Innovation Link

[Ross MacLochness]

The Miles Associates website has been updated and it shows an "innovation link" rendering that is more limited. The new study modifications seem to only build out at 10th St and I-235, as opposed to the previous plans which also built out at 13th and I-235. They summarize this study as, "SMALLER CAP = SMALLER PRICE TAG"

My apologies if this updated study from Miles Associates has been linked to previously. If anyone has any insight as to odds on this project becoming a reality I am very interested. I think the recent purchase of the Walcourt (13th and I-235) is evidence that interest is still growing.

http://www.milesassociates.com/okcinnovationlink

I wish we'd just remove this section of 235 and replace it with an at grade street/blvd

[jn1780]

I wish we'd just remove this section of 235 and replace it with an at grade street/blvd

That is the exact opposite of what they have been doing just south of there. If there was room to widen I-235 through that area, they would. That elevated bridge is a mess though. Even when they get I-235 widen from 36th st to Edmond, there is always going to be that bottleneck.

[cinnamonjock]

I would be in favor of the at-grade boulevard after some system of regional transit was put in place. The east and west sides are so disconnected that it almost feels like two different towns. Also, does anyone know which is costlier to maintain: interstates or city streets with a similar number of lanes?

[Ross MacLochness]

I would be in favor of the at-grade boulevard after some system of regional transit was put in place. The east and west sides are so disconnected that it almost feels like two different towns. Also, does anyone know which is costlier to maintain: interstates or city streets with a similar number of lanes?

I don't even think having alternate modes of transport would be necessary. Just take it out south of say 50th or 36th and re connect the grid. Sure, during the low traffic times, it probably would result in slower traffic not having the highway there. But during peak times, i'd argue you'd be able to get out of town faster/similar time. Currently during peak times 235 gets really backed up, but that's because everybody is funneling onto it at the same time using the same exits. If you returned the city to grid, people would take the path of least resistance spreading out onto many city streets (esp. if grid was strong and connected). It would be stop and go at every intersection, but there wouldn't be traffic jams like you get on 235 after work.

Removing 235 and reconnecting the grid would reconnect the east and west side and would open up acres of taxable land. it would accomplish what the innovation link is trying to plus so much more. We'd be paying for demolition of the highway and a new street grid, rather than a bridge cap, but returning the highway to grid would provide a greater roi by turning a non taxable area into a heavily taxable area that would keep on giving. It would also greatly raise the property values of neighborhoods abutting the highway and would encourage retail growth in east okc.

It's only a dream, but it's time we start focusing in on how to strengthen our core and improve livability around downtown (or other nodes ripe for sufficient intensity) rather than subsidizing lifestyles that suck the city dry of it's funding. 235 was seen as progress but all it did was destroy neighborhoods and provide means to stretch the city out to a density level that is unsustainable. Transportation to the burbs shouldn't come at the cost of inner city living.

[MagzOK]

Carrying over 80,000 vehicles per day, I235 isn't going anywhere.

[Plutonic Panda]

Back to the real world as Magz pointed out, I have mixed feelings about this development now. For one, the day that they went back and redid it makes me think maybe it's a bit more serious than some pie in the sky proposal, but I don't know how I feel about it being scaled back.

[Colbafone]

Imagine, if you will, Parking Garages over a highway. A man can dream.

[2Lanez]

Parking Garage Expressway, or the PGX, as the locals call it.

[Colbafone]

Parking Garage Expressway, or the PGX, as the locals call it.

I have never in my life been so turned on.

Now, if they'd just widen Broadway Extension to about 10 lanes on both sides. 20 total lanes. Then build an underground Expressway, a la Dallas. With a 90 mph limit. We might could make even Katy, Texas jealous!

[shawnw]

Here's a logo mock-up for you @colbafone:

[gopokes88]

I wish we'd just remove this section of 235 and replace it with an at grade street/blvd

And I wish people would quit cluttering board with ideas that will never happen, neither us are going to get what we want.

[Ross MacLochness]

And I wish people would quit cluttering board with ideas that will never happen, neither us are going to get what we want.

Feel free to mute me. I see nothing wrong with expressing ideas no matter how improbable they are, especially ideas that promote values that i feel we need to become more comfortable with, like promoting connectivity, walkability, increased intensity for greater tax rev per parcel, etc., in order to become a better city. I value criticism as it helps me refine my views.

[jonny d]

I wish we'd just remove this section of 235 and replace it with an at grade street/blvd

You are entitled to your opinion. But I ask you how you feel that would be effective? As posted earlier, 80,000+ cars use I-235. That is a lot for a street or a boulevard. Those poor saps who live in Edmond who work downtown, or vice versa...Just my question for you. Not criticizing.

[Ross MacLochness]

You are entitled to your opinion. But I ask you how you feel that would be effective? As posted earlier, 80,000+ cars use I-235. That is a lot for a street or a boulevard. Those poor saps who live in Edmond who work downtown, or vice versa...Just my question for you. Not criticizing.

First of all, a majority of the 80,000 cars are likely commuters and driving during peak times so most of the time there is way more than enough road for what traffic is there. And during peak times, it jams or is verry slow. Not the greatest solution to a problem, especially considering the solution destroyed active neighborhoods, severed the core in two, and perpetuates the very problem it tried to solve (easy travel/bad traffic).


With that being said, where would all the traffic go?

Some of the traffic would go away instantly because through traffic would stick to i-35 or 44.

Most of the traffic would simply disperse into the grid (which already can be faster than getting on 235 during rush hour).

and some would choose to walk, bike, or carpool as it becomes easier to do those things.

Over time, the removal of the highway would help deter future sprawl, would promote intensity and a diverse mix of uses, and would eventually help public transit become more of a viable option.


here is an article that i found that touches on the issue and talks a bit about historical examples of this being successful. https://medium.com/@chrisjagers/wher...o-68648bc111ae

Reading my followup post (#54) would also answer your question further. What I'm arguing is that over time, the benefits of restoring the grid and redeveloping that land would out way the costs of losing the highway.

[bchris02]

I wish we'd just remove this section of 235 and replace it with an at grade street/blvd

I second this. I realize it is technically unrealistic at the current point in time but I believe the OKC urban core would be much better off with I-235 removed. I think it should be replaced with a boulevard, at least as far north as 36th St. Above that, it can transition into a highway.

A few weeks ago when I-235 was closed due to the construction, the world didn't end. I took Western those days and it didn't really seem any busier than usual. In addition to opening up new land for development, removing I-235 would reconnect inner NW and NE OKC and jump-start revitalization of the NE side, which thus far has lagged behind the inner NW side. There are a lot of great neighborhoods in NE OKC that at one time connected seamlessly with neighborhoods we all know and frequent but were segregated off once the highway was built. Once again, I know that removing I-235 is more than likely unrealistic at this point but I do think it would be beneficial.

[Plutonic Panda]

First of all, a majority of the 80,000 cars are likely commuters and driving during peak times so most of the time there is way more than enough road for what traffic is there. And during peak times, it jams or is verry slow. Not the greatest solution to a problem, especially considering the solution destroyed active neighborhoods, severed the core in two, and perpetuates the very problem it tried to solve (easy travel/bad traffic).

Fine, I'll bite here. What difference does it make whether they are commuters or not? It's 80,000 cars using that freeway. I've used it plenty of times going to Norman. If 80,000 commuters use that freeway and view as the best route to their destination that is good government at work giving them that option. If you remove it and just say "eh, they'll be forced to use I-35," that is bad government.

As far as it destroying neighborhoods, there are other factors in that. Freeways aren't the sole evil variable that killed neighborhoods. Sure, it did a number on many neighborhoods, but I am pleased with that outcome. It could have been better, but humans are learning and evolving creatures. Freeways and cars are the future. Freeways are a piece of infrastructure that we are learning how to better build. Mistakes were made and this thread is specifically about trying to fix those mistakes. That doesn't include tearing down the freeway. Certain neighborhoods and areas of the city will be affect. It's a necessary evil.

With that being said, where would all the traffic go?

It would clog up the streets. People's commutes aren't going to change. You are going to create more pollution while restricting the will of the people. Currently they are choosing to live where they live. If you remove this freeway to try and "force" people to locate closer to work, that is bad government. The option is there for people to live in or close to downtown and they choose not to. That is their choice. Traffic isn't going to disappear.

Some of the traffic would go away instantly because through traffic would stick to i-35 or 44.

No, traffic wouldn't "stick" to these routes in that sense. They'd be forced to use them because there is no viable alternative.

Most of the traffic would simply disperse into the grid (which already can be faster than getting on 235 during rush hour).

It is in no way shape or form this simple and would result in many negative effects. Rush hour on 235 currently only lasts for about 30 minutes or so but it needs to be widened, none the less if congestion is becoming an issue. To say that congestion wouldn't increase is just a lack of foresight.

and some would choose to walk, bike, or carpool as it becomes easier to do those things.

How would it be easier to do these things? It would be easier to walk where if the freeway were removed? Along the Boulevard? Why isn't the induced demand argument being used here? It would be easier to carpool? Really? A commute that would take longer would further entice someone to sit in a car longer not having the comfort or privacy of their own? Again, where it is easier to bike? So that's your argument? Because of course it would be easier to bike or walk on a freeway that isn't there because freeways aren't made for biking or walking. They're made for getting cars from point a to point b quicker, safer, and more efficiently that surface streets do.

Over time, the removal of the highway would help deter future sprawl, would promote intensity and a diverse mix of uses, and would eventually help public transit become more of a viable option.

Sprawl is a good thing which allows people to live in a larger home with a larger yard much cheaper than they could get closer to the core. Point in case, every major city that is surrounded by suburbs containing a much larger population than the urban area. There are ways to help public transit other than just simply giving the big f u to the drivers that pay for it.

here is an article that i found that touches on the issue and talks a bit about historical examples of this being successful. https://medium.com/@chrisjagers/wher...o-68648bc111ae

I'll read this and comment on it later.

Reading my followup post (#54) would also answer your question further. What I'm arguing is that over time, the benefits of restoring the grid and redeveloping that land would out way the costs of losing the highway.

Tell that to the 80,000+ people that use this corridor everyday and let me know what they say. I'd say your argument that restoring the grid outweighs the cost of a freeway is nothing more than your opinion and a rather unpopular one at that.

[Plutonic Panda]

I second this. I realize it is technically unrealistic at the current point in time but I believe the OKC urban core would be much better off with I-235 removed. I think it should be replaced with a boulevard, at least as far north as 36th St. Above that, it can transition into a highway.

It isn't just unrealistic in this current point in time, it isn't happening ever. With autonomous cars, mass transit will become even more obsolete than it already it is.

A few weeks ago when I-235 was closed due to the construction, the world didn't end. I took Western those days and it didn't really seem any busier than usual.

Same thing happened with the 405 here in Los Angeles when it was closed. There is a good reason for that. Drivers heeded the warning and avoided it. As for Oklahoma City, there isn't much there to begin with. Plus it was shut down on a weekend. Permanently remove it and you really want to compare that to a temporary shutdown? What planet are you living on? LOL.

Western didn't seem any busier to you so that is your basis for tearing down a freeway and assuming no increased traffic or pollution on local streets because again, traffic didn't seem any busier to you?

In addition to opening up new land for development, removing I-235 would reconnect inner NW and NE OKC and jump-start revitalization of the NE side, which thus far has lagged behind the inner NW side.

There are a lot of great neighborhoods in NE OKC that at one time connected seamlessly with neighborhoods we all know and frequent but were segregated off once the highway was built. Once again, I know that removing I-235 is more than likely unrealistic at this point but I do think it would be beneficial.

OKC doesn't need to worry about any shortage of develop-able land for a very long time. There are better ways to connect the two sides of the freeway.

Where are your facts to assume a freeway removal would jump start a revitalization of NE side? If it did happen what would happen to the current residents? Gentrification is not always a good thing. In fact, in many places it is bad. So what will happen to the current residents of the NE side when it gets revitalized because the big bad freeway left town and rents go up due to this revitalization? You've already pissed off tens of thousands of drivers and commuters... So again, who is this benefiting?

Meanwhile, you can fix these things by adding a cap in the high priority areas and building wider bridges to allow for development alongside them over the freeway which would yield an increase in tax dollars, connect the two sides, the entire NE side wouldn't see rents go up due to some weird jump start in development thing(though it wouldn't happen anyways), the nearly 100,000 drivers that use this freeway would still have it not using surface streets coming to a stop and going again which would increase pollution, new land would be available to develop(another non-issue if the freeway is or isn't there), and much more.

The beef here isn't the freeway and that's what I don't like. It's the fact that you want to fundamentally change the way people live because that is the broader issue here. The freeway is the symptom, or if you want to go the strawman argument route like Mr. Parking Garage District guy goes, crack, like parking garages. All of course which are supported by the majority and desired as such. So what am I missing here? Because removing this freeway won't do sh!t. You'll have to change people's lifestyles and I'm against that in all fashion. People should live how they want to live and the government needs to accommodate that. If it means the demand is there for a 50 lane freeway, then so be it. Add 40 lanes. You build to serve the people.

[heyerdahl]

You'll have to change people's lifestyles and I'm against that in all fashion. People should live how they want to live and the government needs to accommodate that.

Just want to point out that government already spent 70+ years changing the way people lived through zoning, transportation infrastructure, and finance rules that created an automobile-dependent geography.

The private sector noted demand for detached houses and car-friendly neighborhoods. Government subsidized it and gave this development pattern a legal monopoly. You can read a detailed history in the book Suburban Nation.

[aDark]

Hey guys, if y'all want to debate the merits of destroying highways that's fine and dandy but could you do it in another thread? This one is about the Innovation Link as a project. That said, does anyone have any insight as to the likelihood of this getting built? Any thoughts on developments in the area which might tend to suggest money will be directed to the innovation link project? Any word as to which city officials, politicians, or corporations are behind this? Heck, I'd even be pleased to hear your opinions on this development and how it might impact either side of i-35. Do you like it?

[Plutonic Panda]

Just want to point out that government already spent 70+ years changing the way people lived through zoning, transportation infrastructure, and finance rules that created an automobile-dependent geography.

The private sector noted demand for detached houses and car-friendly neighborhoods. Government subsidized it and gave this development pattern a legal monopoly. You can read a detailed history in the book Suburban Nation.

It was innovation. Mass production made cars cheap and people wanted to drive. Along with that new infrastructure was needed to accommodate that. People chose to live in the suburbs as the choice was given to them. They weren't forced.

I don't read many books on the account of my ADHD it's hard for me to concentrate but I do study these issues and read many articles as well as having gotten to know many people and planners that I trust. I haven't read the entire suburban nation book but I have read parts and I see things that are misleading in it. Anecdotely, I have been told by a few who have read it that is more pushing an agenda than anything else.

To add to that, it is no longer just one nation developing like the US, Canada, Australia, India, China, Malaysia, and many other counties are building large new freeway networks and are experiencing suburban sprawl. Suburban sprawl is a good thing for millions and millions of people.

Mass transit is also heavily subsidized as well. It's infrastructure, of course it will need to be subsidized. Another hypocrisy is that no one screams induced demand when a rail line is expanded or frequencies are increased nor can I think of another industry where induced demand is used as some argument as not moving forward with something.

[Plutonic Panda]

Hey guys, if y'all want to debate the merits of destroying highways that's fine and dandy but could you do it in another thread? This one is about the Innovation Link as a project. That said, does anyone have any insight as to the likelihood of this getting built? Any thoughts on developments in the area which might tend to suggest money will be directed to the innovation link project? Any word as to which city officials, politicians, or corporations are behind this? Heck, I'd even be pleased to hear your opinions on this development and how it might impact either side of i-35. Do you like it?

It would be nice but it always seems, especially more so on OKCTalk(even more so than other websites) that conversations quickly devolve into anti-car posts and I feel like contrast is needed so that's why I reply.

[hoya]

Hey guys, if y'all want to debate the merits of destroying highways that's fine and dandy but could you do it in another thread? This one is about the Innovation Link as a project. That said, does anyone have any insight as to the likelihood of this getting built? Any thoughts on developments in the area which might tend to suggest money will be directed to the innovation link project? Any word as to which city officials, politicians, or corporations are behind this? Heck, I'd even be pleased to hear your opinions on this development and how it might impact either side of i-35. Do you like it?

No idea on the likelihood of it getting built. Nobody really knows that information. Turning the freeway back into a streetgrid is sort of the ultimate version of this plan, which is why the conversation has started to drift that way.

[hoya]

People are going to select whatever living arrangements and transportation are the most convenient and cost-effective. Frequently that will be a lifestyle that has received significant government subsidies.

The problem that OKC is going to have in the future is that, while we have a very good freeway system in place today, it's going to cost mega-buttloads of money to upgrade it to handle the traffic we'll have 10 and 20 years from now. We don't have that kind of money available. So our short commute times and light traffic are going to get a whole lot worse in the coming years. Cost estimates for a metro-wide rail system put the cost at about the same amount we spent redoing 4 miles of the Crosstown Expressway. Right now a mass transit system would actually be low-hanging fruit. It would be dirt cheap to implement, relative to the costs of adding another deck onto I-35 or something like that.

OKC has no shortage of cheap suburban housing. Financial estimates by the city itself indicate that we need to limit future sprawl and build more density in the core. This doesn't mean that you can't go live out in the 'burbs. That's 99% of our city right now. But hopefully as the city grows, 30 years from now the suburbs will be 90% of the city, and we'll have 10% that's a dense urban core. We don't have a pressing need to remove I-235 right now. There's a ton of empty land near our downtown, and we've got probably 20 years of room to grow, even without crossing over to the NE side. But at some point, it'll make serious sense to look at returning that freeway to a normal grid. Do it from Reno to 50th and you'll see a ton of money start flowing into the northeast side.

[Plutonic Panda]

People are going to select whatever living arrangements and transportation are the most convenient and cost-effective. Frequently that will be a lifestyle that has received significant government subsidies.

I'm not so sure about that. Another thing is I've met a lot of people who don't want to necessarily live right next to where they work. I can certainly see that it's nice to separate your work life from your personal life. That being said, I'm sure if people were offered the same kind of home you'd expect in the suburbs(same sized yard, square footage, etc.) right next to where they worked(mostly downtown) and had it subsidized, you would have a sizable amount of people that would choose to go that route. But a lot of people don't want to live next to downtown with skyscrapers, narrow streets, etc... Again, this shows through housing statistics. So you would need to factor in that group as well.

The problem that OKC is going to have in the future is that, while we have a very good freeway system in place today, it's going to cost mega-buttloads of money to upgrade it to handle the traffic we'll have 10 and 20 years from now. We don't have that kind of money available. So our short commute times and light traffic are going to get a whole lot worse in the coming years. Cost estimates for a metro-wide rail system put the cost at about the same amount we spent redoing 4 miles of the Crosstown Expressway. Right now a mass transit system would actually be low-hanging fruit. It would be dirt cheap to implement, relative to the costs of adding another deck onto I-35 or something like that.

They can find a way to upgrade the system as it grows. Dallas is doing just that. Virtually every city does that. It costs 700 million for a brand new 10 lane freeway. They had to tear down of the original elevated one, install new utilities, built several new bridges from scratch, and correct me if I'm wrong, but they also built several new bridges over the Oklahoma River. There are many other factors as well that were necessary and attributed to the cost of this new freeway. A 10 lane wide, urban freeway is not going to be cheap to build from scratch and is not a fair comparison for widening or constructing new roads especially the ones that are further away from the core.

Also, you are a poster I have a lot of respect for, but come on man. A single rail line from Norman to OKC would likely cost almost twice as much as the Crosstown project. The Expo line extension here in LA, which was 6.6 miles, cost 1.5 billion dollars. That's only for 6.6 miles!!!! They also f@cked up but placing the rail at grade in several spots. Go look at light-rail projects around the country. I get that it isn't very fair to compare rail projects in LA vs. OKC seeing as there are obvious costs differences such as intense labor union laws in California, higher land acquisition costs, etc.., but a system wide rail system would cost every bit of 5 billion dollars and that'd probably be for only 3 lines. I mean a line to Norman-DTOKC-Edmond Station would probably run close or over 3 billion. That's stations, installing card and vendors, signing contracts to get security on the train, there are so many variables. Though I'm certainly not an expert and my costs estimates could be off, if I were a betting man I'd say that estimate is on the conservative side. I think the Adventure District rail line had estimates at half a billion or close to it.

OKC has no shortage of cheap suburban housing. Financial estimates by the city itself indicate that we need to limit future sprawl and build more density in the core. This doesn't mean that you can't go live out in the 'burbs. That's 99% of our city right now. But hopefully as the city grows, 30 years from now the suburbs will be 90% of the city, and we'll have 10% that's a dense urban core. We don't have a pressing need to remove I-235 right now. There's a ton of empty land near our downtown, and we've got probably 20 years of room to grow, even without crossing over to the NE side. But at some point, it'll make serious sense to look at returning that freeway to a normal grid. Do it from Reno to 50th and you'll see a ton of money start flowing into the northeast side.

I agree with the first part of your paragraph but I just simply disagree in the notion I-235 will need to be removed and I highly doubt it will ever happen.

[baralheia]

Also, you are a poster I have a lot of respect for, but come on man. A single rail line from Norman to OKC would likely cost almost twice as much as the Crosstown project. The Expo line extension here in LA, which was 6.6 miles, cost 1.5 billion dollars. That's only for 6.6 miles!!!! They also f@cked up but placing the rail at grade in several spots. Go look at light-rail projects around the country. I get that it isn't very fair to compare rail projects in LA vs. OKC seeing as there are obvious costs differences such as intense labor union laws in California, higher land acquisition costs, etc.., but a system wide rail system would cost every bit of 5 billion dollars and that'd probably be for only 3 lines. I mean a line to Norman-DTOKC-Edmond Station would probably run close or over 3 billion. That's stations, installing card and vendors, signing contracts to get security on the train, there are so many variables. Though I'm certainly not an expert and my costs estimates could be off, if I were a betting man I'd say that estimate is on the conservative side. I think the Adventure District rail line had estimates at half a billion or close to it.

There is absolutely no way that the OKC commuter rail project as currently proposed would cost that much. The proposed service is commuter (heavy) rail from Edmond to Norman (via BNSF's Red Rock Sub), and modern streetcar from Santa Fe Station to Tinker (via Reno, east to Sooner, and then following the former OCA&A trackage) - all with one hour headways (iirc). The infrastructure is already largely in place. Appendix B of the ACOG CentralOK!go study appendices, completed in late 2015, lays out the estimated capital and operating costs - and estimates the total capital cost to be approximately $670MM, including all necessary improvements and commuter rail vehicles, for the combined 34.6 mile north-south corridor - and then a further $380MM for the 10 mile eastern corridor. That's just over $1B for just under 45 miles of public transit, or approximately $23.3MM per mile - FAR more bang for your buck than your LA example of $227.3MM per mile for the Expo Line. A western extension of our proposed system to WRWA would likely cost somewhere in the neighborhood of $250MM - $350MM, assuming commuter (heavy) rail, reusing the existing Packingtown Lead that goes past the airport, and land acquisition to lay new tracks from the Packingtown Lead down into the airport - though I do not believe any formal study and cost analysis has been done for that, so my numbers are just an extremely rough guesstimate. Reusing existing corridors saves a significant amount of money!

Back to your assertion that the N-S line would cost more than double the cost of the Crosstown Realignment - the numbers so far do not support that conclusion. As mentioned above, the N-S corridor proposed for commuter rail service is estimated to cost approximately $670MM (page B-16 of the CentralOK!go Final Report Appendices, linked above; routes N1 and S1 combined). For reference, the 4-mile realignment of the I-40 Crosstown cost $680MM, according to ODOT's page on the project. Hoya is correct here.