Friends for a Better Boulevard

[onthestrip]

Shartel doesn't even cross, but that could easily be fixed I guess.

Shartel is so close to the reno intersection that Im not sure a crossing is needed there. However, there definitely needs to be one at Lee, no ifs ands or buts about it.

[Urban Pioneer]

Tier2City, true. But it also tells you something else. If "A" is a legitimate proposal because it falls within the federally approved budget, then where is all of the federal for that massive bridge going?

An "at grade" street level road is far less expensive than a continuous elevated bridge. Where is the money going in "C"?

Guess my point is that the "final design" ought to have the kind of budget available for it for Project 180 quality streetscapes for either C or D.

[CuatrodeMayo]

Yep. It's an old graphic designer trick.

I can assure you graphic designers aren't the only creatives who do whatever it takes to get what they want...

[Hutch]

The political problem that I see with ODOT's design for D is that they have failed to show SE 3rd as much of an iconic boulevard. Unless I'm mistaken, earlier support for a grid design was not just based on eliminating the curvilinear and elevated sections in order to reestablish the original street network. It also involved reconstructing SE 3rd and California Avenue as iconic linear boulevards into downtown from the east and west. Unfortunately, ODOT's rendering for D shows SE 3rd passing east between the Convention Center, Chesapeake Arena and the Park as a simple, undivided four-lane street. There are not even left hand turn lanes provided at the major intersections. You can be sure that a grid alternative that does not provide for an well-designed, iconic boulevard through the central section of downtown is most likely doomed, as many of the major downtown interests will view a simple undivided four-way street through that area as unappealing and the traffic engineers will use the lack of turn lanes and other limitations as an excuse for why the alternative is unacceptable from a traffic congestion point of view.

[DavidD_NorthOKC]

If a reasonable attempt to show 3rd and California rebuilt as dual boulevards had been made in the rendering and simulations, it would have been very difficult to make a case against that option. By doing the bare minimum with the illustrations and attempting to avoid showing a reasonable representation of what many people have proposed, ODOT is prejudicing the process again - even if it was done by some implied request by the city.

[boitoirich]

California would be landscaped on the verges, with a canopy of trees from Western until termination at Stage Center Tower. SW 3rd, meanwhile, would be widened (slightly) from Walker going east using the ROW from the old Crosstown in order to form a median. Presently, Alternative D only gives SW 3rd a median from Robinson to EK Gaylord.

[Anonymous.]

Got my notice in the mail today that the Boulevard comments are accepted until June 13.

[betts]

The political problem that I see with ODOT's design for D is that they have failed to show SE 3rd as much of an iconic boulevard. Unless I'm mistaken, earlier support for a grid design was not just based on eliminating the curvilinear and elevated sections in order to reestablish the original street network. It also involved reconstructing SE 3rd and California Avenue as iconic linear boulevards into downtown from the east and west. Unfortunately, ODOT's rendering for D shows SE 3rd passing east between the Convention Center, Chesapeake Arena and the Park as a simple, undivided four-lane street. There are not even left hand turn lanes provided at the major intersections. You can be sure that a grid alternative that does not provide for an well-designed, iconic boulevard through the central section of downtown is most likely doomed, as many of the major downtown interests will view a simple undivided four-way street through that area as unappealing and the traffic engineers will use the lack of turn lanes and other limitations as an excuse for why the alternative is unacceptable from a traffic congestion point of view.

And yet traffic is moving fine on Broadway with only 3 lanes. Who will be driving on the Boulevard anyway? People don't drive to conventions. They either fly and take a taxi, or drive to their hotel and walk (or take the streetcar) to the convention center. Why would you take the boulevard to drive anywhere when you've got I-40 on one side and Reno on the other?

[Just the facts]

And yet traffic is moving fine on Broadway with only 3 lanes. Who will be driving on the Boulevard anyway? People don't drive to conventions. They either fly and take a taxi, or drive to their hotel and walk (or take the streetcar) to the convention center. Why would you take the boulevard to drive anywhere when you've got I-40 on one side and Reno on the other?

The vast majority of OKC conventions attract only local residents, but you are right that multiple interstate are just blocks away and we already know that the grid if the superior distributor of traffic. I might also add that those masses of people headed to the convention center are actually headed to a parking garage and then walk to the convention center - so a highway headed right to the front door of the convention center is worthless (unless ODOT is expecting the new iconic boulevard to be lined with parking lots/garages).

[LakeEffect]

The vast majority of OKC conventions attract only local residents, but you are right that multiple interstate are just blocks away and we already know that the grid if the superior distributor of traffic. I might also add that those masses of people headed to the convention center are actually headed to a parking garage and then walk to the convention center - so a highway headed right to the front door of the convention center is worthless (unless ODOT is expecting the new iconic boulevard to be lined with parking lots/garages).

What do you mean by local?

[Hutch]

If a reasonable attempt to show 3rd and California rebuilt as dual boulevards had been made in the rendering and simulations, it would have been very difficult to make a case against that option. By doing the bare minimum with the illustrations and attempting to avoid showing a reasonable representation of what many people have proposed, ODOT is prejudicing the process again - even if it was done by some implied request by the city.

I'd have to agree. ODOT could easily have designed SW 3rd for Alternative D as a more functional iconic divided boulevard. But they didn't. If the traffic modeling is based on the current design, it's no wonder congestion appears in the future.

Another problem this raises is that for all those who support D and have sent comments in favor of that alternative, you have essentially endorsed a design for SW 3rd that appears to be politically and functionally not viable. And you probably didn't even realize you were doing so. You've essentially been trapped into supporting a grid alternative that ODOT knows is not workable from a traffic standpoint and will not receive the necessary support from downtown interests and City Council to be selected.

It appears that not only does C require modifications if it is to be acceptable to those pressing for better connectivity and walkability, but so does D for those who desire a grand iconic boulevard along SW 3rd that can also meet current and future traffic demands.

For those who support D, it might be a good idea to send additional comments to ODOT, the FHWA and City Council expressing the need to modify D to provide for a more iconic and functional boulevard design along SW 3rd, as well as California. Remember, the challenge isn't necessarily convincing ODOT its the best design. The challenge is convincing a majority on City Council, as well as the major downtown interests, that its the best design. Unfortunately, ODOT's current design for D appears to be a detriment in that regard.

Also, keep in mind that we're not at the end of the Environmental Assessment process. After this comment period is concluded, ODOT should take all of the comments provided into consideration and make appropriate changes to all of the alternatives, as necessary. They should then hold one more public meeting to present the final versions of all of the alternatives and then provide a final comment period before making a final decision and sending their recommendation to the FHWA for approval.

The public has just 7 more days to offer comments in order to influence the final design versions of all of the alternatives that will be presented in the next month or so. So if you want C or D to be the best it can be in order to have the best chance of securing the necessary support to be selected as the preferred alternative, you need to send in your comments by June 13th.

[Just the facts]

The vast majority of OKC conventions attract only local residents, but you are right that multiple interstate are just blocks away and we already know that the grid if the superior distributor of traffic. I might also add that those masses of people headed to the convention center are actually headed to a parking garage and then walk to the convention center - so a highway headed right to the front door of the convention center is worthless (unless ODOT is expecting the new iconic boulevard to be lined with parking lots/garages).

What do you mean by local?

I mean that the vast majority of attendees live in metro-OKC. For example, tomorrow is the Ruffles and Rust Expo at Cox. 99.999% of the attendees will live in metro OKC and that 0.001% will live somewhere else in Oklahoma. No one is flying in from Chicago to attend it.

[LakeEffect]

I mean that the vast majority of attendees live in metro-OKC. For example, tomorrow is the Ruffles and Rust Expo at Cox. 99.999% of the attendees will live in metro OKC and that 0.001% will live somewhere else in Oklahoma. No one is flying in from Chicago to attend it.

I was curious how you'd evaluated each conference around the year. I think many are more regional than purely metro... plus a few more nationwide ones.

[Just the facts]

I was curious how you'd evaluated each conference around the year. I think many are more regional than purely metro... plus a few more nationwide ones.

I won't go into here but 2 years ago I went through every event held at the Cox Center and found the attendance. I posted the results of that in one of the Convention Center threads. When you get a chance go to Cox Event schedule and check it out. The single biggest draw was Baron's hockey which some could argue were the same 6,000 people being counted 38 times.

[Urban Pioneer]

I'd have to agree. ODOT could easily have designed SW 3rd for Alternative D as a more functional iconic divided boulevard. But they didn't. If the traffic modeling is based on the current design, it's no wonder congestion appears in the future.

Another problem this raises is that for all those who support D and have sent comments in favor of that alternative, you have essentially endorsed a design for SW 3rd that appears to be politically and functionally not viable. And you probably didn't even realize you were doing so. You've essentially been trapped into supporting a grid alternative that ODOT knows is not workable from a traffic standpoint and will not receive the necessary support from downtown interests and City Council to be selected.

It appears that not only does C require modifications if it is to be acceptable to those pressing for better connectivity and walkability, but so does D for those who desire a grand iconic boulevard along SW 3rd that can also meet current and future traffic demands.

For those who support D, it might be a good idea to send additional comments to ODOT, the FHWA and City Council expressing the need to modify D to provide for a more iconic and functional boulevard design along SW 3rd, as well as California. Remember, the challenge isn't necessarily convincing ODOT its the best design. The challenge is convincing a majority on City Council, as well as the major downtown interests, that its the best design. Unfortunately, ODOT's current design for D appears to be a detriment in that regard.

Also, keep in mind that we're not at the end of the Environmental Assessment process. After this comment period is concluded, ODOT should take all of the comments provided into consideration and make appropriate changes to all of the alternatives, as necessary. They should then hold one more public meeting to present the final versions of all of the alternatives and then provide a final comment period before making a final decision and sending their recommendation to the FHWA for approval.

The public has just 7 more days to offer comments in order to influence the final design versions of all of the alternatives that will be presented in the next month or so. So if you want C or D to be the best it can be in order to have the best chance of securing the necessary support to be selected as the preferred alternative, you need to send in your comments by June 13th.

This is an absolutely great alternative technical perspective. I am posting it to the FBB site.

[Plutonic Panda]

Honestly, as much as I have said I really like roads that are curved more so than the grid, I really can't deny option D is really the way to go now.



It's amazing how much better this picture makes it. From Better Block OKC Facebook page

https://www.facebook.com/BetterBlock...367325/?type=1

[Pete]

I was asked to post this (huge file that takes a while to load -- or you can just download it):

Click here to view or download the file directly.

[David]

Excellent analysis.

Instead of continuing to blight portions of the project area by continued isolation due to a large physical barrier, be it a bridge, embankment or wide divided highway with no opportunities for pedestrians to cross, federal funding can and should be used to improve the traffic flow and streetscape on multiple streets and blocks to provide greater connectivity and access throughout the entire area. We are especially fortunate that City of Oklahoma City Public Works staff have now acquired considerable hard-won experience at rebuilding high quality urban streetscapes.

I love it.

[LakeEffect]

Who wrote that, or do they prefer to remain anonymous?

[DavidD_NorthOKC]

Who wrote that, or do they prefer to remain anonymous?

Better Block maybe? They have turned out some excellent work on this lately. Whomever is responsible has done the city a great service and might have provided the analysis that can sway enough of our elected leaders to listen to someone other than "stakeholders" with very narrow interests.

That needs to be submitted to ODOT and FHWA in its entirety. I wish I could claim it for it is an outstanding piece. I will definitely make sure my Councilman gets it and follow up to inquire if he read it.

[LakeEffect]

Better Block maybe? They have turned out some excellent work on this lately. Whomever is responsible has done the city a great service and might have provided the analysis that can sway enough of our elected leaders to listen to someone other than "stakeholders" with very narrow interests.

That needs to be submitted to ODOT and FHWA in its entirety. I wish I could claim it for it is an outstanding piece. I will definitely make sure my Councilman gets it and follow up to inquire if he read it.

Better Block would be touting that publicly had they written it... they're smart about using the logo, etc.

[HangryHippo]

I'll echo David D.'s sentiment that that needs to be submitted in its entirety to the FHWA and ODOT if it has not already been.

[DoctorTaco]

Who wrote that, or do they prefer to remain anonymous?

My guess for the mystery writer is Blair Humphreys. He knows his stuff, but also might fear that his association with the Wheeler District might make him look biased (because any Boulevard plan besides "D" hurts the connectivity of Wheeler to the rest of DT).

[Hutch]

Who wrote that, or do they prefer to remain anonymous?

At this point, the message is what's important...not the messenger. Friday is the deadline for public comments to ODOT. If you support D, I'd be writing comments to ODOT...FHWA...City Council passing on the information contained in that posting or other postings, including those on the Better Block blog. The only way information like that gets any official consideration is if its submitted in a timely manner as part of the public comment process. And its perfectly acceptable to submit more than one comment.

[Urbanized]

It's not Blair. I'm sure he would like to be directly involved owing to his knowledge and training, but I think he is keeping this particular debate at arm's length for the reasons mentioned above. There are some other very talented folks in town who collaborated on that.