Vision Extension - IDL Removal/Demolition

[heironymouspasparagus]

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

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

Found a little 5 second movie clip of family getting off the N Harvard trolley in about 1954.  Ragged looking old trolley car.  City didn't do any better maintenance on infrastructure then, compared to now.  Trying to extract (I am very clumsy at video editing.)  Then gotta figure out how to post pics here.  Maybe will just take a still shot...

Also, have found nothing at 11th and Yale yet.   I can sympathize with Library of Congress people - but they get paid to do this!

[dbacksfan 2.0]

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.

Gaslighting my a$$. From the mouth of the Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg in April of this year:

Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg has claimed racism is built into the very infrastructure of America - in its highways.

'There is racism physically built into some of our highways, and that's why the jobs plan has specifically committed to reconnect some of the communities that were divided by these dollars,' Buttigieg said to theGrio last week while referring to the racism as a 'conscious choice.'

But Republicans were quick to mock Buttigieg and blast him for his comments about the highway system.

'Highways are not racist,' embattled Rep. Matt Gaetz said on Sunday, while the Young America's Foundation tweeted: 'This is not parody.'

In the past, some city planners targeted black communities by building highways through them or using them to keep an area segregated.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/pete-buttigieg-claims-racism-physically-built-into-us-highways/ar-BB1fD8Bh

https://thegrio.com/2021/04/06/pete-buttigieg-racism-us-infrastructure/

https://www.wxxinews.org/post/connections-discussing-racism-american-infrastructure

[LandArchPoke]

Gaslighting my a$$. From the mouth of the Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg in April of this year:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/pete-buttigieg-claims-racism-physically-built-into-us-highways/ar-BB1fD8Bh

https://thegrio.com/2021/04/06/pete-buttigieg-racism-us-infrastructure/

https://www.wxxinews.org/post/connections-discussing-racism-american-infrastructure

When you say a piece of concrete, etc. is racist you are gaslighting just like your pal Matt Gaetz in those stories. Everyone knows a highway has no ability to think, etc. You are trying to demean and distract from the reality of what actual happened and is still occurring.

The placement of infrastructure by human decisions has been and still can be racist. If you can't figure out the difference between that I don't know what to tell you. That's exactly what Buttigieg is saying in all your links you just posted.

The fact that I-244 had to cut through the middle of Greenwood's business district was not by accident. Just like urban highway alignments all over other US cities that destroyed black business districts and neighborhoods wasn't a coincidence. Before highways, it was railroads. Redlining led up to highway construction that destroyed property values in these areas and allowed DOT's to use eminent domain to acquire land to do these projects well below what they should have been worth. There's decades and multiple things that led up to all of this and many of those things were issues of racism and wanting to destroy black neighborhoods that had any amount of success.   

[LandArchPoke]

US-412 is being upgraded to an interstate so through traffic downtown is going to have to be maintained for both the new interstate designation and I-244.

The north leg could be converted to a surface street, but because of the railroad on the east side of I-244 on the IDL and the 244/412/Tisdale interchange on the west side at best you could get an at level boulevard from Detroit to Boulder. You would get maybe four whole blocks of at at level street at a cost I am sure north of $100 million.  Anything more would take redoing the interchanges on the east and west of the north leg at $250-300 million each. If you really want to remove the whole north leg you are looking at a cost approaching a billion dollars in a state that can't maintain highways. And you would be removing a highway that was just completely rebuilt.

I get wanting to do this, I am sympathetic, but Greenwood's commercial district downtown is already completely gentrified and is not ever going to be a new version of Black Wall Street. Half a billion or so in development the last decade has killed that idea.

Also to me the I-244 bridge over Greenwood is an important monument/example of the 60s/70s era destruction of the second iteration of Black Wall Street.

The 412 upgrade could actually be beneficial to this project, what is being purposed is to make the Gilcrease loop the new interstate versus it be the current 244/412 through downtown. That would allow the NW portion of the Gilcrease to be completed to interstate standards.

The costs would not be nearly what you think. Yale between 81st & 91st is going to cost around $30 million for a mile of city street with significant right of way acquisitions and terrain issues. To rebuild the street grid would not be as expensive as you think. That's part of the problem with US infrastructure and highways in general is if we actually looked at the cost feasibility of them like we do mass transit we'd probably never build a highway again and would decommission many of the ones that exist now. 

I've actually hear other people say something about that bridge similar but people in Greenwood and north Tulsa do not agree with the bridge being an important monument keep... some monuments are just not worth keeping. It's a symbol of the destruction of a neighborhood and a more powerful symbol would be the decommissioning of the highway and returning the land back to the community to rebuild parts of the neighborhood that used to be there. There's ways to do this too without it being more gentrification too through land trusts, community development corporation, etc. We just need the political and community will to actually do it and there seems to be a lot of momentum behind it currently.

The Kirkpatrick Heights plan underway has the ability to set the example of how this could be done and there's a lot of discussions already underway about it:

https://www.ourlegacytulsa.org/

[LandArchPoke]

I know that there are too many highways in general, and I am on board with removing parts of the IDL, but what is shown in that graphic is so beyond what anyone has asked for that it just seems bizarre to me. The idea of funneling regional traffic around the edges of the city sounds appealing, but we already have the Creek Turnpike and I44... Gilcrease might help with the north-south truck traffic, but I'm mainly concerned about the ability for thousands of downtown workers to move in and out efficiently with no mass transport system. Not to mention the oft-mentioned concerts, conventions, events, and general downtown traffic from dummies like me who go there to hang out all the time. I don't think regional through-traffic is really the issue.

Congestion IS a killer. It's why we have such a suburb culture throughout the country. Many of those cities are painful to live in, with people spending much of their lives commuting and dealing with congestion headaches. At least they have mass transit systems though, not to mention much more density than we have. Highways may have been given too much precedent, but they serve people too and it's not always a binary choice between highways and "people". People do what they can in many of those cities because they have to. Don't have much choice in NYC or DC because those are international hubs of business and government. Tulsa is Tulsa. If we had that type of congestion people would leave this city so fast that congestion wouldn't be an issue for long.

It's also worth noting that this plan essentially still calls for building more highways, but just pushing them out into ever expansive "rings", which is where sprawl really explodes. Look at how BA has sprawled out to fill in the Creek Turnpike void. Soon East Tulsa will sprawl out there too, once they can build enough sewer and water lines to accommodate all the developments that have been proposed. I know of many developers just chomping at the bit to fill up every space that can be served by a highway.

I think lowering and capping large sections of the east side of the IDL would be a better solution. Still very expensive, but something that could be done iteratively. There are already proposals to cap some of the south side. Maybe someday we'll just have a whole network of underground car pipelines around the central part of the city. 

You'd be surprised how many of the downtown workers access downtown via the IDL - 11th Street for example has almost as many people access downtown daily as does the Cincinatti/Detroit on and off ramps. Together that Cincinatti/Detroit have a total of 13,256 with around 3,000 of those use the Cincinnati ramp to access Maple Ridge. So only 10,000 use that to get on and off the BA which is the biggest downtown commuter corridor that is a highway to downtown. 11th Street has 12,011 cars per day at the Gunboat Park/Home Depot intersection.

Another example is the Denver exit on the BA. There's only 5,253 that exit there daily based on INCOG traffic counts. Denver has 5,630 cars per day access downtown from 15th Street. Cheyenne at the BA has 4,513 cars enter/exit downtown daily. Boulder has 6,657 daily enter/exit downtown. Main has 8,039 daily. Boston has 8,852 daily. 13th Street has 3,558 daily enter/exit downtown.

So for our heaviest highway corridor for commuter traffic into downtown for workers, way more people still access downtown through our street grid from Midtown/South than the highway system.

You have somewhere around 30,000 cars per day enter/exit downtown via the BA whether it's at Houston, Denver, or Detroit/Cincinnati but you have around 35,000-40,000 cars per day access via Houston, Denver, Cheyenne, Boulder, Main, and Boston on city streets. That's the beauty and efficiency of a street grid because none of those street have any semblance of congestions going north/south.

For example on 244 you have 17,124 enter/exit on 1st & 2nd Street just west of the on/off ramps to 244 with around 6,000 of those accessing 1st & 2nd via Admiral/1st not from 244. Yet 3rd Street has 5,427 cars per day, 4th has 4,486 per day, and 4,406 via Archer. You have more people accessing downtown via city streets there than from 244. This is true of every highway in and out of downtown.

The impact on commuters would be far less than people think, especially when you are able to rebuild the street grid completely.

[swake]

The 412 upgrade could actually be beneficial to this project, what is being purposed is to make the Gilcrease loop the new interstate versus it be the current 244/412 through downtown. That would allow the NW portion of the Gilcrease to be completed to interstate standards.

The costs would not be nearly what you think. Yale between 81st & 91st is going to cost around $30 million for a mile of city street with significant right of way acquisitions and terrain issues. To rebuild the street grid would not be as expensive as you think. That's part of the problem with US infrastructure and highways in general is if we actually looked at the cost feasibility of them like we do mass transit we'd probably never build a highway again and would decommission many of the ones that exist now. 

I've actually hear other people say something about that bridge similar but people in Greenwood and north Tulsa do not agree with the bridge being an important monument keep... some monuments are just not worth keeping. It's a symbol of the destruction of a neighborhood and a more powerful symbol would be the decommissioning of the highway and returning the land back to the community to rebuild parts of the neighborhood that used to be there. There's ways to do this too without it being more gentrification too through land trusts, community development corporation, etc. We just need the political and community will to actually do it and there seems to be a lot of momentum behind it currently.

The Kirkpatrick Heights plan underway has the ability to set the example of how this could be done and there's a lot of discussions already underway about it:

https://www.ourlegacytulsa.org/

The Gilcrease south loop under construction now is 5.5 miles long and is costing $330 million dollars. That cost does include expensive river bridges that would not be needed for a NW loop, but, that NW loop would need TWO very expensive expressway interchanges (at Tisdale) and at US-412/Gilcrease. The US-75/I-44 interchange under construction now has a budget of $360 million as a comparison.

The NW loop would also be about five miles long so at that length with interchanges you are looking at the cost way over the $330 million being spent on the south loop now. You are probably looking at a cost of over half a billion dollars to upgrade that loop to interstate standards to reroute 412 alone. And that's on top of the needed spend downtown, whatever that may be.

[LandArchPoke]

The Gilcrease south loop under construction now is 5.5 miles long and is costing $330 million dollars. That cost does include expensive river bridges that would not be needed for a NW loop, but, that NW loop would need TWO very expensive expressway interchanges (at Tisdale) and at US-412/Gilcrease. The US-75/I-44 interchange under construction now has a budget of $360 million as a comparison.

The NW loop would also be about five miles long so at that length with interchanges you are looking at the cost way over the $330 million being spent on the south loop now. You are probably looking at a cost of over half a billion dollars to upgrade that loop to interstate standards to reroute 412 alone. And that's on top of the needed spend downtown, whatever that may be.

To finish the NW portion you probably are talking $200-250 million. One advantage is all of the right-of-way exists which can be a significant cost hurdle. It's also essentially shovel ready which would make it a good candidate for funding in the infrastructure bill if it's ever passed. The Gilcrease loop will be completed at some point and the question is do we utilize it to benefit the region or have it built and let it be a highway that just rots and is rarely used? The city has been hellbent to build it for decades.

Finishing it and designating it the new interstate could be a huge win-win for everyone. The new boulevard would service the local traffic while opening a ton of land for redevelopment and suddenly you have 40-50k cars that's the regional traffic taking the Gilcrease with 244 rebuilt as a boulevard. You'd drive demand for more retail and service business in NW Tulsa that is non existent today and would remain that way if 244 stays and the NW loop is completed. The NW loop would have very little demand, just like the SW loop does, because it's still slightly more convenient for regional traffic to funnel through the IDL. That's the reason the turnpike authority would not pay for the SW portion of the Gilcrease, but was willing to use special federal financing to do it because the traffic studies showed the SW loop would not be able to service the debt needed to build it. All it would do is add a couple minutes to someone's drive from Arkansas to I-35 or Bartlesville to I-40 to not be able to take a freeway directly through our downtown area and instead take a loop around the city.

[SXSW]

I've always thought the Gilcrease loop was more of a real estate ploy like Creek South Loop.  With the growth of downtown there is more demand for nearby residential neighborhoods. 

[Red Arrow]

I am not holding my breath but I am still waiting for a light rail/(real) trolley to give me a way to downtown Tulsa from Bixby north of the river.  By the time I drive a car, pay for parking ..... a reasonable trolley cost would be attractive.  I don't want to ride no stinking diesel bus.   Exclusive ROW, maybe along the river, would be excellent.  As much as I prefer an electric street car over a bus, dedicated ROW is even better.  It's much like I grew up with in suburban Phila, PA.  Hop the trolley and you are there.

[Red Arrow]

I've always thought the Gilcrease loop was more of a real estate ploy like Creek South Loop.  With the growth of downtown there is more demand for nearby residential neighborhoods. 

Eventually, you will run out of nearby residential neighborhoods. The city limits of Phila, PA cannot possibly hold the population of the metropolitan area.  Suburbs are inevitable.  Suburbs were originally for the really rich folks until public transit was available.  The difference is that places like Phila suburbs were developed before the automobile was readily available.  Tulsa grew up during the era of the automotible.  I don't know how to "fix" that without huge infusions of $.

[tulsabug]

Found a little 5 second movie clip of family getting off the N Harvard trolley in about 1954.  Ragged looking old trolley car.  City didn't do any better maintenance on infrastructure then, compared to now.  Trying to extract (I am very clumsy at video editing.)  Then gotta figure out how to post pics here.  Maybe will just take a still shot...

Also, have found nothing at 11th and Yale yet.   I can sympathize with Library of Congress people - but they get paid to do this!

I appreciate you checking. I'm kicking around starting a new thread that is old Tulsa pic from Beryl Ford or wherever compared to the current streetview. Comparisons where today it's just a parking lot should be the most fun!  

[Red Arrow]

I appreciate you checking. I'm kicking around starting a new thread that is old Tulsa pic from Beryl Ford or wherever compared to the current streetview. Comparisons where today it's just a parking lot should be the most fun!  

Good idea, go for it.  I'd like to see the pictures too.

I wish I had some pictures to contribute.

[heironymouspasparagus]

I appreciate you checking. I'm kicking around starting a new thread that is old Tulsa pic from Beryl Ford or wherever compared to the current streetview. Comparisons where today it's just a parking lot should be the most fun!  

Let me know when/if you do.  I also found an old pic of Golden Drumstick that I picked up somewhere along the line - not my pic.  I remember going there quite a bit to eat, though, and it looked the same.

[tulsabug]

Let me know when/if you do.  I also found an old pic of Golden Drumstick that I picked up somewhere along the line - not my pic.  I remember going there quite a bit to eat, though, and it looked the same.

There are quite a few pics of the Golden Drumstick especially on post cards. I did finally start that thread - can't say how often I'll update it but it is fun to do. If only Google maps had been a thing for the past 100 years!

http://www.tulsanow.org/forum/index.php?topic=21936.0

[DowntownDan]

This was in the infrastructure bill. I assume I-244 through Greenwood will be included? Biden mentioned it specifically on his visit. I wonder what the timeline is for planning and completion.

"And it contains $1 billion to reconnect communities -- mainly disproportionately Black neighborhoods -- that were divided by highways and other infrastructure, according to the White House. It will fund planning, design, demolition and reconstruction of street grids, parks or other infrastructure."