Boulevard planned to replace Crosstown bridge, but its design, funding are uncertain | OKG Scene.com (http://www.okgazette.com/p/12776/a/4906/Default.aspx?ReturnUrl=LwBkAGUAZgBhAHUAbAB0AC4AYQB zAHAAeAAslashAHAAPQAxADIANwAyADkA#at)

I totally get the arguments for not having a boulevard for walkability purposes, and probably support that. However, I think I may have a valid point that I haven't heard expressed before. I was in Vegas this past weekend, and it reminded me. Almost all their streets around the strip, including the strip are basically expressways/freeways. People navigate the strip just fine, due to the elevated pedestrian bridges which also feature elevators and outdoor escalators. Why couldn't we do the same over our new boulevard? I think it' would be kind of neat actually.

They don't even need to do escalators, they could just do the moving sidewalks like the one at the Venetian Hotel in Vegas that goes over the canal. Or they could go bold and create a series of spiral ramps at each intersection to carry pedestrian traffic over the road while introducing an architectural element to the area.

People navigate the strip just fine, due to the elevated pedestrian bridges which also feature elevators and outdoor escalators. Why couldn't we do the same over our new boulevard? I think it' would be kind of neat actually.

Metro, I appreciate the creativity and optimism, but the last thing OKC needs is another system that takes people off of the streets and sidewalks.

I actually think you make a strong anti-boulevard point by comparing it to the Vegas Strip, which is notorious for being a terrible place to walk. This has been intentional in the past, as the casinos have attempted to internalize as much walking as possible to retain customers. The escalators and bridges we see today on the Strip are a band-aid approach to fixing what became a very big pedestrian safety problem.

Let me try to shift the debate here...What are the qualities that we want to see on the Boulevard? That is to say, what is it that we are trying to accomplish with the Boulevard? I tend to think in terms of:

reestablishing a prominent "main" street
a place to walk, dine, and shop
a place with people and activity
a place to embed culture in the form of art, civic statues, etc
a place for festivals, celebrations, and parades


In my opinion, these are the qualities we are looking to create with "The Boulevard". Now ask yourself, what is the best place to focus our efforts at creating such a street? What should the street look like? Where should it be located? Does it already exist and just needs improvement, or do we need to build a new street from scratch?

Am interested to get everyone's thoughts.

Thanks for the alternative insight Blair, it definitely helps since I don't have a Masters from MIT. If I ever decide to run for council again, and get elected, I'd definitely want you as an adviser. Anyhow, I think Classen Boulevard could be a great prominent entryway into downtown if we gave it a makeover and added more and better sidewalks, etc. Then tie it into downtown where the current highway sits and continue it on down into downtown to lower bricktown. I think we need a world-class boulevard, but not how the city leaders are proposing. I'd like to see something like Philedelphia's.

Down town walkability appears very important to a lot of posters here, yet the same posters are gung ho about the street cars. Seems strange to me.

STREET cars go hand in hand with walkability and connectivity. Street cars have been proven to INCREASE walkability.

Clayton McCleskey: Why Dallas needs streetcars | News for Dallas, Texas | Dallas Morning News | Opinion: Points (http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/opinion/points/stories/DN-mccleskey_18edi.State.Edition1.25e4ecd.html)

From the article:

The hop-on, hop-off nature of streetcars increases walkability, allowing you to ditch your car and wine and dine downtown with ease.

Thanks for the alternative insight Blair, it definitely helps since I don't have a MBA from MIT. If I ever decide to run for council again, and get elected, I'd definitely want you as an adviser. Anyhow, I think Classen Boulevard could be a great prominent entryway into downtown if we gave it a makeover and added more and better sidewalks, etc. Then tie it into downtown where the current highway sits and continue it on down into downtown to lower bricktown. I think we need a world-class boulevard, but not how the city leaders are proposing. I'd like to see something like Philedelphia's.

I actually got an MCP - Master in City Planning. I wish I had an MBA, then I would be making some money...jk. Anyway, I would love to someday be your council adviser - I will hold you to that :)

I think Classen does have a lot of potential. It is a little too wide to create a pedestrian shopping street, but it could serve the more monumental purposes like the Philadelphia streets you mention.


Down town walkability appears very important to a lot of posters here, yet the same posters are gung ho about the street cars. Seems strange to me.

I was about to say the same thing Metro said, but he did it better by providing a link. Anyway, the first leg of every trip is walking. Whether you are walking from your front door to your auto, or from your front door to the streetcar. Unless the streetcar stop is closer than your parking spot, the addition of the streetcar will actually increase walking. Plus, it makes it more effective and enjoyable to travel by foot in a city.

By the way, I like the name Popsy...a good name.

Down town walkability appears very important to a lot of posters here, yet the same posters are gung ho about the street cars. Seems strange to me.

I'm one of the walkability people, but I understand that not everyone can walk, or is willing to walk. I also realize that the streetcar can cover more area in a shorter period of time than I can on foot, most likely, and will cover a greater distance than I am probably willing to go on foot. It's also an option in inclement weather. I think it will make more of downtown adjacent areas accessible to people. For instance, if you're going to a game at the Ford Center, Midtown restaurants suddenly become as practical for pregame dining as Bricktown. If you've got a family member at the Health Sciences Center, you can stay in Bricktown and not have to worry about parking. If you work at the Health Sciences Center, you can have lunch in Bricktown or Midtown, and not have to worry about parking. Lots of good reasons, IMO.

As far as the boulevard goes, my biggest concern is the adjacent street. A boulevard is a green space, and green is good in a city, to my way of thinking. It becomes another east-west walking route if it is designed well, and I like all of Blair's ideas for the boulevard. I've also said that I'd like to see the streetcar run along the boulevard, ala the St. Charles streetcar, which can be a visually interesting aspect even to a boulevard, if done right. My concern is the number of lanes on either side of the boulevard. I'd like it to become a more casual way to traverse the east-west route. Reno is perfectly adequate to handle traffic as well and we'll have I-40, so I see no need for the boulevard to be designed to move traffic rapidly. If it is to be a "gateway" to downtown, it should be visually appealing, and four lanes of cars traveling 40 to 50 miles an hour in either direction does not appeal visually. Make it the scenic route, for slower traffic, and they'll have time to see what's on the boulevard, and perhaps be encouraged to get OUT of those cars.

The problem with the I-40 Connector (boulevard) as it stands now, is a preconceived notion about capacity, and in this case too much of it. ODOT feels that because of the enormous ROW and potential for increased vehicle traffic correlating with the possible new convention center, park, and several thousand new residents, they should build it at a scale only needed at peak hours. We spent a half-century constructing downtown roads capable of carrying a ridiculous amount of cars. Now we are spending millions to correct that.

There is a clause in the plan for the I-40 Connector for ODOT to facilitate a pedestrian activity study of the area. I have yet to see any action on this. The plan also allows for the possible construction of pedestrian bridges over the boulevard, which has been discussed here many times to be detrimental to street level activity.

Were we to have mass transit access to the convention center and hotels from the airport, as well as access to Bricktown and Midtown, cars would probably not be a major issue regarding convention center access.

NewsOK (http://www.newsok.com/oklahoma-highway-officials-express-funding-concerns/article/3412700?custom_click=headlines_widget)

The solution to making a 6 lane boulevard pedestrian friendly is no different than making the canal pedestrian friendly. Both contain physical obstacles that can't be safely crossed except at designated points and for the canal it requires a bridge as crosswalks are not even an option. Whether it be a road, river, canal, or railroad track - the solution is the same, street level retail connected by pedestrian bridges over physical obstacles. Some really cool bridges could be built using circular ramps.

To me, a boulevard with very wide medians so that there might be room for gardens or small ponds with fountains, statues, art of different kinds, etc, might ensure the "walkability" of the area. Go to foreign countries and there are some very walkable but extremely busy roadways where points of interest are provided to attract walkers.

mug, you don't have to leave the country to see world class boulevards. Go to Philly, DC, Boston, etc.

mug, you don't have to leave the country to see world class boulevards. Go to Philly, DC, Boston, etc.

True, sad to say I've been out of the country more recently than I've been to most of those cities ('cept for Boston). Take the point I am making tho....

Then you must go to Philly, definitely a city full of class, great architecture, walkability and connectivity. Lots of history too.

Anyway, extra wide medians and not just grass with a line of trees down the middle......

reestablishing a prominent "main" street
a place to walk, dine, and shop
a place with people and activity
a place to embed culture in the form of art, civic statues, etc
a place for festivals, celebrations, and parades



Beautifully put. The idea of re-introducing the "Main Street" concept is a wonderful idea.

-Chris-

Mug - you are spot on about the wide median. Here are some pictures of the median along 17th Street here in Atlanta. This is part of the Atlantic Station development.

...and Yes, this is median between the east and west bound lanes.

http://www.philipblaiklock.com/blog/uploaded_images/Atlantic-Station-730789.jpg

http://www.smartgrowthamerica.org/images/atlanticstation.jpg

http://www.scehardt.com/photos/2005/full/a004%20Atlantic%20Station%20central%20park.jpg

If anyone has contrary or more info PLEASE post.

Agree with most every post so far. From Steve's blog:
Before You Make Those 2012 Core to Shore Plans … | OKC Central (http://blog.newsok.com/okccentral/2009/04/17/before-you-make-those-2012-core-to-shore-plans/) (4/17/09)

Cornett admits Core to Shore, the development of mostly blighted area between the river and downtown, can’t be launched without the boulevard. “The city grinds to a halt if that boulevard isn’t constructed when I-40 is relocated."

I have yet to see a reason why that is the case. But my main concern about the Boulevard is every article I have read that mentions it says it will follow the same path as the current Crosstown. Has anyone bothered to look at a map? The Crosstown is not straight, it jogs at least twice by a few blocks. The end result will be a new road literally within feet of current streets and crossing at some really odd angles at that. No mention has been made about straightening it out.

The only article I found concerning cost of the Boulevard put the amount at $100M. Originally part of the overall cost of the relocation, due to cost increases it was separated out. The State has assured the City that they will still be paying for it but as Steve has pointed out on his blog, funding is still not there or even in their 8 year plan. The Mayor has said he wants the Park & Boulevard to open together by 2014. That puts so well within the 8 year cycle. Due to the vagueness of the MAPS 3 Ballot/Ordinance, I don't see anything stopping the City from diverting whatever funds needed to pay for it (if State funding doesn't come through). $100M+ could well mean significant cutbacks to the "proposed" projects or maybe some being eliminated completely.

Larry, that's something I can finally agree with you 100% on. While I want a boulevard (but mine would connect Classen Boulevard at Reno with a grand roundabout and start a new boulevard into downtown (following some of Blair Humphreys and Jeff Specks recommendations for a complete makeover then what is currently proposed). I have yet to see Mayor Micky or anyone give a reason why the City "grinds to a halt" without the boulevard. Irritates me actually. What's even sadder, is there is virtually zero public outcry about it and the media flat out ignores it. Steve Lackmeyer alone can't change this, but a front page in-depth story could sure help FYI Ed Kelley.

http://www.smartgrowthamerica.org/images/atlanticstation.jpg



That pic makes me think that the current location of the Boulevard wouldn't be a bad choice for a canal extension down the median.

That pic makes me think that the current location of the Boulevard wouldn't be a bad choice for a canal extension down the median.

That is not a bad idea. How about a link to the river so the larger Devon boats could travel near downtown (ala Chicago River).

That pic makes me think that the current location of the Boulevard wouldn't be a bad choice for a canal extension down the median.

This is a really interesting idea and one I have not seen or heard mentioned previously. This idea deserves a chance to be considered.

Great pics - also, picture a modified Plaza like they have in Kansas City - obviously, it wouldn't be so far below grade. Build the foundation of things like this and the private development will pour in.

This is a really interesting idea and one I have not seen or heard mentioned previously. This idea deserves a chance to be considered.

Huh????
(Steve may need a vacation very, very, very soon)

So how does one throw it in for consideration?

Huh????
(Steve may need a vacation very, very, very soon)

Think he was talking about putting the Canal Extension as part of the median?

From the Chamber's Breaking Through Luncheon dated 10/29, the Mayor said at the 31 minute mark, "The Boulevard IS funded from the Department of Transportation". Does anyone have confirmation of this? He might have meant to say "is SUPPOSED TO BE funded" but not sure.

Maybe the Mayor thinks that by saying it "IS" every time he talks, ODOT will eventually believe that too and pay up. :smile:

I am liking this idea too. Can you imagine the possibilities this could bring to the area. Oklahoma City the new Venice of the Southwest.

The more canal the better. It would be great if the canal ran through the new park and down the center of the new Blvd. over to the Myriad Gardens. Now that could make for a nice scenic boat ride. That would bring people in and spur all sorts of activity IMO.

The Gazette has an article about the boulevard this week called, "Bridging the Gap." I can't find it online, or I'd post it here.

betts, the article you are talking about is in the link that started this thread

betts, the article you are talking about is in the link that started this thread

Well, I feel stupid now. At least I "bumped" the thread :Smiley094

Hey, no problem, we all have those moments. In your defense, the cover has the title you mentioned (and the subtitle that is the one used for the story itself and in the linked article). So easy to think they may have been different articles or whatever.

From the linked article, it begins with:

Work on the estimated $75 million boulevard — set to run between Oklahoma Avenue on the east and Walker Avenue on the west — is still at least three years away, but city officials want its construction to coincide with the planned demolition of the Interstate 40 Crosstown bridge in 2013, which the boulevard will replace at ground level.

and closes with

...the governor’s office is committed to seeing the boulevard come to fruition.
“Everyone is on board after that time to make sure the boulevard construction gets into the ODOT program and we finish the project,” he said. “It is a high priority for Gov. Henry.”
Henry’s second and final gubernatorial term ends in January 2011.

Granted, I suppose it is possible for Gov Henry to somehow manage to get it passed through the Legislature while he is still in office, but next years budget there is expected to be an even greater shortfall than this years. The recession will eventually end but in the time frame specified? Notice the time lag here. The Crosstown isn't scheduled for demolition (according to the article, that part is funded) until AFTER the relocated I-40 opens (for obvious reasons), in 2013. That is two years AFTER Henry leaves office.

Some interesting "Intent" quotes from the article (sound familiar??)

Gary Ridley, director of ODOT, acknowledged that while his agency remains committed to funding the boulevard, it has not yet been programmed into ODOT’s plan. “It is not in the eight-year construction plan because there is not funding available,” Ridley said.

and

Paul Sund, communications director for Gov. Brad Henry, said one way or another, the funding will arrive and the boulevard will be built on schedule. “Gov. Henry is absolutely committed not just to finishing the Crosstown on schedule, but he’s committed to constructing a boulevard as well,” Sund said.

Not questioning the character or the veracity of what they INTEND to do, but Henry won't be in office and it is possible Ridley may be replaced with the next administration (think his position is one of those political appointments but may be wrong about that).

Just as with the Council's Resolution of Intent, the words sound great but are essentially meaningless (and as other and the Oklahoman pointed out, are non-binding).

I thought the most interesting thing about the article was the fact that they've got the funding to demolish I-40. I thought that was up in the air as well. I still think/hope there's time to apply public pressure to decrease the number of lanes of traffic on the boulevard. I don't think it's going to become another Champs Elysees, and so we might be wise to seriously consider it as something other than transportation for cars, when we so want people to get out of their cars downtown.