Friends for a Better Boulevard

[bchris02]

^ Take a look at the clearance at the BNSF bridge - no room for more than four lanes.

I think it could be done. If not, that would be a stretch to build like I-35 is in Austin, with four lanes below and four lanes above. That would be amazing to have the four existing lanes, and then the railroad tracks, and then the four additional lanes above that as a three-level stack.

[CaptDave]

I seriously doubt more than four lanes will fit under the existing bridge - but the point is irrelevant since reconfiguring it is part of the 235/44 interchange project.

[bchris02]

I seriously doubt more than four lanes will fit under the existing bridge - but the point is irrelevant since reconfiguring it is part of the 235/44 interchange project.

Isn't the interchange though simply being replaced with a cloverleaf? If that's the case, its not really an improvement on what was there before. At the interchange, I-235 should split like I-35 does in Austin, with four lanes below and four lanes above and then merge on the other size of 36th.

[Plutonic Panda]

But why do you think I-235 could go?

I know what you're doing here. But I'll play.

I-235 could be turned into four lane blvd. running by downtown with a completely separate bike lane with parallel jogging lanes through with a separate one lane in each direction fronting sidewalks that front storefronts and such. This could be developed and turned into a truly world class area connection downtown and removing the barrier. I think this would be great.

So in total, the road would have 6 car lanes, 2 bike lanes and 2 jogging/walking lanes. Four of the car lanes would surround a median and would connect to roundabouts. The 4 car lanes and the median would be in the middle of a barrier separated bike/jogging lane which could be depressed when running near the roundabouts. Another car lane would be outside of these bike/jog lanes that would front a 15-20 ft. sidewalk and have a speed of no more than 20-25mph. This would be great to have parallel parking and dropping people off at stores and what not. This could also spur huge new ped friendly developments and open up much needed development room fully connecting downtown with the Health Sciences complex and the JFK neighborhood.

If I take too long to respond, it's because I am rehabilitating myself. I just pulled a hammy putting up my grandmother's Christmas lights and it hurts like a mother.

[Tier2City]

Your witness.

[Plutonic Panda]

Isn't the interchange though simply being replaced with a cloverleaf? If that's the case, its not really an improvement on what was there before. At the interchange, I-235 should split like I-35 does in Austin, with four lanes below and four lanes above and then merge on the other size of 36th.

Half cloverleaf half flyover.

I actually spent some time looking at this the other day, this would cost hundreds of millions to build flyovers in all directions due to the bridges that would require some serious height if they were to be placed over the east portion of the interchange due to the new bridge ODOT is installing and then you have Lincoln.

Also, I researched 5 stack interchanges and can't believe this hasn't been mentioned, but OKC can't have a 5 stack interchange until it either has a 3 highway interchange or HOV lanes.
The first stack is one highway
The second stack is the second highway
The third stack is complete flyovers
4th stack is service roads
5th stack is HOV lanes

At least for the high-five. China has a 7 stack interchange, which is interesting.

[Plutonic Panda]

Your witness.

wat

[Snowman]

I think I-235 needs to have a consistent amount of lanes, be it three or four, from where it connects to I-40 all the way to Edmond. Navigating 235 and then the Broadway Extension can be a challenge for somebody who isn't familiar with it because of the lane changes. Merging on the Kilpatrick Turnpike from the Broadway Extension can still catch me off guard because I have to cross two lanes of traffic. I also don't understand why it is only two lanes for a few miles between I-44 and NW 36th. This greatly impedes traffic. The 235/44 interchange should be redone to be a stack interchange.

The plan has been to build it to at least three lanes since the south half was originally planed in like the 70's. They just did not have the money to do the south half which did not exist at all & widen the north half of the centennial expressway, Broadway extension and the interchange with i44. So it has pretty much been build as the funds come in, making it at least thirty years with with only short breaks between the different phases under construction and still probably something like ten years before that plan gets finally done. Which means the first phase is probably going to be due some major rehabilitation soon after they get the last part done.

Nothing really, just saying if there were a highway that go it would be I-235. There would be a ton of opposition though and it will likely never happen.

At this point i35 is probably more redundant than i235 between i40 and i44, plus it is built to much earlier (less safe) standards. Not that either would probably end up going. In the unlikely event it did happen, i235 would probably become i35 and then run on i44 to meet up with itself. The main advantage of i35's current route has over i235 is should be cheaper to maintain long term since it is mostly a raised berms with a few small bridges at the mile roads, while significant portions of i235 are viaducts.

[heyerdahl]

I know what you're doing here. But I'll play.

I-235 could be turned into four lane blvd. running by downtown with a completely separate bike lane with parallel jogging lanes through with a separate one lane in each direction fronting sidewalks that front storefronts and such. This could be developed and turned into a truly world class area connection downtown and removing the barrier. I think this would be great.

So in total, the road would have 6 car lanes, 2 bike lanes and 2 jogging/walking lanes. Four of the car lanes would surround a median and would connect to roundabouts. The 4 car lanes and the median would be in the middle of a barrier separated bike/jogging lane which could be depressed when running near the roundabouts. Another car lane would be outside of these bike/jog lanes that would front a 15-20 ft. sidewalk and have a speed of no more than 20-25mph. This would be great to have parallel parking and dropping people off at stores and what not. This could also spur huge new ped friendly developments and open up much needed development room fully connecting downtown with the Health Sciences complex and the JFK neighborhood.

If I take too long to respond, it's because I am rehabilitating myself. I just pulled a hammy putting up my grandmother's Christmas lights and it hurts like a mother.

Sounds exactly like what they want to do in Dallas, only their proposal is to tear out a very short segment of highway that is much less important than I-235. It would break the ring of highways that is like a noose around downtown Dallas, similar to Tulsa's IDL, that breaks all connections between downtown and neighborhoods.

Imagine if 13th Street, Western, Reno, and I-235 were all 150' highways circling downtown OKC and you'll see why it's ok to tear one of those legs out.

[Tier2City]

But every highway is sacred.

[Plutonic Panda]

But every highway is sacred.

Never said it was sacred. You are twisting my words; I said they are a huge plus to the people that use them and provide much more economic benefit than what people seem to think. This board was actually the first I really heard much about wanting to tear down highways and make Classen a 4 lane street and such, so I am confident these things won't happen any time soon or perhaps ever.

That highway in Dallas needs to stay. I've used it plenty of times and it is great. It just needs to be reconstructed and modernized.

[hoya]

Highways are a great way to bypass places you don't want to go.

So what happens is, when you have a highway through a place, it rapidly becomes a place you don't want to go. That's why big freeways are bad for cities. I-235 is not a good thing for OKC. It makes it really easy for people to bypass OKC. You can get to Edmond really quickly. I-235 is great for Edmond. But it's not great for the place it goes through. It's not great for OKC. If you could yank out I-235 and replace it with a regular street grid, with buildings and shops and apartments and places to eat, you'd connect downtown with OU Medical Center. It would be a potentially much more productive area. It would be a lot better for the city.

Remember, I-235 really just makes it easier to leave the city. The city, as an entity, has a much greater interest in keeping people and business within its borders than it does in making it easy to go to Edmond or Norman.

[Plutonic Panda]

It also allows people in Edmond and Norman to easily enter OKC to spend their money to support projects such as MAPS.

[hoya]

Those people would probably live in OKC, and pay property taxes here, if not for I-235. Edmond didn't start as big as it is now.

[OKCisOK4me]

Highways are a great way to bypass places you don't want to go.

So what happens is, when you have a highway through a place, it rapidly becomes a place you don't want to go. That's why big freeways are bad for cities. I-235 is not a good thing for OKC. It makes it really easy for people to bypass OKC. You can get to Edmond really quickly. I-235 is great for Edmond. But it's not great for the place it goes through. It's not great for OKC. If you could yank out I-235 and replace it with a regular street grid, with buildings and shops and apartments and places to eat, you'd connect downtown with OU Medical Center. It would be a potentially much more productive area. It would be a lot better for the city.

Remember, I-235 really just makes it easier to leave the city. The city, as an entity, has a much greater interest in keeping people and business within its borders than it does in making it easy to go to Edmond or Norman.

Not to take FFB out of context but OKC is a massive sized city... 630 square miles. If all of OKC were reduced to one square mile on each side of all the freeways and all the property taxes were the best deal around, then OKC would have amazing developments along our highways. Unfortunately, there is a ton of empty land in OKC yet to be developed and bukus of sprawl even within the confines of Oklahoma City proper.

Besides, if 235 never existed, your theory wouldn't work because everyone traveling between Edmond and OKC would still take the quickest way home--I-35 or Hefner Parkway/74. It'd be a draaaaaaaaag navigating city streets for 10 miles...

[hoya]

My point is that 235 really does nothing for OKC. Edmond is the real beneficiary. Now in real life, we have all sorts of complicating factors that prevent any perfect little theory from covering everything. We have employers and universities outside of the actual city, like Tinker and OU. We have decades of suburban growth that existed before I-235 was built. There are a million reasons why development happened the way it did, and interstates can only explain part of it.

That said, our starting point is right now. We can't do anything about decisions made 20 years ago. And if we're looking at how interstates within the city function today, we've seen a lot of urban areas really benefit from eliminating these major thoroughfares that run right through prime development land. The Hill is a fairly popular area of high priced urban homes. If you could magic away 235, The Hill could increase in size by a factor of 10 or 20. With people buying there instead of Edmond, you'd have a major urban neighborhood on the order of Dupont Circle or Adams Morgan in DC.

[Plutonic Panda]

Those people would probably live in OKC, and pay property taxes here, if not for I-235. Edmond didn't start as big as it is now.

so you want to reduce options for people basically.

Eliminate the option of taking the freeway into OKC and eliminate the option of being able to live in suburbs like Edmond which are only possible due to freeways.

[Plutonic Panda]

I'm willing to bet that 235 has done much more for improving OKC than you think

[hoya]

so you want to reduce options for people basically.

Eliminate the option of taking the freeway into OKC and eliminate the option of being able to live in suburbs like Edmond which are only possible due to freeways.

Show me the option of living in Dupont Circle in OKC right now and I'll show you a reduction in choices.

You really don't understand. The city of OKC does not want you going somewhere else to spend your money. They have a legitimate interest in keeping money in OKC, and not in making it easy for you to move away.

[Plutonic Panda]

Show me the option of living in Dupont Circle in OKC right now and I'll show you a reduction in choices.

You really don't understand. The city of OKC does not want you going somewhere else to spend your money. They have a legitimate interest in keeping money in OKC, and not in making it easy for you to move away.

The vast majority of people who have chose to live in the suburbs have provided countless millions for MAPS projects as well as sales tax. As for Dupont Circle; I have no idea what you are talking about.

[CuatrodeMayo]

Let me google that for you

[Plutonic Panda]

Ok Mr. Smart Ass... thank you. Was it so hard for you just to say it is a neighborhood in Washington DC?

OKC will never have the density across the city that Washington DC has. It will never have the mass transit that NYC has.

What you are comparing is something that is not here yet vs. something that exists and you want torn down. I would love to see a neighborhood like that in OKC, but there is not one. Maybe if I get rich and achieve my dreams, I could one day design and build something like here. But for now, until someone steps up and builds something like that here, you don't have the option. You are talking about removing options, not creating new ones. There are other places to create new options rather than tearing down an existing highway.

[Plutonic Panda]

Sid, it is something called reality. If you seriously believe OKC will become as dense as DC, the all I can tell you is "whatever helps you sleep at night".

As for a toast to the city never having to "cater to people like me", what a stupid comment as I have said time and time again I want diversity here in OKC and a strong urban presence here. But never mind that Sid Burgess, continue to show your bias against highways and cars, it is so obvious man.

I will say this once again, I support ped friendly features and having a great mass transit system here, but the highways will need to continue to widened and expanded, not torn down.

Go ask every person in OKC if they would support 235 being torn down and get back to me with the answer.

[Tier2City]

....but the highways will need to continue to widened and expanded, not torn down.

Do we need to complete the downtown loop? As mentioned earlier, we could then compete with Dallas and Tulsa. If Classen and 13th Street were rebuilt to full highway standards it could really help Midtown develop. And it would make it a lot easier to get from the airport to the Capitol.

[ljbab728]

Why? Because you say so?

How do you think Washington DC and NYC got so dense?

I know, it's kind of a rhetorical question. Cause we all know the answer. Basic zoning laws that allowed for and promoted good urban development (and sometimes bad urban development). The point, which you already know, is that the city, who is put in power by the people, made these choices.

We've got a long history of OKC making choices that favor your flavor. Here's to hoping we get 50 years of choices to cater to those not like you.

Not entirely true, Sid. As we all know NYC and Washington developed their density before the advent of automobiles so it was out of necessity as much as it was by design.