Friends for a Better Boulevard

[LakeEffect]

This article by Angie Schmitt is so full of half-truths and wrong information that it borders on the ridiculous.

Please enlighten us with the truth then.

[ljbab728]

The only thing I see that sounds inaccurate is the statement

ODOT had originally proposed an elevated highway-like road through the “core-to-shore” area, where the city had been planning a walkable, mixed-use neighborhood.

The elevated section was not really affecting much of the core-to-shore area.

[Buffalo Bill]

Please enlighten us with the truth then.

I'm sure it sounds good to trot out the us against them mentality, but it rings hollow here.

The first image in the article, subtitled: "Advocates in Oklahoma City have proposed this grid pattern as an alternative to a wide, highway-like boulevard for downtown. Recently, FHWA forced ODOT consider the grid proposal. Image: ODOT"

This is a plan that came from the OKC Consulting Engineer, not from advocates. No 10 lane roundabout. The FHWA didn't "force" ODOT to consider it; it was simply one of the myriad of options that came out from the vetting process of 40 or so scenarios.

"In a rare victory against state DOT standard operating procedure".

ODOT changes plans in urban areas constantly. It is anything but "rare". What is implied by "standard operating procedure"? Who knows. ODOT never does anything in urban areas that is not entirely complicit with local governments desires.

"an elevated highway-like road through the “core-to-shore” area, where the city had been planning a walkable, mixed-use neighborhood"

Wrong. No elevated road has ever been proposed through the core to shore area. What had been the result of the EIS was exactly what the city had desired at the time of the ROD, 6 lanes at grade.

"And last week, FHWA intervened on the advocates’ behalf and ordered the state to add Alternate D to the analysis."

Again, just a part of the vetting process from the city's Consultant.

"Bob Kemper, a former ODOT engineer"

Good advocate, but not a former ODOT Engineer, not an Engineer.

"favorite plan of the majority of folks in Oklahoma City.”

How would we know? See the MAPs for suburbia thread. The majority of folks in OKC probably couldn't care less and just want to get home from the Thunder games faster.

[CaptDave]

BB - you are 2 for 6 which would be a decent batting average but is worse than half truth.

[catcherinthewry]

BB - you are 2 for 6 which would be a decent batting average but is worse than half truth.

Then why don't you tell us what BB had right and wrong. I don't know much about Kemper but I think BB was right on the other 5.

[Popsy]

Well Dave, what did BB say that was incorrect? The biggest laugh I had from the article was the part about the wide spread outcry.

[CaptDave]

1, 2, 4, & 5.

[Buffalo Bill]

Then why don't you tell us what BB had right and wrong. I don't know much about Kemper but I think BB was right on the other 5.

Bob is probably a bright guy. He was a draftsman at ODOT. He's not an engineer any more than I'm a doctor.

https://www.ok.gov/pels/search/search.php

[Buffalo Bill]

Well Dave, what did BB say that was incorrect? The biggest laugh I had from the article was the part about the wide spread outcry.

There were at least 40 people at the public meeting a few days ago. Widespread indeed.

[UnFrSaKn]

What should happen with the Boulevard in downtown OKC?

[betts]

There were at least 40 people at the public meeting a few days ago. Widespread indeed.

There were more than 40. This was a meeting that was cancelled due to the tornado and moved to a later date. The first meeting was extremely well attended - the best attended public meeting I have been to since I've been attending public meetings.

And, while some people are not attenders of public meetings, every single person whom I told about the boulevard plans, regardless of where they live or their political leanings, said precisely the same thing, which I find fascinating. I've never heard such unanimity of comments on a subject in my life. "Why would they want to do that?"

My issue with ODOT and city staff is that they directed what options Stantec (the consultant, for those who don't want to go back and read this whole thread) could examine. All most of us want is the grid evaluated and scored along with the rest of the options. And, the primary scoring should not promote quickly moving people in and out of downtown, as that is not what we want. Scoring should be highest for pedestrian accessability to Core to Shore, environs and the park as well as walkability, bikeability. The boulevard should be as much for people as cars.

[Urban Pioneer]

From Bob. This is FBB's letter headed off to ODOT and the Federal Highway Admin today. Today is the last day to get your letters in for this step of the process. I submitted one as well regarding the Santa Fe Station Boulevard approach bridge and streetcar accommodations.


"FBB applauds the efforts of ODOT to develop and review an additional boulevard design alternative that provides for greater integration with the original street grid network of the downtown area impacted by the project. We believe that a properly designed Alternative D will not only provide for an outstanding boulevard(s) for Oklahoma City, but will also provide the greatest and most beneficial access to the entire downtown area of all alternatives under consideration. Further, we believe that a properly evaluated Alternative D will show the greatest and most beneficial environmental impacts, including potential economic development, to the entire downtown area of all alternatives under consideration.

The fundamental basis for the boulevard project under the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the I-40 Crosstown Expressway (Crosstown) was to mitigate the potential negative impacts to the downtown area as a result of reduced vehicular access due to the relocation of the Crosstown. This is confirmed in “Chapter 3.0 – Alternatives Considered” of the FEIS for the Crosstown, where the primary rationale for the boulevard project is described:

3.4.6. Tier Two Evaluation – Access to Downtown – Alternative D

“The proposed boulevard from I-235 to Agnew Avenue will provide improved access to Bricktown and the downtown area from eastbound and westbound traffic.”

Further, in “Chapter 5.0 – Environmental Impacts” of the FEIS, several potential beneficial environmental impacts of the boulevard project are described:

5.3 – Land Use Impacts – Alternative D

“Transforming the existing facility to a grade-level boulevard with at-grade access to cross streets, would provide the incentive for commercial development on vacant land and, commercial redevelopment of existing industrial properties along the boulevard would increase. The overall effects of converting existing I-40 to a boulevard could have positive land use impacts on the downtown area.”

5.5 – Historical and Archeological Preservation Impacts – Alternative D

“Developing a grade-level boulevard serving the downtown area along the current I-40 alignment would change the SW 3rd Street Industrial District’s visual setting. The change may bring the district closer to the original historic context, which included grade-level city streets. Therefore, this is anticipated to be a beneficial impact.”

5.23 – Socio-Economic Impacts – Alternative D

“The property tax base in the affected study area could be enhanced by potential commercial development and redevelopment in available areas along the proposed boulevard under Alternative D. New development on vacant properties could make redevelopment of adjacent existing properties more attractive and could rais the property values. Enhanced access to areas near the proposed facilities would reduce transportation costs, for travel to and from these areas, thereby making residential and business location more attractive and resulting in potentially higher property values.”

FBB notes that the purpose of the boulevard project is to provide greater access to the entire downtown area being impacted by the relocation of the Crosstown. Further, we note that the potential beneficial environmental impacts for providing that access are the direct result of developing a grade-level boulevard with at-grade access to cross streets. FBB believes that purpose and the resulting benefits can best be achieved by development of one or more linear boulevards reintegrated into the original downtown street grid, as opposed to the various curvilinear boulevard designs previously under consideration.

FBB also notes that nowhere in the FEIS or the accompanying Record of Decision (ROD) is the purpose of the boulevard project described as providing for a bypass for the purposes of moving vehicular traffic as quickly as possible into and out of the downtown area in order to eliminate traffic congestion or for emergency situations. Federal Highway Administration officials have confirmed that there is no requirement under the FEIS and the ROD for the boulevard to serve as a bypass facility.

FBB urges ODOT to conduct a thorough and unbiased evaluation of the various technical criteria associated with Alternative D, including design considerations, traffic modeling and analysis, and land use and other environmental impacts. Further, we urge ODOT to undertake a just and equitable analysis of its findings in determining a preferred alternative for the boulevard project in order to ensure the greatest access and beneficial environmental impacts for the entire downtown area.

Sincerely,

Bob Kemper
Friends for a Better Boulevard"

[CuatrodeMayo]

Contained in the links below is the 1st draft of the ODOT Alternative "D" (the grid-based option) as modified and developed by Friends for a Better Boulevard:




https://www.dropbox.com/s/kumukvk9p5...ard_DESIGN.pdf
https://www.dropbox.com/s/3eehzhjbm0...rd_Diagram.pdf
(Be warned; each file is about 30 MB)

[CaptDave]

Nice work Cuatro. What grabs my attention is the amount of land that is available for redevelopment and the number of reconnected streets that are possible when the boulevards follow the grid.

[HangryHippo]

Very nicely done. Dave really captured my sentiments by pointing out how much new land becomes available.

[BoulderSooner]

just a fyi .. all the streets along the park and CC have money from the 2007 bond issue for upgrades

[LakeEffect]

just a fyi .. all the streets along the park and CC have money from the 2007 bond issue for upgrades

Yeah, but it wouldn't be enough to make them all awesome... we threw a relatively blind number at it now knowing specifics at the time (2006).

[BoulderSooner]

The City of Oklahoma City - 2007 City Bond Election

Hudson reno to new I40 2.5 mil

Harvey Reno to blvd 1 mil

Robinson reno to sw 15th 3.7 mil

Oklahoma reno to blvd 2.5 mil

any idea how much P180 streets cost per block ... (although you would hope that these sections would cost less)

[LakeEffect]

Here's a good comparison (NW 23rd Streetscape bids):

OKC CONSTRUCTION ITEM #2 PC-0421 STREETSCAPE NW 23RD STREET, TULSA AVENUE TO ANN ARBOR AVENUE: (Eng Est/Atkins North America, Inc. $2,820,263.133)
CGC, LLC $2,542,400.00
Connelly Paving Co. $2,900,884.90
Rudy Const. Co. $2,765,532.30

http://www.okc.gov/clerk/bidtabs/Bid...%205-29-13.pdf

[BoulderSooner]

thanks ..

[Just the facts]

There won't be an intersection at the new Boulevard and EKG will there?

[Spartan]

I'm sure it sounds good to trot out the us against them mentality, but it rings hollow here.

The first image in the article, subtitled: "Advocates in Oklahoma City have proposed this grid pattern as an alternative to a wide, highway-like boulevard for downtown. Recently, FHWA forced ODOT consider the grid proposal. Image: ODOT"

This is a plan that came from the OKC Consulting Engineer, not from advocates. No 10 lane roundabout. The FHWA didn't "force" ODOT to consider it; it was simply one of the myriad of options that came out from the vetting process of 40 or so scenarios.

"In a rare victory against state DOT standard operating procedure".

ODOT changes plans in urban areas constantly. It is anything but "rare". What is implied by "standard operating procedure"? Who knows. ODOT never does anything in urban areas that is not entirely complicit with local governments desires.

"an elevated highway-like road through the “core-to-shore” area, where the city had been planning a walkable, mixed-use neighborhood"

Wrong. No elevated road has ever been proposed through the core to shore area. What had been the result of the EIS was exactly what the city had desired at the time of the ROD, 6 lanes at grade.

"And last week, FHWA intervened on the advocates’ behalf and ordered the state to add Alternate D to the analysis."

Again, just a part of the vetting process from the city's Consultant.

"Bob Kemper, a former ODOT engineer"

Good advocate, but not a former ODOT Engineer, not an Engineer.

"favorite plan of the majority of folks in Oklahoma City.”

How would we know? See the MAPs for suburbia thread. The majority of folks in OKC probably couldn't care less and just want to get home from the Thunder games faster.

You're incredulous. When you aren't discrediting that the public actually cares, you're lying that Core2Shire was always at grade (depends on your definition of Core2Shore and whether you've ever seen a wide-open neighborhood develop to the east-west as well), downplaying the FHWA involvement, and making personal charges against Bob Kemper.

That would be a troll, I believe.

[jn1780]

There won't be an intersection at the new Boulevard and EKG will there?

To my knowledge there will be an intersection. There would have to be a bridge or tunnel otherwise.

[BoulderSooner]

There won't be an intersection at the new Boulevard and EKG will there?

yes in every possible scenario ..

[Hutch]

Outstanding work. Clearly the best alternative. Great boulevards. Great access to downtown. Great redevelopment opportunities. Great vision. Why in the world would we want to build it any other way.