Not "if" on the Boulevard?
After seeing repeated references to the planned downtown boulevard couched with the word “if” when describing its construction, I contacted Oklahoma Department of Transportation spokeswoman Terri Angier to see if they see it as an “if” as well. After all, it was former Secretary of Transportation Neal McCalebl who promised the boulevard as part of the I-40 relocation and at the time was no “if” about it.
I’ll let you the readers decide if there is an “if” in this answer from Angier:
The reference about the boulevard was not in the statement from ODOT so you’ll have to ask AP about that part. However, we are still committed to building the boulevard and have always included the cost in out estimates.The boulevard was included as part of the official environmental documents.
As is with all ODOT projects, they are evaluated for placement in the 8-year plan each year when the plan is balanced. While the boulevard is not in the 8-year plan at this point because there is still several years of Crosstown construction remaining, the plans are to place it in there as we approach 2012. Until then it can’t be touched since it is being used as our current interstate.
We are in frequent communication with the City on this issue and as we develop plans together on the boulevard the next few years, more details including the actual and not the rough costs can be refined. The City is looking at their options on how they want to see the boulevard and all of that will come into play in planning for the boulevard. I hope that answers your question.
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
Very good question and good ideas, Dennis. Especially in light of Jeff Speck’s call for walkability. My hunch is that city leaders are envisioning the next Rodeo Drive…while the “experts” are recommending a shift from Rodeo Drive to Greenwich Village.
There is definitely a greater need for collaborative discussion concerning the impetus for a new boulevard and the Core to Shore projects in general.
I read the statement twice. I could be missing something here, but there still seems to be some equivocation. Maybe that’s warranted since the funding isn’t locked in – but it would appear some of the key stakeholders are committed to seeing it through.
Is there any way OKC could build a large park between downtown and I-40 with a winding road through the park which could be used 3 or 4 times a year as a Formula One race track?
Nearby roads to the park could be blocked off and used as part of the race track. This could bring tourists or race fans to downtown and help pay for the park. International tourists and race fans could come if the races were big enough. Maybe an Oklahoma Grand Prix
The western half of the proposed boulevard traverses a nasty industro-slum that will probably always be less than scenic… There’s really no need for a major new boulevard through that area (unless there are plans for redevelopment). A nice boulevard connecting Exchange Avenue to the I40/I35 Interchange area would be very nice though. Letting the western section of abandoned I-40 revert to industro-slum would save millions of dollars. Preserving a few dozen old bridge columns for an art project could also save a large chunk of money.
Kris & Ed bring up excellent points… Stakeholder-citizens should be encouraged to offer ideas for the best use of this found land.
It appears the boulevard will be real, but instead of asking ‘if,’ a better question might be: “Why?” What is the boulevard’s purpose?” Is it just something to fill dead space, or does it actually DO something? Why does it have to be a boulevard? Why can’t it just be a street, or open space, or future building sites, or creative combo of all of the above?
Should local artists be invited to explore how leftover columns might be incorporated into a signature work of art? OKC’s aqueduct ruins? Etc…