Vision Extension - IDL Removal/Demolition

[LandArchPoke]

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.
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.
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.
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. 
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.
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.
Have to agree there.
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.

You're right in that suburban growth wasn't going to be stopped even if the IDL wasn't built. However, many cities that did not have as many highways cut through their downtown have a significantly higher amount of buildings that were not demoed for parking lots. An empty building still pays more in property taxes than a large parking lot does. I do believe that if the IDL had only lead to downtown and didn't connect all the way through, we'd have a lot more of our historic buildings left. It's also a lot easier to turn a vacant building into a coffee shop or something then it is to redevelop an entire block of parking lot into a mixed use development.

I'm not saying some traffic on 75/Tisdale wouldn't be relocated. You're right that the regional travels would not take the city center route if it's a boulevard with stop lights and travel speeds around 35 MPH. The point is that those corridors are overbuilt, in that the street grid if rebuilt could actually carry every single one of those cars today too. I'm also making the point that there would not be much of an impact to locals. You can still get to and from downtown, utica square, hospitals, etc. You're just going to not be able to blow through town. That's not a bad thing. Especially if we can redevelop these areas you're not going to notice it as much if the environment you're driving through is pleasant and interesting.

With 244 we have 4 east west routes. Gilcrease loop when finished, 244, I 44, and the Creek Turnpike. There is more than enough capacity to distribute out regional traffic during non peak travel periods. The map I posted does look at traffic going south on 75, if you are coming south from say Bville and are going to Dallas - you'd exit 75 at the Gilcrease and take the loop around west to 44 and then take 44 to 75 and then proceed south on 75. You'd be talking an extra 4-5 miles to your trip by taking the Gilcrease loop around the west side versus going straight down 75 through downtown.

[Vision 2025]

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.

Wouldn't be easy nor cheap, never said it would, but you can't ignore adverse impacts elsewhere in the system nor can you ignore the cost of modifications necessary for this plan to remotely have a chance.  Lastly, lets not forget the potential of the Federal Highway trust asking for significant monies back from the recent 244 improvements and the elephant in the room brought to you by Burlington Northern Rail Road.

I've driven that route in Seattle and the one in Dallas and see no issue here with reconfiguring downtown access likewise (I still remember when the BA stopped at Utica, my family lost property to it).

My mother was from Missouri, so "show me" a dynamic/calibrated traffic model (prepared by an independent traffic engineer) of the entire system  and we'll talk, especially after the modeler tosses in a two lane accident closure on 44 and a construction/maintenance on 11 during peak times.   

[LandArchPoke]

Wouldn't be easy nor cheap, never said it would, but you can't ignore adverse impacts elsewhere in the system nor can you ignore the cost of modifications necessary for this plan to remotely have a chance.  Lastly, lets not forget the potential of the Federal Highway trust asking for significant monies back from the recent 244 improvements and the elephant in the room brought to you by Burlington Northern Rail Road.

I've driven that route in Seattle and the one in Dallas and see no issue here with reconfiguring downtown access likewise (I still remember when the BA stopped at Utica, my family lost property to it).

My mother was from Missouri, so "show me" a dynamic/calibrated traffic model (prepared by an independent traffic engineer) of the entire system  and we'll talk, especially after the modeler tosses in a two lane accident closure on 44 and a construction/maintenance on 11 during peak times.  

I'm curious - did you even watch that presentation? LOL. It seems like you just immediately went to no, never going to happen instead of just listening to the idea. They specifically mention doing traffic models. Every single thing you've mentioned was addressed there.

Also, the comp plan has identified a spur route for BNSF to help alleviate some of the train congestion through downtown. Creating a short under pass or over pass is completely realistic to avoid the rail track. I think there's probably a few examples of this downtown already but what do I know...

If there's a two lane accident at Harvard how is someone going to avoid that now, even with 244 being there? It's called life, you're just going to get stuck in traffic around accidents now and then. How does the Turner Turnpike or any other interstate function in real life if we need to have 2, 3, 4 alternatives just in case there's an accident that closes a lane temporarily? That argument makes no sense. Neither does your construction issue either. I guess we should plan to build duplicates of every corridor that exists now because heaven forbid we have to narrow a highway to repave it or something. We must have duplicate routes or the entire state will shut down. I'm pretty sure everyone manages to do alright when an interstate is under construction. You just might have to drive slower and plan to leave 10-15 minutes earlier. That doesn't justify over building redundant infrastructure. Especially for something like 244 that runs through the most valuable land in the region.

Why would you think we'd have to pay the highway trust fund back? That's ridiculous given that the money to do something like this is coming from the Federal government anyways within the highways to boulevard program - no one is going to be required to pay anything back to the same place we're getting the money from to do the project.

[LandArchPoke]

City Council has committed to doing community outreach meetings around the subject of 244 and what to do with it:

https://www.fox23.com/news/local/tulsa-city-leaders-discussing-solution-bridge-that-cuts-through-greenwood/IA5UXDE7SNFJZBCF3MFSH2VXKE/

[Red Arrow]

Assuming the I-244 part of the IDL is removed, what do "we" expect to connect to?  It looks like most of the vacant lots belong to the Tulsa Development Authority, OSU or Tulsa Public Schools.  Some of the R.O.W. could be reclaimed but I don't see it as enough land to create a business district or much housing.

https://www.assessor.tulsacounty.org/assessor-map-interactive.php

[LandArchPoke]

Assuming the I-244 part of the IDL is removed, what do "we" expect to connect to?  It looks like most of the vacant lots belong to the Tulsa Development Authority, OSU or Tulsa Public Schools.  Some of the R.O.W. could be reclaimed but I don't see it as enough land to create a business district or much housing.

https://www.assessor.tulsacounty.org/assessor-map-interactive.php

The portion of 244 between 75 and the Tisdale doesn't have to huge amount of ROW to reclaim outside of the part with the on/off ramps are at Cincinnati/Detroit. However, UCAT did give back all that area west of Detroit (or Cincinnati) to TDA. TDA does plan to RFP that in the next 12 months or so. You could do a pretty significant project in combination with that. Also, I think it'd be the right thing for OSU to give back the part of campus that is along Greenwood or work in conjunction with black developers and businesses to slowly rebuild the commercial district along Greenwood north of 244. There's no reason they need all that land. If they ever do decide to grow the campus they can do it vertically. It doesn't have to be low density 2 story buildings that take up 50 acres. They can get the same amount of space in a couple acres in 10-15 story buildings.

The scale of the proposal from the TYPROS group was about 150-200 acres of right of way when you include 244 all the way to Kendall Whittier along with 75 and the Tisdale. That type of scale you could do a lot with like thousands of housing units and a good amount of commercial space on the ground level. That's another reason why looking at more than just 244 would be a good thing too - to make a project worth while we might as well get the scale right. If the boulevard option and full removal (no tunnel of 244) ends up being the best options we might as well remove as much as possible. No reason not to go all the way out to Lewis or beyond and to at least Gilcrease Museum Road to the west. 

Rebuilding the 75 corridor as well would open up the Evans site for a much better development. That's one of the biggest reasons many of the other development proposals died there, retails hate that site because it has horrific accessibility from the highways around it. Sure the visibility is good, but visibility means nothing if no one can get to it either. The Nordam site would become that much more attractive for a large scale redevelopment too, you could extend the 3rd Street commercial corridor and connect it in with the Pearl District. You could also have a better connection on 11th/Route 66 and Home Depot site becomes desirable for redevelopment. Have the city work with Home Depot to build a mixed-use urban store format, there's several examples of this that have been successful in other cities. Possibly could then bring in other retailers like an urban Target, etc. Connecting downtown better with areas to the east and south would make retail in that portion of downtown more desirable given it's adjacent to Maple Ridge - I'm sure many people in Midtown would rather shop at a new Target downtown than they would going to Tulsa Hills or the ancient stores at 21st & Yale. Just needs to be urban format, no more big box suburban formats downtown.

Something like Metropolitan in Charlotte would go great at 11th and along the reclaimed ROW in that area.

https://www.metropolitanclt.com

https://goo.gl/maps/YxbvXyrL1wcMR9LA8

[ELG4America]

It seems pretty unlikely that removal of 244 East of US-75(I-444) would be approved. Such a change would cause a major change to the current flow of traffic in Tulsa. While I personally would love to have a city without highways and instead the same amount of money spent on mass transit and higher density, that's basically me saying I wish 1920's Tulsa had made better decisions. Its just not the status quo in Tulsa.

What I think is a reasonable and achievable near term project that could conceivably receive federal funding is:
1. Remove I-244 from US-412 to US-75
2. Rebuild and Cap US-75/I-444 from E 8th South to E Archer with a new highway entrance/exit at "new" Admiral Blvd. (could switch to Edison West of N. Main.)
3. Rebuild and Cap (if possible) the I-244 - US-75/I-444 interchange all the way to Peoria
4. Rebuild the US-412, I-244, L.L. Tisdale Pkwy interchange to shrink and simplify it, or:
5. (phase II) Convert the L.L. Tisdale Pkwy to an at grade boulevard, from Edison to Pine reconnect the street grid and introduce a mixed use zoning code for the recovered property
6. (phase III) Cap I-444/B.A. Expressway from S. Denver to S. Cincinnati and build a retail highway cap on both sides of S. Peoria
7. (phase IV) Build retail highway cap on both sides of N. Lewis at I-244

My back-of-the napkin, total-guess project cost estimate is $700 million - $1.2 billion based on the I-40 realignment in OKC ($360 million) and Klyde Warren Park in Dallas ($110 million.) This would include the costs of removal, construction of boulevards and streets as well as some redevelopment money, mostly spent on new public amenities (read: parks.)

Here's what I like about this proposal:

A. It maintains all the basic functionality of our current highway network. If people still want to loop through downtown they can. This is really good for someone going from say Sand Springs to Broken Arrow. Remember, "passthrough" traffic is not necessarily just a Semi going from St. Louis to Amarillo.
B. It provides for connecting 3 of the 4 outer downtown neighborhoods to inner downtown. Greenwood in particular would become the hottest development ready land in Oklahoma and would maintain excellent highway access.
C. It injects federal money to fix what federal money screwed up and does it in the areas that are already growing from local efforts rather than chasing a growth fantasy in a currently depressed area.



Here's what it doesn't do:
1. Build Mass Transit
2. Rebuild destroyed businesses
3. Resurrect communities that are largely dead

Remember throughout this debate what an highway infrastructure proposal, however well planned and intentioned, can and cannot do.

I'd love to hear thoughts and critiques, I have a lot of ideas about how individual areas could be developed to best build off this proposal.

[LandArchPoke]

It seems pretty unlikely that removal of 244 East of US-75(I-444) would be approved. Such a change would cause a major change to the current flow of traffic in Tulsa. While I personally would love to have a city without highways and instead the same amount of money spent on mass transit and higher density, that's basically me saying I wish 1920's Tulsa had made better decisions. Its just not the status quo in Tulsa.

What I think is a reasonable and achievable near term project that could conceivably receive federal funding is:
1. Remove I-244 from US-412 to US-75
2. Rebuild and Cap US-75/I-444 from E 8th South to E Archer with a new highway entrance/exit at "new" Admiral Blvd. (could switch to Edison West of N. Main.)
3. Rebuild and Cap (if possible) the I-244 - US-75/I-444 interchange all the way to Peoria
4. Rebuild the US-412, I-244, L.L. Tisdale Pkwy interchange to shrink and simplify it, or:
5. (phase II) Convert the L.L. Tisdale Pkwy to an at grade boulevard, from Edison to Pine reconnect the street grid and introduce a mixed use zoning code for the recovered property
6. (phase III) Cap I-444/B.A. Expressway from S. Denver to S. Cincinnati and build a retail highway cap on both sides of S. Peoria
7. (phase IV) Build retail highway cap on both sides of N. Lewis at I-244

My back-of-the napkin, total-guess project cost estimate is $700 million - $1.2 billion based on the I-40 realignment in OKC ($360 million) and Klyde Warren Park in Dallas ($110 million.) This would include the costs of removal, construction of boulevards and streets as well as some redevelopment money, mostly spent on new public amenities (read: parks.)

Here's what I like about this proposal:

A. It maintains all the basic functionality of our current highway network. If people still want to loop through downtown they can. This is really good for someone going from say Sand Springs to Broken Arrow. Remember, "passthrough" traffic is not necessarily just a Semi going from St. Louis to Amarillo.
B. It provides for connecting 3 of the 4 outer downtown neighborhoods to inner downtown. Greenwood in particular would become the hottest development ready land in Oklahoma and would maintain excellent highway access.
C. It injects federal money to fix what federal money screwed up and does it in the areas that are already growing from local efforts rather than chasing a growth fantasy in a currently depressed area.



Here's what it doesn't do:
1. Build Mass Transit
2. Rebuild destroyed businesses
3. Resurrect communities that are largely dead

Remember throughout this debate what an highway infrastructure proposal, however well planned and intentioned, can and cannot do.

I'd love to hear thoughts and critiques, I have a lot of ideas about how individual areas could be developed to best build off this proposal.

Honestly at this point I'm putting the odds at more likely to see something happen than not. I really never thought I'd see the day, but there is a very real movement going on right now. The city council is fully on board to hold public hearings in the next few months to get feedback from descendants and community members on what shape the project should take. In the last council meeting when they announced they would be doing these meetings, the tone wasn't really a question of if it should be done - but what the project should look like (rebuild it in a tunnel, full removal and street grid rebuild, etc). Several council members (I've heard GKFF and others as well) have been in discussions with Pete Buttigieg and other federal officials. He will likely be making a visit at some point this year to tour 244 and surrounding areas.

The only thing that could possibly derail it is if the highways to boulevard initiative in the infrastructure bill is cut out. I haven't seen anything to suggest it will, because even in some of the debates Republicans haven't voiced much opposition to it. The only debate I've seen about it is who controls the money (Repubs want it to be state driven of course and Dems want the federal DOT to have control of the funds). I believe there will be in the range of $10-20 billion set aside for projects just like this (it will depend on which version of the bill is passed whether it's the scaled down 'bi-partisan' one of the Democrats one). Tulsa is at the very top of the list to receive funding given the race massacre centennial - doing something here would be something for the Biden administration to campaign over. Whether people like it or not, that's usually what anything political boils down to.

So, if the city leaders want this to happen it will, and there will be federal funding available dedicated specifically for projects like this soon which is the game changer. The road block to projects like this has always been funding and the federal DOT on board, that will no longer be an issue. I don't see any indication yet that anyone on the council is willing to say no and I don't think GT would go against the council on something like this. It would be a political disaster for him if he did.    

[Red Arrow]

While I personally would love to have a city without highways and instead the same amount of money spent on mass transit and higher density, that's basically me saying I wish 1920's Tulsa had made better decisions. Its just not the status quo in Tulsa.

Tulsa had trolleys until the 1930s when the city was converted to buses. 

Michael Bates made a map of the trolley lines in 2009 in response to discussions on this forum.
http://www.batesline.com/archives/2009/12/tulsa-streetcar-and-interurban-l.html

[Vision 2025]

LAP,  Yes I have watched the presentation (twice now) and it is well put together but admittedly it lacks any true traffic study data as confirmed in response to question asked during the original Zoom (not by me).  

[patric]

At least put up I-444 signage to placate those arguing that we wont have a thru interstate when the Greenwod leg of 244 is tweaked.

[LandArchPoke]

LAP,  Yes I have watched the presentation (twice now) and it is well put together but admittedly it lacks any true traffic study data as confirmed in response to question asked during the original Zoom (not by me).  

Just a bit surprised at your reaction then if you actually watched the presentation. There's plenty of reasoning behind why this is a perfectly valid idea to look into. No where in that presentation did they claim to have traffic studies but there's evidence all over the place that point into the feasibility of this project from a traffic standpoint as well. Examples of other similar projects done elsewhere and examples of similar city streets in Tulsa that carry more traffic than several of the portions of the IDL. They even specifically said traffic studies should be completed.

The fact that even if it did happen to cause traffic congestion to increase just slightly - that isn't enough of a reason to not do a project like this either. It is way past time as a city (and country) start building cities economically sustainable and also look at ways to fix economic injustices of the past like building highways through black and other minority neighborhoods. I don't understand how anyone could see it as a bad idea to build back community wealth - I mean serious how can you legitimately oppose a proposal like that because your drive might take 10 minutes instead of 8 - maybe think beyond yourself and what is for the collective good of the city? That certainly isn't making sure we have 3-4 duplicated routes in the event we have a car crash on one of them... come on now. 

If we can increase income, health, education, home ownership, etc. in areas of the city like North Tulsa it will benefit everyone far, far beyond a minor negative of you (possibly) having to sit in traffic once or twice a year because an accident happened on I-44 and a handful of people couldn't divert to I-244 or some other ridiculous reasoning behind the 'traffic' argument. If we can do the above, we will significantly reduce crime for example, which means we'll need less police and less costs related to jails, courts, etc. and that is a net benefit to every person who pays taxes locally. It also would significantly increase density in our core which means more people paying for upkeep of roads, schools, etc. and again is a net benefit to every single person when we can more efficiently pay for vital services in our city. The irrational fear of 1 or 2 "traffic jams" a year is not a valid reason to oppose an idea like this given the wide ranging benefits of a project like this could have for many people. 

[heironymouspasparagus]

Tulsa had trolleys until the 1930s when the city was converted to buses. 

Michael Bates made a map of the trolley lines in 2009 in response to discussions on this forum.
http://www.batesline.com/archives/2009/12/tulsa-streetcar-and-interurban-l.html

I rode Tulsa trolleys in 1957.  One went right in front of the house at 800 block of North Harvard.  The grassy area in middle of the street is where there were rails - and the electric lines were on poles running down that middle area.  Probably still buried under there.   We have old home movies of everyone getting onto the trolley.

That map link does not show all of the lines that used to be in place.

[Red Arrow]

I rode Tulsa trolleys in 1957.  One went right in front of the house at 800 block of North Harvard.  The grassy area in middle of the street is where there were rails - and the electric lines were on poles running down that middle area.  Probably still buried under there.   We have old home movies of everyone getting onto the trolley.

That map link does not show all of the lines that used to be in place.

Like this?
https://goo.gl/maps/GWNV3uUwwKqrkyXu7

We have discussed this in the past. I wish you could find some pictures.

[heironymouspasparagus]

Like this?
https://goo.gl/maps/GWNV3uUwwKqrkyXu7

We have discussed this in the past. I wish you could find some pictures.

Exactly like that!  Only a couple doors away.   I have some old home movies that I am slowly scanning - one shows Mom and two kids getting onto the trolley one day.  Am also going through about 450 lbs of old family photos and I know there are some pics of the place in that, IIRC with the trolley hardware shown in the background.  I just took possession of the archives about 3 months ago or so.  Probably 15-20 thousand pics in all.!  Most loose, but about 60 large photo albums!  And one hanging family record "picture" started in about 1875.   Geez...  This takes way more time than I expected at the beginning - a 7" reel of 8mm film takes about 4 hours to digitize!   But they turn out as good as the film can possibly be, so very pleased with that!

And a 1950 Ford we had at the time.  Dad had gotten rid of the 47 Pontiac (yellow) by that time.   He circled back around in 1966 and bought another yellow Pontiac, though.

Couple of interesting highlights in film so far - several minutes of Air Force uncle who was killed a couple months later in test plane incident in San Diego.  He survived WWII and Korea as fighter pilot just to be brought down by some prototype guidance hardware on a test jet!   I met him, but don't really remember him.

And there is a drive by moment of trip through Louisiana at harvest season - showing people out in a cotton field picking cotton, dragging the long bags behind them.  Another showing sugar cane being cut by hand, and close to a field where it is being cut by one of those new-fangled harvesting machines!.   Some kind of combine mower.