When it comes to pedestrian connections, the boulevard is a dead end.

[Rover]

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.

[Kerry]

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'.

[ljbab728]

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=3...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.

[Larry OKC]

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=3...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 Certainly this information may be outdated (esp considering P180).

[ljbab728]

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 Certainly this information may be outdated (esp considering P180).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.

[Snowman]

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.

[Kerry]

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.

[bdhumphreys]

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?

[Kerry]

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.

[Rover]

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.

[Kerry]

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.

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.

[betts]

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.

[Kerry]

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.

[okclee]

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

[bdhumphreys]

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.

[leprechaun]

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.

[ljbab728]

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.

[leprechaun]

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.

[Larry OKC]

...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/2008/04/2...-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.

[betts]

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.......

[Larry OKC]

betts: All valid points

Like the idea of visually separating the bicycle lane but not sure if brick is the best choice (just because of uneven riding surface) Also, does the Boulevard extend into lower Bricktown (where I am guessing the other c.c. site is being mentioned)? If the Streetcar route goes from the c.c. to Bricktown, that may mitigate some of the concern).

[Rover]

WX

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.

Not so. First, Central Park nor Boston Commons is a boulevard. Secondly, Central Park only has wall in certain areas where is elevation changes or a feature like the zoo. As for BC, it also isn't fenced. There is some fencing by the car park entry, etc. Certainly none arond the area accross from the Ritz where I stay across the street.

[Rover]

I think many on here confuse boulevard with expressway. Crossing isn't an issue if there is traffic control.

[Kerry]

Not so. First, Central Park nor Boston Commons is a boulevard. Secondly, Central Park only has walmart in certain areas where is elevation changes or a feature like the zoo. As for BC, it also isn't fenced. There is some fencing by the car park entry, etc. Certainly none arond the area accross from the Ritz where I stay across the street.

All I can say is go to Google Earth Streetview and look again. All of Central Park is surrounded by a 4 foot stone wall and Boston Common has a 4 foot wrought fence on every side except one. Once you see them you will say, "I never noticed that before" which is a testament to how well they were done and fit in with the environment.

[Rover]

People need to have just a little vision and quit being so absolutely negative. There are great boulevards. all over the world. If designed properly this can be a positive asset.