The statement that this needs to meet "federal highway standards" is rather chilling, to me. Why is this considered a highway, when we have a freeway adjacent and basically it is a road to nowhere?

I think it would be simple to make it pedestrian friendly, and I believe I've read lots of suggestions here for doing so. The way to make it pedestrian friendly is to create a massive grassy median, with a maximum of two smaller lanes of traffic in either direction, bisected by north south streets so that it is an undesirable route for people wanting to go through downtown and rather is a way to get from place to place downtown and in Core to Shore. Lots of stoplights and pedestrian right of ways would help as well. I wouldn't have a problem with the streetcar running down the center of the boulevard, ala the St. Charles streetcar in NO, as that's another way to make it pedestrian centric, with people walking to stops and between stops.

Bingo.

I have been monitoring this thread since it started and a question for everyone: What is your ideal width for the boulevard? Do you envision it like NW Expressway but taking the two interior lanes and adding them to the grass area? Again, I am just talking about width, not speed or structure.

I would like it to look like Robinson north of 23rd St., which has two lanes in either direction and a very nice median. The median could be bigger, but I would like the lanes to look like what we would all call a "street" as opposed to a "highway". When we look at it, I'd like to think, "That's a pretty street".

Only one block of the Boulevard is even going to go through the park. To the west it wil go through some pretty industrial areas. I don't recall seeing all the aforementioned world class streets with a lot of manufacturing and light industrial establishments on them. I would much rather see the the old I-40 returned to the grid and make Robinson and/or Hudson the focal point.

I think there are a number of streets in OKC that are very impressive, but all in their own right. The question you've got ask yourself is what is appropriate for this environment. Warreng and betts just got this conversation going in a very interesting direction.. this is pretty much verbatim from an upcoming blog post of mine, but what the hey.

I know it's hard to think of OKC as a city of boulevards, but ... just off the top of my head we have these ones:

Grand Blvd (Nichols Hills)
Robinson Ave (Heritage Hills/J. Park)
Lincoln Blvd (Lincoln's Terrace)
Classen Blvd (Asian District)
NW 19th St (Crestwood/Linwood)
NW 10th St (Classen-Ten-Penn)
Grand Blvd (South OKC)
Shartel/18th St (Mesta Park)
Shartel Ave (Crown Heights)
McKinley Ave (Putnam Heights)
Classen Drive w/ Park (Heritage Hills)
Linwood Blvd (Metro Park)
SW 25th St (Capitol Hill)
Miller Blvd (Miller)
Drexel Blvd (Reed Park)

There are countless others but these are just a few examples to get people thinking and realizing that we do actually have precedent for what a good boulevard is from within our own community. A lot of these are actually built around parks..either a park in their median (Classen Dr) or a park in a bend of the road (Drexel Blvd) or so on. Some of them are part of a system of boulevards that an upscale neighborhood was just built around, like with Linwood or Putnam Heights, two nice neighborhoods we especially often forget about.

I would break these boulevards into two different categories...

Large-scale boulevards: Robinson, Lincoln, Classen, Shartel/18th
Small-scale boulevards: Grand SOKC, SW 25th, NW 19th, McKinley, Shartel, Miller, Drexel
Under-utilized boulevards: Grand NH, NW 10th, Linwood

And yeah, I just put Grand Boulevard in Nichols Hills in the same category as Linwood in terms of being a disappointing space. You would expect Nichols Hills could afford to plant more trees than are there now.

But anyway, what I mean by large-scale boulevards is when the space comes together to form a large-scale that immediately impresses people. That's what people in OKC want with this boulevard. Nobody wants it to be prohibitively wide, it was just an assumption that was made at first when people set out on the task of designing this boulevard to impress. In the category of boulevards that come together at the large scale in a way that impresses are boulevards that transcend sizes of rights of way from as tiny as Shartel in Mesta Park to as wide as Lincoln. But we've seen over time that Lincoln Blvd was a failure..it is too wide, too many lanes, too much space between it, and too poorly defined by structures lining it. Shockingly dismal for a center of government. Shartel on the other hand is a fantastic space, lots of runners, walkers, medium amounts of traffic, extremely beautiful space, very well-defined by the structures that line it.

Shartel is a smashing success and clearly it utilizes a right of way that is tiny and makes the absolute best out of it. Lincoln is a failure, utilizing a monstrously large right of way, lined with stunningly beautiful individual pieces of architecture but it fails to tie them altogether in a way that's cohesive and includes them in a large-scale environment. It does not come together in the large-scale very well.

I would mention more on Robinson, which I view as perfect, but I have issues with the way Robinson converts to one-way around 17th Street. It's very funky and somewhat dysfunctional IMO, not to mention a nightmare if you're trying to go north and forget at what street it does that, esp because you can't go up another block on Broadway (next street over) because entrances from Broadway are blocked into HH. I was walking down Robinson personally checking it out with streetcar in mind, but I'll go over those observations in the ongoing streetcar thread. Robinson in HH is a very impressive boulevard though. Another very beautiful boulevard is Classen Drive way over on the other side of HH. Another issue with Classen Drive however is how it dead-ends behind trees that block it off from Classen.

Obviously every effort is being made to limit the traffic that drives through MP and HH to get to downtown, but is this really a bad thing? There are a lot of people who who the Shartel/18th boulevard to get from downtown to Classen and it doesn't spoil anything. Heck, there's a stop sign every 2 blocks and the lanes are skinny to where you're going slow regardless of the speed limit. So it's on a strong side note that I say Robinson and Classen Drive NEED to be opened up and made into normal thoroughfares because it's only natural that we take better care of such immense resources as those beautifully maintained boulevards, and they should become more prominent in the inner city, so they should be opened up.

But to build on this thread, the C2S boulevard, and the idea of Classen Drive and Robinson, I think the Core2Shore could very easily replicate those two boulevards in Heritage Hills. They could put a beautiful park in it and try and integrate some interesting curves, maybe even a traffic circle, into the design, or they could just make it a straight boulevard with a great, lush median. In both cases there aren't very many lanes, and the lanes aren't built to highway specifications either. Regardless of which model is chosen, both would be successful.

I have to agree with Jeff as well that it doesn't make that much sense to break the two parks up. I think we had might as well give up on hoping for too much E/W circulation around downtown, and even still, that's not really the way in which my mind thinks downtown. I think of everything more on a N/S axis. This might have not been the case 2 years ago when we still had Reno, Sheridan, and Main streets (now all 3 of which are construction zones that you can't get through at one point). I think having a long, linear, and mostly unbroken park stripe going all the way down to the River from Devon Tower would have the potential to be an amazing thing.

I'm not sure, but is the Devon Tower's alignment nearly centered up with the Myriad Gardens? It had seemed that was the case. Think of it as a similar effect of a Paris boulevard perfectly aligned with the Eiffel Tower looming ahead in the distance. It would be like this all the way down to the river.

While I thought connecting the MAPS 3 Park w/MG would make it seem more impressive etc, that may be one of the reasons they chose to NOT connect with MG. So MG could keep its own identity, more intimate, smaller scale setting/events. But it still seems odd having them only a block apart.

Then on the other hand, they included MG in the Core to Shore concept and tried to make a connection with the Harvey Spine (tree lined sidewalks cutting thru the mixed use development), so don't know

While I like the look and atmosphere gained from a nice boulevard with grass/tree/shrub medians, the big negative is the cost to properly maintain such areas. The majority of the land the OKC Parks Department maintains is actually not "Park Property", its center medians, right-of-ways, and highways.

True rc, and as discussed before there isn't money in MAPS for the maintenance of the projects (not designed to be) but it is a cost that you have to consider when approving the projects. What is it really going to cost us (presuming that the cost given to the voters are accurate)? The City's usual response is something along the lines of, we'll worry about that later.

Not unlike people when they get a new car or house. The only thing many ask, is can I afford the payment? Not giving much thought about related costs (gas, maintenance, repairs, insurance etc). Same with a home. Then they get over their heads....

Population:
Oklahoma City - 1,200,000
Berlin - 3,400,000
Paris - 11,600,000
Buenos Aires - 13,400,000
Mexico City - 21,200,000

I won't even mention population density. You could build a road 1000 feet wide and it would be crowded in those cities.

Now for the million dollar question - what is the widest street in London?

How large were those cities when those boulevards were built?

I don't believe the boulevard will necessarily hinder pedestrian connectivity. There are many examples of boulevards around the world.

Any way you slice it, we are talking about six lanes of traffic, each 11' wide for a total crossing distance of 66' (not including turn lanes or medians). Why would we look to any street featuring six lanes of traffic - even great streets - if the goal is to create pedestrian connectivity on a tangential path? That is certainly not what makes them great. For streets of this scale, pedestrian connectivity is typically their glaring weakness.

I am certain a street of this width will hinder pedestrian connectivity. There are many examples of expressways - with the same number of lanes - right here in Oklahoma City.

Add a turn-lane, you get E.K. Gaylord Boulevard.
Add a turn-lane and a median, you get N.W. Expressway.
Add elevated roadbed and on/off ramps, you get I-40 as it exists today.

If you are happy with the quality of pedestrian connections provided by E.K. Gaylord Boulevard, then you have nothing to worry about. If not, you should be concerned.

Are we sure about those 6 lanes of traffic? I thought the mayor had said it is not the plan to have a road with more than 4 lanes.

I wish that the Planning Department would have a press conference specifically about the Boulevard and explain what is going on with it. It seems to be a "tug-of-war" with no one budging.

I do know that ODOT did let contracts for some of the design work to begin. Makes you wonder if those engineers will have public meetings. lol

I've been accused of being long winded on this board so I'll use bullets.

- I agree that a certain amount of shading is inevitable if an urban park is placed next to tall buildings.

- But in this instance, we are dealing with a BOTANICAL GARDEN which just happens to look like a park. Any amount of shading, for any significant duration of time, in any season will have an adverse effect on the plantings within the Crystal Bridge.

- The South edge of the park will be programmed to be the most active with the children's garden, and dog park. How enjoyable will this area of the park be in the dead of winter?

- The idea of a land swap between the dealership plot and a place along the new park could be a very viable option.

http://i51.tinypic.com/odycy.jpg[/IMG]

One of the things I love on this board is that there are so many on here are so sure of what won''t work and have no real imagination about how some things CAN work.

Probably the most beautiful city in the world is Paris. I am amused because many on this board would never have allowed much of what makes Paris so unique and beautiful. They would swear it wouldn't work. There seems to mostly be a very clinical and theoretical approach.

But to build on this thread, the C2S boulevard, and the idea of Classen Drive and Robinson, I think the Core2Shore could very easily replicate those two boulevards in Heritage Hills.

Spartan - you make a number of very good points.

Robinson is very impressive, particularly within Heritage Hills. Important to point out that Robinson is two-lanes in each direction and the outside lanes can be and are used for parking. Thus Robinson is regularly limited to one lane in each direction. Further, given the limitations on access you described, Robinson is certainly not in danger of getting traffic going at near highway speeds, a distinct possibility for the Boulevard unless traffic calming techniques are used to slow cars descending off an actual highway.

Classen Drive in the Harndale Addition is also very impressive and once again, has limited traffic with one lane in each direction.

In the end, I would be fine with the city pursuing either of these as models for the section of the boulevard that bisects the park. With a limited access drive reduced to one-lane in each direction, the park would not suffer much at all. In fact, it seems like this connection would be useful and provide an opportunity for cars to experience and appreciate the park's beauty.

I am reading some good ideas that seem to produce a better overall outcome. It is not as if this is a wholesale re-planning of Core to Shore, merely a small refinement to the existing plan. In my mind, your all's suggestions deserve legitimate consideration.

By the way, I am 0/1 and batting 0.00% on positive comments. If anyone else wants to offer a comment at the OKGazette (http://www.okgazette.com/oklahoma/article-10327-hindering-connectivity.html), it would be much appreciated.

http://i51.tinypic.com/odycy.jpg

BAW -

Quick question, what is the height of the building as modeled?

Appreciate you doing this. Interesting to think through and a useful analysis.

I wonder what the real implications are for the Crystal Bridge botanical gardens. I don't have the answer, but I do think it is an issue that is worth further consideration.

Thanks!

Are we sure about those 6 lanes of traffic? I thought the mayor had said it is not the plan to have a road with more than 4 lanes.

Seems to be conflicting info. Recall a Council meeting a while back where it was mentioned during a presentation that either due to ODOT or feds, that 6 lanes were a requirement. Was a throw away comment that didn't get a reaction at all. Since then, they seem to have backed off on it but not sure where things stand currently.

BAW, the plants in the gardens will be just fine even with some shade for a small part of the year. It's just not a major concern even if it would be nice to have a continous park going south.

Seems to be conflicting info. Recall a Council meeting a while back where it was mentioned during a presentation that either due to ODOT or feds, that 6 lanes were a requirement. Was a throw away comment that didn't get a reaction at all. Since then, they seem to have backed off on it but not sure where things stand currently.

Maybe that's a requirement to get the federal money to fund it. Personally, I'd rather the city just build a simple four land street with city money. We probably could have used Project 180 money to do so.

This was what I envisioned when I thought of the 270' of space for the Boulevard. This is Calle del Prado in Madrid. Yes, photo shows 4 lanes in one direction (but it's OBVIOUS we don't need/want four lanes in one direction so imagine it with as many lanes as you want) and on the far side of the photo (hard to see) is the opposite direction of traffic.
I have traveled to many places and this is the best example I can think of in having a park/median and still have a Boulevard and keep it pedestrian friendly. That park space is used all the time...

http://www.flickr.com/photos/30796964@N02/5373107940/

Casey, how do you cross the street to get to the median?

Casey, how do you cross the street to get to the median?

Push the little button, wait for the walk sign to light up, cross. DUH

Do you see a stop light with a button to push? Perhaps I'm not paying enough attention to detail, but I see none. I would be happier with a wider boulevard if it had a stop light on every corner with a button to push so that people could actually get across the boulevard anywhere they chose. If we have to walk six blocks to find a crosswalk, that may force people to walk, but it's more likely that people will simply not choose to go there. I haven't seen too many people strolling down Northwest Highway recently. Pedestrian friendly should be the watchword here, not an afterthought.

I will throw in a lighter story here about crossing streets as a pedestrian. I was in Europe as a college student with my sister. We decided to go to the Coliseum in Rome. When we got there, we discovered that to get to it we had to cross an extremely wide road with traffic driving at breakneck speeds, but there was a stoplight with a button to push. We pushed the button and waited expectantly, only to discover that the cars absolutely ignored the red light and continued driving through it at amazing speeds for in-city driving. We were completely at a loss when we saw an elderly Italian woman walk up. She was dressed all in black, was hunched over and quite elderly. She was carrying a closed umbrella. She walked into the street, raised her umbrella and started yelling and waving the umbrella around in the air. Amazingly, cars began to come to a halt and she gave a few that stopped too close to her a sharp tap with her umbrella. My sister and I looked at each other in amazement, popped right in behind her and crossed the road unscathed.

Not exactly pedestrian friendly.

Here is an interesting article about the design of the roads in Brasilia. Hope we don't wind up with something like it. http://discoveringurbanism.blogspot.com/2009/11/walking-paths-of-brasilia.html

Also think about the fountain for the boulevard that has been mentioned. The one at Memorial Park On Classen is always under the treat of being shut down due to lack of funds.
I am all in favor of the putting the pedestrian first and the car second. What do I know, I am no city planner this is my opinions and we all have them. Just my thoughts for the day.

By the way, I am 0/1 and batting 0.00% on positive comments. If anyone else wants to offer a comment at the OKGazette (http://www.okgazette.com/oklahoma/article-10327-hindering-connectivity.html), it would be much appreciated.

Blair-Just a suggestion, but use stronger critical language to describe how you really feel about the proposed boulevard, and focus more on how simple your solution is. Realistically the only ones it would alienate is ODOT who's not that popular anyway, and isn't hiring too many MIT urban planners these days. This column came across as almost "too polite" which just might not stir people to leave a comment, which first requires registering. There are serious issues and these decision makers need to be roused by strong, persuasive criticism that almost blisters.

This was what I envisioned when I thought of the 270' of space for the Boulevard. This is Calle del Prado in Madrid. Yes, photo shows 4 lanes in one direction (but it's OBVIOUS we don't need/want four lanes in one direction so imagine it with as many lanes as you want) and on the far side of the photo (hard to see) is the opposite direction of traffic.
I have traveled to many places and this is the best example I can think of in having a park/median and still have a Boulevard and keep it pedestrian friendly. That park space is used all the time...

http://www.flickr.com/photos/30796964@N02/5373107940/

I would call this accurate of what I think Betts and I were suggesting on the last page. Just, no more than 2 lanes, and not 16' lanes, and divide at mid-block with ped-xings, and make sure that the outside edges are reinforced heavily by uniform buildings.

Do you see a stop light with a button to push? Perhaps I'm not paying enough attention to detail, but I see none. I would be happier with a wider boulevard if it had a stop light on every corner with a button to push so that people could actually get across the boulevard anywhere they chose. If we have to walk six blocks to find a crosswalk, that may force people to walk, but it's more likely that people will simply not choose to go there. I haven't seen too many people strolling down Northwest Highway recently. Pedestrian friendly should be the watchword here, not an afterthought.

In a very early rendering/sketch, you won't have or see all the details.

Blair-Just a suggestion, but use stronger critical language to describe how you really feel about the proposed boulevard, and focus more on how simple your solution is. Realistically the only ones it would alienate is ODOT who's not that popular anyway, and isn't hiring too many MIT urban planners these days. This column came across as almost "too polite" which just might not stir people to leave a comment, which first requires registering. There are serious issues and these decision makers need to be roused by strong, persuasive criticism that almost blisters.

You might be right. I try to speak softly, but I may still need to find a big stick.

Has it already been determined that the existing elevated sections of I-40 will be completely demolished?

I am asking because, I have seen examples of old highways being turned into green space with grass and park like area in place of the highway. Could Okc somehow salvage a partial section of the existing elevated I-40 and use it as a green space park trail?

What if the existing elevated I-40 was transformed into a green space and one could actually go over the new boulevard?

Here is an interesting site on this very topic...highways to boulevards
http://www.cnu.org/highways

This was what I envisioned when I thought of the 270' of space for the Boulevard. This is Calle del Prado in Madrid. Yes, photo shows 4 lanes in one direction (but it's OBVIOUS we don't need/want four lanes in one direction so imagine it with as many lanes as you want) and on the far side of the photo (hard to see) is the opposite direction of traffic.
I have traveled to many places and this is the best example I can think of in having a park/median and still have a Boulevard and keep it pedestrian friendly. That park space is used all the time...

http://www.flickr.com/photos/30796964@N02/5373107940/

It took me a few minutes but I found the exact spot of that photo on Google Earth. The center median actaully has a fence on the other side that prevents people from entering the media except at certain parts. In 2,000 feet there are just two crosswalks (there are lights to stop traffic). To the right is a large park which is also surrounded by a fence with entry only allowed at certain points. The picture was taken right in front of the Museo del Prado if anyone wants to take a look at the area. It remind me of Park Lane (the widest street in London) as it passes by Hyde Park. This is what I picture Robinson or Walker looking like since they have a longer street frontage (not a road that only has 1 block of park frontage).

Ours will have one block of park frontage...but this type of boulevard would put a park all the way down the center of the boulevard.

http://www.cnu.org/sites/files/octavia2.jpg
This, from San Francisco.

http://www.cnu.org/sites/files/octavia2.jpg
This, from San Francisco.

This is only two lanes wide, right? It is visually appealing and doesn't look dangerous to cross. I would be fine with something like it. I think it will be very important to make sure pedestrians have right of way as well.

That is a picture of Octavia Blvd in San Franciso. Most of it is a total of 6 lanes of traffic (four for thru traffic and 2 service roads serive residential buildings). I don't see it being anything different than what Project 180 is going to deliver along other major streets. The photo is of a small park that is only 290 feet long and is in a heavy residential area (there is no retail on Ocatavia). I still think the major iconic streets need to run N/S where there is 4,800 feet of park frontage on each side of the park. That is nearly 10,000 linear feet to work with. If you go from Stars and Stripes Park south of the Oklahoma River to Devon it over 16,000 linear feet of park frontage. That is some serious moulding clay.

This is only two lanes wide, right? It is visually appealing and doesn't look dangerous to cross. I would be fine with something like it. I think it will be very important to make sure pedestrians have right of way as well.

This is a really interesting example. I am intrigued by this because it appears to have a specific function in mind, to carry large volumes of traffic through a very dense area, and it utilizes the very concept that was originally in the Core2Shore dream boulevard with separated parking bays and have a sort of small-scale street level highway feel to it. Here are some more pictures of it:

http://c.photoshelter.com/img-get/I0000ctklGT1TNyU/s

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/4e/San_Francisco-Octavia_Boulevard.jpg

http://brokensidewalk.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/octavia_blvd_02.jpg

http://brokensidewalk.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/octavia_blvd_06.jpg

http://newurbannetwork.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/full-content-width/Octavia_051012_-010%20copy.jpg


It also seems to have come about from the removal of a real freeway, so it's close to OKC's situation with this boulevard. I just question if what we're looking for is something that moves large amounts of traffic in a very dense area. I don't think there will be that much traffic, and I also don't see what makes this boulevard more likely to get people to drive down it than Reno, Sheridan, or Main..all 3 are big 4-lane roads.

Some criticism of it:
http://sfcitizen.com/blog/2009/08/21/the-livable-streets-people-refuse-to-apologize-for-octavia-boulevard/

Support argument of it:
http://streetswiki.wikispaces.com/Embarcadero+Freeway+Removal

Octavia seems to change depending on the needs of the specific areas it is going through. This seems like a very pragmatic solution. The entire length doesn't have to have the same purpose. Move the traffic that comes off I-40 and then distribute it elsewhere and have a more park-like boulevard as it gets closer to the park and through areas more likely to be residential. The closer to downtown the more stops and pedestrian crossings. Trees and large shrubs in the landscaped median breaks up the concrete strip and could create a really appealing entry into the heart of the city.

Is it just me, or is that passageway nearly as wide as the new I-40 will be when you include the parking areas to the sides?

It is pretty wide, but keep in mind we are replacing an interstate. It might not be exact scale, but it might be a good model.

Is it just me, or is that passageway nearly as wide as the new I-40 will be when you include the parking areas to the sides?

Curb to curb it is about 110'. OKC is looking at 270'.

One thing I don't see in any of the streets being proposed as models is a designated bicycle lane. I think that will be a must. Two lanes in each direction plus a bicycle lane is perfect. I have posted similar pictures of Santa Monica Boulevard previously as an example but this is what I mean:

http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=34.088493,-118.37805&spn=0,0.019205&z=16&layer=c&cbll=34.088414,-118.378162&panoid=AAKA3cej45PcSWOzlJ4MXg&cbp=12,276.34,,0,5

You can see the bicycle lane between the parked cars and the automobile lanes. Also note that there are pedestrain crosswalks in mid block areas.

One thing I don't see in any of the streets being proposed as models is a designated bicycle lane. I think that will be a must. Two lanes in each direction plus a bicycle lane is perfect. I have posted similar pictures of Santa Monica Boulevard previously as an example but this is what I mean:

http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=34.088493,-118.37805&spn=0,0.019205&z=16&layer=c&cbll=34.088414,-118.378162&panoid=AAKA3cej45PcSWOzlJ4MXg&cbp=12,276.34,,0,5

You can see the bicycle lane between the parked cars and the automobile lanes. Also note that there are pedestrain crosswalks in mid block areas.

Though I seem to recall threads about this in one of the Project 180 threads, I don't recall seeing dedicated bicycle lanes along the Boulevard. When mentioned in the Core to Shore draft and final versions, they seemed to be leaning towards "sharrows" (marked lanes where "experienced" bike riders share the road with motorized traffic). None of the cutaway diagrams indicated a designated bike lane either. Certainly this information may be outdated (esp considering P180).

Though I seem to recall threads about this in one of the Project 180 threads, I don't recall seeing dedicated bicycle lanes along the Boulevard. When mentioned in the Core to Shore draft and final versions, they seemed to be leaning towards "sharrows" (marked lanes where "experienced" bike riders share the road with motorized traffic). None of the cutaway diagrams indicated a designated bike lane either. Certainly this information may be outdated (esp considering P180).

Given the amount of land they have to work with, I don't think a bicycle lane is out of bounds.

The statement that this needs to meet "federal highway standards" is rather chilling, to me. Why is this considered a highway, when we have a freeway adjacent and basically it is a road to nowhere?

I think it would be simple to make it pedestrian friendly, and I believe I've read lots of suggestions here for doing so. The way to make it pedestrian friendly is to create a massive grassy median, with a maximum of two smaller lanes of traffic in either direction, bisected by north south streets so that it is an undesirable route for people wanting to go through downtown and rather is a way to get from place to place downtown and in Core to Shore. Lots of stoplights and pedestrian right of ways would help as well. I wouldn't have a problem with the streetcar running down the center of the boulevard, ala the St. Charles streetcar in NO, as that's another way to make it pedestrian centric, with people walking to stops and between stops.

4 stoplights at the main roads is their plan for making people not to want to go through it, no one who is not going downtown/bricktown/other will use it. It will be designated i40 business loop with the green tag to indicate it is not an interstate quality road. Coming from either westbound or eastbound their ends up several sections of town that are a pain to access without it. As much of the income to the downtown area is dependent on suburbs and tourism access has to at least be reasonable.

If they do have a central park flanking the boulevard they probably will eventually have a pedestrian bridge (assuming they get the development in the southside they are aiming for). Most likely near enough to robinson that it would allow you to get over that while you are at that elevation anyway, hopefully it will happen in our lifetimes. Access across is an issue if they can get the southside developments to work, access from i40 is required to keep the businesses alive now.

Also the latest plans I had seen indicated a building between the central park and the myriad gardens, though none of the plans are really complete anyway. That plan did not surprise me since the myriad and the ford center are clearly stated as a goal to attract people to the area, and get them to shop or dine while here. And that location on the north seems it will likely end up higher end shops and restaurants, possibly mixed with office space if they could make it happen.

Also the latest plans I had seen indicated a building between the central park and the myriad gardens, though none of the plans are really complete anyway. That plan did not surprise me since the myriad and the ford center are clearly stated as a goal to attract people to the area, and get them to shop or dine while here. And that location on the north seems it will likely end up higher end shops and restaurants, possibly mixed with office space if they could make it happen.

When Bennett was going through the motions in Seattle one of the things he was looking at was connecting a new arena with an entertainment complex. The same thing has been done in Dallas and LA so don't be surprised if that same approach is tried here in OKC.

If they do have a central park flanking the boulevard they probably will eventually have a pedestrian bridge (assuming they get the development in the southside they are aiming for). Most likely near enough to robinson that it would allow you to get over that while you are at that elevation anyway, hopefully it will happen in our lifetimes. Access across is an issue if they can get the southside developments to work, access from i40 is required to keep the businesses alive now.


Just to make sure I understand correctly. Are you saying that eventually a pedestrian bridge should be built over the boulevard?

I don't know if a bridge is necessary but we will definanetly need some kind of fence around the park to limit access points. Otherwise you will have people crossing the street all over the place which will be real dangerous.

I don't know if a bridge is necessary but we will definanetly need some kind of fence around the park to limit access points. Otherwise you will have people crossing the street all over the place which will be real dangerous.

Don't believe I've seen this done anywhere else in the world. Must assume us Okies are just as dumb as deer. That is why the fences are next to the interstates. :LolLolLol

Don't believe I've seen this done anywhere else in the world. Must assume us Okies are just as dumb as deer. That is why the fences are next to the interstates. :LolLolLol

You need to take a closer look. Central Park in NYC has a low wall and Boston Common has a wrought iron fence around most of it.

Nothing I have recently read about the proposed boulevard makes it sound at all appealing, and I am really confused as to why this is a necessary road. It won't be a gateway to Oklahoma City because there's no point of entry to the city on it, it doesn't sound as if it will have anything appealing to pedestrians, and if it needs a pedestrian bridge it's going to cut off connectivity to the Core to Shore area. Whose idea was this boulevard and why is it being pushed? I was hopeful, with the mayor's statements about there being no plans for it to be a multi-laned highway, in essence, that it might not be so bad, but now I don't hear anything that makes this sound like it is anything but car-friendly. We've got plenty of car friendly places in OKC and this is an opportunity to do something different that it seems we are wasting.

I agree Betts. I would rather see the grid system put back in and make Walker and Robinson the signature streets and let Sheridan or Reno become the signature e/w road.

Is it to late to put a stop on building this boulevard?

Is it to late to put a stop on building this boulevard?

Still time to change the plan for the boulevard, but it is important that the matter is resolved before the final planning and design process for the park is initiated.

Where exactly is the boulevard being built? Considering that the width of the road works against providing a pedestrian environment, I don't see the point of putting in a new road, even if it is supposed to show off our improved downtown to out of towners. I don't understand why we couldn't just add aesthetic improvements to Reno. It just seems like a huge waste of money to build such a wide road when there isn't even a traffic problem. We already have plenty of high speed roads going through downtown. I don't know, maybe there is a valid reason for the boulevard, but I fail to understand why the mayor is so adamant about it. It seems the money would be much better spent extending the streetcar even further. Even diverting the money to police and fire departments would make more sense. I am a huge MAPS proponent, but not all public projects equal money well spent.

Where exactly is the boulevard being built? Considering that the width of the road works against providing a pedestrian environment, I don't see the point of putting in a new road, even if it is supposed to show off our improved downtown to out of towners. I don't understand why we couldn't just add aesthetic improvements to Reno. It just seems like a huge waste of money to build such a wide road when there isn't even a traffic problem. We already have plenty of high speed roads going through downtown. I don't know, maybe there is a valid reason for the boulevard, but I fail to understand why the mayor is so adamant about it. It seems the money would be much better spent extending the streetcar even further. Even diverting the money to police and fire departments would make more sense. I am a huge MAPS proponent, but not all public projects equal money well spent.

Unless you've seen some final designs that I haven't heard about we don't know what the width of the road will be or how many lanes will be involved.

Unless you've seen some final designs that I haven't heard about we don't know what the width of the road will be or how many lanes will be involved.

I haven't read anything recently, so the plans might have changed, but I think I remember reading that the initial proposal was for three lanes going each way. I don't believe that they will actually make the boulevard this wide, and even if it has already been scaled down it still seems like a waste of money to me. I realize that they haven't released any final plans so I should probably reserve judgement until they are released, but from what I have seen so far the proposals don't seem very pedestrian friendly.

...Second thought is really just a suggestion to help make the 1 block frontage of the boulevard along the park would be to raise that whole area up and brick it. Basically make it a pedestrian/auto plaza that would allow people to easily cross between the parks and would naturally slow traffic way down. It could also act as a nice place for taxis, buses, cars, etc to drop people off easily. Here is an illustration of kind of what I am thinking - http://www.streetsblog.org/2008/04/24/eyes-on-the-street-gansevoort-plaza-open-for-business/

I too am enjoying this discussion.

Please don't take this personally, but AAAACCCCCKKKKKK! That is horrid.

Purposely make a road and then convert/block it from cars and make it pedestrian? Think there are much more green space friendly ways of doing that (and probably cheaper too). Design it right from the start rather than a "fix" like this.

Since funding has at least been identified (if not actually in hand) for this and the Mayor seems to be Hades-bent on doing it, really don't see it vanishing BUT I agree with most that we don't even need the silly thing. Spend that money upgrading the other roads that will most certainly be the 'gateways" into DT (you know, the exits off the relocated I-40) that we are spending $130 million to create the Park so they have something attractive to see. Can't see anyone exiting off and driving thru several blocks of stop-n-go city traffic near the Fairgrounds interchange instead of taking the relocated I-40 and exiting off there, then the 4 or 5 blocks back up. Drive a little out of the way, but probably much quicker.

The other thing that just occurred to me is that both convention center locations that seem most likely are south of the boulevard. We want conventioneers going to Bricktown for lunch, but to do so they have to cross six lanes of traffic? The city has spent years dreaming of Core to Shore. Why on earth would we want to cut off the Core from the Shore? Again, it's true, we have a lot of land to work with. So, make it two lanes in each direction, or if it has to be three lanes, the third land HAS to be for bicycle traffic. That lane could be paved with brick to make the road seem visually less wide, and we need a very wide, very inviting median. Traffic should not be able to travel at any speeds over 30 mph, and I'd prefer 25, like the Nichols Hills boulevard. If we screw this up, we may doom Core to Shore, which is a phenomenal opportunity. How often does a city have that many acres of developable land that close to downtow?. If you have to walk up and over a pedestrian crossing, it's going to kill it. Drive over to the Capitol and look at how a highway has completely cut off connectivity between attractions near the Capitol. Do we see anyone taking the pedestrian bridge from the Capitol to the Harn House? How many people walk between the History Center and the Capitol? It feels like an island in the city, to me, and I think the highway surrounding it is the biggest mistake we've made so far.......