-It would connect OSU-Tulsa with the Brady District.
-It would not separate downtown from North Tulsa, and thus encourage development beyond the I-244 boundary.
-It's in horrible condition and is just more tax dollars going to waste for years to come.
-You already have a detour taking the I-444/75 route on the east side of the IDL.
-The only people this would be a pain for is commuters coming on I-244 heading towards Sand Springs/Stillwater...and they can just deal with the extra two minute commute.
Thoughts?
That's nuts.
Here's my similar thought from this thread: Cathedral Square (//%22http://www.tulsanow.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=5534%22)
quote:
Cathedral Square would be a great benefit to southside Downtown. My suggestion is to take it a step higher.
Let's bulldoze Hwy75 between US244 on the north and Hwy51/64 on the south. It's not needed, you can still go around the CBD via the highway system to the west. The CROSSTOWN can exit 1st/2nd at Kenosha into the Greenwood/Ballpark/Brady/BlueDome districts. The BA [51/64] can exit/enter on 13th at Detroit or Cincinnati into the southside district of downtown. Or further west at Cheyenne/Denver or Houston at 11th.
A gateway into the CBD could be developed along Cheyenne/Denver at 11th. A gateway into the Entertainment District [EnDi] could be developed on 1st/2nd at Kenosha. Detroit and Cincinnati at 13th could be the gateway into the south downtown [SoDo] Residential Park District.
Mixed-use, 3-story+ walk-ups, residential and walkable retail [grocer/meat mkts, etc] could develop north along Boston/Cincinnati/Detroit towards Cathederal Square, the CBD and EnDi.
When Hwy75 between US244 on the north and Hwy51/64 on the south is bulldozed. We now have land available to make Tulsa's very own Madison Avenue Park [just west of existing Madison Ave.] or enlarging Central Park!
click map to enlarge>>
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3205/2675805312_1ea343c855_s.jpg) (//%22http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3205/2675805312_78236e288c_o.jpg%22)
This new park running for 11 blocks, north and south would re-connect the Pearl District and its residential neighborhoods to Downtown. Thus making 3rd and 6th streets prime areas for growth and redevelopment. Walkable, high density residential as far east as TU. Just think of the blend of residential and retail that could grow in intensity from Delaware Ave all the way west to Downtown.
Well, just on man's opinion.
It would be fine with me to see the entire IDL demolished.
Tulsa was a better city before the IDL, IMO.
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
That's nuts.
I argue it's nuts to have it there and I gave my reasons. What's your argument besides it just being there?
quote:
Originally posted by deinstein
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
That's nuts.
I argue it's nuts to have it there and I gave my reasons. What's your argument besides it just being there?
Why destroy destruction?
Makes no sense. Sorry Einstein.
Are you just trying to pad your post count or can you give me some legitimate reasons why keeping it there would do better for Downtown & Greenwood?
I'd like to see it torn down too. But I'd rather see limited transportation funds go towards a light rail system and finally completing the Gilcrease Expressway first.
Complete the Gilcrease loop and there are a plethora of options you can use from there.
First step: Re-sign the Gilcrease as 244 / US412.
- Could get rid of the north leg of the IDL
- Could even get rid of current I-244 from Downtown to Memorial theoretically
- Could get rid of the West Tulsa leg of I-244 that runs from US-75 to I-44
Lots of North Tulsa and West Tulsa development problems would be fixed without highways cutting through neighborhood flow/connectivity.
Admiral could be the new 71st street if I-244 were demolished/all of that space cleared.
(I say the new 71st from a development opportunity standpoint, not to piss off all the hippies who want the car banned)
(Yes, I know this idea would never happen)
Not having a "Berlin Wall" in downtown would probably help development. Until there is a transit option or an alternate route for rubber tire vehicles, it would be foolish to consider getting rid of major portions of the IDL. Finishing the widening of I-44 would be a good first start for through traffic. They have no need to go through downtown. From my experience, I wouldn't want to go through downtown of a place I was passing through. The exception is US75 to I-35E in Dallas. Any other option to South Texas adds about 50 miles to the trip. (Just did that trip last Saturday and Tuesday.
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
That's nuts.
+1. This guy is full of expensive, hair brained ideas. I'm surprised he's not employed in the Taylor administration.
quote:
Originally posted by Double A
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
That's nuts.
+1. This guy is full of expensive, hair brained ideas. I'm surprised he's not employed in the Taylor administration.
Really?
Because my argument is how not having it would save money long-term, while stimulating the area even more economically.
So, what's your counter-argument for it staying?
quote:
Originally posted by Double A
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
That's nuts.
+1. This guy is full of expensive, hair brained ideas. I'm surprised he's not employed in the Taylor administration.
Wanna know what else is expensive?
Maintaining an elevated highway.
quote:
Originally posted by deinstein
quote:
Originally posted by Double A
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
That's nuts.
+1. This guy is full of expensive, hair brained ideas. I'm surprised he's not employed in the Taylor administration.
Really?
Because my argument is how not having it would save money long-term, while stimulating the area even more economically.
So, what's your counter-argument for it staying?
If it ain't broke(it's not) why fix it?
This is all pure speculation on your part. Show me the evidence that tearing this down will pay for itself. The closest thing I can think of is the big dig, and that was a huge boondoggle that hasn't gotten anywhere near the return on that investment.
Wanna help North Tulsa? Finish the f#*king Gilcrease expressway. Get light rail out there(the infrastructure is already mostly in place) and get reliable, efficient, convenient, bus service. Spend a little time out on the Northside and learn about their needs before deciding what's best for them. This isn't it. This is as ridiculous as your idea about getting rid of the on street parking on Cherry St. for bike lanes.
quote:
Originally posted by Kenosha
quote:
Originally posted by Double A
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
That's nuts.
+1. This guy is full of expensive, hair brained ideas. I'm surprised he's not employed in the Taylor administration.
Wanna know what else is expensive?
Maintaining an elevated highway.
Not maintaining it and letting it deteriorate to the state it's in makes it expensive, if it had been maintained it wouldn't be that expensive.
The closest thing you can think of is the Big Dig?
Uh, that was a project to BUILD more roads. That might be the worst example you could have thrown out there. This idea is the anti-thesis to the Big Dig. Try Harbor Freeway in Portland for a better example.
If it ain't broke why fix it? It is broke. It's in a horrible shape, it has deteriorated the area, it divides the area and we are better off without it. You don't need four highways surrounding downtown.
And even if it was properly maintained (which it never will be, let's get real) it would still cost money.
And I do spend time on the north side...if you think finishing a freeway (that will end up is crappy condition anyway) is the answer then you're absolutely clueless. No one will disagree with you on light rail and bus service...
And I asked if bike lanes were a proper buffer like street parking. I think there should be bike lanes there, and I know there are space issues and wanted it to be discussed.
But yeah, have fun building another highway.
It wouldn't be like the Big Dig, because we would simply get rid of it.
But anyway, the obvious counter argument is that you don't just destroy infrastructure, because of all the money that was put into building it in the first place. I would never consider putting into motion the ideas I suggested earlier without some very thorough studies to suggest the benefits outweigh the cost. I can't just GUESS they do. I think it would be splendid if they did though.
AA, in two posts you went from saying "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" to talking about how good & broke it is (not maintaining it and letting it deteriorate).
Definitely, finish the Gilcrease and I-44 first. THEN open the doors to talk about the feasibility of replacing old 244 with a connected community.
I think it's regressive to continue building freeways and/or expanding them and letting them go to crap...
When will it stop? Seriously.
(http://www.tulsalibrary.org/JPG/G0789.jpg)
Photo source: Beryl Ford Collection/Rotary Club of Tulsa, Tulsa City-County Library, Tulsa Historical Society
Comedy gold right there.
Also keep in mind they envisioned Riverside as being an expressway. The fact that it would have cut up Maple Ridge is, what I gather (wasn't around then), the main reason it was blocked.
Without a highway there, US-75 in West Tulsa between Union and Elwood became the logical North/South route. And that was a little close to also justify the Gilcrease ("Sequoyah") loop on the West Side.
I believe the Gilcrease is justified now.
How are any new highways justified?
quote:
Originally posted by deinstein
How are any new highways justified?
Well, for one, it would be the only way your idea of tearing down the IDL would ever be feasible. US-412 is considered a High-Priority Corridor from Tulsa to Nashville TN. I-244 is a federally funded Interstate. You can't just knock out a section of it without providing a suitable alternative. The Gilcrease circumnavigating downtown would provide that alternative, could potentially be given Interstate status (and funding), and there are only about 7 or 8 miles left to be done to complete it. Much of the area it would cut through is already clear.
[}:)] @ high priority corridor from Nashville to Tulsa. No one takes that route, come on now.
And it would be rerouting...I-244 would be rerouted on the other parts of the IDL, same with 412.
quote:
Originally posted by deinstein
[}:)] @ high priority corridor from Nashville to Tulsa. No one takes that route, come on now.
And it would be rerouting...I-244 would be rerouted on the other parts of the IDL, same with 412.
That is just what it is classified by the FHWA. That also means there is future possibility of the route being classified as a new Interstate (which is important for funding). Tulsa to Stillwater and Tulsa to NE Arkansas are going to do nothing but grow traffic volume. Taking out the north leg of the IDL would require passers through to make about 4 turns in a 1 mile stretch. It would clog up traffic, cause accidents, and just generally be a clusterf---. The north loop (Gilcrease) would add a couple of miles to the trip, but be smooth & trouble free.
What we have now serves its function just fine. If you don't complete the Gilcrease loop, but still are hellbent on knocking out a leg of the IDL, the south or east legs would cause the least problems. No passers through would be forced to make 4 turns ¯|_|¯ as a result.
You have to have the Gilcrease if you want to tear down the north leg.
quote:
Originally posted by Double A
quote:
Originally posted by Kenosha
quote:
Originally posted by Double A
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
That's nuts.
+1. This guy is full of expensive, hair brained ideas. I'm surprised he's not employed in the Taylor administration.
Wanna know what else is expensive?
Maintaining an elevated highway.
Not maintaining it and letting it deteriorate to the state it's in makes it expensive, if it had been maintained it wouldn't be that expensive.
I don't know how to say this nicely.
You are talking out of your donkey. Really...you don't know what the f**k you are talking about. Nonetheless, your uninformed, offhanded comments are relayed as facts, which they are not....
Maintaining highways is expensive. Which is why it hasn't been done properly. If it wasn't expensive, we wouldn't be having this conversation.
Secondly, I repeatedly hear you say that this or that won't pay for itself when referring to public projects. Let's get something straight. If public money only went towards things that paid for themselves we'd have.....NOTHING.
No Sewers
No Sewage Treatment
No Stormwater Management
No ROADS...which are the worst offender of the "not paying for itself" criteria
No Urban Planning of any sort.
Social Security
Wars...wait, maybe we are on to something here.
Public Transportation
Parks
Sidewalks
Any kind of maintenance for the above items.
Police
Fire
.....
Truthfully, my brain hurts trying to think of all the things that don't "pay for themselves".
We might have water and garbage service.
The point is...this is an unacceptable criteria for evaluating the value of most public projects. They do create value, which may or may not translate in to increased revenue operational and capital needs. The only reason the "pay for itself" is brought up is to scuttle an otherwise worthy project.
I paint my house. It creates value. Is it dollar for dollar value? No, but not painting it is, dollar for dollar, much worse.
Sewers.....[;)]
Dimesteen....the hidden intent behind putting it in that location was to disect north Tulsa neighborhoods devaluing property and dispersing an ethnic (and much feared) colony.
That objective was a suckcess. So, you might have a point. But FOTD doubts it.
Just demonizing the 1960's city leadership.
The exchange from N/S 75 on the east side of downtown onto E/W 51 is already a mess during rush hour. Traffic exiting 75 to East bound 51 backs up from Lewis and traffic exiting west bound onto 51 backs up from the I44 exchange (that bridge is too small). I can't imagine the Dallas like snarl we'd get by adding more traffic onto 51 during peak hours.
The IDL was a mistake. It chokes downtown and cuts it off from the surrounding neighborhoods. Its construction destroyed dozens of old houses that would have been desirable today (along with parks etc) and it (along with white flight) initiated the devaluation and decay of the remaining homes outside of the IDL. The IDL also encourages the mass exodus away from downtown to the burbs everyday. But it's done. I don't know how you could move or divert it without recreating those same issues in another part of town.
thx...
Sewers...
quote:
Originally posted by YoungTulsan
Comedy gold right there.
Also keep in mind they envisioned Riverside as being an expressway. The fact that it would have cut up Maple Ridge is, what I gather (wasn't around then), the main reason it was blocked.
Without a highway there, US-75 in West Tulsa between Union and Elwood became the logical North/South route. And that was a little close to also justify the Gilcrease ("Sequoyah") loop on the West Side.
I believe the Gilcrease is justified now.
I use Riverside as an expressway. Just have to time the lights just right.
quote:
Originally posted by Kenosha
thx...
Sewers...
Lol...Yw....
Boo, you posted the wrong picture. I like this one better, b/c you can insert your own quote:
"And then some day, people will actually choose to live way out here..."
(http://www.tulsalibrary.org/JPG/G0585.jpg)
quote:
Originally posted by PonderInc
Boo, you posted the wrong picture. I like this one better, b/c you can insert your own quote:
"And then some day, people will actually choose to live way out here..."
(http://www.tulsalibrary.org/JPG/G0585.jpg)
Actually, I was saving that one for you and pfox, but with a different caption.
Now, you've stolen my thunder...
Pop Quiz, Hotshots:
Is there a business boom now that the main mall is ripped out? What is the timeline before the cost of that is repaid in sales tax dollars generated in that area?
It made it better for Mayfest.
Now that I'm living way out in the burbs near 41st and Harvard[;)]... I've just learned something interesting: People in south Tulsa think that "north Tulsa" means anything north of I-44!
Geez...I've been expecting to receive my Elite Midtown Money Belt in the mail any day now...but now, I don't know if I qualify...
quote:
Originally posted by PonderInc
Now that I'm living way out in the burbs near 41st and Harvard[;)]... I've just learned something interesting: People in south Tulsa think that "north Tulsa" means anything north of I-44!
Geez...I've been expecting to receive my Elite Midtown Money Belt in the mail any day now...but now, I don't know if I qualify...
I-44? I thought it was 71st Street [:D]
I have not been to South Tulsa in over a year.
+1
quote:
Originally posted by deinstein
I have not been to South Tulsa in over a year.
+1
No one has missed you in south Tulsa. If you could get about 10,000 more people like you, traffic might ease up a little.
Red, its 71st now, and rapidly moving southward.
As far as traffic, I can't tell you the last time I saw a scooter south of 81st between Yale and 169. Are they illegal out there? Or have they all been sucked up into the SUV air intakes?
My 4x4 truck just crushes them into the pavement. I've been trying to fill the potholes with them but there just isn't enough scooters yet.
[:D]Its working out there.
quote:
Originally posted by MH2010
quote:
Originally posted by deinstein
I have not been to South Tulsa in over a year.
+1
No one has missed you in south Tulsa. If you could get about 10,000 more people like you, traffic might ease up a little.
Have fun at Applebees tonight.
Haven't been to one in years. Are you so small minded that you think the only "cool" local restaurants are in midtown?
quote:
Originally posted by deinstein
-It would connect OSU-Tulsa with the Brady District.
-It would not separate downtown from North Tulsa, and thus encourage development beyond the I-244 boundary.
-It's in horrible condition and is just more tax dollars going to waste for years to come.
-You already have a detour taking the I-444/75 route on the east side of the IDL.
-The only people this would be a pain for is commuters coming on I-244 heading towards Sand Springs/Stillwater...and they can just deal with the extra two minute commute.
Thoughts?
A variation of what you're proposing has already been studied by the city. Two years ago, the city investigated suppressing the north section of the IDL, and allowing the streets to pass over the freeway, the way the rest of I-244 is designed. What became of the study? Who knows? It was probably put on the backburner after the $1 billion figure for maintaining existing city streets was released. Personally, I think all freeways in urban areas should be designed with the city streets going over them. The natural streetscape is better preserved, and traffic exiting the freeway goes uphill while reducing speed from 65 miles an hour to a dead stop. To me, the uphill exit makes service roads such as Skelly Drive safer.
quote:
Originally posted by perspicuity85
quote:
Originally posted by deinstein
-It would connect OSU-Tulsa with the Brady District.
-It would not separate downtown from North Tulsa, and thus encourage development beyond the I-244 boundary.
-It's in horrible condition and is just more tax dollars going to waste for years to come.
-You already have a detour taking the I-444/75 route on the east side of the IDL.
-The only people this would be a pain for is commuters coming on I-244 heading towards Sand Springs/Stillwater...and they can just deal with the extra two minute commute.
Thoughts?
A variation of what you're proposing has already been studied by the city. Two years ago, the city investigated suppressing the north section of the IDL, and allowing the streets to pass over the freeway, the way the rest of I-244 is designed. What became of the study? Who knows? It was probably put on the backburner after the $1 billion figure for maintaining existing city streets was released. Personally, I think all freeways in urban areas should be designed with the city streets going over them. The natural streetscape is better preserved, and traffic exiting the freeway goes uphill while reducing speed from 65 miles an hour to a dead stop. To me, the uphill exit makes service roads such as Skelly Drive safer.
Interesting, and I agree.
quote:
Originally posted by MH2010
Haven't been to one in years. Are you so small minded that you think the only "cool" local restaurants are in midtown?
Are you still talking?
quote:
Originally posted by deinstein
quote:
Originally posted by MH2010
Haven't been to one in years. Are you so small minded that you think the only "cool" local restaurants are in midtown?
Are you still talking?
Oh look! The ignore button.....
quote:
Originally posted by perspicuity85
Two years ago, the city investigated suppressing the north section of the IDL, and allowing the streets to pass over the freeway, the way the rest of I-244 is designed. What became of the study? Who knows? It was probably put on the backburner after the $1 billion figure for maintaining existing city streets was released. Personally, I think all freeways in urban areas should be designed with the city streets going over them. The natural streetscape is better preserved, and traffic exiting the freeway goes uphill while reducing speed from 65 miles an hour to a dead stop. To me, the uphill exit makes service roads such as Skelly Drive safer.
I agree, but short downhill entrance ramps can be a problem if they are too steep and don't give enough merging lane. The ramp on to west-bound BA around Toledo west of Yale is an example.
Wherever there is grade-separated traffic, there's the need for bridges at intersections. With a sunken expressway, the bridges are usually narrower but longer. The bridges over an depressed expressway would carry the lighter street traffic at slower speeds, but they would deteriorate over time and would require maintenance. However, it's probably easier to shut down a less busy street for bridge repair than it is to divert expressway traffic.
But why do we need expressways forming a loop around downtown, anyway? Is it really necessary for traffic to roar through the heart of city at 55 mph or faster? I remember when the posted speed limit on the IDL was 50 mph. I think Tulsa ought to try boulevards and more parkways in the city. This would slow traffic down to 35 or 40 mph for a few miles, and most of the intersections could be at grade. Signalization would cost money, but there would be huge savings in bridge construction and maintenance costs, plus most of the cut and fill earthwork would be eliminated.
Boulevards and parkways can carry lots of traffic before they are undesirable as pedestrian commercial streets with restaurants and shops along the sidewalk facing the roadway. I think that John Fregonese said during a PLANiTULSA presentation last month that 20,000 vehicles per day was the approximate limit for that type of commercial street. I'd rather see more boulevards running through the city than grade-separated expressways. In the very core of the city, it would be nice to have parallel through routes at no more than quarter-mile intervals.
IMO, the traffic which has no intention of stopping in Tulsa should go around on a loop road and/or pay a toll to take a quicker and easier route. If highway traffic truly reached crisis levels, it would be great if the City operated the loop highways and through expressways as toll roads -- the toll amounts could vary to encourage traffic away from congested areas as needed. (And I want to emphasize that I don't believe this
is needed in Tulsa currently since there are no extreme traffic problems here -- so please no one reply that this would be a tinier version of the nightmarish Oklahoma Turnpike Authority.) It was suggested that Skelly Drive become a toll road and that the Creek Turnpike become free or that its tolls be reduced to encourage traffic away from Skelly. Local traffic which didn't want to pay the fee could use the access roads adjacent to Skelly.
I know people who avoid using the expressways and actually prefer the slower surface streets to get around Tulsa. It doesn't matter to them that trips take a few more minutes. Aesthetics aside, one of the advantages of Tulsa's roadway system is that we have a well-defined, easy-to-use street grid with a few expressways cutting through it. That's what makes getting around Tulsa relatively quick and convenient for a city of its size and density. Removing the north leg of the IDL wouldn't change the overall situation very much.
Flood control may be a problem for sunken expressways around Tulsa.
I avoid the Creek Tpk from Jenks to Memorial going home from work. It can take 5 minutes or more to get on the Turnpike. Then there is about 4 miles of go fast. Then there is near gridlock on southbound Memorial. It's actually about the same time to go through Jenks and take Delaware Ave to 121st Street. Going to work the Turnpike works out well at the time I use it.
quote:
Originally posted by MH2010
quote:
Originally posted by deinstein
quote:
Originally posted by MH2010
Haven't been to one in years. Are you so small minded that you think the only "cool" local restaurants are in midtown?
Are you still talking?
Oh look! The ignore button.....
Later.
quote:
Originally posted by Red Arrow
Flood control may be a problem for sunken expressways around Tulsa.
Has the south part of the IDL ever had problems with that? That's a reasonable concern.
quote:
Originally posted by deinstein
quote:
Originally posted by Red Arrow
Flood control may be a problem for sunken expressways around Tulsa.
Has the south part of the IDL ever had problems with that? That's a reasonable concern.
I don't know about the IDL in particular. There are several low spots around town that make the news whenever we get a lot of rain. Downtown may be enough higher than the river to allow storm drainage even from a sunken expressway. It would need to be considered.