The Tulsa Forum by TulsaNow

I think we can all agree the IDL was a big mistake that hurt downtown cutting it off from its surrounding neighborhoods.  So if you were to devise a plan to "redo" the IDL what would you do?  I understand tearing the whole thing down won't happen but what about one piece, such as the leg of Hwy. 75 on the east side of downtown?  That would allow the Pearl District to reconnect to downtown and for Central Park to expand to the west potentially surrounded by more brownstones.  You also present the opportunity to reconnect the street grid where the highway used to be and use the right-of-way to build an extension of the Midland Valley bike trail north of Maple Park to OSU-Tulsa.  Entire new neighborhoods north of 15th and south of 11th could be rebuilt without the massive Hwy. 51/75 interchange in the way.  I would also bury the northern portion of the IDL by Brady and OSU-Tulsa.

I tend to think the costs associated with any major changed would best be spent on other things. However, I do support the existing possibility of decking over the already below-grade areas of the highway on the south and east sides and possibly adding more passages through the raised areas (tunnel under, shove in a large drain pipe, voila)

I wouldn't want this to get in the way of, say, rail or streetcars BUT I would rather see something done to the IDL than, say, widening the BA yet again or even finishing the Gilcrease Expy.  I just think you open up so much new land to urban development and parkspace if you remove the east leg of the IDL and better connect the revitalizing area north of Cherry Street and west of TU to downtown.  Potentially doubling the size of both Maple Park (to the north where the 75/51 interchange sits) and Central Park to the west where it backs up to elevated 75 and then connecting the two with greenways and bike trails would be so beneficial to this part of the city in the long run.  Then you ring these parks with urban housing and you instantly have entire new neighborhoods for families while apartments/lofts would remain downtown and in Uptown.  I'd be interested to see what Crowley and other planners suggest. 

It was a great loss for Tulsa when Tracy Park Addition was demolished for the BA Expressway.  Comparable to destroying Maple Ridge.  But I do think that the way the BA is set on the ground or below ground as it passes through downtown Tulsa was forward looking.

Not too many years ago Ft. Worth struggled with a plan to change and bury a freeway that passed through downtown.   I don't know what happened but I do recall discussion about very high costs.

Of course buried freeways would be preferable to raised freeways.  If you could get a George Kaiser behind it and pursue federal money aggressively, it could be done.  What is lacking is leadership from our state and federal representatives and the inability of Tulsans to dream big.

I agree with grizz. If this is just hypothetical I would cover 51 through downtown and remove the East leg of 75

I think the uncovered but subgrade 51 through south downtown, while not perfect, works fine because the city had the foresight to build it right.  I would propose two phases for such a project:

1. Demo the east leg of the IDL (Hwy. 75) and the associated interchanges at 51 and 244.  That means if you are on the BA needing to go north on 75 to Owasso you would go around the west side of downtown and back east through Brady, or use city streets.  Without 75 you could restore the street grid and extend Madison with its beautiful tree-lined median north from 15th all the way to where it continues north of 11th up to I-244 and northward.  Madison would become the new grand blvd. for the area similar to what they are doing in OKC.  Other streets that could be reconnected include Norfolk, Newport, Owasso, etc. that were blocked by the 51/75 interchange.  Expand Maple Park to the north and Central Park to the west and connect both with an extension of the MV trail that connects to the river.  Both parks would be catalysts for new development.

2.  Rebuild the north leg of the IDL below grade with at-grade street crossings at Denver, Cheyenne, Boulder, Main, Boston, Cincinnati, Detroit, Elgin, and Greenwood.  This would help better connect Brady and OSU-Tulsa which will someday take over the whole area currently north of 412/244.

Crowley said burying or removing would be cost prohibitive. He does suggest decking over where you can and possibly doing earthwork in some areas to build up the land beside the highway. Same net effect as burying but significantly cheaper.

+1

I'd rather see a less auto-centric Tulsa, but as it stands, removing parts of the IDL isn't really workable. Figuring out a way to make it less of a barrier, though? That would be a great thing.

Like I said in a previous post, if it absolutely needs to be there, make it (or parts of it anyway) elevated like the Pierce Elevated section of I-45 in Houston.  But, like I also said, it lends itself to a maintenance nightmare.  Oklahoma has a bad enough reputation for bridges.  Could you imagine a 1/2 mile long bridge over a residential or partially residential area?  Gads!

I understand tearing down a section and burying it would be very difficult, but it has been done before and is currently being done just down the interstate in OKC with I-40.  What about tearing it down and NOT replacing it?  That's what I think we should do with the eastern leg even if it shifts BA traffic onto the western leg of the IDL.  Just getting rid of the 75/51 interchange would open up so much space in a very desirable area north of Maple Ridge and just west of Cherry Street.  I know Pearl developers like Jamie Jamieson would love to see their neighborhood reconnected to downtown, especially if they extended the lake/canal westward through an expanded Central Park.  I also think traffic could also be rerouted onto an at-grade boulevard that takes its place, also similar to what they are doing in OKC.

That would end up cutting off Pearl nearly as much as it is now. Instead of having a bunch of traffic zipping by, you'd have gridlock in the area, making it difficult to cross. At least now you just go under the highway without delay.

Regardless, the money that would have to be spent redoing the west side of the IDL to handle the increased traffic and fix the weaving problems that already exist would make it cost prohibitive. Not that it couldn't be done, but we are in Oklahoma, where spending modest sums on roads is frowned upon at best.

If you did that, traffic going from say, Bartlesville to Broken Arrow, would circle all of downtown, increasing traffic on the IDL as a whole. If I remember correctly one of the biggest cost associated with removing one of the sections is that you would have to redo and upgrade the remainder of the interchanges.

Is completing rethinking the IDL and what it means to our city a lost cause then?  Is there enough support to begin pressuring city and state leaders to do something?  Or do we wait and push for rail over reconnecting neighborhoods around downtown?  I'm all for rail especially lines from downtown to BA, Jenks, and Owasso but I'd hate to see any more highways widened unnecessarily before we address the IDL.  I'd rather see a navigable Arkansas River before as well BUT it doesn't hurt to start planning for it NOW.

Rail lines are a pipe dream for a city the size of Tulsa.  It took forever to get light rail into Dallas and Phoenix; damn near an act of God Himself.

While I'm not against it, until we have about 3 million in the metro area, I just don't see it happening the way people want it to.

We'll do better with a more realistic mitigation strategy that keeps the existing highway but manages to make the area feel more connected.

That said, when driving in the area, the disconnect seems minimal, as there are ample bridges either over or under the highway. Walking or riding a bike, however, things seem different.

 I went to a meeting last night where Dr Crowley was making a presentation and he discussed his ideas for rail and transportation for Tulsa. His take is that we are already 10 years behind and that we don't really build it to move people around (not at first anyway). You build small segments to spur development, which in turn creates density, then riders, then growth. It seems counter-intuitive, but it makes a lot of sense. Build a small line between two nodes where you want mixed use infill development...people living on one end will ride to be entertained at the other end, or stop in the middle to go to a concert, shopping, court etc.