Vision Extension - IDL Removal/Demolition

[LandArchPoke]

When traveling cross country, I don't mind a few extra miles or minutes to avoid a downtown.  If the IDL is removed, just make the signage obvious to out-of-towners which way and which lane to be in well before the choice is required.  I still have to be careful not to wind up going to Sand Springs instead of going south on 75 from I-244.  And, don't do like St Louis did in the early 70s with "TO I-44" signs that dumped my family on surface streets when expressway options around town were available.  We were a caravan of 3 cars, 2 pulling trailers.  We were not happy.  
Other legs of the IDL were still open.  Redundancy works.  That doesn't mean that redundancy has to cut through the heart of downtown.
The INCOG traffic count you linked shows 70,000+ cars on I-244 through downtown.  You claim less than 10% exit somewhere downtown.  That leaves more like 60,000+ to divert.  Gilcrease is only 4 lanes (2 each direction) and 60 MPH west of 75 to the Tisdale. And, of course, the Gilcrease is not yet complete.
Urban Renewal didn't really renew much of anything.  Why was so much land set aside for UCAT rather than rebuilding neighborhoods?  Parking lots are probably not  a direct result only of building the IDL.

Agreed that traffic here isn't as bad as Boston, NYC etc but anyone that still thinks you can get anywhere in Tulsa under 20 minutes is only fooling themselves.

St. Louis is confusing in many places with signage, I've had several times I've randomly exited a highway and ended up in East St Louis versus staying on highways. Rebuilding the interchange of the Gilcrease and 244 where most of the lanes divert north to where the flow of traffic feels normal would solve that. Also renaming the Gilcrease as 412/I-244 would help regional travels recognize how to navigate around. Having clear signage that says highway ends in 2 miles if you stay in these lanes for the other 2 lanes would signify anyone who wants to stay on the highway needs to get in the other 2 lanes and follow on to the Gilcrease versus continuing due west. Same for the west side, you'd have to likely reconfigure the interchange a bit where 412 and the Gilcrease meet to make it feel more nature to divert traffic north or south instead of due east and have clear signage that says highway ends in X miles for the excess lanes.

In terms of the traffic count I mentioned, you'd likely still have some people take the same corridors beyond the 10% that exit downtown, you'd probably still have to account for some additional local traffic, like on 75 south someone might want to go to Utica Square, so that'd still be the faster corridor to take even though downtown isn't the destination. A percentage of travelers trying to go east west are probably still not going to divert and go straight through downtown, it's just going to take them a bit longer. There is also a percentage of trips that just disappear too and it's been documented in studies in other cities.

For 75, that plan proposes to rebuild Lansing and Madison. You'd likely have 2 lanes north south for each of those so 8 lanes north south total (versus 4/6 now as a highway). So you'd have two north south surface streets to absorb traffic and that could still easily service 30,000 to 40,000 cars per day between the two (just at 35-40 MPH instead of 60 MPH). Right now the 75 and Tisdale corridor don't have more than 35,000 cars per day using it in the busiest spots in/near downtown. So for 75 & the Tisdale the street grid that would be rebuilt could carry 100% of the current needs of traffic. Now some will divert to the west corridor I outline in the previous maps, just because they can drive faster speeds if their end destination is not local. The traffic studies on the Gilcrease from OTA suggest that less than 10,000 cars per day will be using that southeast portion they are completing now. So even if 10,000 or 20,000 cars divert to that corridor it's still probably going to be less than 50% of capacity.  

244 is the only route that would require the redistribution of some cars as 70,000-80,000 cars per day just aren't going to take a city street. You'd still have multiple new east west routes on this corridor that could carry 30,000 to 40,000 cars each once the street grid is finished though. Admiral for example would be rebuilt and would go all the way through, 1st Street, etc. would all be able to absorb traffic too and would all have through access now. A percentage of trips would just go away, so only 30,000 to 40,000 at max might have to be absorbed onto other regional highway routes and would be distributed out along the north or south options in the maps I posted. I-44 for example could easily handle 125,000 to 150,000 cars per day or more and is not even close to that capacity. Gilcrease might eventually need to be expanded to 3 lanes each along the northern loop, but even in it's current capacity it only has 30,000 cars per day using it in the busiest spot by the airport. It can easily service 70,000 cars per day in it's current form. It's important to remember that given it's regional traffic it will be distributed out through the day versus a significant amount of it added to rush hour traffic.

We forget how much traffic a properly functioning street grid can handle. Really what we did is when we cut off access of streets like Madison and Lansing and others, we just forced that traffic onto a highway when 244 cut off many north south streets. The highway was never needed in the first place. It's still not needed now if the street grid is rebuilt. 75 did the same thing by cutting off east west flow of Admiral and other, all that traffic was then funneled onto 244 and that's why a lot of businesses died in this area.

UCAT is a complicated issue, frankly I think the urban renewal authority really just wanted to get rid of the rest of Greenwood and used the cover of we're going to build a big university as the reason to justify it to the public. Ultimately most universities built in other locations so then all the land set aside just sat vacant because OSU wasn't that interested in building out a big campus in Tulsa for a long time.

The parking lot growth wasn't directly because of the IDL, but the IDL facilitated the commuting and car culture of Tulsa which is what resulted in many owners downtown thinking it was more valuable to knock over buildings for surface parking than it was to preserve buildings. So they're all intertwined a bit. If we hadn't built the IDL and decided that we shouldn't sacrifice buildings and homes for regional travelers and the suburban commuter I do wonder how different the city would be today.  

[Red Arrow]

St. Louis is confusing in many places with signage, I've had several times I've randomly exited a highway and ended up in East St Louis versus staying on highways.

When I went back east after the family moved here, I tried the south route around St Louis.  I followed a "To Illinois" sign and wound up on a 2 lane road leading to East St Louis.  Not a happy camper.

In terms of the traffic count I mentioned, you'd likely still have some people take the same corridors beyond the 10% that exit downtown, you'd probably still have to account for some additional local traffic, like on 75 south someone might want to go to Utica Square, so that'd still be the faster corridor to take even though downtown isn't the destination. A percentage of travelers trying to go east west are probably still not going to divert and go straight through downtown, it's just going to take them a bit longer. There is also a percentage of trips that just disappear too and it's been documented in studies in other cities.

People would still take the same corridors one time if the IDL is removed until they learned the alternate routes.  I would not anticipate through traffic choosing a non-express route more than once.  Folks going to Utica Square etc will just have to accept the delays. But... those are not the through traffic.  For them, downtown, Utica Square etc is the destination.

For 75, that plan proposes to rebuild Lansing and Madison. You'd likely have 2 lanes north south for each of those so 8 lanes north south total (versus 4/6 now as a highway). So you'd have two north south surface streets to absorb traffic and that could still easily service 30,000 to 40,000 cars per day between the two (just at 35-40 MPH instead of 60 MPH).

Again, depends on your mission.  Going through or somewhere within "downtown" or nearby places. 35-40 MPH speed limits with traffic lights results in a lot slower speeds, ref: S Memorial. I would definitely avoid Tulsa in those conditions if I only wanted to get through.

Right now the 75 and Tisdale corridor don't have more than 35,000 cars per day using it in the busiest spots in/near downtown. So for 75 & the Tisdale the street grid that would be rebuilt could carry 100% of the current needs of traffic. Now some will divert to the west corridor I outline in the previous maps, just because they can drive faster speeds if their end destination is not local. The traffic studies on the Gilcrease from OTA suggest that less than 10,000 cars per day will be using that southeast portion they are completing now. So even if 10,000 or 20,000 cars divert to that corridor it's still probably going to be less than 50% of capacity.

Southeast portion of the Gilcrease?  SW maybe?  If we get rid of the IDL, the Gilcrease will experience a lot more traffic than if we keep the IDL. 

244 is the only route that would require the redistribution of some cars as 70,000-80,000 cars per day just aren't going to take a city street. You'd still have multiple new east west routes on this corridor that could carry 30,000 to 40,000 cars each once the street grid is finished though. Admiral for example would be rebuilt and would go all the way through, 1st Street, etc. would all be able to absorb traffic too and would all have through access now. A percentage of trips would just go away, so only 30,000 to 40,000 at max might have to be absorbed onto other regional highway routes and would be distributed out along the north or south options in the maps I posted. I-44 for example could easily handle 125,000 to 150,000 cars per day or more and is not even close to that capacity. Gilcrease might eventually need to be expanded to 3 lanes each along the northern loop, but even in it's current capacity it only has 30,000 cars per day using it in the busiest spot by the airport. It can easily service 70,000 cars per day in it's current form. It's important to remember that given it's regional traffic it will be distributed out through the day versus a significant amount of it added to rush hour traffic.

I disagree that ONLY 244 would require redistribution. While the Tisdale and 75 don't carry tons of traffic, combined they carry a lot. What new multiple east-west routes?  I-44 already exists. The Creek Turnpike already exists.  Completing the Gilcrease is the only new route.  If you are only talking about highways to downtown, OK. Some trips would just go away because people don't want to put up with traffic unless the trip is necessary. The Maps you posted seemed to ignore traffic going south on 75 south of I-244. I don't know the capacity of 1-44 after the construction is finished. I am willing to ignore transients. Gilcrease around the airport at 30,000/day plus diverted traffic... hummm.

We forget how much traffic a properly functioning street grid can handle. Really what we did is when we cut off access of streets like Madison and Lansing and others, we just forced that traffic onto a highway when 244 cut off many north south streets. The highway was never needed in the first place. It's still not needed now if the street grid is rebuilt. 75 did the same thing by cutting off east west flow of Admiral and other, all that traffic was then funneled onto 244 and that's why a lot of businesses died in this area.

I don't think we forget, we choose to take a different route.  Again, is the mission to go downtown or go around. If I have no interest in stopping downtown (or even a small town), give me a way around.  I am not going to spend any money just because you slow me down to "appreciate" your downtown. If you are a small town and I want lunch, or whatever, I'll take the Business Route. Do you really want me beating up your streets when I have no intention of spending any money in your town?  Let the Feds pay for the bypass.

UCAT is a complicated issue, frankly I think the urban renewal authority really just wanted to get rid of the rest of Greenwood and used the cover of we're going to build a big university as the reason to justify it to the public. Ultimately most universities built in other locations so then all the land set aside just sat vacant because OSU wasn't that interested in building out a big campus in Tulsa for a long time.

Have to agree there.

The parking lot growth wasn't directly because of the IDL, but the IDL facilitated the commuting and car culture of Tulsa which is what resulted in many owners downtown thinking it was more valuable to knock over buildings for surface parking than it was to preserve buildings. So they're all intertwined a bit. If we hadn't built the IDL and decided that we shouldn't sacrifice buildings and homes for regional travelers and the suburban commuter I do wonder how different the city would be today.  

City taxes probably were an influence too.  Tulsa wasn't going to stop suburbia any more than any other city.  I believe that if the Gilcrease and other big by-passes had been built before I-244, the result to downtown would have been the same.  Downtown cities are experiencing a resurgence  but in the 60s and 70s no one was going to stop suburbia.

[Red Arrow]

Definitely wasn't trying to directly compare Tulsa traffic to those cities, but what I am trying to address is a lot of people have always said and still do that congestion will ruin our city. It doesn't, and it won't. If congestion resulted in economic decline there's no reason why all of those other cities with horrendous traffic are so desirable to so many people and businesses. I'd be curious if anyone could point to a single example of a vibrant neighborhood that has no congestion - you can't. When you try to un-congest an area, you remove it's vibrancy. 

Some congestion is acceptable.  I cannot understand the mentality of folks that endure multiple hour commutes to work in LA just because they cannot afford a home closer in.  Time to find a new job in a place like Tulsa.

[dbacksfan 2.0]

I'm going to be really blunt here. I-244 and the IDL were not built as a racist dividing Tulsa freeway program to separate North Tulsa/Greenwood from the rest of the city move.

If you are under the age of 40 you have no idea of the manufacturing that was going on in north downtown and along Charles Page Boulevard that related to the oil industry, as well as the area along SW Boulevard to where the Turner Turnpike gate was. From where Crane Carrier Corp was near the original Tulsa Airport terminal, and for that fact McDonnell/Douglas and Rockwell on the south end of the airport was the major manufacturing areas of Tulsa.

You had Sheffield Steel at Hwy 97 and Charles Page to the airport that was the major employment corridor other than SunRay DX and at the time Texaco Refineries. At the turnpike gate you had Unit Rig and others. You also had the Port of Catoosa that was the gateway to the Mississippi River and the Gulf Of Mexico.

244 wasn't built just to decrease some ones travel time to downtown for work. The whole of the IDL was built to support the manufacturing that Tulsa had in the 60's and 70's as well as the number of people that worked there.

The same can be said for Highway 75 running next to the rail yard, and 244 running through Redfork to the Turner entrance.

The area north of 244 through downtown was a war zone during the late 60's until the late 90's and it had nothing to do with 244, and Haskell and Main was ground zero.

Calling highways racist is BS. And to be honest, I was reading info about the 1921 Riot in 1980 when I started looking into it at the Central Library on the micro films of old Tulsa World and Tribune newspapers.

This whole "OMG LOOK WHAT HAPPENED" media crush is BS because it's been there for decades but nobody looked.

[Red Arrow]

I'm going to be really blunt here. I-244 and the IDL were not built as a racist dividing Tulsa freeway program to separate North Tulsa/Greenwood from the rest of the city move.

If you are under the age of 40 you have no idea of the manufacturing that was going on in north downtown and along Charles Page Boulevard that related to the oil industry, as well as the area along SW Boulevard to where the Turner Turnpike gate was. From where Crane Carrier Corp was near the original Tulsa Airport terminal, and for that fact McDonnell/Douglas and Rockwell on the south end of the airport was the major manufacturing areas of Tulsa.

You had Sheffield Steel at Hwy 97 and Charles Page to the airport that was the major employment corridor other than SunRay DX and at the time Texaco Refineries. At the turnpike gate you had Unit Rig and others. You also had the Port of Catoosa that was the gateway to the Mississippi River and the Gulf Of Mexico.

244 wasn't built just to decrease some ones travel time to downtown for work. The whole of the IDL was built to support the manufacturing that Tulsa had in the 60's and 70's as well as the number of people that worked there.

The same can be said for Highway 75 running next to the rail yard, and 244 running through Redfork to the Turner entrance.

The area north of 244 through downtown was a war zone during the late 60's until the late 90's and it had nothing to do with 244, and Haskell and Main was ground zero.

Calling highways racist is BS. And to be honest, I was reading info about the 1921 Riot in 1980 when I started looking into it at the Central Library on the micro films of old Tulsa World and Tribune newspapers.

This whole "OMG LOOK WHAT HAPPENED" media crush is BS because it's been there for decades but nobody looked.

Thanks for the perspective.  I am well over 40 but am an import from the mid 70s (after my time in the Navy).

[dbacksfan 2.0]

Thanks for the perspective.  I am well over 40 but am an import from the mid 70s (after my time in the Navy).

I'm an old timer so to speak. My parents and paternal grand parents as well as an aunt moved to Tulsa in the mid 50's to work at what became McDonnell/Douglas or Air Force Plant 3.

Back in 1967 I actually got on to a Santa Fe train with my parents and we took the train to Kansas City and back to visit family. During that trip the kids that lived across the street set fire to the field that was part of the MA-HU mansion and burned the barn to the ground.

The other exciting thing was before I was born and the house I grew up in was that the nose section of a B-47 Bomber landed in the back yard in 1958.

https://tulsaworld.com/news/local/history/throwback-tulsa-b-47-jet-broke-apart-raining-debris-on-east-tulsa-in-58/article_4ff393dd-d055-5446-acd1-cd1c7184ae20.html

[Vision 2025]

A Boulevard conversion for 244 would interesting with the Burlington Northern crossing who, as I recall, has the authority to say no thank you. 

Overall, downtown is no where near fully redeveloped and there is significant space much of which has been essentially vacant for decades that is ripe to be redeveloped and that extends to both sides of 244 where no doubt, better access without the visual barrier of the elevated 244 would definitely help but not at the cost of trashing the efficiency of a good highway system.

I would definitely support depressing 244 and bridging over it with quality public spaces.

[Vision 2025]

I'm an old timer so to speak. My parents and paternal grand parents as well as an aunt moved to Tulsa in the mid 50's to work at what became McDonnell/Douglas or Air Force Plant 3.

That's great history, my parents met in Plant 3 during the war, building bombers.

[Red Arrow]

I would definitely support depressing 244 and bridging over it with quality public spaces.

What flooding problems would a depressed 244 experience?

[Red Arrow]

IBack in 1967 I actually got on to a Santa Fe train with my parents and we took the train to Kansas City and back to visit family.

Steam or Diesel locomotive?

The other exciting thing was before I was born and the house I grew up in was that the nose section of a B-47 Bomber landed in the back yard in 1958.
https://tulsaworld.com/news/local/history/throwback-tulsa-b-47-jet-broke-apart-raining-debris-on-east-tulsa-in-58/article_4ff393dd-d055-5446-acd1-cd1c7184ae20.html

Interesting and scary too.  Any idea if the defect was a design problem or a manufacturing problem?

[dbacksfan 2.0]

Steam or Diesel locomotive?

Diesel. My dad told me on the trip that you can't use the restroom while the train was stopped at a station because it would leave a mess on the ground, but while it was moving it spread it out over a wider area.

Interesting and scary too.  Any idea if the defect was a design problem or a manufacturing problem?

It was a result of metal fatigue and over stressing of the wing. At the time, one of the tactics that the USAF was working on was to fly low towards the target with a nuclear weapon, then as they approached the target to pull up at a steep angle and launch the weapon, then roll the aircraft over while climbing. They didn't really understand the loads they put on the wings, and as that one climbed it essentially ripped the wing off and the plane broke up as it climbed at near full throttle.

Kind of a long video, but this shows how hard they pushed the planes.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6cIgTAtj4E4&t=502s

It looked like this

[Vision 2025]

What flooding problems would a depressed 244 experience?

None if properly done and ventilated. 

[Red Arrow]

It was a result of metal fatigue and over stressing of the wing. At the time, one of the tactics that the USAF was working on was to fly low towards the target with a nuclear weapon, then as they approached the target to pull up at a steep angle and launch the weapon, then roll the aircraft over while climbing. They didn't really understand the loads they put on the wings, and as that one climbed it essentially ripped the wing off and the plane broke up as it climbed at near full throttle.

Aerobatics are fun in an airplane designed to do them.

[LandArchPoke]

None if properly done and ventilated. 

In that presentation it's one of the options that the community can give feedback on. That group gave some pretty good reasoning as to why it would be a difficult solution.

The chamber as had a study done on doing a tunnel version of 244 that would start just east of 75 and go to the Tisdale. The terrain is slopped just enough downward going into downtown right there that it makes it nearly impossible and they found it would also be very difficult to accomplish without harming the remaining portion of Greenwood. So in order to do a tunnel, you'd have to start well past Utica. You're talking costs in the $2 to $3 billion range in that case just to do that. I personally think that would be a dumb financial move. You also have to think of the costs of how are we going to pay to maintain that down the road in 50-75 years when the tunnels start leaking and need to be redone? Also, the ventilation systems required to operate tunnels like that are not cheap and you're talking about an ongoing maintenance/operating costs that ODOT or the city can already not afford. Just my opinion. Maybe the infrastructure bill will have $2 - 3 billion we can ask for and that would be a legitimate option. Also, think about how any on and off ramps would work from a tunnel to access downtown? You're still creating issues with large swaths of right away for those that would complicate development above and also not really improve connectivity between the neighborhoods in many areas. The option could be like in Seattle where the tunnel was only for through traffic (no on and off ramps) and if you wanted to go to downtown you'd have to exit at Utica maybe and just take the access road/boulevard into downtown above the tunnel.

[LandArchPoke]

I'm going to be really blunt here. I-244 and the IDL were not built as a racist dividing Tulsa freeway program to separate North Tulsa/Greenwood from the rest of the city move.

If you are under the age of 40 you have no idea of the manufacturing that was going on in north downtown and along Charles Page Boulevard that related to the oil industry, as well as the area along SW Boulevard to where the Turner Turnpike gate was. From where Crane Carrier Corp was near the original Tulsa Airport terminal, and for that fact McDonnell/Douglas and Rockwell on the south end of the airport was the major manufacturing areas of Tulsa.

You had Sheffield Steel at Hwy 97 and Charles Page to the airport that was the major employment corridor other than SunRay DX and at the time Texaco Refineries. At the turnpike gate you had Unit Rig and others. You also had the Port of Catoosa that was the gateway to the Mississippi River and the Gulf Of Mexico.

244 wasn't built just to decrease some ones travel time to downtown for work. The whole of the IDL was built to support the manufacturing that Tulsa had in the 60's and 70's as well as the number of people that worked there.

The same can be said for Highway 75 running next to the rail yard, and 244 running through Redfork to the Turner entrance.

The area north of 244 through downtown was a war zone during the late 60's until the late 90's and it had nothing to do with 244, and Haskell and Main was ground zero.

Calling highways racist is BS. And to be honest, I was reading info about the 1921 Riot in 1980 when I started looking into it at the Central Library on the micro films of old Tulsa World and Tribune newspapers.

This whole "OMG LOOK WHAT HAPPENED" media crush is BS because it's been there for decades but nobody looked.

You kind of lost credibility there by all that gaslighting... no one is saying a piece of infrastructure is racist. Those dang young kids need to get off your lawn! Right? Get a grip on reality.

The decisions of where to place infrastructure were due to a compilation of issues, many of which were results of racist policies (redlining for example) if you actual chose to see beyond your own nose (open your mind a bit). Redlining destroyed property values in areas like Greenwood. You can't possibly with a straight face tell me that redlining was not racist. That creates a vacuum, and yes in fact many of the crime issues and housing issues are a direct result of a combination of all these issues and that happens when you've had people actively working to destabilize that community for decades - wake up.   

Which in turn made those neighborhoods easy targets when highways were being built because they could acquire the land cheaply (same with "urban renewal" programs). Look at the Riverside Expressway as an example. If redlining and other things hadn't eroded wealth in Greenwood they would have had the money to fight 244 and possibly reroute it away from the neighborhood or get it canceled outright like residents in Maple Ridge were able to do with the Riverside Expressway.

There was no reason why 244 needed to go right through the middle of the commercial district of Greenwood. You can't with a straight face tell me that wasn't intentional either. Why couldn't it have gone a few blocks north? Or south along the railroad line. There were other routes it could have taken that would have been less impactful to Greenwood. Yet, they chose to build it where it is.. because they knew that neighborhood had very little ability to fight it and to many white planners of that time black neighborhoods were nothing but 'blight' that needed to be paved over to make it all go away. There were also plenty of poor white neighborhoods in town with crime issues (still are today too) yet none of them were ever a target of mass clearing like Greenwood was for highways, UCAT, etc.

There's nothing about that which was ok and you can bury your head in the sand if you'd like to not acknowledge what is right in front of your face. This same scenario played out everywhere in America. It's not a coincidence that wealthier (mostly white) neighborhoods like Maple Ridge were able to get freeway plans canceled while places like Greenwood were not.

Washington DC is a great example too. Most of the highways planned there that were cancelled all happened to be mostly white and more affluent areas (like NW DC up to Bethesda). Yet the only places in DC that has highways built were the SE and NE parts of DC (mostly minority neighborhoods that were redlined for decades prior). Open your eyes a bit, it doesn't make you a weak person to recognize things like that, which were mistakes our planners have made in the past, and want to try to fix those problems.