Let's do THIS with the old I-40

[Just the facts]

ljbab728 - Which part of Santa Monica Blvd? The proposal would be to have a section of parking, an individual lane to service that parking, a median, 2 lanes of traffic going west, a median, 2 lanes of traffic going east, a median, a lane of traffic servicing parking, and then parking. What is going to slow traffic on the 4 lanes that don't have any parking adjacent to it? Plus crossing the street will take a long time because it would be 200 feet wide - or more.

[Rover]

People will cross if there is anything on the other side to walk to. I frequent any number of wider blvds in the world that are wider and heavily pedestrian with no trouble. If the blvd entices the right mix of business alongside it will be successful whether four or six lanes, if proper crosses and signals are used.

[metro]

people will cross if there is anything on the other side to walk to. I frequent any number of wider blvds in the world that are wider and heavily pedestrian with no trouble. If the blvd entices the right mix of business alongside it will be successful whether four or six lanes, if proper crosses and signals are used.

this

[Just the facts]

How many of those wide boulevards existed before the city was already built around them? Even the boulevards of Paris where never that wide until well after the surrounding city had been established (in many cases for centuries). Many residential buildings were leveled in the process. Creating an initial road so wide that it rivals the great boulevards of Europe seems to be putting the cart way before the horse. OKC needs to foster a pedestrian mindset first. Building a road 200 feet wide where narry a pedestrian exist - and then hoping pedestrian oriented business are attracted to the area seems backwards to me. We can't even get a steady pedestrian flow going along Automobile Alley after 20 years - although the streetcar will sure help.

Just like all the condos instead of apartments around downtown, the plan for this type of boulevard is skipping some steps in the natural development process.

[Rover]

Just like all the condos instead of apartments around downtown, the plan for this type of boulevard is skipping some steps in the natural development process.

You don't want natural development. You want controlled development to YOUR vision. You deny real natural development everywhere and assign some condition to it. You ridicule any societal development that doesn't adhere to urban 101 for dummies.

[Snowman]

How many of those wide boulevards existed before the city was already built around them? Even the boulevards of Paris where never that wide until well after the surrounding city had been established (in many cases for centuries). Many residential buildings were leveled in the process. Creating an initial road so wide that it rivals the great boulevards of Europe seems to be putting the cart way before the horse. OKC needs to foster a pedestrian mindset first. Building a road 200 feet wide where narry a pedestrian exist - and then hoping pedestrian oriented business are attracted to the area seems backwards to me. We can't even get a steady pedestrian flow going along Automobile Alley after 20 years - although the streetcar will sure help. ...

You keep on this but it is contrary to what has been coming out of the city and ODOT for at least the last year about how it will be built. Plus it is not being built in a vacume, the city wants this to be a place that will support high end shopping which will draw people from all over the city. Granted they seem fine with the CC going against almost everything they mentioned they want for the boulevard in the C2S plan.

[Just the facts]

The good news for you is the City (and State) are going to do it the way you want.

[Just the facts]

You keep on this but it is contrary to what has been coming out of the city and ODOT for at least the last year about how it will be built. Plus it is not being built in a vacume, the city wants this to be a place that will support high end shopping which will draw people from all over the city.

The paper just had a story yesterday on the most recent design idea - 6 lanes, 3 medians, and 2 rows of parking.

[Snowman]

The paper just had a story yesterday on the most recent design idea - 6 lanes, 3 medians, and 2 rows of parking.

While I did not read the paper yesterday, that was proposed years ago and is contrary to every statement made in the last year.

[Just the facts]

While I did not read the paper yesterday, that was proposed years ago and is contrary to every statement made in the last year.

From yesterday's paper.

“The latest discussions have recommended that it be two lanes in each direction, with a parking lane on both the north and south sides,” he said. “There'll be some green space in between those lanes ... there's a lot more right of way for this project than what's probably going to be utilized.”



Read more: http://newsok.com/grand-boulevard-is...#ixzz1mxTYgjtV

the cross-section will look like this

S-P-L-M-L-L-M-L-L-M-L-P-S

S= sidewalk
P= parking
L = lane
M = median

No word if bike lanes or streetcar row will be used as well

[Snowman]

From yesterday's paper.




the cross-section will look like this

S-P-L-M-L-L-M-L-L-M-L-P-S

S= sidewalk
P= parking
L = lane
M = median

No word if bike lanes or streetcar row will be used as well

From “The latest discussions have recommended that it be two lanes in each direction, with a parking lane on both the north and south sides,” and “There'll be some green space in between those lanes ... there's a lot more right of way for this project than what's probably going to be utilized.”

unless you have more information than that, S-P-L-L-M-L-L-P-S could also be valid interpretation from what was said in the article you linked to.

S-P-L-M-L-L-M-L-L-M-L-P-S would mean the medians would have to be very narrow as the space for eight parallel cars will leave little room left, even if the lanes are not as wide as the old highway ones. Not to mention the CC is pushing to use some of that space, which the crosstown space and the 3rd street space may have to be merged to make this arrangement fit comfortably there as is.

[betts]

OKC needs to foster a pedestrian mindset first. Building a road 200 feet wide where narry a pedestrian exist - and then hoping pedestrian oriented business are attracted to the area seems backwards to me. We can't even get a steady pedestrian flow going along Automobile Alley after 20 years - although the streetcar will sure help.

Just like all the condos instead of apartments around downtown, the plan for this type of boulevard is skipping some steps in the natural development process.

My understanding from the article in the DOK was that the six lanes include the two for parking. If the boulevard is inviting enough there will be pedestrians, but as been said, there has to be somewhere to walk to. Automobile Alley will have pedestrians as well, when there are places to walk between. I walk to Red Prime and Coffee Slingers, and would walk to Hideaway if my husband liked their pizza. The only real shopping on AA is Rawhide, which is a great store, and the antique store. They are right next to each other, which doesn't exactly create great pedestrian traffic.

And IIRC, most of the big cities of the world had houses adjacent to downtown long before they had apartments. Brownstones or townhouses are still the housing of choice in most major cities and they were there first.

[Just the facts]

unless you have more information than that, S-P-L-L-M-L-L-P-S could also be valid interpretation from what was said in the article you liked to.

If that is what is planned then that would be a huge step in the right direction. I hope you are right. Sorry Rover and Metro - no BFP or Champs Elysees.

[Rover]

I can go to the Champs Elysees anytime I want...don't want or need one here. I just reject the notion there is only one way that OKC can develop or it will be a catastrophe. I don't go into hysterics when something in OKC doesn't get done to my way of thinking. Many times it turns out even better. I also reject the notion that the blvd is another park. It is a blvd and will serve to funnel traffic into and out of downtown. Things will locate along it because it will serve to be an easy conduit to downtown and business will relocate to it because it will have traffic. People will want to live next to it if it creates neighborhood amenities they want and if it makes it easy for them to get to things they want to get to. Pretty simple economics.

[Urbanized]

I'd say the best we could hope for is that it resembled Commonwealth Avenue in Boston where it runs through Back Bay. Basically, a park runs down the center of it. With the ridiculous amount of right-of-way, it would be very easy.

[Just the facts]

It is a blvd and will serve to funnel traffic into and out of downtown. Things will locate along it because it will serve to be an easy conduit to downtown and business will relocate to it because it will have traffic.

Over the years that has worked so well for Shields, and Robinson, and Broadway, and Main Street, and Walker, and Reno, and Sheridan, and... More of the same can't miss. [/sarcasm]

[Rover]

Yes, of course we know it won't work because it is exactly the same dynamics as all the other streets. The ONLY way it will work is one found on page 42 of the world almanac of urban planning. Just because you hate anything to do with cars doesn't mean it can't work.

[ljbab728]

If that is what is planned then that would be a huge step in the right direction. I hope you are right. Sorry Rover and Metro - no BFP or Champs Elysees.

Kerry, that is also exactly how I interpreted it also and it's what I was referring to about Santa Monica Blvd. Santa Monica also has a bike lane in each direction between the traffic lane and parking. I think that would be a great option for OKC as well. Would you object to that because it might make it too wide?

http://maps.google.com/?ll=34.090527...=12,74.89,,0,0

http://maps.google.com/?ll=34.09035,...4.89,,0,0&z=17

Please note the Historic Route 66 sign in the second link. We could put up signs saying the Historic Crosstown Expressway, LOL

[SoonerBoy18]

nooooo thats so boring, I prefer the blvd.

[OKCisOK4me]

I'm totally surprised this thread has gone over 1 page. No stopping the boulevard so why speculate?

[BoulderSooner]

If that is what is planned then that would be a huge step in the right direction. I hope you are right. Sorry Rover and Metro - no BFP or Champs Elysees.

this is what the planning is heading toward

[Bellaboo]

Yes, of course we know it won't work because it is exactly the same dynamics as all the other streets. The ONLY way it will work is one found on page 42 of the world almanac of urban planning. Just because you hate anything to do with cars doesn't mean it can't work.

I'm out of this fuss, but this is a semi classic....+1 for Rover.

[Just the facts]

Kerry, that is also exactly how I interpreted it also and it's what I was referring to about Santa Monica Blvd. Santa Monica also has a bike lane in each direction between the traffic lane and parking. I think that would be a great option for OKC as well. Would you object to that because it might make it too wide?

http://maps.google.com/?ll=34.090527...=12,74.89,,0,0

http://maps.google.com/?ll=34.09035,...4.89,,0,0&z=17

Please note the Historic Route 66 sign in the second link. We could put up signs saying the Historic Crosstown Expressway, LOL

Something along those lines would be great. I really hope you, BoulderSooner, and Snowman are correct, but this quote scares me.

Mayor Mick Cornett said the new boulevard is likely a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for Oklahoma City.

“We're very fortunate to be able to design a brand-new street to go right through the heart of downtown, and we intend to make the most of it,” Cornett said.

“We intend to make it the grandest street this generation has ever seen.”


Read more: http://newsok.com/grand-boulevard-is...#ixzz1n1oMPkBF

[Spartan]

Spartan, I don't care how much public input is given, that kind of project will never be loved by the public or the city officials to replace the old I40. It may have a place in NYC but it would be totally inappropriate and virtually unused here.

I actually think this is a pretty compelling counter-argument here. I suppose a good compromise is that the beams are going to be reused in other failing Oklahoma bridges, which is probably the most adaptive reuse we can hope for.

[Skyline]

Where can I see the latest plan, including the route, for the new boulevard?