Thu July 5, 2007
Completion of first phase of project commemorated

By The Associated Press
State and local officials on Thursday commemorated completion of the first phase in construction of the new Interstate 40 Crosstown Expressway in Oklahoma City.


The first in a series of projects consists of three bridges five blocks south of the existing expressway. The cost of the first phase is $6.8 million.

Oklahoma Department of Transportation officials estimate the entire project will cost $557 million. It will stretch 4 1/2 miles, with 10 lanes of interstate and a boulevard through downtown Oklahoma City that will be four to six lanes.

"This project is monumental for the people of Oklahoma. It will increase safety for Oklahomans and those traveling through our state," said Gov. Brad Henry.

U.S. Rep. Mary Fallin said the project, the most expensive ever undertaken in Oklahoma, has national significance because I-40 is a main east-west corridor across the country.

Mayor Mick Cornett said completion of the first phase permits the city to consider canal and river projects that would otherwise not be possible.

Gary Ridley, state highway director, said Sen. Jim Inhofe was instrumental in getting federal funding for the project when he was chairman of the Senate committee that handles transportation issues.

"This project is a critical necessity for the state and the southwestern United States and without the help of our congressional delegation, it would have been extremely difficult, if not impossible, to get as far as we are," Ridley said.

Originally built in 1965, the expressway carries 120,000 vehicles a day, almost 50,000 more than the intended capacity of 72,000.

The new highway, expected to be open to traffic in 2012, will carry up to 173,000 vehicles a day.

Phase I of effort to reroute I-40 complete
by Brian Brus
The Journal Record
7/6/2007

OKLAHOMA CITY – The relocation of the Interstate 40 crosstown through downtown Oklahoma has reached the end of its first phase, state officials said Thursday at a ceremony near the Oklahoma River.

Two bridges for the new I-40 crossing the river near Lincoln Boulevard and a third railroad bridge relocation are expected to be completed within days, Department of Transportation spokesman David Meuser said.

The scheduled date to mark the project’s end was delayed because of rain, but the ceremony was held as planned.

The first phase cost about $6.8 million, paid for by the federal government, Meuser said.

By the time the new I-40 is ready to open in 2012, the overall price tag is expected to reach $557 million, an inflation-adjusted estimate.

Meuser said the project will be divided into about 20 phases similar to the first, which began a year and a half ago.

The event at the Chesapeake Boathouse pavilion south of downtown drew representatives from the Greater Oklahoma City Chamber, City Hall and the Transportation Department.

The massive project has been in the works for more than a decade. The first hint that I-40 might someday be shifted away from downtown came in a short newspaper article in 1994 that said the state Transportation Commission was looking for a long-term solution to the interstate’s bridge maintenance problems.

After several years of discussion, officials decided to divert about four miles of the interstate beginning just east of May Avenue and connecting again at the Interstate 235 interchange, running nearly parallel to the Oklahoma River.

In 1998, the state Transportation Department counted 43 commercial and nonprofit properties and 29 residential properties that would need to be acquired to fully clear the project area for construction and necessary right-of-way space.

Once the crosstown is finished, it will leave behind a big opportunity to design and develop a new main street in the heart of Oklahoma City, and to redevelop underused properties.

The task has been tagged by city government and chamber officials as “Core to Shore.” In June, the Oklahoma City Council approved a $387,000 contract Tuesday for a study to determine the best use of the 590 acres involved.

City Hall has held several community feedback meetings on the issue.

The feedback forums on newsok are an interesting read.

2012 though!!!! Honestly, what a crock. We were already supposed to be driving on the thing and now were only done with phase 1.

At least progres IS being made though. I curse that crappy road every day as I drive down it, so I can't wait!!!

Supposedly, the highway is will no longer be very far below grade. I heard the soil won't support it.

I'd rather it not be in a deep hole as it would totally kill any views of downtown.

If you could just see the tall buildings it would be OK. The existing crosstown has a view of downtown...and it is not a good one.

i didnt know it was supposed to be below grade the whole way, it said a combination of at grade and semi depressed. And i didnt know were already supposed to be driving on it, the projected finish date at first was 2010 and then they extended it to 2012 and raised the estimated price.

I think the earliest it had ever been planned to be finished was fall of 2009. I have a friend at ODOT and he says they've almost got all the property the footprint of the freeway needs bought out. Once that happens, they'll start major clearing of the new route and things will really take shape fast. I'm betting the longest and hardest parts will be building the new connectors from the existing I-40 to the new alignment and building exits onto the new street that will go downtown.

And oh, they're still VERY worried about the Crosstown. It's not far from a "collapse at any time" type situation.

And oh, they're still VERY worried about the Crosstown. It's not far from a "collapse at any time" type situation.

If they were actually worried about this, they could very easily reroute semi traffic onto I-240.

-- but they're not.

This is simply a strategy of impressing upon the public the "urgency" of paying these highway contractors millions upon millions of dollars.

Well, somebody's got to build it.

Well, somebody's got to build it.

Not really.. and especially not along the route which has been chosen. That's all moot at this point of course.

My point is that this urgency and this gnashing of teeth about the decrepit condition of the crosstown is completely bogus. If safety was truly an issue, as I said, the heaviest traffic could easily be rerouted.

I can clearly see the need to remove the crosstown for development purposes. I just grow tired of our leaders thinking they have to justify their reasons for development by telling lies.

Tom Elmore? Is that you?

Tom Elmore? Is that you?

No, but I do have the honor of being on his listserv :)

I agree with Mid on this one. If it is "urgent" as they claim, there are many things they can do to remedy the situation quickly.

It took them almost 20 years to get I-44 from I-40 to 39th street.

They had the bridge pylons in place in 1965 and didn't get the road build till the 70's. All the motorcycle people were up set, because they had made trails through there and wouldn't have a place to ride, so the made the trails on the southeast corner at I-40.

When is Phase 2 supposed to start on the new I-40. It sure seems to be moving slow, especially since Phase 1 was such a small phase.

I'm sure much of the posturing about the state of the current crosstown is due to the fact the new stretch isn't completely funded as of yet.

I had my issues with all this too but that's water under the bridge at this point and I'm anxious for them to get the new expressway completed and the old one demolished.

At the very least, it will provide a unique opportunity to develop a huge area immediately adjacent to the CBD.

At the very least, it will provide a unique opportunity to develop a huge area immediately adjacent to the CBD.

Does anyone wonder whether the contractors and politicians who pushed this own huge stakes in the property in the core to shore zone?

It would indeed be something which would be interesting to check out.

Does anyone wonder whether the contractors and politicians who pushed this own huge stakes in the property in the core to shore zone?

It would indeed be something which would be interesting to check out.

Interesting thought...

Here's an editorial that was in the DOK. I agree:

The collapse of a bridge on a heavily used highway in Minneapolis has placed renewed attention on the elevated stretch of Interstate 40 here in Oklahoma City. The road is washboard rough on the surface, as anyone who's driven it will attest, and the deteriorating underside is enough to give you the willies.

And motorists will have to use it at least another five years while construction continues on a new stretch of I-40 that will pass through Oklahoma City several blocks to the south. If we're lucky, it'll only be five years before we can bid good riddance to the current Crosstown Expressway. That may be wishful thinking.

It originally was hoped the new I-40 Crosstown would be completed by the end of 2008. That's been pushed back to 2012. Two years ago, the price was $360 million for the 4-mile stretch of 10-lane highway, and a downtown boulevard where I-40 now stands. That has ballooned to $557 million and is expected to climb more.

Last month, officials gathered to celebrate completion of two five-lane interstate bridges and a railroad bridge, the first phase of a work project that began in November 2005. Gov. Brad Henry used the occasion to "reaffirm the commitment of the state today to do whatever it takes to make sure this project gets completed.” Henry's spokesman said that includes providing funds if federal money comes up short.

Maybe it's time for the state to stop waiting to see what the federal government provides. About $469 million in federal funds has been secured for the project, thanks to work done by our congressional delegation through the years.

Former 5th District Rep. Ernest Istook steered millions toward the project as a member of the House Appropriations Committee. He also stressed the need for the state to share in some of the costs, saying the federal government typically picked up about two-thirds of the tab for interstate projects. In an Oklahoman op-ed article in August 2005, Istook wrote that no state funds had been promised or provided. "Even the city of Oklahoma City has outdone the state, recently committing $4.5 million for utility relocation,” he wrote.

The Legislature made transportation a priority during the 2005 and 2006 sessions, designating funds for road and bridge upkeep and replacement. But no project in Oklahoma is more pressing than replacing the I-40 Crosstown, which was built to handle 78,000 vehicles per day and now handles about 120,000. Further delays in completing the new highway only increase the chances of something disastrous happening on the present road.

The governor should set out looking for a way to help get the work done sooner rather than later.

THE collapse of a bridge on a heavily used highway in Minneapolis has placed renewed attention on the elevated stretch of Interstate 40 here in Oklahoma City. The road is washboard rough on the surface, as anyone who's driven it will attest, and the deteriorating underside is enough to give you the willies.

And motorists will have to use it at least another five years while construction continues on a new stretch of I-40 that will pass through Oklahoma City several blocks to the south. If we're lucky, it'll only be five years before we can bid good riddance to the current Crosstown Expressway. That may be wishful thinking.

It originally was hoped the new I-40 Crosstown would be completed by the end of 2008. That's been pushed back to 2012. Two years ago, the price was $360 million for the 4-mile stretch of 10-lane highway, and a downtown boulevard where I-40 now stands. That has ballooned to $557 million and is expected to climb more.

Last month, officials gathered to celebrate completion of two five-lane interstate bridges and a railroad bridge, the first phase of a work project that began in November 2005. Gov. Brad Henry used the occasion to "reaffirm the commitment of the state today to do whatever it takes to make sure this project gets completed.” Henry's spokesman said that includes providing funds if federal money comes up short.

Maybe it's time for the state to stop waiting to see what the federal government provides. About $469 million in federal funds has been secured for the project, thanks to work done by our congressional delegation through the years.

Former 5th District Rep. Ernest Istook steered millions toward the project as a member of the House Appropriations Committee. He also stressed the need for the state to share in some of the costs, saying the federal government typically picked up about two-thirds of the tab for interstate projects. In an Oklahoman op-ed article in August 2005, Istook wrote that no state funds had been promised or provided. "Even the city of Oklahoma City has outdone the state, recently committing $4.5 million for utility relocation,” he wrote.

The Legislature made transportation a priority during the 2005 and 2006 sessions, designating funds for road and bridge upkeep and replacement. But no project in Oklahoma is more pressing than replacing the I-40 Crosstown, which was built to handle 78,000 vehicles per day and now handles about 120,000. Further delays in completing the new highway only increase the chances of something disastrous happening on the present road.

The governor should set out looking for a way to help get the work done sooner rather than later.


Your ThoughtsMore Stories By The Oklahoman Editorial

Interesting thought...

Actually, I spoke with Elmore regarding whether the politicians and big money men who have been pushing this project own land adjacent to it... and they do.. and in many cases, they have for long before the project was announced to the public.

Just another fine example of the fleecing of Oklahoma City!

Regardless, the highway would need to be majorly repaired or replaced anyway. And there's no way to widen it, which it desperately needs, without a huge expense. Moving it gives us an opportunity to develop blighted land and improve our downtown, as well as get rid of an elevated highway that will need repairs and surveillance much more than a ground level road. I don't really care if anyone makes money off of it, as I will enjoy the improved appearance of our city and safety of the road.

Regardless, the highway would need to be majorly repaired or replaced anyway. And there's no way to widen it, which it desperately needs, without a huge expense. Moving it gives us an opportunity to develop blighted land and improve our downtown, as well as get rid of an elevated highway that will need repairs and surveillance much more than a ground level road. I don't really care if anyone makes money off of it, as I will enjoy the improved appearance of our city and safety of the road.

It'll probably really tick you off to know that Jim Brewer owns some of the property adjoining the proposed new I-40.

At any rate, there are still all kinds of questions as to the suitability of the land chosen for road-building due to soil instability, flooding, etc.

This is anything but a done deal. That they had a press conference for one completed bridge (wow) is hilarious in and of itself. Who freakin' cares about one bridge?

Is this worth the billion dollars it'll cost?

I agree Midtowner, this is far but over. The PR stunt was a HUGE joke and IMO hurt any politician more than it will help (including Mick).

Does anybody want a 10 lane elevated highway where it is now? Want to pay for it? Or a ten lane ground level highway where it is now? That absolutely stops any expansion of our downtown area. I'd rather have Jim Brewer as an owner than a 10 land highway adjacent to the Ford Center, elevated or not. I would assume the same risk of flooding exists south of the Oklahoma River, or anywhere else the highway could feasibly be bulit.

Does anybody want a 10 lane elevated highway where it is now? Want to pay for it? Or a ten lane ground level highway where it is now? That absolutely stops any expansion of our downtown area. I'd rather have Jim Brewer as an owner than a 10 land highway adjacent to the Ford Center, elevated or not. I would assume the same risk of flooding exists south of the Oklahoma River, or anywhere else the highway could feasibly be bulit.

What you don't really seem to grasp here is that it is not an either/or situation. There were and still are several options on the table. A new right of way which does not sever rail lines and is more feasible from an engineering standpoint could always be acquired -- and probably for a fraction of the cost of what it's going to cost to build on the current right of way.

The current right of way would actually serve as a great place to lay some east-west rail as part of our future light rail system... or it can be auctioned off again.

The losers there would be the politicians and their owners in that they'd lose their asses on their investments in the property they bought up before the information regarding this was available to the public.

Things are actually looking pretty dismal right now for the proponents of the new crosstown as it is currently proposed -- at least that's what I've been hearing.

And there's no way to widen it, which it desperately needs,

Why does it "desperately" need to be widened? I'm on it everyday during "rush hour" both ways and it moves pretty well. Only very occasionally do we get slow downs due to stalls or wrecks. There was a backup at the 44 interchange in the afternoon, but that's all been moved to the off ramp with its widening (well, that is when people actually use both lanes).

There is some back up during special events, but that has nothing to do with the number of lanes on the freeway, but the short length of the exits. But even then, it's not that bad, especially compared to any other city I have been to for special events.

I do agree that the current structure is a blight on the area and relatively high truck traffic puts a big strain on that already weakened structure. But there is hardly any consistent congestion that I see. We should actually appreciate the fact that our major crosstown freeway has such little congestion on it.


Does anybody want a 10 lane elevated highway where it is now?

We don't need a ten lane highway anywhere and if we did, we should be asking ourselves why we have let our auto infrastructure grow so massive without spending a dime on transportation alternatives aimed at commuters.


That absolutely stops any expansion of our downtown area.

OK, I know that all the Core to Shore renderings are really neat looking and it would be great to have that type of development in Oklahoma City, but why does downtown need to expand in area? All that does is water down the density and favor new construction over improving our current structures for which we already have infrastructure in place to serve.

There are plenty of opportunities to restore, improve, and grow downtown within the current core, which, by the way, is far from full. Growing it land wise will only prevent those opportunities from being realized and simply create a larger less pedestrian friendly downtown for which there already is no rail service. Do we want a downtown where people literally are driving from S. 10th street to N. tenth street?

There is certainly a need for work on I-40, but we need to look at the opportunity cost. This is billions of dollars to create a road that will also need maintenance and is going to demolish as much as it creates. Just think of what that money could do for our rail system (create one from scratch and maintain it), downtown beautification, updated infrastructure for our current core, etc. I'm not saying that I-40 is fine as it is, but we will be paying A LOT of money as well as giving up our best and most cost effective chance to expand our transportation choices. I'm just saying that, as it is currently planned, it is a very expensive project that nets out to a lateral move at best.

i must drive a very different I40 than you BDP because almost every time i drive on it during rush hour i get stuck on it (and i drive on it 2 or 3 times a week to get to work) and we may not need ten lanes rignt now but what about 10, 20 or even 30 years from now when (hopefully) the city has grown and core traffic can no longer be supported by six lanes... also most of the core to shore projects are not aimed at downtown expansion as much as on expanding opportunities downtown is not getting expanded to the river but rather an addition to an area wich imo needs to be completley demolished and rebuilt anyways

I was just in Boston a few weeks ago, where they've buried a highway downtown and are creating greenspaces above it. The people there who showed it to me were really proud of it. Here's an article from 2004:

Boston's Big Dig

Solving a World Class Traffic Problem

Boston had a world class traffic problem - an elevated six lane highway called the Central Artery that ran through the center of downtown. When it opened in 1959, the Central Artery comfortably carried about 75,000 vehicles a day. Now, more than 40 years later, it carries more than 200,000 a day and traffic is normally congested about 10 hours a day.

And traffic wasn't the only problem the Central Artery has caused in Boston. The elevated highway also cut off Boston's North End and Waterfront neighborhoods from the downtown area.

The solution to the area's extraordinary traffic problems is called the Central Artery/Tunnel project. Under the jurisdiction of the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority the project calls for replacing the six lane elevated highway with an 8 to ten lane underground expressway directly beneath the existing roadway....."
_________________________________________________

Here's a line from another article about it: "The ugly green elevated highway will be done, replaced by 27 acres of new open space along the Artery corridor. Three quarters of that new space will remain open, with the rest dedicated to modest development. "

THE CENTRAL ARTERY TUNNEL PROJECT IN BOSTON (http://www.ita-aites.org/cms/321.html)
__________________________________________

If I had a choice between light rail and a new, relocated highway I would certainly rethink my stance, although I'm not 100% sure what I would choose. The concept of a park extending from the Myriad Gardens to the Oklahoma River is something I think might do as much for downtown as anything. I'm already dreaming of living along that park, with access to the bike trails along the river as well. I am in favor of light rail, but I'm not sure we get to choose an either or scenario. Do you honestly think if balked on this interest will immediately turn to funding of light rail? I'm just not sure we're going to get to choose one or the other. Personally, I'd like both.

The Crosstown is an immeddiate problem that calls for a quick solution. Light rail is for a problem we do not have yet, but will eventually.

1. The Crosstown is structurally deficient. Extensive repairs could fix this, but:
2. The Crosstown carries nearly twice the amount of traffice it was it was designed for.

Option #1: Completely rebuild in its present location (would still include property aquisition for widening/new ramps. Result: New Crosstown but with many of the same drawbacks as the original.

Option #2: Move it. Alt. D chosen among several similar options. Each option had benefits and drawbacks. Soil instability and flooding will not magically change from one block to the next in a flood plain.

Please do not drink the Tom Elmore Kool-Aid. Union Station is NOT our only hope for a comprehensive rail system. Yes, it would be nice to have the rail yard there and I can't see why they can't have the highway run a 100 yards futher south, but rail is not impossible without it. I have done my own rail studies and the lines in the vicinity of the Santa Fe Station would work as a transit hub. Something has to be done about the Crosstown and this will do the trick...not re-routing traffic around the city ala Tom Elmore.

We NEED rail for our future, but not at the expense of our expressway system.

The thing is that if the I-40 plan actually does go through as proposed, light rail will be set back quite a bit. The original hub for rail transport in OKC is located along the right of way. While the building itself will not be destroyed by the construction project, most of the lines going to it will be severed. Right now, we could start a new rail service utilizing Union Station and only have to condemn minimal property in order to accomplish it. Certainly, there'd be a lot of expense in laying new and safe track (I don't think the wooden trolley bridges would quite meet code requirements of today), but we're already well along the path.

If the crosstown is built in the manner proposed, essentially, we'd be starting from scratch.

If light rail is a certainty, it is base stupidity on the part of our city leaders to be so gung ho about setting it back in a manner which will ultimately cost the city hundreds of millions if not billions of dollars to repair.

i must drive a very different I40 than you BDP because almost every time i drive on it during rush hour i get stuck on it (and i drive on it 2 or 3 times a week to get to work)

I guess we must drive on a different one. I drive every morning at 8:30 from the I-235 interchange to I-44 and back the other way in the evening between 5:15 and 6. I can't remember the last time I stopped on it that wasn't at an interchange or due to a stalled car. It may slow down at those times sometimes, but hardly ever stops in all lanes. The reality is that you can get through it in ten minutes or less just about every day. At least, on the one I drive you can. :)


and we may not need ten lanes rignt now but what about 10, 20 or even 30 years from now when (hopefully) the city has grown and core traffic can no longer be supported by six lanes...

That's actually the point. If we need ten lanes in 10, 20, 30 years, we should be building a light rail system and this project will not only delay that, but also dramatically increase the cost of doing so. The relocation as it is planned now is very short term minded. We need a long term plan that isn't built around constant road construction.


also most of the core to shore projects are not aimed at downtown expansion as much as on expanding opportunities downtown is not getting expanded to the river but rather an addition to an area which imo needs to be completely demolished and rebuilt anyways

Well, whatever it is to become, it is not predicated on the moving of the freeway. In fact, it has to actually wait for it to move when it could happen now, if there is real a need for it. The I-40 freeway is only a perceived barrier. It doesn't really bar movement from the CBD to the area south of the freeway. And, whenever it is redeveloped, I believe its success will be predicated on its integration with downtown, which will come only with a comprehensive public transit system. In fact, if the old station was used as the hub, the Core to Shore district would have so much built in traffic that it would literally be the social and economic hub of the city. The current plan is to prevent that from happening.

I can't believe anyone is still pushing Union Station as a downown transit hub. It is no where close to where it needs to be. Actually, it is close but it needs to be 6 blocks north of where it is. Unless the city is looking at commuter rail the tracks at union station couldn't be used anyhow. Those tracks are mixed with freight traffic so a whole new set of rules apply for that.

Honestly, any rail systems through downtown (other than street cars) will need to go underground anyhow. This is similar to MARTA through downtown Atlanta. There would simply be too much street traffic to move train throught the area in a timely manner. Regardless of how DART and MAX are, most other systems go underground near downtown.

The location is still a viable hub. Downtown doesn't need to be a hub -- the hub need only be able to be a smart central point for all lines to cross. Considering that the hard part is done -- the clearing of the right of way for the necessary rail yard, it would be fairly cheap to retool the area with whatever tracks need be laid for the lines to be reopened.

Many rights of way still exist for the old-time trolleys. Underground or above ground... for downtown.. who cares? Union Station and the lines connected to it would save us hundreds of millions of dollars.

If the crosstown thing, as it is now, does die in the courts (which appears quite likely), the current owners of the land along the right of way would be smart to push for light rail along that right of way to be immediately developed. Development and skyrocketing property values will immediately follow rail construction.

And the freeway goes where?

And the freeway goes where?

On one of the other routes not involving Union Station, another route entirely, or right where it is. I think of all the possible locations for it, the current one is the absolute worst.

It was first sold to us as something which would cost $200 million dollars. We thought that'd be great... then they informed us about the fact it couldn't be built below ground. How in the hell could they not have known that????

Now it's 500 million (a number that has apparently been pulled out of someone's derrière). I'll pull another number out of the same locale and estimate that this boondoggle will cost the taxpayers at least a billion -- not counting what it'll cost to pave a new boulevard, build a new rail hub and condemn the requisite land for that, etc.

So couldn't they just redesign it a little bit so the rail yard could be saved??

then, everybody wins.

Especially since the damn freeway isnt even built yet.

Yes HOT ROD, and they've already got the blueprints for it, so it wouldn't cost any additional money to redesign it. When the new I-40 was first proposed there were 4 or 5 options. Option D was the cheapest and furthest from downtown. Personally, I don't want a highway ruining our beautiful river that will hopefully only become more beautiful in time. Surprise Surprise Earnest Istook and political allies suggestion Route D (the one that ruined the rail yard). They claimed it was the cheapest option. I say it depends on what you call cheap, making our future light rail many more years away and costing billions more in the long term but saves a few million on the highway in the short term. Or spend the few extra million in the short term and save billions in the long run? No brainer to me. Since all that has been developed so far is the tiny bridge by the Chesapeake Boathouse is complete (another dumb move I might add, makes the boathouse area unsightly with a freeway running by it), we still have plenty of time to reroute that small section of interstate by the rail yard. I don't get it??? Political pride is what it is. Funny how Istook got Salt Lake City light rail (which is a smaller city than us, I thought he lived in Oklahoma and we were paying his paycheck but he's a Mormon so........)

It's not political pride -- it's that the power brokers of the state have bought up all the property along route D (they probably did it before the choice was ever publicly made). There are a few very wealthy people who will suddenly have made terrible investments if Route D doesn't go as planned.

-- my heart goes out to them. Again, are we ready to throw the city under the bus so that the Gaylords, etc. can make a few more bucks?

Me and sum friends went to Bricktown on Friday.....

So much fun...... Saw Mr. Woodcock.
Hilarious


Ok but anyways, we walked to the end of the canal and then we got the brilliant plan to run across the railroad tracks where they had building a bridge thingy for them (being the "disruptive, abnoxious, stupid, lazy" tennagers we are.) =P

and so we ran past the tracks, my friend tripped on them and fell lol, and past the new railroad bridge and I saw the new highway bridge they had built and finished.

I didnt know they were right there because the railroad bridge was in the way...

and they're huge!!!

like each side is like the size of a normal highway!!!

i was like whoa!!!

they look really nice tho... =P

Bid awarded for $23.8 million Crosstown project


Associated Press - October 8, 2007 2:25 PM ET

OKLAHOMA CITY (AP) - The Oklahoma Transportation Commission has awarded a contract for $23.8 million of work on the crosstown route for Interstate 40 in Oklahoma City.The latest project will involve building a series of bridges east of Agnew Avenue. 1 of the bridges will connect with a new boulevard underneath the Crosstown. The work will cover about three-fourths of a mile and is scheduled to begin in November. The state got three bids on the project and awarded the contract to the low bidder - Muskogee Bridge Inc. and Allen Construction Co.

The commission acted Monday at is regular monthly meeting.

Oklahoma Department of Transportation officials estimate the entire project will cost $557 million. The Crosstown will stretch 4 1/2, with 10 lanes of interstate and a boulevard through downtown Oklahoma City that will be four to six lanes.

This project seems to be moving very slowly, especially since they don't have to work around any existing traffic. And, it's only 4.5 miles.

I know there are some funding issues but no reason not to get going full speed with the funds they already have.

Would love to know why this is taking so darn long.

I'd like to know the same thing. When I went to the Core to Shore meeting, I actually asked the city planner that question afterwards. I got an obscure answer about having to create access roads, do the bridges ahead of time, etc. When you see how quickly they got the Kilpatrick Turnpike done, it certainly makes you wonder.

http://olive.newsok.com/Repository/getimage.dll?path=DOK/2007/10/09/1/Img/Pc0011700.jpg

Downtown’s drive
By land and by water, here are two developments that’ll move you
Current Interstate 40 route The new Crosstown: Drivers to get a look
By John Greiner Capitol Bureau


Construction should start in November on a $23.8 million project approved Monday to build some bridges along the route of Oklahoma City’s new Crosstown Expressway, a state transportation official said.
Approved by the Oklahoma Transportation Commission Monday, the project will mark the first time that motorists driving on the current Crosstown Expressway will be able to see some construction for the new one, said David Streb, assistant chief engineer for preconstruction for the Transportation Department.
Other work has been under way for a while, but this latest project will be visible from the old Crosstown Expressway, said Brenda Perry, spokeswoman for the agency.
John Bowman, project development engineer, said construction on this project is scheduled to be finished in February 2009.
The project includes four bridges and a large drainage structure between Agnew Avenue and Pennsylvania Avenue, Bowman said.
The structures that will be under construction are:

• A bridge on eastbound Interstate 40 (new Crosstown) over Agnew Avenue.

• A connecting bridge to what will become a boulevard that will be built after the new Crosstown Expressway is built and the old one torn down.

• A drainage structure in the area near Agnew.

• A bridge on Pennsylvania over the Oklahoma River.

• A bridge on Pennsylvania over the new Crosstown Expressway.
The contract was awarded to Muskogee Bridge Inc., Muskogee, and Allen Contracting Co. of Oklahoma City.
The Crosstown Expressway is being replaced because it is 40 years old and is plagued by crumbling concrete and rusting metal.
Completion date for the new Crosstown Expressway is 2012. The estimated cost is $557 million.

A new bridge over the river? That's interesting...