Comments on: Before You Make Those 2012 Core to Shore Plans …

By: “If a Planned Boulevard is Built …”

“If a Planned Boulevard is Built …” — Thu, 30 Apr 2009 03:08:05 +0000

[...] couple of weeks ago I wrote about the fact funding has yet to be secured for a boulevard promised as part of the relocation of the Interstate 40 Crosstown [...]

By: Steve Lackmeyer

Steve Lackmeyer — Tue, 21 Apr 2009 14:38:00 +0000

Michael, no offense, but it sounds like we’re getting into Tom Elmore territory here. So let’s get into it… posting shortly

By: Michael Bates

Michael Bates — Tue, 21 Apr 2009 06:49:28 +0000

I should add that that Tulsa highway section in most need of expansion isn’t in the plans, much less funded.

By: Michael Bates

Michael Bates — Tue, 21 Apr 2009 06:48:12 +0000

I-44 (Skelly Drive) isn’t elevated, so no urgent need to demolish it, but I think it would have made more sense to re-sign the wider and somewhat newer I-244 (or US 169 and the Creek Turnpike) as I-44, and leave Skelly Drive a four-lane. An astounding number of businesses, including those that catered to interstate travelers, have been demolished to make way for the widening. Tulsa’s most urgent need for highway expansion is the bottleneck segment of I-44 between its eastern and western junctions with US 412.

Saturday after the GOP convention, I spent some time nosing around Union Station and Walker Ave near the river to get a sense of the Core-to-Shore area. There’s not much room between the proposed I-40 alignment and the river. I hope River Side School and Little Flower Church survive the process.

At Union Station, I was struck by the parallel between the 1930 shift of the Frisco & Rock Island tracks and this proposed I-40 realignment, both to allow downtown development to expand. Who would have thought in 1930 that 37 years later the new Union Station would close and passenger rail service would be all but dead in Oklahoma? In 2046, will they look back at the I-40 relocation in a similar light — a massive investment in a transportation mode that turned out to be obsolescent?

By: Gary

Gary — Mon, 20 Apr 2009 15:06:05 +0000

Michael, have you had a chance to look at the core to shore plans? The long term plan is to develop the all of the 1,375 acres from Western to Byers and Reno to the river. The current I-40 is a complete eyesore and if there is not funding available for it immediately, i think it should be torn down anyways. At least get it out of the way for when the funding is approved and available for the new boulevard.

Also on this subject, if we were to get the Hotel/Convention Center and Central Park as part of MAPS III passed, I don’t think not getting the boulevard immediately would completely halt the progress. They could still build the Convention Center, the park and other people could do various developments without the boulevard, it just wouldn’t be as inviting and easy to get around. JMHO

By: Steve Lackmeyer

Steve Lackmeyer — Mon, 20 Apr 2009 01:48:01 +0000

Well Michael, this deal goes back to when city leaders were all pushing for the highway to be rebuilt in its current alignment. ODOT was clearly opposed to this, even though their preferred route would add another 20 minutes to the commute downtown from the west part of the city.
To win the city’s support for ODOT’s preferred route, Neal McCaleb, then Secretary of Transportation, with the governor’s backing, promised to build a boulevard to replace the current alignment. The state promised to pay for the boulevard, with the city paying for infrastructure needs and amenities intended to make it a grand entry into downtown.
As for your best solution: I sense some Tulsa/OKC rivalry in that comment. Why don’t we also eliminate I-44 in Tulsa as well?
(No war intended here)
You’re not the only one puzzled by the logic of core to shore, and there are those, including Grant Humphreys, who doubt any plan can truly jump a highway like this. Instead, they hope to see blighted areas redeveloped north and south of the highway at the same time.

By: Michael Bates

Michael Bates — Mon, 20 Apr 2009 00:52:13 +0000

Why should state funds pay for a local street?

The best solution: Re-sign I-240 as I-40, demolish the current I-40 and restore the street grid, and restore Union Station as a rail transportation hub.

I can’t figure out why they call the idea “core to shore” when it’s really just “core to expressway which is just a little further south than it used to be.”

By: Braden

Braden — Sun, 19 Apr 2009 04:05:38 +0000

It seems to me that the most important part of Core to Shore would be the development of land use areas in and around the new I-40 route. These areas to me seem like they should be the roots of the C2S area and then let it grow out from there. People aren’t going to be impressed when they get off of I-40 and drive through a bunch of junk yards and run down buildings to get to downtown.

By: curt

curt — Sat, 18 Apr 2009 12:43:09 +0000

So, is the city going to take any advice that they paid Jeff Speck, or are they going to build a massive wide “boulevard” that keeps pedestrians away?

The city continues to pay for people to do research and the totally ignore it and do what they want.

I also don’t feel that not having the boulevard will grind the city to a halt. Reno is still there and so will the new highway. Cornett needs to tone down what he says.