There are 53 bridges in the IDL?

[nathanm]

quote:Originally posted by Hoss


I would think that the people who work in B'Ville (Uncle Frank) and live along the BA as a main transitway to that destination might have something to say about that, since that section of the IDL directly hooks up with US 75.

I'm sure there are quite a few people who use that segment of road to get from the BA to US-75, given that I see quite a bit of traffic on it every time I drive that way. (which is rarely, in my case, but I don't work in Bartlesville)

We'd be better off removing the west side of the IDL, but even that would be silly. Sadly, absent major realignment of several roadways, you can't really do a lot to the IDL. It would be nice to cap parts of the road where it makes sense, like they did in Columbus. Basically widen some of the bridges on the major thoroughfares and put buildings on them so as to create the illusion of better connectivity.

Obviously that would only work on the parts where the highway is below grade.

[TheArtist]

quote:Originally posted by Hoss

quote:Originally posted by TheArtist

quote:Originally posted by USRufnex

not a good idea if you want folks from SE Tulsa/BA to go downtown/blue dome/ballpark/brady... replace I-444 with a ground level road with a speed limit of 45-50mph, 4 lanes with a middle turn lane?... call it "Pearl Drive" or "Pearl Parkway" and you got yourselves a deal.....

I go downtown on the BA all the time from my house and go to the Brady and Blue Dome areas. I always take the Detroit exit.  I have never once in my life gone on that section of highway. Removing that section would be an incredible idea imo.

I would think that the people who work in B'Ville (Uncle Frank) and live along the BA as a main transitway to that destination might have something to say about that, since that section of the IDL directly hooks up with US 75.

I know sometimes you got to do what you got to do, but I am sure Bartlesville wouldn't mind having another resident. Thats not a good commute cost wise, environmentally or time wise. We cant make everyone happy with any change we make, but putting a damper on those types of commute scenarios may be a good thing in disguise.

However, I think its highly unlikely we are going to remove the IDL anyway, so will have to make the best of it. Once the Pearl District and downtown get moving, the IDL in that area wont be that big of a concern. I have seen some ideas for turning the open areas around the IDL into parks of different sorts. Placing some gateway elements, on the 6th street overpass for instance, would be nice. Some artwork in places along it, etc.  Instead of just a physical and psychological barrier to certain areas, make it an interesting and entertaining feature. I think I have heard ideas like the one mentioned above, where you can add buildings to either side of a bridge in an area or two, actually being considered. Over time with some creative thinking you can limit the negative impact of the IDL, and turn "lemons into lemonade".  

[grahambino]

if this is the 'inner loop'
where's the outer one?

[TheArtist]

quote:Originally posted by grahambino

if this is the 'inner loop'
where's the outer one?

Its more like an outer dispersal square.

[Hoss]

quote:Originally posted by nathanm

quote:Originally posted by Hoss


I would think that the people who work in B'Ville (Uncle Frank) and live along the BA as a main transitway to that destination might have something to say about that, since that section of the IDL directly hooks up with US 75.

I'm sure there are quite a few people who use that segment of road to get from the BA to US-75, given that I see quite a bit of traffic on it every time I drive that way. (which is rarely, in my case, but I don't work in Bartlesville)

We'd be better off removing the west side of the IDL, but even that would be silly. Sadly, absent major realignment of several roadways, you can't really do a lot to the IDL. It would be nice to cap parts of the road where it makes sense, like they did in Columbus. Basically widen some of the bridges on the major thoroughfares and put buildings on them so as to create the illusion of better connectivity.

Obviously that would only work on the parts where the highway is below grade.

I think if Tulsa would have been a little more 'forward-thinking', they would have done something like Houston did with its downtown hub.  I lived there for almost four years and the Pierce Elevated section of I-45 was one of the most interesting pieces of highway construction I ever saw.  It essentially leaves the surface roads intact but puts the freeway up on pillars about 20 feet above grade.  In essence, it never made it feel like downtown Houston was cutoff from the surrounding neighborhoods.

Problem with that is it's a maintenance nightmare.

[PonderInc]

quote:Originally posted by Hoss

I would think that the people who work in B'Ville (Uncle Frank) and live along the BA as a main transitway to that destination might have something to say about that, since that section of the IDL directly hooks up with US 75.

Remember: downtown is really only a little more than one mile square.  

It's bizarre that someone ever thought highway traffic needed a one-mile "loop" around our downtown.  And the devestation that was wrecked on some of our most irreplaceable real estate is one of the tragedies of Tulsa history.

Most "loops" are designed as bypasses...such as I-270 that's about 15-20 miles outside downtown St. Louis, or I-470 around Denver that's about the same distance from the city core.

Eliminating the Hwy 75 leg from the eastern side of the IDL adds, what, 2 miles to the drive of someone going from the BA Expressway to Bartlesville?  

Besides, since Hwy 75 comes from Okmulgee, it already merges with I-244 just SW of downtown.  Why cross over onto the BA at all?  It should just follow I-244 on up the west side until it intersects with 75 north of downtown.

From an aesthetic and emotional perspective, I would much prefer to remove I-244 from the west and north sides of downtown.  But I'm not sure how easy that would be.  From looking at the map, Hwy 75 on the east of downtown is the most redundant and unneccesary leg of the IDL.

[Neptune]

I wish they'd go ahead and mark I-444.  It's one of the shortest interstates in existence, and one of the few that are "unmarked".

[bugo]

quote:Originally posted by Neptune

I wish they'd go ahead and mark I-444.  It's one of the shortest interstates in existence, and one of the few that are "unmarked".

I was told that the Creek is officially an interstate, but one without a number.

[Neptune]

quote:Originally posted by bugo

quote:Originally posted by Neptune

I wish they'd go ahead and mark I-444.  It's one of the shortest interstates in existence, and one of the few that are "unmarked".

I was told that the Creek is officially an interstate, but one without a number.

A few years ago, there was kind of a theoretical mention that the Creek could become I-644, if it ever became an interstate.  And since it's not designated anything, that would be possible.  Don't think it's happened yet.

Here's a list of "unsigned interstates".  unsigned = without signage.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unsigned_auxiliary_Interstate_Highways

Don't know how current it is.  All 3-digit interstates are "auxiliary".

[nathanm]

quote:Originally posted by PonderInc

quote:Originally posted by Hoss

I would think that the people who work in B'Ville (Uncle Frank) and live along the BA as a main transitway to that destination might have something to say about that, since that section of the IDL directly hooks up with US 75.

Remember: downtown is really only a little more than one mile square.  

It's bizarre that someone ever thought highway traffic needed a one-mile "loop" around our downtown.  And the devestation that was wrecked on some of our most irreplaceable real estate is one of the tragedies of Tulsa history.

If we were building the highways today, I would agree that it probably shouldn't be built the way it is.

However, it's pretty common for downtowns to have a close in ring of highways. Columbus has one (OH-315, I-71/70, and I-670). Their setup is actually very similar to what we have in Tulsa, aside from the one leg on ours petering out a couple miles north. They've been quite successful at revitalization through exactly the efforts being made here in Tulsa. That's why I like them as an example to follow, at least in some ways.

One question, though. At the time the IDL was designed, was downtown just much more congested or what? Otherwise why would access be needed from all sides? Or was it just the "highways = good" mentality causing overbuilding?

[Neptune]

Bates had a very good article on highways/streets a couple years ago.  It's pretty much dead-on.

http://www.urbantulsa.com/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid%3A18221

Lack of radial streets, that's probably the biggest historic planning deficiency for Tulsa.  Couple that with historically available highway funds, Tulsa's highways became what they are today.

I've felt for a long time, if you could demo the eastern or southern leg of the IDL, the "city" would come back to "downtown".  A lot of the surface parking would dry up.