Burying 235 Between I40 and I44?

[OKCisOK4me]

Unless I'm missing something this is your quote.

Attachment 7901

whoa, where did that come from?

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S5

[AP]

whoa, where did that come from?

Ha, my point exactly. That post is from '04.

[Plutonic Panda]

The only proposal is to remove I-235 when its life expectancy runs out. No one wants to remove it now, but at some point it is going to have to be replaced, so instead of replacing it why not start building OKC for the future generations instead of the past generations? Commuter rail from Norman to Edmond will be in place long before I-235 needs replacement. If people living in Edmond need to go downtown post 235 they can take the train - or drive on a city street from I-44 to downtown.

What f I don't want to take a train? I enjoy driving... It's not like every street is a highway so why make harder on those that want to drive?

[Plutonic Panda]

Are you doubting how soon commuter rail will be in place or that people are incapable of driving on a city street?

There are tons of city streets out there. Worry about those, not the few highway we have.

[Just the facts]

What f I don't want to take a train? I enjoy driving... It's not like every street is a highway so why make harder on those that want to drive?

Then you would have no less than 5 options to get into downtown from the north. You could take Classen, Lincoln, Western, Santa Fe, or a new and improved Broadway. The creek along side I-235 could then be restored and daylighted, a bike path put in, a new park created.

[DavidD_NorthOKC]

Then you would have no less than 5 options to get into downtown from the north. You could take Classen, Lincoln, Western, Santa Fe, or a new and improved Broadway.

Or if you really, really want to drive on a highway one could go east to 35 or west to Hefner Parkway/44.

[OKCisOK4me]

That's weird. I didn't join until '08. Blame Tapatalk lol.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S5

[Plutonic Panda]

Then you would have no less than 5 options to get into downtown from the north. You could take Classen, Lincoln, Western, Santa Fe, or a new and improved Broadway. The creek along side I-235 could then be restored and daylighted, a bike path put in, a new park created.

Then I have stop at lights, go 30-50 MPH slower than I would on the freeway etc. I'll keep the freeway. As you stated, there are already options for people who want to live without freeways and they can build urban housing there.

[Richard at Remax]

why do I get the feeling that if Edmond wasn't on the other end of the highway this wouldn't even be a debate..

[Of Sound Mind]

why do I get the feeling that if Edmond wasn't on the other end of the highway this wouldn't even be a debate..

Edmond is not the only locale north of I-44.

[adaniel]

why do I get the feeling that if Edmond wasn't on the other end of the highway this wouldn't even be a debate..

That's quite the leap. I've seen nothing to suggest this.

It's a thread asking a question for something that will likely never happen. I would take it as such.

[Plutonic Panda]

Or if you really, really want to drive on a highway one could go east to 35 or west to Hefner Parkway/44.

Until a small group of people start advocating for those to be removed. Give me a break... there are no highways that need to be removed in OKC. I support Dallas removing I345. The difference with that is though, Dallas is literally surrounded with freeways on all sides, just like downtown Tulsa is. Dallas wants to expand it urban core and create a solid urban fabric through it's core and I am excited they are for it.

Here in OKC, we have tons of room to expand. My thinking on the highway was to bury it long-term so when we do eventually fill up our core, we can expand over it. It will still be needed to move people easily through-out the city to give the suburbs the benefit of the doubt while still allowing for large, uninterrupted urban growth through-out our core.

The money could be used in other places as well. It's almost getting time for our highway system to be expanded. I would also like I-44 to potentially be re-built below grade(not underground in a tunnel though) when it comes time to replace it.

This logic of, you have I-35 to the east and Hefner Parkway to the west is bogus because when it comes to re-build I-44 by Pennsquare, the same thing could be said ''well, there is always Kilpatrick to the north and I40 to the south". Bottom line is, you are just trying to make it more inconvenient for people who don't want to live with buildings pushed right up against the street, people that want them set-back to have a more open, fresher, relaxing scene.

We live in a free country and just telling people "if you don't like it, move closer to your work" is just flat out wrong and people should have the freedom to choose while having the same standard of living that anyone else has. The argument highways are becoming too expensive will become invalid as new technologies and techniques are unveiled that make highway construction cheaper and gives the road a much longer life-span.

[Just the facts]

why do I get the feeling that if Edmond wasn't on the other end of the highway this wouldn't even be a debate..

Edmond is the reason the Broadway Extension was first built. I-235 wasn't even completed until 1989. Just to clarify, I-235 is only the segment from I-44 to I-40 and NOT the section of freeway north of I-44 to Edmond. No one is suggesting to remove the freeway north of I-44, but I would be in favor of closing all the off/on ramps between Edmond and I-44 (except for the interchange at the Kilpatrick). That would make traffic flow much better.

[Plutonic Panda]

why do I get the feeling that if Edmond wasn't on the other end of the highway this wouldn't even be a debate..

Probably the same reason if Norman and Moore wasn't south of OKC, I-35 would still be two lanes and not have much traffic. Or perhaps the same reason if the south OKC had a small population, we wouldn't have 240.

It's called demand and that is why the highway is there. There is a demand for it. Induced demand really makes no sense either because we don't Kilpatrick filling up to the brink with people since it's been widened. The new 10 lane I40 isn't backed-up daily. So in ten years when we see 50,000+ new people on in north OKC are we going to blame the congestion on induced demand? No. It's just demand. Inducing me or anyone else to go one the highway for no reason other than it being widened is just flawed logic, and just adding one lane doesn't count.

I've said this before and I'll say it again- if we spent a billion or two widening I-35 to four lanes in each direction with an HOV lane, four additional lanes(two in each direction) elevated that are high-speed, high-tolled, express lanes(what Dallas is doing with 635) and three service lanes in each direction from downtown OKC to Norman, would it become filled just because it was widened? The answer is no. It would serve OKC for probably 30+ years, depending on how fast we grow. It would be a great highway that would be worth the cost. Now I am NOT advocating we do that right now, but I think five years down the road, it wouldn't be a bad idea just depending on how fast we grow and if we boom or not.

We could even just widen it to ten lanes, four in each direction plus one HOV lane, and I'm sure that would serve the area very nicely for years to come.

[Plutonic Panda]

Edmond is the reason the Broadway Extension was first built. I-235 wasn't even completed until 1989. Just to clarify, I-235 is only the segment from I-44 to I-40 and NOT the section of freeway north of I-44 to Edmond. No one is suggesting to remove the freeway north of I-44, but I would be in favor of closing all the off/on ramps between Edmond and I-44 (except for the interchange at the Kilpatrick). That would make traffic flow much better.

Why would you do that though? Wouldn't you rather that area fill in before the places north of Edmond such as Covell? The traffic flow really isn't that bad either on that highway.

[Richard at Remax]

Yes Broadway extension/235 was built to get people to and from Edmond/downtown, as people within a mile or two east and west of the highway. it is an important artery of the city. Why would you close all the exits north of 44 and south of KPT? dumping all those people onto city streets would be a nightmare on the infrastructure in that part of the city. it would stunt all growth and all businesses would suffer.

I just think it is weak to tell someone to "move closer to work" or "if you don't like it you can go around" mentality. I used Edmond because it gets mentioned when anyone says suburbs and because I use it a few times a week to go to downtown, thunder games, redhawks games, riversports area, bricktown, to get to norman for games, Dallas ect. Just makes no sense economically and financially to get rid of it. bury some of it and develop over it? I can get on board for that.

[Plutonic Panda]

Yes Broadway extension/235 was built to get people to and from Edmond/downtown, as people within a mile or two east and west of the highway. it is an important artery of the city. Why would you close all the exits north of 44 and south of KPT? dumping all those people onto city streets would be a nightmare on the infrastructure in that part of the city. it would stunt all growth and all businesses would suffer.

I just think it is weak to tell someone to "move closer to work" or "if you don't like it you can go around" mentality. I used Edmond because it gets mentioned when anyone says suburbs and because I use it a few times a week to go to downtown, thunder games, redhawks games, riversports area, bricktown, to get to norman for games, Dallas ect. Just makes no sense economically and financially to get rid of it. bury some of it and develop over it? I can get on board for that.

I guess I completely mis-understood what you were saying.

[Just the facts]

Yes Broadway extension/235 was built to get people to and from Edmond/downtown, as people within a mile or two east and west of the highway. it is an important artery of the city. Why would you close all the exits north of 44 and south of KPT? dumping all those people onto city streets would be a nightmare on the infrastructure in that part of the city. it would stunt all growth and all businesses would suffer.

Because if you don't provide easy access via the freeway people won't live there. There is a story today in the Oklahoman about the city running out of drinking water and raising prices to curb demand - in other word, pricing people out of the water market. We can't keep building new homes with large yards. There simply isn't enough water to do that.

All this stuff works together.

[venture]

Because if you don't provide easy access via the freeway people won't live there. There is a story today in the Oklahoman about the city running out of drinking water and raising prices to curb demand - in other word, pricing people out of the water market. We can't keep building new homes with large yards. There simply isn't enough water to do that.

All this stuff works together.

Well I don't think large yards are a problem. Large yards with grass is. Of course this is getting way off topic, so I'll be brief. Perhaps the next step is for OKC and other cities to have separate meters. One for inside the house and another for any outside use. Then take a play from OG&E and spike rates up during critical periods to deter people from using water outside but not from using it inside for every day living.

I never bother to water my yard unless I'm trying to fill in new grass, but that only happens in the Spring. In the Summer I let it go because I feel drinking water is a bit more important than a green lawn. If I had the money I would stone the whole thing.

This does all tend to come back around though of controlling sprawl. 235 is there for good. I don't really mind it so much since 35 does jet out to the east pretty well. If it every becomes cost effective to bury it should we? Maybe...but I don't have much faith in our area's ability to curb flash flooding and we don't need an underground river with cars.

If anything we need to get rail in place first before talking about removing roadways. That would at least curb the need to widen the interstates any more as traffic shifts.

[Plutonic Panda]

Well I don't think large yards are a problem. Large yards with grass is. Of course this is getting way off topic, so I'll be brief. Perhaps the next step is for OKC and other cities to have separate meters. One for inside the house and another for any outside use. Then take a play from OG&E and spike rates up during critical periods to deter people from using water outside but not from using it inside for every day living.

I never bother to water my yard unless I'm trying to fill in new grass, but that only happens in the Spring. In the Summer I let it go because I feel drinking water is a bit more important than a green lawn. If I had the money I would stone the whole thing.

This does all tend to come back around though of controlling sprawl. 235 is there for good. I don't really mind it so much since 35 does jet out to the east pretty well. If it every becomes cost effective to bury it should we? Maybe...but I don't have much faith in our area's ability to curb flash flooding and we don't need an underground river with cars.

If anything we need to get rail in place first before talking about removing roadways. That would at least curb the need to widen the interstates any more as traffic shifts.

This might be going overboard here, but it would be nice to see more homes built with a gutter system that feeds into a fairly large reservoir that is beneath the house.

I also think as time goes on, we will see more grass that has been genetically engineered to be more tolerant to drought.

[Just the facts]

Well I don't think large yards are a problem. Large yards with grass is. Of course this is getting way off topic, so I'll be brief. Perhaps the next step is for OKC and other cities to have separate meters. One for inside the house and another for any outside use. Then take a play from OG&E and spike rates up during critical periods to deter people from using water outside but not from using it inside for every day living.

They do that now and the irony is the water for the grass is cheaper because it doesn't have the sewer fee added on. They should calculate how much an average family of four should use in water for drinking, bathing, laundry, cooking, etc and make that amount of water free. The next 1000 gallons should cost $100 and then go up from there on the normal scale.

[Just the facts]

On a related note, Syracuse, NY officials visit San Francisco to see how removing freeways has led to revitalization as they figure out how to replace I-81 in downtown Syracuse.

Syracuse officials visit San Francisco to see boulevards that replaced highways | syracuse.com

[bombermwc]

I think JTF started smoking something HARD lately.

Removing highways does NOT (nor has it ever) removed demand. It simply pushes the demand elsewhere. You DO NOT want people using Lincoln or Classen as the main thoroughfare. Guess what, that's why 235 exists...to pull people OFF of those roads. Not only did building it NOT kill ANY business development, but it actually HELPED to create the health center. I've seen you say on this forum how you support the Health Center and how it's growing. Guess what, NONE of the west-side development would be there without 235. Why? Because the highway's construction demolished the homes and spurred the buyout of countless homes in the area. The cost of development in that area would have otherwise been too prohibitive and wouldn't have happened. I gurantee you 100% if 235 wasn't there, we would NOT have OU Med Center. Instead, we'd still have a spattering of independent facilities that are ALL on the verge of bankruptcy....and you'd have a very slow response time for EMSA to get there because of the removed access. Force EMSA to Lincoln for the whole trip south down 235, and you'll increase their time by several minutes as they have to spot at every intersection to make sure some idiot didn't hear/see them.

Not to mention the fact that almost ALL of the people that use 235 don't live anywhere near it. All those Edmond folks you like to complain about still have to get where they're going. Same for those coming from Moore/Norman. Pushing them to the other routes makes absolutely no sense. You push more to 44 and you're going to have to spend a heck of a lot more taking out more homes to widen the thing than you're going to get back out of removing 235.

You can want all day, but the reality is, people don't have another option, and they're not going to chose a train unless it's faster. This might make the train faster because the road would be so bad with 235 removed. But you're making the assumption some idiot politician would actually agree to make people unhappy to force them to rail....never ever ever ever gonna happen and good luck getting anyone to support you.

[jccouger]

JTF, let me get this straight...

You want to increase the pedestrian friendliness of our city streets, but you also want to INCREASE the traffic of these same streets by removing highways? Not seeing your logic at all here bub....

Highways serve a major purpose, and since they are the one true streets that should be fully dedicated to car travel then we should NEVER remove them. As also has been noted, highways throughout time have spurred major developments & that isn't changing any time soon.

[AP]

Highways serve a major purpose, and since they are the one true streets that should be fully dedicated to car travel then we should NEVER remove them. As also has been noted, highways throughout time have spurred major developments & that isn't changing any time soon.

This specific highway has also managed to spur major segregation in this city. But that is for another thread.