Quote Originally Posted by Urban Pioneer View Post
I don't want to derail the thread, but I don't agree with this.

FBB made a huge difference on many levels. We reduced the hideous overhead bridge by 3,200 linear feet and forced broad changes that will save taxpayers somewhere between $28.5 and $35 million dollars. We successfully delayed the project by nearly 3 years. A project that was said to not be possible of being delayed. That has allowed citizen input to actually occur. More intersections are being introduced to mitigate the "barrier affect" and subsequently slow traffic with more stops. A greater concern for crosswalks, bike lanes, and how the Boulevard interacts with the areas it bifurcates has occurred. Parallel parking has been introduced and the quantity of lanes and width of lanes diminished. The broader conversation regarding impacts has caused a political commitment to invest in rehabilitation and greater walkability investment to the streets leading up to the Boulevard.

Is it perfect? Hell no. Is it "better"? Hell yes.

We could have probably accomplished more if everyone was towing the same rope. There seemed to be a lack of recognition by urbanists that a "grid" option was never a politically viable option on all sorts of levels.

Some of your other commentary is fairly spot on. I am just a bit tired of the narrative that FBB failed somehow. We worked our a** off and forced a great many arrogant people to have to modify the design of their project. And they hate us for it.

I guess that is where the rub exists. This community is in transition with generational thinking. Suburban perogatives versus urbanity. The only way that positive change can occur is to get involved, get elected, or somehow else get a seat at the table.
Well, I simply disagree that you guys made anything better. Like I said, I think you made it worse. It would have been more pedestrian friendly if left more of a bridge because you could go under it without having to worry about traffic. If done right and built a little higher than the old I-40 and more attention to artwork and detail, it would have been no barrier what so ever. There are plenty of elevated highway in cities that have booming neighborhoods on BOTH sides of the highway and it's very easy and comfortable to walk under them.

Ps, I still respect that we had people who actually cared about this city and fought for what they believed in putting their time and effort into this. I am glad to see that.

PPS, perhaps I would change my wording not to say you failed, but didn't achieve what you seeking out to achieve. Believe it or not, I would've loved to have seen CuatrodeMayo's vision of a low-speed, 4 lane with narrow lane, huge traffic circle, bike lanes, and everything else he had on it with the Thunder Circle way more than I would like to see an old I40 rebuilt.

The thing here is though, we're not getting either. We're getting a half ass, half BLVD half highway, I'm not even sure what to call it at this point.

It's a road that is designed to be a highway but is being declared as a pedestrian friendly roadway. It sucks. Either have one or the other because no matter, unless you do it right, it will still be a detriment to the Super walkable environment we want to see built around here, am I wrong?

Again, I do appreciate what you guys did and am not trying to bash you.