Friends for a Better Boulevard

[LakeEffect]

Just curious...those of you who sent emails...did you get much response? I received an email from Elizabeth Romero and Frank Roesler...plus a postcard today from ODOT.
Even if it is just a form letter, I feel somewhere, somehow we are getting their attention.Attachment 7997

Same communications here.

I am quite annoyed with ODOT's continued "we've extended the comment time beyond the standard 14 days..." It sounds so defensive and defiant at the same time.

[MustangGT]

Alternative D as it is with NO modifications or changes. It is time to get on with this.

[Spartan]

Agreed. Some us including FBB have let political realities box them Ito supporting an alternative we don't really like because it's better than A and B. That's letting ODOT drive the agenda here, which is amazing bc FBB really drive te agenda for a while.

Better Block is way out ahead on this. D is a fine proposal and there is no reason we shouldn't all be behind that.

[DavidD_NorthOKC]

I am of the conviction that anything other than Alternative 'D' is a loss for the city and will hinder redevelopment in the area that became blighted due to the old Crosstown. Don't forget FBB is the only reason Alternative 'D' is even an option.

I wish Better Block had chimed in sooner honestly. They are saying exactly what I've been thinking for over a year now. I hope they will have a presence at City Hall when the Council votes on their choice to move forward. Their recent drawings/maps provide the visual impact I think will be needed to sway the Council. If there is any chance of swaying them.......

Those who refuse to learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them. Unfortunately it appears the "stakeholders" refuse to learn those lessons and will insist on the city repeating the mistakes of the past. What has more influence on the city council? Stakeholders or doing the right thing?

[soonerguru]

Agreed. Some us including FBB have let political realities box them Ito supporting an alternative we don't really like because it's better than A and B. That's letting ODOT drive the agenda here, which is amazing bc FBB really drive te agenda for a while.

Better Block is way out ahead on this. D is a fine proposal and there is no reason we shouldn't all be behind that.

Put down the bong.

[Spartan]

Put down the bong.

FBB supports Alternative C ("with modifications") and Better Block supports Alternative D. It's that simple, and please, my lungs are nowhere near strong enough for a bong. :P

The argument for supporting Alt C boils down to being afraid to get behind Alt D for fear that it isn't a winner. I think it can be, and apparently, so does Better Block.

[boitoirich]

I love the work FBB has done and continues to do on behalf of making the city a more livable place. No one has fought harder in this process (other than maybe ODOT), and whatever we end up with is going to be a hell of a lot better than what was about to be forced onto us. I know FBB is doing the pragmatic and responsible thing here; I don't fault the group at all because if (when?) we do end up with C, it will be a much better C with their input than without it. That being said, I am a little saddened that we would even consider it as an option. Anyone exiting I-40 at the current Crosstown Boulevard exit can see the writing on the wall for what we will get. It looks like we'll get a wider version of Edmond's Broadway which, though it does what it can to mitigate the effects of transitioning from highway to boulevard, could not be considered a safe, inviting, complete space.

The fact that the boulevard itself is unnecessary should be enough to kill the proposal. Incredibly, it is not. The fact that what is proposed hinders the ability to link Bricktown to the Oklahoma River should be enough to kill it; that is severs downtown from new investments to its south such as the park should be enough to kill it; the fact that prioritizes east-west movement rather than north-south should be enough to write it off as a terrible idea. Yet, we're on page 105 of this discussion.

Sure, I'll write letters and fill out forms, but I don't believe we're being listened to in any meaningful way. It seems a foregone conclusion that we will end up with an inexplicable stroad with a bike lane (maybe) tearing across downtown. This is one reason OKC needs a strong, semi-independent Planning Department (ala Vancouver) and states need to give their larger cities more autonomy.

[Urban Pioneer]

Agreed. Some us including FBB have let political realities box them Ito supporting an alternative we don't really like because it's better than A and B. That's letting ODOT drive the agenda here, which is amazing bc FBB really drive te agenda for a while.

Better Block is way out ahead on this. D is a fine proposal and there is no reason we shouldn't all be behind that.

I find this offensive. Actually extremely offensive. We have not endorsed C or D. Our reason for existence is to push for the public process that has been had. It has enabled the Better Block people to even have a voice in this.

And here's the deal with D, to "win D" it is going to have to be the result of the federal government rejecting ODOT's "C" submittal. And the problem is that if you poll our city council, a majority of them want an actual boulevard. They are considered the elected representatives of the people impacted and thus have a significant voice in this. And.... the only way FBB can directly take on ODOT's traffic projections for a grid alternative is through significant legal costs and dispute their traffic volume scoring matrix for justifying the "C" design.

FBB has made the boulevard significantly "better". We have created the public process that did not exist. Anyone who thinks that we are caving and letting ODOT "push us around" has no idea of the hours spent battling this behind the scenes and pressing the federal government to force ODOT to do their job.

Our official position is, support the alignment that you prefer, C or D, and be sure to express what you think would make C "better". That's not caving, that covering ALL of our bases.

[Hutch]

FBB has made the boulevard significantly "better". We have created the public process that did not exist. Anyone who thinks that we are caving and letting ODOT "push us around" has no idea of the hours spent battling this behind the scenes and pressing the federal government to force ODOT to do their job.

Our official position is, support the alignment that you prefer, C or D, and be sure to express what you think would make C "better". That's not caving, that covering ALL of our bases.

I have to agree. FBB has stated their support for everyone pressing for D. They have also stated that based on the politics involved that it appears unlikely D will be selected. As a result, they have urged everyone supporting D to continue to do so, but to also provide comments on how C should be modified in the event D is not selected. Wise strategy in my opinion.

It's important to understand who is driving the bus here. And it's not simply ODOT. The main reason that ODOT is recommending C has more to do with City engineers and City Council than it does with ODOT. It was the City that hired Stantec to evaluate the various potential options and recommend a design. And it was City engineers that set the parameters for Stantec's reviews. And it was City Council that voted to approve Stantec's recommended design, which became ODOT's Alternative C.

So, it's the City that is driving the design bus. If you support Alternative D or Alternative C with modifications, the only way either of those is going to happen is through the expressed will of City Council. That means you'd better be contacting your Council representatives. Just remember though that Council is also hearing from City engineers who are telling them that if they recommend D, there will be huge traffic problems in the future. And the City engineers have ODOT's traffic modeling to back them up.

One more thing to note. The NEPA process is not necessarily a democratic one. Just because the majority of the public provide comments in support of a particular alternative does not mean the agency conducting the process is required to choose that particular alternative. It's perfectly acceptable for the agency to choose a different alternative if based on their professional judgment it better meets the purposes and goals set out for the project that is under environmental review. As long as the agency properly adheres to the requirements of the NEPA process, they have great latitude in selecting the preferred alternative. And if the agency adhered to all of the requirements, the federal agency overseeing the NEPA process review will almost always approve the recommendation. So, while the FHWA can force ODOT to comply with the NEPA process, it's unlikely they will overrule ODOT's preferred alternative if they have complied with all NEPA requirements.

[SouthwestAviator]

We want to make sure that maximum public input occurs on whichever option is ultimately selected, C or D. By taking a specific stance and endorsing either alternative, we would potentially limit our ability to positively influence the design of whichever alternative is selected.

Better Block's timing in helping make the case for the grid could not come at a better time. If they had been too early into the process, they probably would have had less influence on the public submissions to ODOT, FHWA, and the city council. Remember, much of the early debate centered around whether a roundabout was a solution for the Western, Classen, and boulevard intersection. Having a solid argument made for Option D at this time is a great addition to the process. We actually contacted some of their members and asked that they get involved.

And no, we haven't caved. Not in the slightest. But we are going for maximum positive effect on whichever option is selected. Let the public process bear itself out.

Another thing, I am please to report that I do believe that we are being heard. We have received some preliminary commitments from the city about what they expect out of ODOT should Option C actually be selected and also we have made great progress over the past week obtaining early commitments to better connectivity through the Farmer's Market district. Either Jeff or me will post how that process is going. Our goal now is to finish the public comment period out strong with everyone having their chance to submit their opinions. When we get done with that and have an idea of where this is headed, we will reevaluate our strategy. We are also going to continue to pursue which entity is committing to what, where the funding is coming from, and when exactly will these commitments be fulfilled. These issues of who is doing what pertain to both C and D. And what I mean is which entity, city or state, is making specific improvements which improve the urbanity, connectivity, and pedestrian friendliness of the areas to be impacted.

Through your continued support, I think you will be pleasantly surprised at what we can accomplish together.

[Tier2City]

I can see how some people might think it's still lipstick on a pig.

[Hutch]

I can see how some people might think it's still lipstick on a pig.

It may very well be. But at this point, I think we've done all we can from a NEPA process perspective. The only way things are going to change is if City Council weighs in and makes it happen.

[soonerguru]

I have to agree. FBB has stated their support for everyone pressing for D. They have also stated that based on the politics involved that it appears unlikely D will be selected. As a result, they have urged everyone supporting D to continue to do so, but to also provide comments on how C should be modified in the event D is not selected. Wise strategy in my opinion.

It's important to understand who is driving the bus here. And it's not simply ODOT. The main reason that ODOT is recommending C has more to do with City engineers and City Council than it does with ODOT. It was the City that hired Stantec to evaluate the various potential options and recommend a design. And it was City engineers that set the parameters for Stantec's reviews. And it was City Council that voted to approve Stantec's recommended design, which became ODOT's Alternative C.

So, it's the City that is driving the design bus. If you support Alternative D or Alternative C with modifications, the only way either of those is going to happen is through the expressed will of City Council. That means you'd better be contacting your Council representatives. Just remember though that Council is also hearing from City engineers who are telling them that if they recommend D, there will be huge traffic problems in the future. And the City engineers have ODOT's traffic modeling to back them up.

One more thing to note. The NEPA process is not necessarily a democratic one. Just because the majority of the public provide comments in support of a particular alternative does not mean the agency conducting the process is required to choose that particular alternative. It's perfectly acceptable for the agency to choose a different alternative if based on their professional judgment it better meets the purposes and goals set out for the project that is under environmental review. As long as the agency properly adheres to the requirements of the NEPA process, they have great latitude in selecting the preferred alternative. And if the agency adhered to all of the requirements, the federal agency overseeing the NEPA process review will almost always approve the recommendation. So, while the FHWA can force ODOT to comply with the NEPA process, it's unlikely they will overrule ODOT's preferred alternative if they have complied with all NEPA requirements.

This is sane, rational, and likely to succeed. Others prefer tilting at windmills. I understand some of the passions expressed here, but it is insulting to you and others considering how hard and effectively you've worked. Thank you for responding graciously with facts and acting like an adult.

[jn1780]

I remember saying way back when we first found out that an elevated overpass was proposed that we have been too kind on the city. The city let ODOT do all this with their blessing.

[Just the facts]

I find this offensive. Actually extremely offensive. We have not endorsed C or D.

From your post on the FBB page:

Many of us are advocating for several specific improvements to the "Option C" proposal as well as advocating for Option D.

I am for one of two things happening:

Option D OR letting ODOT and the City Council doing whatever the hell they want so long as it includes a giant bronze plaque listing all the names of those responsible so they can be held accountable for the dismal failure by future generations. If I thought some water-down boulevard was the solution I would have supported that, but the worst possible outcome is some screwed up road with New/Old Urbanist finger prints on it. Either do it right or get out of the way and let ODOT screw it up all their own.

[Urban Pioneer]

"Many of us" is not an endorsement. If we decide to endorse C or D specifically, we will issue a press release. Right now, we advocate that you have the right to have input in the matter.

While I appreciate your passion, believe it or not, not everyone agrees with your perspectives.

[Just the facts]

'Many of us' is not, but 'advocating' is.

ad·vo·cate: publicly recommend or support
en·dorse·ment: an act of giving one's public approval or support to someone or something

[Urban Pioneer]

Like I said, if FBB wants to endorse a specific alternative, we will issue a press release.

[soonerguru]

Some of you should ask yourselves: "How often does 'my way or the highway' (no pun intended) work out in complex political negotiations?" Also, when insiders who have knowledge of the political levers being pulled provide you information, perhaps you should consider listening. And finally, consider nuance.

[Just the facts]

Like I said, if FBB wants to endorse a specific alternative, we will issue a press release.

If nothing else, I am all about seeing both sides of the issue. So on the FBB page you wrote the following:

Due to our efforts, ODOT has extended the public comment period to June 13th. We have had quite a bit of trouble making their automatic forms work. Here is the link for those of you who can make it work-

http://www.okladot.state.ok.us/meeti...ommentform.pdf

Many of us are advocating for several specific improvements to the "Option C" proposal as well as advocating for Option D. Several of these ideas came through the meeting last night.

1. Introducing a proper four-way intersection at Lee
2. Closing 3rd street between Lee and Walker
3. Removing parallel parking lanes in front of the park and Convention Center to reduce the distance a pedestrian has to cross the street at that critical location.
4. Introducing a median in front of the Park/Convention Center site instead of one, singular, continuous turn lane.
5. Promoting a mid-block crosswalk to continue the "Harvey Spine" across that section, through the proposed median, and into the park.
6. Introducing a roundabout at Exchange and Western instead of closing Exchange.

The 3rd street issue is particularly disheartening as a proper grid solution would potentially make prominent connectivity to the Farmer's Market area much likely. Thanks to David Wanzer for pointing that out right now. We just rolled out the plans again at Coffee Slingers. I will post the pictures. ODOT's suggestion for a one way street as this location really causes a challenge and a terrible intersection at Lee for pedestrians.

So you wrote this as private citizen Jeff and not FBB Jeff and this view does not represent any official position by FBB? If so, that's cool and I can live with that but it did come off as a FBB position, at least to me (and I think to Spartan as well).

[Urban Pioneer]

"Many of us" is reference to what happened at that meeting that FBB held at the Sieber Apartments and the impromptu meeting that occurred the next morning in Coffee Slingers. I was explaining my observation of what happened in those two meetings with seemingly the majority of input from those who attended. No one contested those observations. I used the phrase "Many of us" to be respectful in the event that if someone attended and had a different opinion or additional observations and simply did not voice it.

Our official position is that we support the public having input into the process. If C is your preference, fine. If D is your preference, fine. But based on our observations, we officially suggest that if you support D, you also consider adding comments or submitting an additional form on how you think C could be made better.

"Many of us" are observations about specific "improvements" that seemed agreeable to the majority of FBB'ers that attended those two meetings.

[Just the facts]

Thanks for clearing that up Urban Pioneer. I indeed did misread what you were saying. Now back to our regular programming.

[Spartan]

I find this offensive. Actually extremely offensive. We have not endorsed C or D. Our reason for existence is to push for the public process that has been had. It has enabled the Better Block people to even have a voice in this.

And here's the deal with D, to "win D" it is going to have to be the result of the federal government rejecting ODOT's "C" submittal. And the problem is that if you poll our city council, a majority of them want an actual boulevard. They are considered the elected representatives of the people impacted and thus have a significant voice in this. And.... the only way FBB can directly take on ODOT's traffic projections for a grid alternative is through significant legal costs and dispute their traffic volume scoring matrix for justifying the "C" design.

FBB has made the boulevard significantly "better". We have created the public process that did not exist. Anyone who thinks that we are caving and letting ODOT "push us around" has no idea of the hours spent battling this behind the scenes and pressing the federal government to force ODOT to do their job.

Our official position is, support the alignment that you prefer, C or D, and be sure to express what you think would make C "better". That's not caving, that covering ALL of our bases.

You find what offensive? Are you punking me?

I can't get past that. If you could extrapolate on that I could move on to your other points because you just lost me right at the beginning.

[Urban Pioneer]

I'm not going to bother.

[Just the facts]

I think this should clear up any and all confusion: The group is called Friends for a Better Boulevard NOT Friends for The Grid. If you support the idea of a grid the Better Block group is your horse. FBB existed to make the process more open and transparent which it is hoped would result in a better boulevard.