OKC Boulevard

[OKCisOK4me]

I can't wait til construction starts on the underpass below the railroad viaduct.

[Buffalo Bill]

- how will this elevated road contribute to street life, walkability, and vitality of downtown? Oh wait, it won't.

No part of this "elevated road" that the city of OKC selected is downtown.

[no1cub17]

congragulations, you are the 1 millionth person to make that point and the 2 millionth person to make a completely irrelevant statement responding to my post.

yet you still don't get it.

[Plutonic Panda]

yet you still don't get it.

I think I get it.

This will be about the 10th time I've said this, but I'll say it again.

The original BLVD. was going to have longer elevated portions and higher speed limits that are suitable for the width of the lanes. The road was going to be 6 lanes. It was designed to get people in and out of downtown.

The newer BLVD. is going to have longer non-elevated portions, still have the wide lanes, but the speed limit is lowered(police officers love this!). One lane each way was removed. The width of the road however, remains the same. So now we have a road that is the same width, but what is happening to the space that was to be a driving lane? Oh yeah, a bike lane is added for a small length of the road... hooray. What do we have? A divided(for the most part) four lane road with wide lanes but lower speed limits and short bike lane that was and still is designed to get people in and out, but now it is a half ass design.

This BLVD. will not bring the desired density because it is a half ass road for good urbanism and walkability and it won't move traffic like it was designed and planned to be because it was screwed up and is now half ass for achieving that. See, in my opinion, Friends for a Better BLVD. made this worse. I know there are going to be responses to that which won't be in agreement, but that's just fine.

There were other roads we could have worked on for achieving what Friends for a Better wanted. Instead we just pissed off ODOT so they threw in a few things to appease a few people and we end up with worse than what was originally proposed because at least the original proposal would have done what it was designed to do.

Now this won't won't do what ODOT wanted it and it won't do what FBB wanted it to do.

One thing I really don't get, is people on here always say it is a lack of barriers that allow OKC to sprawl out like it does, yet claim that highways are such huge barriers to growth, than turn around and say that we don't barriers to growth. I'm sure someone is going to come along and quote this part saying something the highway is what causes the sprawl with 'bad' growth, or some justification for this thinking, but it is another hole in the logic of the 'anti-highway' crowd.

Just so you know, this is still irrelevant to my post you originally quoted.

[Hutch]

Good read...



Suburban Nation: The Rise of Sprawl and the Decline of the American Dream

[Zuplar]

I wish it had been another 60mph highway.

[OKCisOK4me]

I wish it had been another 60mph highway.

You're what's wrong with the common Oklahoman. This road is not here to be a speedway. Geesh.

[bchris02]

Just curious - how will this elevated road contribute to street life, walkability, and vitality of downtown? Oh wait, it won't.

PluPan did an excellent job of answering this question above. It's not designed primarily for pedestrians and never was supposed to be. It's designed to get cars in and out of downtown as quickly and efficiently as possible. By ODOT throwing a few bones to urbanists in adding the bike lane and narrowing it to four lanes, the entire thing has become half-assed from both perspectives. It's not going to be that walkable new urbanist streetscape that FBB wanted and it isn't going to be what ODOT wanted either. It's also not going to be the safest road for cyclists. What it is going to be is a speed trap and a gold mine for OKCPD.

I used to agree mostly with FBB but then I realized the only way those goals would be achieved would be a restoration of the grid. Urbanists should shift their focus to perfecting a thoroughfare they can actually have a say in, like Reno or Sheridan. Both of which could be great urban streetscapes but are currently far below potential.

[no1cub17]

The whole thing isn't even necessary in the first place. Traffic on I40 is never ever bad, not ever. And OKC traffic in general is nothing compared to the larger metros many of us wish OKC was more like (at times). It's just another eyesore. Makes downtown OKC look like suburban Dallas or Houston. Woohoo I guess.

I'm happy for PluPan though, he'll fit right into LA. Plenty of congested 20-lane freeways everywhere!

[jn1780]

The whole thing isn't even necessary in the first place. Traffic on I40 is never ever bad, not ever. And OKC traffic in general is nothing compared to the larger metros many of us wish OKC was more like (at times). It's just another eyesore. Makes downtown OKC look like suburban Dallas or Houston. Woohoo I guess.

I'm happy for PluPan though, he'll fit right into LA. Plenty of congested 20-lane freeways everywhere!

Agreed. ODOT not getting what they want? They got 90 percent of what they want. We are getting a controlled access highway on the east side and were getting a controlled access highway on the west side. God forbid one lane gets removed from the middle where the park is going. And there was always going to be a speed limit that is slower than what people want to travel. Any higher ODOT would have to actually call it a interstate.

[Zuplar]

You're what's wrong with the common Oklahoman. This road is not here to be a speedway. Geesh.

That sounds like you are saying me and the common Oklahoman think a like, and have the same values and wants. So I interpret that as most want another highway. Which means means the majority didn't get what they want. So I beg to differ, You're what's wrong.

[Hutch]

The whole thing isn't even necessary in the first place.

When the debate began in 2012, ODOT said the Boulevard would carry 58,000 vehicles a day when it opened and 93,000 vehicles a day in 2035. By the time the review process was finished, public pressure and federal scrutiny resulted in ODOT correcting those figures and admitting that the Boulevard would only carry 12,920 vehicles a day when it opens in 2015 and 18,050 vehicles a day twenty-five years from now in 2040.

Better Block OKC published a very powerful graphic illustrating just what those numbers really mean in terms of whether the Boulevard is even necessary. The chart speaks for itself.

[no1cub17]

When the debate began in 2012, ODOT said the Boulevard would carry 58,000 vehicles a day when it opened and 93,000 vehicles a day in 2035. By the time the review process was finished, public pressure and federal scrutiny resulted in ODOT correcting those figures and admitting that the Boulevard would only carry 12,920 vehicles a day when it opens in 2015 and 18,050 vehicles a day twenty-five years from now in 2040.

Better Block OKC published a very powerful graphic illustrating just what those numbers really mean in terms of whether the Boulevard is even necessary. The chart speaks for itself.

That is awesome. Thank you for sharing that graph - I had yet to see it. Love that hard data actually supports some of these neo-quasi-urbanist ideals of mine!

[OKCisOK4me]

That sounds like you are saying me and the common Oklahoman think a like, and have the same values and wants. So I interpret that as most want another highway. Which means means the majority didn't get what they want. So I beg to differ, You're what's wrong.

OK then, me and the 5 or so that liked my post are wrong. Good for us. Boo hoo for you. I hear a whammmmmmmbulance in the distance...screaming down your 20 lane wide highway, lol.

[Plutonic Panda]

The whole thing isn't even necessary in the first place. Traffic on I40 is never ever bad, not ever. And OKC traffic in general is nothing compared to the larger metros many of us wish OKC was more like (at times). It's just another eyesore. Makes downtown OKC look like suburban Dallas or Houston. Woohoo I guess.

I'm happy for PluPan though, he'll fit right into LA. Plenty of congested 20-lane freeways everywhere!

I thought induced demand was going to cause the Crosstown to become congested?

[Plutonic Panda]

That is awesome. Thank you for sharing that graph - I had yet to see it. Love that hard data actually supports some of these neo-quasi-urbanist ideals of mine!

Funny when this area takes off and more people use this BLVD. than what was previously thought and the traffic counts beat projections.

[no1cub17]

Funny when this area takes off and more people use this BLVD. than what was previously thought and the traffic counts beat projections.

Which projections? The new ones or the old ones? Wouldn't at all be shocked if it beats the new projections. Induced demand is exactly the problem with stupid projects like these, and is exactly the problem with this obsession of build! build! build! and adding lanes!, as if that helps things. You'll see how that goes in LA - if you have a 10 lane freeway it's congested. So you widen it to 20, and guess what it's still congested. But that's awesome right? Because that's what we should all aspire to? Is living our lives on 20 lane freeways in the middle of "cities" ERRRR, concrete jungles, rather than using our own two feet and breathing actual fresh air?

[no1cub17]

Good read...



Suburban Nation: The Rise of Sprawl and the Decline of the American Dream

This is a great read as well: The End of the Suburbs: Where the American Dream Is Moving: Leigh Gallagher: 9781591846970: Amazon.com: Books

[Plutonic Panda]

Which projections? The new ones or the old ones? Wouldn't at all be shocked if it beats the new projections. Induced demand is exactly the problem with stupid projects like these, and is exactly the problem with this obsession of build! build! build! and adding lanes!, as if that helps things. You'll see how that goes in LA - if you have a 10 lane freeway it's congested. So you widen it to 20, and guess what it's still congested. But that's awesome right? Because that's what we should all aspire to? Is living our lives on 20 lane freeways in the middle of "cities" ERRRR, concrete jungles, rather than using our own two feet and breathing actual fresh air?

If L.A. built 100 lane highways they wouldn't be congested. Of course, that is not realistic to expect.

There are 39 million people in California. A three year could tell you the 12 lane highways they have there will fill up. I am well of aware of that. I still support widening our highways here. If we widened I-35 from downtown OKC to Norman to 12 lanes, it would not have to be widened for another 30-50 years at least. We will never have the population that 405 freeway serves, so stop acting like it. Highways in California are larger and more impressive than 99% of even what Dallas has to offer.
.

[Plutonic Panda]

Which projections? The new ones or the old ones? Wouldn't at all be shocked if it beats the new projections. Induced demand is exactly the problem with stupid projects like these, and is exactly the problem with this obsession of build! build! build! and adding lanes!, as if that helps things. You'll see how that goes in LA - if you have a 10 lane freeway it's congested. So you widen it to 20, and guess what it's still congested. But that's awesome right? Because that's what we should all aspire to? Is living our lives on 20 lane freeways in the middle of "cities" ERRRR, concrete jungles, rather than using our own two feet and breathing actual fresh air?

I use my two feet all the time and breathe fresh air. I did it in the middle of the "suburbs" ERRRR, highway plagued and endless cookie cutter sprawl Dallas and I do it here in Edmond.

[no1cub17]

I use my two feet all the time and breathe fresh air. I did it in the middle of the "suburbs" ERRRR, highway plagued and endless cookie cutter sprawl Dallas and I do it here in Edmond.

That's great! Maybe you can take the "BLVD" up there with you, since apparently its going to lead to even more fresh air and walkability in OKC.

And seriously? The disgusting BLVD isn't enough, but now we need to widen I-35? Wow...I don't know what you're on, but I'd love to try some.

[Zuplar]

OK then, me and the 5 or so that liked my post are wrong. Good for us. Boo hoo for you. I hear a whammmmmmmbulance in the distance...screaming down your 20 lane wide highway, lol.

This site disproportionately leans to the people more fond of the urban environment, and that's fine. But most Okie's like their suburbs and I don't see that trend just flying off the shelf in the other direction. Is it changing, yes, slowly.

But many of us, myself included like our space. I'm on a little over an acre, and can't imagine being on anything less. This is the most 'densely' I've ever lived. I don't understand wanting to live right on top of 17 other people. But for those of you that do, go for it, that leaves more land for the rest of us that want it.

[OKCisOK4me]

This site disproportionately leans to the people more fond of the urban environment, and that's fine. But most Okie's like their suburbs and I don't see that trend just flying off the shelf in the other direction. Is it changing, yes, slowly.

But many of us, myself included like our space. I'm on a little over an acre, and can't imagine being on anything less. This is the most 'densely' I've ever lived. I don't understand wanting to live right on top of 17 other people. But for those of you that do, go for it, that leaves more land for the rest of us that want it.

Your chances of surviving a zombie outbreak are that much better!

[Plutonic Panda]

That's great! Maybe you can take the "BLVD" up there with you, since apparently its going to lead to even more fresh air and walkability in OKC.

And seriously? The disgusting BLVD isn't enough, but now we need to widen I-35? Wow...I don't know what you're on, but I'd love to try some.

OK, it's obvious that you are living inside of a fantasy world. For the tens of thousands of people that the highway, the 6 lanes is not working. Better save you the anger now for when ODOT announces a new lane or two within the next five years. Quite honestly, one or even just two new lanes won't do it. It'll take a combination of widening the service roads to 3 lanes each way, normal driving lanes 5 lanes each way, and one HOV lane each way.

What does the BLVD have to do with I-35? I don't know what fantasy world YOU are living on, but new highways are going to be built and existing ones are going to be widened. Get over it.

[Plutonic Panda]

This site disproportionately leans to the people more fond of the urban environment, and that's fine. But most Okie's like their suburbs and I don't see that trend just flying off the shelf in the other direction. Is it changing, yes, slowly.

But many of us, myself included like our space. I'm on a little over an acre, and can't imagine being on anything less. This is the most 'densely' I've ever lived. I don't understand wanting to live right on top of 17 other people. But for those of you that do, go for it, that leaves more land for the rest of us that want it.

Of course it does. That allows people like no1club to start believing their fantasy world of someone not being able to comprehend that I-35 is on the verge of being widened and that is a crazy suggestion. There's new highway construction going on everywhere; there is even new highways being built in Europe.