Vision Extension - IDL Removal/Demolition

[Hoss]

Here's is another project that really hasn't got much publicity - Houston is likely to remove one section of it's downtown freeway loop:



This was a recommendation from TxDot as well. If Houston can do it - Tulsa can do it.

http://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/transportation/article/Massive-I-45-project-would-remove-Pierce-6217572.php#photo-7867328

http://www.citylab.com/commute/2015/05/houstons-urban-interstate-debate-transform-or-tear-down/392546/

http://www.planetizen.com/node/76079

Wow., that's a big segment.  As a former resident, and as someone who used that segment daily for about a year, that is a little surprising.  That's going to take some work, obviously as that whole Pierce Elevated segment has paralleling roads.  Traffic will be a nightmare (as if it already isn't in Houston anyway).

[LandArchPoke]

Wow., that's a big segment.  As a former resident, and as someone who used that segment daily for about a year, that is a little surprising.  That's going to take some work, obviously as that whole Pierce Elevated segment has paralleling roads.  Traffic will be a nightmare (as if it already isn't in Houston anyway).

They want to cap over I-45/69 as well - so it would reconnect the east, west and south sides of downtown to surrounding neighborhoods. Some citizen groups are lobbying to keep the Pierce structure intact to turn it into an elevated park (i.e. Houston's High Line Park).

[TheArtist]

"Plus – the proposal doesn't get rid of this corridor either. I'm not simply saying let's removing everything and they can find another route. I'm just saying we need to take the infrastructure from a grade-separated freeway down to an at-grade complete street. Now people would be able to bike from Cherry Street into the heart of downtown or walk instead of trying to navigate around these freeways. It would make the infrastructure human scale and friendly.

Also another valuable thing about this proposal is we would improve our local connectors. Right now 5th, 7th, 8th, 9th, 12th, Detroit, Baltimore, etc. they have all been severed from the surrounding neighborhoods and downtown. This is bad for retail, restaurants and downtown businesses that would benefit from having better infrastructure connections to customers who are within minutes of them. "

I got ya.  I am starting to like the idea.  Would like to see sketches of what it could be like.

[Hoss]

They want to cap over I-45/69 as well - so it would reconnect the east, west and south sides of downtown to surrounding neighborhoods. Some citizen groups are lobbying to keep the Pierce structure intact to turn it into an elevated park (i.e. Houston's High Line Park).

The Pierce elevated was the original BA segment of the Creek for me.  The undulating rhythm of the road surface almost put you to sleep.  Of course, that was back in the early 90s.  I know they corrected it later.

[carltonplace]

Removing the east leg practical? In what sense? You force traffic from the north into a four mile lap around downtown to get to the BA. Same for traffic from the south east on the BA. You get one accident on the west leg and you have traffic backed up for miles, then you overload the surface streets with traffic trying to avoid the delay.

Yep -
Look what happened when a cattle transport truck overturned on a ramp entering the east leg  - chaos in downtown and peoria because commuters could not get back to Owasso.

Or this weekend with the potential jumper at Peoria...no east or west bound traffic on the south leg caused traffic flooding in downtown and Riverview and Cherry street.

I'm all for capping the south leg and burying or removing the east leg to reconnect the Pearl to the East Village but we need alternate transportation choices first.

[carltonplace]

You are right - that was a pretty quick sketch of the area. Here is a more accurate look that shows the other sections as well:



I added these maps to my website as well. The southeast interchange definitely took out the largest chunk of real estate out of all the areas of the IDL.

Good grief...just imagine if we still had all of that housing and apartment stock. I bet they were comparable to Mapleridge and Tracy park homes with lots of Craftsman bugalows.

I think you could make the argument that all of the cars that came in on these highways also caused the destruction of even more homes and small buildings in favor of surface parking.

[takemebacktotulsa]

I think highway capping would be a whole lot more realistic for Tulsa, and I would get behind capping 100%!

The south side of downtown and the east village would both be good candidates.

Either parks like in Dallas:





or retail like in Columbus:

[PonderInc]

Removing the east leg practical? In what sense? You force traffic from the north into a four mile lap around downtown to get to the BA. Same for traffic from the south east on the BA. You get one accident on the west leg and you have traffic backed up for miles, then you overload the surface streets with traffic trying to avoid the delay.

If you've been around downtown the past few years, we have lived with exactly this scenario due to construction/bridge repair.  I used to drive to Stillwater almost every week from midtown Tulsa and experienced it both ways.  Depending on what bridge was closed, sometimes, you had to circle around on the east and north of downtown, and other times, you had to swing around on the south and west side.  It makes absolutely no difference in time.  And it basically just proved how redundant the IDL is. We could lose half of it, and it wouldn't make a difference to through-drivers.  Replacing the highway with boulevards would satisfy the needs of those who are actually GOING downtown.  Everyone else could just circle around.

[LandArchPoke]

I think highway capping would be a whole lot more realistic for Tulsa, and I would get behind capping 100%!

The south side of downtown and the east village would both be good candidates.

Either parks like in Dallas:

or retail like in Columbus:

takemeback - These are both very good example - particularly the Columbus one. I've tried to look up financials on that project for some time to get a cost estimate on what they spent.

In terms of if Tulsa did something similar to Dallas. This was the first scenario I looked into, because it would be the easiest in terms of people's comfort levels of changing a freeway to a boulevard. However, the costs are rather astronomical which is why in the end I ruled out capping the freeways and decided to rebuild them entirely.



The above image shows where we could cap the freeways on the South leg of the IDL - total cost $528.07 million based on per acre cost of Klyde Warren Park in Dallas.



Above is where we could create caps over the SE interchange - total cost for this is an additional $690.17 million



Here is where we could cap sections of the east leg - total cost for the East Village/Pear section is an additional $117.45 million - total cost for the FinTube/Crutchfield area is an additional $234.44 million



Above I've highlighted a very small portion - you could call phase 1 - total cost is $51.64 million

If the City/State were to pursue capping the IDL with a series of parks the total cost would be approximately $1.57 billion. That's the reason why I didn't propose this particular solution, I don't feel it would create enough economic return to justify the price tag.

[LandArchPoke]

If you've been around downtown the past few years, we have lived with exactly this scenario due to construction/bridge repair.  I used to drive to Stillwater almost every week from midtown Tulsa and experienced it both ways.  Depending on what bridge was closed, sometimes, you had to circle around on the east and north of downtown, and other times, you had to swing around on the south and west side.  It makes absolutely no difference in time.  And it basically just proved how redundant the IDL is. We could lose half of it, and it wouldn't make a difference to through-drivers.  Replacing the highway with boulevards would satisfy the needs of those who are actually GOING downtown.  Everyone else could just circle around.

This is a very great point - the BA was essentially closed in terms of through traffic during the reconstruction of the west leg of the IDL. We did not see any panic, nor unbearable traffic congestion as a result. People found other routes. I was in school at OSU during that time and when I came home to Tulsa I usually just took 169 to I-244 and avoided the BA through downtown.

Yep -
Look what happened when a cattle transport truck overturned on a ramp entering the east leg  - chaos in downtown and peoria because commuters could not get back to Owasso.

Or this weekend with the potential jumper at Peoria...no east or west bound traffic on the south leg caused traffic flooding in downtown and Riverview and Cherry street.

I'm all for capping the south leg and burying or removing the east leg to reconnect the Pearl to the East Village but we need alternate transportation choices first.

This is the problem with limited access freeways. When you close them for "events" like crashes or jumpers - you force everyone off at one point which will overload any intersection. That's the beauty of a street-grid is that if an intersection is closed you just go 1 block over and continue on your way.

Say the jumper or crash scenario happened at 6th and Boston and they closed 6th Street between Main and Boston. You simple go 1 block north or south and then divert back to your original route. Limited access infrastructure doesn't allow you that option so when they fail - they are big events. If the scenario happened this weekend and the BA was at-grade and connected into the street-grid it would have been a non-event in terms of congestion and traffic re-routing.

[takemebacktotulsa]

takemeback - These are both very good example - particularly the Columbus one. I've tried to look up financials on that project for some time to get a cost estimate on what they spent.

In terms of if Tulsa did something similar to Dallas. This was the first scenario I looked into, because it would be the easiest in terms of people's comfort levels of changing a freeway to a boulevard. However, the costs are rather astronomical which is why in the end I ruled out capping the freeways and decided to rebuild them entirely.



The above image shows where we could cap the freeways on the South leg of the IDL - total cost $528.07 million based on per acre cost of Klyde Warren Park in Dallas.



Above is where we could create caps over the SE interchange - total cost for this is an additional $690.17 million



Here is where we could cap sections of the east leg - total cost for the East Village/Pear section is an additional $117.45 million - total cost for the FinTube/Crutchfield area is an additional $234.44 million



Above I've highlighted a very small portion - you could call phase 1 - total cost is $51.64 million

If the City/State were to pursue capping the IDL with a series of parks the total cost would be approximately $1.57 billion. That's the reason why I didn't propose this particular solution, I don't feel it would create enough economic return to justify the price tag.

That does seem a little steep for a park...

From what I've read, the columbus capping cost a little less the $10 million (Which I find pretty amazing!). source:http://www.columbusunderground.com/chicago-studies-the-innovative-i-670-highway-cap-in-columbus source: http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2011-10-27/news/ct-met-kamin-highway-caps-20111027_1_cap-union-station-interstate-highway

I would much prefer retail because it has a higher ROI. And if if retail caps could indeed be built for $10 million, one could put cap on either side almost every street you shaded in green for $80 million. Even if it costs twice that, I think it would be a much better investment than water in the river...

[DowntownDan]

Aren't the bridges going to need maintenance or replacement at some point?  I'm thinking specifically about the south leg where the highway is already below grade.  Why not just widen the bridges at replacement time to include room for retail like the Columbus picture?  We're still a long way off from this being viable anyway and maybe by then we can argue for funding to replace certain bridges and widen them in the process.  I don't see wholesale capping like the Dallas example ever being economically viable.

[swake]

Aren't the bridges going to need maintenance or replacement at some point?  I'm thinking specifically about the south leg where the highway is already below grade.  Why not just widen the bridges at replacement time to include room for retail like the Columbus picture?  We're still a long way off from this being viable anyway and maybe by then we can argue for funding to replace certain bridges and widen them in the process.  I don't see wholesale capping like the Dallas example ever being economically viable.

Work on the south leg starts in 2016 I believe. It's on ODOTs 8 year plan to redo basically the entire south and east legs.

[LandArchPoke]

That does seem a little steep for a park...

From what I've read, the columbus capping cost a little less the $10 million (Which I find pretty amazing!). source:http://www.columbusunderground.com/chicago-studies-the-innovative-i-670-highway-cap-in-columbus source: http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2011-10-27/news/ct-met-kamin-highway-caps-20111027_1_cap-union-station-interstate-highway

I would much prefer retail because it has a higher ROI. And if if retail caps could indeed be built for $10 million, one could put cap on either side almost every street you shaded in green for $80 million. Even if it costs twice that, I think it would be a much better investment than water in the river...

Thanks for finding that, here's a breakdown of the Development cap scenario:



Above are the areas that we could essentially fill in with development. Red = retail only | Orange = mixed-use | Black outline = area that would need decking/structural support.

Columbus project cost $10 million

-   28,800 sq. ft. of retail
-   Cost per sq. ft. = $347
-   Approximate retail building cost = $147 per sq. ft.
-   Decking and structural costs = $200 per sq. ft.

4 Areas capable of air rights development

-   Denver Ave | $10.8 million decking/structural cost
-   Cheyenne Ave to Boston Ave | $64.82 million decking/structural cost
-   East Village | $46.61 million decking/structural cost
-   Peoria Ave | $16.55 million decking/structural cost

Total decking/structural costs = $138.78 million

Development Potential Breakdown

2.16 million sq. ft. of mixed-use (likely multifamily, ground floor retail)
0.30 million sq. ft. of retail

Ad Valorem Taxes

2.46 million sq. ft. of new real estate
Construction value of $150 per sq. ft. = $369 million of new real estate
Property tax estimate via Tulsa County Assessor site = $5.41 million per year
25 year capture rate = $135.2 million

Sales Taxes * Note that the Return on Investment analysis I did for the removal of the IDL was using Ad Valorem/Property Taxes ONLY. I did not include revenues from any potential retail that would be in the developments.

Retail sq. ft. total = 568,000 sq. ft.
-   Sales per sq. ft. @ $250 = $142 million in sales
-   8.517% sales tax rate = $12.09 million in new tax revenue
-   Capture rate for 15 years = $302.4 million
-   Capture rate for City of Tulsa for 15 years = $110.05 million in new tax revenues

Total New Revenues

Sales - $12.1 million per year
Ad Valorem - $5.41 million per year
= $17.42 million per year

Conclusion - the removal of the south/east sections of IDL and reconstruction of them into at-grade boulevards would provide a higher return. The development capping scenario you would essentially break even at year 25-26 capturing property taxes. Adding retail sales taxes into the revenue equation would give a nice return, however. I would need to add some retail projections for the reconstruction scenario as well to properly compare the two - which I will try to do some point shortly.

[rdj]

Is the discussion of doing something with the north leg of the IDL completely off the table because of its recent reconstruction?

That leg as a raised highway is an absolute barrier between near north and downtown.  Would be great to see that sight lines and street grid improved to allow downtown to connected directly into Brady Heights and Emerson Elementary TPS is expanding.