Friends for a Better Boulevard

[LandRunOkie]

In terms of this city's tree situation (especially downtown), mediocrity would be a vast improvement.

[RodH]

The proposed alternatives are only visually different from the ODOT proposal. I am disappointed that there appears to be no north-south access between Walker and Western\Classen. At least with a bridge there was a chance for a pedestrian path.

[Dubya61]

The "range of alternatives" (A, B, C and D) being presented and the "Preferred Alternative" (A) are not of Stantec's choosing. Those decisions have been made by City and ODOT engineers.

IIRC, Stantec is going to run the meeting. I'm sure that was chosen so that the City and ODOT wouldn't be in any hot seats. Even with this, this is no time for FBB to back down or lose any steam. To paraphrase Sid, there is no point in hurrying this project that could be the very future of OKC's development.

[kevinpate]

When is the lipstick on the pig show taking place?

[LandRunOkie]

I believe that this summer, there was significant consideration given to a proposal that kept the boulevard above grade between Western & Walker. The images available seem to put it at grade immediately east of Western?

[CaptDave]

When is the lipstick on the pig show taking place?

Dec 3, 5:30 at Bricktown Coca Cola Events Center.

[Teo9969]

I believe that this summer, there was significant consideration given to a proposal that kept the boulevard above grade between Western & Walker. The images available seem to put it at grade immediately east of Western?

Not immediately...the length of road, based on the renderings, that it seems the Boulevard will need east of Western to taper down to grade is at least a block, maybe 2...businesses will not front the Boulevard x-distance from the start of the elevation. It's why Alternative B is infinitely better, because at least Street-front development is possible all the way up to Western (Provided they don't build the entirely stupid wall that lines the Boulevard on either side of the bridge.)

Also, closing Exchange was the first thing I noticed in all 4 renderings...what a HORRIBLE idea. That block will become totally incapacitated for any good development. There's absolutely no reason to close it either.

[heyerdahl]

In my opinion FBB needs to get the citizen power aligned solidly behind supporting the grid option. I would like to hear their professional analysis of this viable option and learn why it was not presented as an alternative.

I think citizens should avoid bringing up roundabouts at the upcoming meeting. Emotions/fears about roundabouts (whether correct or not) have overshadowed the real problem so far.

[CaptDave]

In my opinion FBB needs to get the citizen power aligned solidly behind supporting the grid option. I would like to hear their professional analysis of this viable option and learn why it was not presented as an alternative.

I think citizens should avoid bringing up roundabouts at the upcoming meeting. Emotions/fears about roundabouts (whether correct or not) have overshadowed the real problem so far.

I think there is some truth in your statement about roundabouts overshadowing the primary issues with the ODOT/OKCPW design. I am gathering my thoughts to try to have some sensible, and hopefully persuasive, remarks that will bring restoring the grid back into the list of options.

[Just the facts]

In addition to the grid, I would like to have seen a cylindrical ramp on the east part of the boulevard between the canal and the railroad track adjacent to I-40 so that this portion of road could be brought down to grade in as little distance as possible.

Like this but much much much smaller.

[Spartan]

The boulevard is not at grade. The consultants, City, and ODOT are clearly not listening to what the citizens want.

[Spartan]

They left out the buffaloes on the underpass wall... geez doesn't Stantec know anything?

I just can't accept an underpass/overpass that doesn't have buffaloes on it.

[Urban Pioneer]

In my opinion FBB needs to get the citizen power aligned solidly behind supporting the grid option. I would like to hear their professional analysis of this viable option and learn why it was not presented as an alternative.

I think citizens should avoid bringing up roundabouts at the upcoming meeting. Emotions/fears about roundabouts (whether correct or not) have overshadowed the real problem so far.

As nice as further citizen organizing sounds, the technical reason they are using to justify the elevated and depressed options are inflated traffic counts, not fear about roundabouts. The roundabout option may have received some flack on this thread, but I'd warrant that the general public was quite accepting of the concept. At least they seemed to be at the Farmer's Market meeting.

The problem is the farcical, completely unsubstantiated traffic numbers. Citizens are not in an authoritative position to fight on those grounds. As I mentioned in my earlier posts, engineers egos are "at play" trying to "save face" against broad public resistance to their core beliefs in traffic engineering. The completely false existing traffic counts and completely unsubstantiated future projections are designed to help them justify their preferred design.

That should be obvious by now.

[jn1780]

The "range of alternatives" (A, B, C and D) being presented and the "Preferred Alternative" (A) are not of Stantec's choosing. Those decisions have been made by City and ODOT engineers.

Yeah, they can work on designs for five years, but nothing will look good based on the so-called "requirements" the city and ODOT put on them.
And Stantec's customer is the city government with the citizens having limited influence.


Urban Pioneer said it best in the post above.

[Teo9969]

As nice as further citizen organizing sounds, the technical reason they are using to justify the elevated and depressed options are inflated traffic counts, not fear about roundabouts. The roundabout option may have received some flack on this thread, but I'd warrant that the general public was quite accepting of the concept. At least they seemed to be at the Farmer's Market meeting.

The problem is the farcical, completely unsubstantiated traffic numbers. Citizens are not in an authoritative position to fight on those grounds. As I mentioned in my earlier posts, engineers egos are "at play" trying to "save face" against broad public resistance to their core beliefs in traffic engineering. The completely false existing traffic counts and completely unsubstantiated future projections are designed to help them justify their preferred design.

That should be obvious by now.

Is there any way to expose how farcical it is? That would seem to be an important part in the puzzle. Particularly ask them to show where these counts are coming from, and how they relate to the other roads. It would seem easy to show how if the Boulevard is really going to move 90,000 cars a day, that I-40 is going to be desolate...because that seems to be where they're getting the traffic count.

[Pete]

Just received a document that shows the 40 (!) different options presented by Santec in the first round.

I don't know how the final four were chosen, but you'll see when I post all of them, there were many options, not just four slight variations of one theme.

The public needs to understand how we went from these 40 different alternatives to really just the one.

[Spartan]

It's time to clean house in City Hall if you ask me. This was just a massive failure and should send a signal that we simply can not work with these people. The engineers are running the show and are not willing to give a single inch.

[heyerdahl]

Bump for this graphic. The amount of land returned for development- particularly the two entire square blocks adjacent to the convention center site at 3rd and Walker- should justify this proposal on its own. This is an elegant urban solution rather than trying to follow the scar of the Crosstown.



One good idea from Stantec was the Classen/Western reroute- could be incorporated to this plan.

[Teo9969]

Then what we need to do is confer on the best option, print it on a big poster board, and turn the town hall meeting into a raucous sporting event ;-) .

Other
Development
Option.
Thanks!

[Spartan]

Anyone else notice that apparently the consultants have also recommended bulldozing City Place, FNC, SandRidge Tower, Leadership Square, and a number of other perfectly good civic landmarks...?



Eerie

[Pete]

Okay here they are:

[CaptDave]

Bump for this graphic. The amount of land returned for development- particularly the two entire square blocks adjacent to the convention center site at 3rd and Walker- should justify this proposal on its own. This is an elegant urban solution rather than trying to follow the scar of the Crosstown.



One good idea from Stantec was the Classen/Western reroute- could be incorporated to this plan.

What is wrong with Option 13A? Where is the analysis of that option? How does having three main east-west thoroughfares not move traffic more efficiently than one? As a minimum, where is the explanation for eliminating it from consideration? The long term benefits of this simple solution should be apparent - lower costs for maintenance being one of the obvious ones.

This is the plan I believe is best for the development and redevelopment of our city. I wish I knew how to impart enlightenment on our Public Works and City Manager engineers to comprehend cities everywhere are removing divisive highways from their downtown and realizing benefits in a very short period. The traffic counts they used for this "analysis" had no basis in reality now or in the near future. It is inexcusable for a group of public "servants" to perpetuate this fraud on the taxpayers.

[CaptDave]

double post, sorry

[soonergooner]

Alternative 9, only make sw 3 / exchange a high speed (45mph) westbound getaway. Of course would require on ramp @ exchange

[catch22]

I like Option 14A. Intersections to keep the traffic slowed down, pedestrians to cross safely. Also creates more smaller blocks and frontage and the opportunity for some cool urban flatiron development.