OKC Boulevard

[shawnw]

Was at an event tonight where Eric Wenger gave a talk and I asked him (not for the first time but after quite a bit of time had passed since I last asked) again about pedestrian connectivity between West downtown and Farmers market. He seemed to have backed off the last thing he told me a bit and went with the more conservative, "there will be pedestrian features but we'll upgrade them over time as needed". Not saying this is a negative response but considering the last time we talked about this none of the things happening in West downtown were happening yet, and just how much more rapidly things will progress once what's being built is done (e.g. there will suddenly be hundreds of residents that won't want to only go east), I think he's underestimating how quickly they'll need to upgrade and thus why not do them up front.

[Urban Pioneer]

Well first, thanks for asking! That is disappointing, Their were wide promises made in public meetings to make major investments in the The Farmer's Market District by the city to offset the negative, divisive impacts of the Boulevard's Western Avenue bridge and related berms. Basically a promise to implement The Planning Department's Master Plan for the area to some degree.

[BoulderSooner]

the city really needs to make klein and blvd a 4 way street light intersection ASAP

[shawnw]

I told him I was going to keep asking him when I see him to make sure he remembers. Maybe he'll see the light as west village comes online. I may also email him. We've had exchanges before.

[Ross MacLochness]

Maybe the answer to my question lies deep within this thread, but perhaps someone could quickly explain so I don't have to dig. What was the political motivation for building this thing? Why was ODOT so resistant to change? Why was option D or returning to grid not remotely politically viable? It just doesn't make sense to me.

[shawnw]

People don't like to give up rights of way. And people think traffic is worse than it is and that there aren't enough big streets for people to get out of downtown within seconds. Nevermind the fact that we've gotten along FINE without this road for YEARS.

[BoulderSooner]

Maybe the answer to my question lies deep within this thread, but perhaps someone could quickly explain so I don't have to dig. What was the political motivation for building this thing? Why was ODOT so resistant to change? Why was option D or returning to grid not remotely politically viable? It just doesn't make sense to me.

the powers that be city and state view easy access to the downtown core as an important thing for continued business growth .... (for better the east side blvd or for worse the west side blvd) and they view it as a posssible by pass of I40 should that be a need. (seems unlikely)

[jn1780]

Maybe the answer to my question lies deep within this thread, but perhaps someone could quickly explain so I don't have to dig. What was the political motivation for building this thing? Why was ODOT so resistant to change? Why was option D or returning to grid not remotely politically viable? It just doesn't make sense to me.

Mostly because ODOT already had the east and west connections built and it was hard not to connect two ends together at that point. It was assured that the boulevard was going to happen way back in the mid to late-90's when the route for the new I-40 and plan boulevard was first selected even though the city is significantly different from then. If ODOT was never given the task of building the boulevard originally and federal funds given to them it would have never happened.

[Ross MacLochness]

If ODOT was never given the task of building the boulevard originally and federal funds given to them it would have never happened.

You mean the I-40 re-alignment never would have happened?

[jn1780]

You mean the I-40 re-alignment never would have happened?

I mean back when replacing I-40 with a boulevard became part of the plan. They were both packaged together and federal funds were provided for both. ODOT became the main driver at that point.

[jn1780]

I mean back when replacing I-40 with a boulevard became part of the plan. They were both packaged together and federal funds were provided for both. ODOT became the main driver at that point.

Edit: There were people complaining about I-40 being "too far away" back in 98. https://newsok.com/article/3838658/f...-interstate-40

[Ross MacLochness]

Makes sense. Thanks. I'd rather have a less than stellar mostly at grade boulevard than an elevated interstate in that spot any day.

[Ross MacLochness]

Edit: There were people complaining about I-40 being "too far away" back in 98. https://newsok.com/article/3838658/f...-interstate-40

“My point is this,” Humphreys said. “The interstate now makes it easy for people coming from the west and north to get downtown in a hurry when they need to.

“But when you move the interstate south by the river, that easy access goes away because then people will have to travel down blocks and blocks of city streets to get where they are going.”



Wow... We've come a long way folks.

[shawnw]

"blocks and blocks"

by car even. for shame.

[CaptDave]

Pains my heart. However, we did a pretty awesome job f**king up ODOT's grand plans for I.M. Pei elevated skyways Version #2 and saving taxpayers millions of dollars. At least the city can fix their mess now that it is on the ground.

Those were good days. I hope the city will start ripping out the ODOT mess nearly as soon as it is complete. I still say connecting the thing was unnecessary.

[CaptDave]

The primary problem with the boulevard, IMHO, isn't really near the park...it's west of the park and how the boulevard comes into downtown as a freeway and then cuts across and disrupts what could have been a re-stitching of the street grid. That has been and will always be the boulevard's worst and most egregious flaw.

^^^^ This x1000

[CaptDave]

I think it is important to keep in context that what was originally planned was far, far worse. There are substantial changes in reductions of what was planned to aerial and what is now at-grade.

With that stated, it is important to ensure that it is retrofitted by the city once the keys are turned over to be closer to what it should be. It needs bike lanes, strategic sidewalks, transit stops, landscaping, working lighting, etc. “D” was interpreted by ODOT as a “no build” option. It was never politically viable.

We could have ended up with a better “C”, but the “gridders” ignored the political futility of the situation. In the end, we saved taxpayers over $80 million dollars and helped subdue even worse negative impacts. This Boulevard can be fixed with parts of it even removed.

As a gridder, I thought it was worth the fight but understood all the other considerations. I hold out hope the city will undertake restoring the street grid soon if for no other reason than the tax revenue that can be recovered from that real estate taken up by the diagonal section of the blvd.

[gopokes88]

Those were good days. I hope the city will start ripping out the ODOT mess nearly as soon as it is complete. I still say connecting the thing was unnecessary.

This would be so much fun to watch because odot would be so mad

[jccouger]

I can't see what purpose the blvd will serve between shields & where it crosses Reno. I don't see why anybody would take it from those 2 points. They should've just fed the blvd in to Reno.

[BoulderSooner]

I can't see what purpose the blvd will serve between shields & where it crosses Reno. I don't see why anybody would take it from those 2 points. They should've just fed the blvd in to Reno.

the blvd from shields to walker is the grid ...

[jn1780]

I can't see what purpose the blvd will serve between shields & where it crosses Reno. I don't see why anybody would take it from those 2 points. They should've just fed the blvd in to Reno.

That use to be third street. With the park, convention center, omni hotel, etc. There are a lot of reasons to go through there. It's going from walker to Reno and beyond that becomes questionable

[jerrywall]

My big complaint is that it's not designed for its posted speed limits. It's built like a 45 MPH road (at least), but posted (at least for now) at 25mp, between 235 and shields. So you either go the speed limit and have people swinging around you at high speeds, or you speed yourself. If they wanted a lower speed crosstown, it should have been two narrower lanes, and a bike lane in either direction.

[BoulderSooner]

My big complaint is that it's not designed for its posted speed limits. It's built like a 45 MPH road (at least), but posted (at least for now) at 25mp, between 235 and shields. So you either go the speed limit and have people swinging around you at high speeds, or you speed yourself. If they wanted a lower speed crosstown, it should have been two narrower lanes, and a bike lane in either direction.

past shields it will be narrower ... east of oklahoma it is an on/off ramp

[jerrywall]

past shields it will be narrower ... east of oklahoma it is an on/off ramp

The problem is the speed drops from 55 to 25 in a very short distance. It would be better if it was narrower there as well.

[BoulderSooner]

The problem is the speed drops from 55 to 25 in a very short distance. It would be better if it was narrower there as well.

also helps that there is a light at oklahoama and a light at shields