s total cost will rise to $600 million if a planned boulevard is built along parts of the existing roadway’s path." -- ODOT director Gary Ridley

In the linked article, the I-40 project is "now a $644 million project' (this is $44M more than what Ridley said and doesn't even include the $80M for the Boulevard), so "the project’s total cost" stands at $724M??



As with so many of the things MAPS 3 related, the costs are just estimates, is the $80M for the Boulevard accurate?

Not "if" on the Boulevard? (5/27/09)

"We are in frequent communication with the City on this issue and as we develop plans together on the boulevard the next few years, more details including the actual and not the rough costs can be refined. The City is looking at their options on how they want to see the boulevard and all of that will come into play in planning for the boulevard. I hope that answers your question." -- ODOT spokeswoman Terri Angier

On a side note, found in Steve's blog post that the City would be responsible for an unspecified amount of the Boulevard costs

Before You Make Those 2012 Core to Shore Plans … (4/17/09)

"To win the city’s support for ODOT’s preferred route, Neal McCaleb, then Secretary of Transportation, with the governor’s backing, promised to build a boulevard to replace the current alignment. The state promised to pay for the boulevard, with the city paying for infrastructure needs and amenities intended to make it a grand entry into downtown." -- Steve Lackmeyer

[Spartan]

ODOT has said they will PAY FOR a basic road to replace the boulevard. They will not pay for something extravagant, so the City of OKC will have to pick up any extra aesthetic costs.

I'm still trying to figure out why we need this lavish streetscape and a boulevard that's the US equivalent of the Champs d'Elysses. The reason those wide, grand blvds are a success in other countries is because they have the traffic. Their blvds are full of cars and more importantly, full of PEOPLE.

We don't have the pedestrian traffic, and won't for years, to fill this streetscape with all of the pedestrian traffic it is built to accommodate. So at some point all of this extra accommodation actually becomes a HINDRANCE to pedestrian friendliness. The sidewalks are too wide so it will feel like there are no people on the street even at peak times.

[betts]

I think putting I-40 on the ground, regardless of where (I would have like it to south of the river) is one of the best ideas this city has had. An elevated highway is an eyesore, and it stifles development near it, as we've seen again and again, maintenance is not only an ongoing thing, but it's far worse to have a hole in a highway 30 feet off the ground than on the ground. I would have preferred it be below ground level as well, but it sounded as if that was more related to ground water than disinterest in doing so.

Although the Big Dig might have been a boondoggle, what they're doing in Boston following it is really nice. I haven't been there in a few years, but they were creating parks in the land over the highway, and it looked like it would be really nice.

[mugofbeer]

The elevated highway has gone the way of the dinosaur. It was the thing in the 60's but we've realized they had major problems. Downtown interstates are the single most divisive thing that most cities have separating one "area" or district of a city from another. Boston did to a great job of turning the "roof" of the Big Dig into a uniting park but what it ended up costing was probably not worth it.

I read Dallas is starting to build a park over the Woodall Rogers across the north part of downtown as a "uniting" park to link the "place-to-be" Uptown area to the "still underutilized" downtown.

Yes, I read our I-40 can't be buried without tremendous expense due to the water table issue. The idea of a wide "landmark" bridge is, IMO, the effort to link the C2S area with the parklands on the south so the highway doesn't become a divider.

[jbrown84]

I don't think it should be a wide 6-lane or even 4-lane boulevard a-la EK Gaylord. It doesn't need to carry that much traffic. It shouldn't be "I-40 Business".

I would much rather see a parkway. I can't find a good example photo, but essentially just one lane of traffic in each way with one row of parallel parking on the north and one on the south and a long narrow park in between the two directions of traffic. OKC doesn't have such a thing anywhere and this is our best chance to build one. It would compliment the central park well.