The Dance
So this is it. I’ve dedicated an entire week to one topic. I know not all of you are into this one judging from the lack of comments. But it’s important.
Behind the scenes, downtown leaders are deciding where to invest their future energies. They’ve concluded Automobile Alley will be downtown’s primary retail corridor with some tourist and speciality retail popping up in Bricktown.
I’m not judging them for such decisions. You can’t do everything, so you have to stake your claim, make your bets and hope for the best.
But this one intersection, as shown in photos earlier this week, acts as a barrier between Automobile and the rest of downtown. If downtown is to be more walkable, if we really care about that, how does it make sense to cut off pedestrians from your main retail drag?
Broadway at Robert S. Kerr - a street grid brought to us by I.M. Pei circa 1971.
And so I ask questions. To quote one city official who spoke to my good friend Jack Money last week, “Lackmeyer is driving us crazy.”
Jack’s response? “Well, Lackmeyer wouldn’t be Lackmeyer if he wasn’t doing that, now would he?”
Yeah, OK, I drive some folks crazy. But I’ve got a reporter’s heart, and I care about my community. I’m loathe to believe the experts, and I don’t trust consultants.
And that brings us to the dance.
It’s an old routine, really. Take last month’s State of Bricktown press conference where I asked Mayor Mick Cornett whether he thinks property owners should take better care of their old buildings. Cornett talked about the prospect of free parking, the needs to let the market work, but he didn’t answer my question.
The mayor basically answered a question I wasn’t asking, and didn’t answer the one I did ask.
So that brings us to an inquiry by the chanber, and a proposal by Blair Humphreys and Hans Butzer, to change the street grid at NW 4, Broadway and E.K. Gaylord.
Their proposal looked like this:
Ignore the shape of the chamber building. Instead, notice the proposed reworking of the street grid.
Now, I’m not saying this is the right or wrong way to go here. But I can recognize a City Hall side step when I see one.
The city responded to all this by hiring URS, a consulting firm from Denver. I’ve been told by Blair neither he or Hans were approached by URS.
And I’m very confused by the URS study, which dismisses the proposal by the chamber, Humphreys and Butzer on the basis that having E.K. Gaylord dead-end at NW 4 would have motorists drive through a bad underpass at NW 4.
Now say what? Go back and look at the proposal in the graphic above. It, and not what is shown in the URS study, shows the intent of the proposal submitted to the city. And it doesn’t involve NW 4.
I’m even more confused after I got the following email from City Public Works Director Dennis Clowers answering questions about whether the study’s authors consulted Humphreys and Butzer and whether their proposal was really analyzed:
I have no idea if URS contacted Mr. Humphreys or not. You are welcome to ask them. Yes, I believe Gaylord was to end at Dean McGee. Of course the current situation does not favor pedestrians as well as motorists. It is six lanes wide.
We are going to, over the next few years make significant changes to many downtown streets through the streetscapes projects funded by the GO Bond Issue and the Devon TIF. Gaylord may be included. However, it still currently carries 13,500 vpd. We do not have models regarding traffic after I-40 moves yet. We will through the downtown study TEC is currently doing. My assumption is that with a connection to I-40 that does not exist now, traffic is sure to increase.
Now let’s go back to the URS study. It doesn’t jive with what Humphreys and Butzer were proposing, and it doesn’t match what Clowers says above either. It presumes Gaylord going to NW 4. And I’m more confused by the above comments when it’s compared to an an email I’ve obtained that was sent by Clowers to URS suggesting the report take into account that traffic counts through the intersection will rise once the new I-40 is open with the Shields exit.
“Assumption.” That’s the word that Clowers used above. But common sense tells me something isn’t right with this “assumption.” Think about who is traveling through the intersection: people commuting between the Santa Fe/Broadway-Kerr garages and north Oklahoma City, and those traveling to and from Automobile Alley.
With the relocation of Devon Energy employees to the City Center garage, wouldn’t it be correct to assume the traffic load might drop?
As for the new I-40, are we thinking there is going to be a dramatic increase in people traveling from I-40 to and from Automobile Alley?
This all reminds me of when city engineers predicted chaos would ensue if NW 5 were closed for creation of the Oklahoma City National Memorial. No such chaos has emerged to date.
Here’s the kicker to end this whole discussion – for now. If this were a situation where the city staff had no intentions of steering the outcome, why do we see these comments in a June 6, 2007 email from City Public Works director Dennis Clowers to Amy Lewin with URS?
The conclusion and recommendation section doesn’t appear to make any recommendation. Please include a recommendation to the effect that this proposal is not a good idea. Thanks.
I asked about this as well. Here’s Clowers’ response:
As for my “isn’t a good idea” quote, the final draft of the study talked around it not being a good idea, and really didn’t make a definite recommendation. I simply asked them, if the intent of the recommendation is negative, just say so.
I’ve never known Dennis Clowers to be anything but a dedicated civil servant who cares about his community and wants to see it thrive. But I leave it to you, the readers, as to whether or not this proposal was given serious consideration, whether the consultants did their job, and whether this issue should be reopened.
The area is represented by Ward 6 Councilwoman Meg Salyer, ward6@okc.gov and Skip Kelly, ward7@okc.gov, and of course Mayor Mick Cornett at mayor@okc.gov.
Thank you for joining our conversation on OKC Central. We encourage your discussion but ask that you stay within the bounds of our commenting and posting policy.
Comments
I suspect you might be right, Dennis.
I question whether this intersection will be as important, however, in funneling that traffic to I-235. Won’t people in the garages who now use this route to go to I-40 instead go straight down the Gaylord/Shields junction instead?
Steve, don’t mistake my lack of comments for lack of support. I just don’t have a lot to add. I agree with you.
I have made the comment before that a large part of the northbound traffic on Gaylord is traffic from the Santa Fe and the garage just north of it. It would be just as easy for those cars to go north on Broadway rather than Gaylord.
Also, why are city leaders so intent on saving a 6 lane road through downtown curving onto Broadway? The only 6 lane roads in the entire city are Classen, NW Expressway, NW 39th Expressway, and Shields (that I know of). I would like to see the traffic count on those roads as compared to Gaylord. In fact, I bet that traffic on 4 lane May, Penn, MacArthur, etc. is much more than Gaylord.
May Avenue carries over 25,000 vehicles per day…
Link to May Avenue traffic counts
To search other OKC traffic counts:
Perhaps I am the only one still on the fence as to whether this is a good idea, but I have some concerns as to whether such a realignment is truly the way to go here. First, the underlying issue seems to be that we want to increase pedestrians along this area, which is an outstanding goal in my opinion. However, I am dubious as to whether this proposal or any others for this intersection would actually significantly change the numbers of pedestrians who frequent this area. Thus, should we not put our limited time and money elsewhere for now?
From where are we expecting pedestrians to walk from? The CBD, Bricktown, elsewhere? I read a comment earlier that changing this intersection would encourage people to walk from the National Memorial to Bricktown. I would love for visitors to OKC, and ourselves, to have the desire to walk such a distance, but we really are not there yet. Especially when people already have such a large aversion from walking just a couple blocks from parking in Bricktown to whatever restaurant they are attending. The current mix of businesses between Bricktown, the CBD, the National Memorial, Automobile Alley, etc. just doesn’t seem right, either now or in the forseeable future, to be enough to justify such an intersection realignment plan and expense. At least the gap between Bricktown and Automobile Alley seems to be an urban desert, between the railroad/parking garages, etc. This plan does not seem to be enough to encourage people to walk in this area regardless of how pedestrian friendly it would be.
There must be enough businesses, stores, and restaurants between points A and B for pedestrians to make the trip in between. I just don’t think that the current plans for the areas adjoining Automobile Alley are enough to get people to make that walk from A to B. I love walking around our city as much as possible, but it really has not occured to me to even walk between Red Prime and Bricktown, and I’m sure I am not the only one. This is all in addition to the future I-40 realignment and its effects, whatever they may be, on traffic in this area. With all that said, I just think that with limited time and money, perhaps those resources should be used elsewhere right now…but, I am still open to be convinced otherwise.
(You’re right, I-40 seekers avoid this zone, but I bet that at least as many garage users seek Northbound I-235?) Speaking for me, and other more casual passers-through, whether on foot or in car this block is a tangle. Which is more important to the fabric of OKC, Broadway or Gaylord?
If nothing is done, what will future citizens say when they look back on this discussion? “…Why didn’t they fix it while they had the chance!”
Brent,
You’ve left out a key generator of pedestrians: HOUSING! I live in Midtown and walk to Bricktown and many other destinations. Back when my pedestrianism occurred only in parking lots I sounded just like you! People don’t just walk between cars and stores…
Something I’d like to make clear: I’m not sure the idea advanced by Humphreys, Butzer and the chamber is the best or only solution to what even Dennis Clowers admits is a bad intersection.
What I’m questioning is whether the city seriously considered this proposal or from the outset was resistent to change.
And the timing of all this is important because a report is coming out from Jeff Speck that might require being open to even more change. From what I’ve seen so far, I’m not so certain city staff is ready to embrace that possibility, so its up to the public to be informed, to decide whether they want such change, and then to let their elected officials know of their wishes.
Good points!
If we agree that the primary function is to funnel traffic to I-235, then it probably makes sense to encourage northbound traffic to turn on 2nd street which is better suited to carry the traffic than 3rd street.
You would have a choice of:
- turning west on 2nd then north on Broadway to 5th;
- Or, turn east on 2nd to Walnut then north to 5th.
The improved distribution would maintain traffic flow and ameliorate congestion at Broadway and 5th, which is currently the biggest problem.
Oh, and the Santa Fe garage has the ability to exit onto 2nd…so, no more u-turns would be required at Main and E.K. Gaylord!
“From where are we expecting pedestrians to walk from? The CBD, Bricktown, elsewhere? I read a comment earlier that changing this intersection would encourage people to walk from the National Memorial to Bricktown..”
Brent, I’m glad you asked this. The answer lies in this video produced a couple of years ago by the Maywood Park team. Throughout the five minute video you see a man walking. He’s walking to restaurants, he’s walking to downtown attractions, he’s walking to work. And he’s walking home – and to make that walk home, he’s traveling along NW 3. So what intersection do you think he had to cross to go from work to home?
Deep Deuce and Maywood Park are evolving into a great mixed use urban neighborhood. Do we really want to force all these folks to get out in their car simply to see the rest of downtown?
As a former OKC resident who now lives in Dallas, I am extremely familiar with the location in question.
Last month, I had occasion to stay overnight at the Skirvin, where I met a few friends for drinks prior to heading to dinner. Our destination was Red Prime, and we decided to walk… I’ve got to say, that street configuration certainly didn’t make it easy.
Like Steve, I’m bewildered by the City’s intransigence on the issue… the proposed reconfiguration seems so logical.
I agree with Brian and Dallas Visitor, the city’s insistence on Gaylord is mindboggling. Just seeing the rendering from Butzer/Humphrey’s makes me want to go over there and walk and look at the possibilities. If implemented, it would definitely make me want to walk more along Broadway, it’s so much more inviting than it is now. I hope the City doesn’t screw this up. It’s okay to admit they screwed up in the past and say they are working towards a better future. I think the City still has a problem admitting they did some things wrong in the past.
…I think the message Steve’s trying to get across is: nothing will happen without vocalizing the issue to our politicians! So vocalize…
I would prefer extension to 4th Street as much increased through traffic on 2nd or 3rd would only deteriorate the walkability of that section of DD. Could you imagine the traffic on those streets (people racing to get home) right through the Brownstones and Lofts at Maywood? 4th/Harrison is already a main trough-way for I-235 bound traffic. Why not enhance and promote it as such?
I am still not sure I am sold on spending the money that would be needed right now to change this street configuration as much as is being suggested. I’m not sure if the housing density being created near this area is enough to justify the expense, at least for the time being. Ten years from now, possibly, but not yet (this is predicated on the new Chamber building not cutting off any possibility of an alteration).
Broadway is not an impervious barrier to those who want to cross. Difficult, certainly, but not impossible. I just think there are cheaper ways to help those who are going to cross the street and walk in this area, at least at this time: adjust signal timing, more appropriate crosswalks, etc. Remembering back to the time I lived in the Northeast, particularly thinking of the Boston area. There are few roads that are on a grid-like system as we primarily have here, yet it is extremely pedestrian friendly. Even when dealing with large thoroughfares such as Beacon Street or near Boston University, there are adequate signals and cross-walks (some are activated only when pedestrians have indicated they will cross) which both allow ease of pedestrian use and large amounts of traffic.
It just seems to be too expensive for now, especially when we have such other large issues we really need to be discussing thoroughly: Core-to-Shore, Devon tower projects, possible canal extension, Bricktown vacancies, and more.
Brent, did you listen to your own comments? Core2Shore? If we can’t fill and fix the core, why are we going to the Shore just yet. Devon Tower? well that’s privately financed so the City doesn’t have to worry about that. Devon is insisting the SELF IMPOSED TIF district be used or at least mostly used for CORE improvements. Canal Extension is mere talk, and definitely shouldn’t be a priority as it is more gimmicky than anything. Bricktown vacancies – again, a private property owner issue, large amounts of city money should not be thrown at this. The #1 problem holding downtown back is RETAIL. If the City has finally come to the obvious conclusion that Automobile Alley is our best chance, why not spend a million or two and fix this intersection we’re discussion. That is mere pocket change when it comes to capital improvements. Especially if it helps spur some real retail downtown, that would then spur more tourism and more downtown housing!
One of Gaylord’s prime functions is to funnel traffic to I-235, which means to 5th street. If 3rd street could be improved to accommodate I-235 bound traffic, the regridification of this block would make much more sense.
The URS study was cursory and limited… This block remains overly dysfunctional and confusing for vehicles as well as pedestrians. If the City is serious about the goals for walkability (and I think they should be), then a more thorough study should be conducted.