Now they're talking about tearing down I-244 in downtown Tulsa

[dvferyance]

I thought most of I-244 is slated to be a part of that new interstate along the US 412 corridor presumably I-46. US 412 duplexes with I-244 for about 2/3rds of it's length. Are you sure it's not the secret/hidden I-444?

[swake]

I thought most of I-244 is slated to be a part of that new interstate along the US 412 corridor presumably I-46. US 412 duplexes with I-244 for about 2/3rds of it's length. Are you sure it's not the secret/hidden I-444?

This argument is about removing the north leg of the Inner Dispersal Loop (IDL). I-244 is the north and west legs of the IDL, I-444 is the unsigned on the east and south legs of the IDL.

[triplemultiplex]

For argument's sake:

[Bobby5280]

Ehhh, no. I don't really like it. That's just my opinion though. I think US-412 needs to continue being a straight, thru route.

[skluth]

For argument's sake:

It might work with a new freeway going west from the NW point of the Gilcrease Expressway to somewhere around the Leroy Road exit which also solves the Diamond Head Drive intersection problem. But I would only tear down the Greenwood section and leave I-444 intact. However, that's not going to happen so it's probably best just to leave it as it is. It might be possible to trench I-244 west of Detroit Ave to Tisdale Parkway and put a cover over part of it. The MLK ramps would be lost but I doubt that would be a major problem.

I still believe the No Build option (leave as is) is best.

[swake]

For argument's sake:

This would be awful. The traffic counts on these highways certainly show that most traffic on the loop is going through downtown, not to downtown. And you go further and take out not just the north leg, but the east and south legs as well. This shows you have never been to Tulsa. The south leg is a below grade highway that there has been talk of capping, but never removing.

The north leg of the Inner Dispersal Loop carries 63,000 cars a day. The single exit into downtown on this leg only carries 10,600 cars a day.

The east leg, which carries 33,000 cars per day, the only exit on this leg has incomplete data, but about 12,000 cars per day.

The south leg carries 46,000 cars per day, the two exits on this carry 18,200 cars per day.

You would remove three legs that carry a combined 142,000 cars per day and remove exits that carry 30,800 cars per day. The only leg you would keep has terrible access from the downtown core to it's exits as they are buried behind Tulsa's arena, convention center and the OSU Medical Center.

You have effectively cut midtown off from much of the city. Worse, you have made travel to 3 of Tulsa's 4 largest hospitals much more difficult and made travel to the northside, which is an impoverished area, almost completely dependent on toll roads. You have made east/west travel through Tulsa dependent on the Gilcrease, which is a 4 lane highway loop around the north side and partially a toll road in place of the Crosstown Exp (I-244) which is a direct connection 8 lane highway.

[Henry]

For argument's sake:

It might work with a new freeway going west from the NW point of the Gilcrease Expressway to somewhere around the Leroy Road exit which also solves the Diamond Head Drive intersection problem. But I would only tear down the Greenwood section and leave I-444 intact. However, that's not going to happen so it's probably best just to leave it as it is. It might be possible to trench I-244 west of Detroit Ave to Tisdale Parkway and put a cover over part of it. The MLK ramps would be lost but I doubt that would be a major problem.

I still believe the No Build option (leave as is) is best.

I like the idea of trenching I-244 like they did I-70 in Denver. Even if that doesn't happen, I'd prefer that downtown Tulsa has complete freeway access like it does now, because to remove it would create a nightmarish scenario that will make the New Urbanists wonder if it really was worth it. (Short answer: No, it's not.)

[vdeane]

Even if that doesn't happen, I'd prefer that downtown Tulsa has complete freeway access like it does now, because to remove it would create a nightmarish scenario that will make the New Urbanists wonder if it really was worth it. (Short answer: No, it's not.)

No, it wouldn't.  New Urbanists love congestion.  Just look at the wailing surrounding NYC considering restoring six lanes on the BQE, never mind that the current four-lane configuration has seemingly failed to reduce usage as they claimed it would and has resulted in the road being a parking lot essentially all the time, even early on a Sunday morning.

(personal opinion)

[triplemultiplex]

Thing is, plenty of cities bigger than Tulsa get by just fine with fewer freeways in their core.
Obviously the map is hyperbolic in its scope, but if that's the freeway network Tulsa built 60 years ago, no one would bat an eye about it today.

Tulsa is never going to be taking the lead on a such a drastic infrastructure overhaul, so you can relax.  I'm struck by how much surface area inside the IDL is devoted to surface parking lots.  I think I counted 20 entire city blocks that are just surface lots.  Plus many, many more partial blocks covered by parking and parking garages, so it's clear where the demand lays in that city for urban land use.  Actual freeway removal in central Tulsa would probably just result in more moonscapes of parking lots and undeveloped parcels.
At least for now.  Who knows what the future will hold?

[Bobby5280]

Thing is, plenty of cities bigger than Tulsa get by just fine with fewer freeways in their core.

Those bigger cities typically have subway/light rail networks and even regional passenger rail service. Tulsa isn't quite big enough a city to make mass transit rail cost effective. Tulsa will remain very dependent on automobile travel well into the future.

Also, most bigger American cities do have quite a bit of super highway connections in their core. Downtown freeway removals haven't become all that common so far.

[rte66man]

...I'm struck by how much surface area inside the IDL is devoted to surface parking lots.  I think I counted 20 entire city blocks that are just surface lots.  Plus many, many more partial blocks covered by parking and parking garages, so it's clear where the demand lays in that city for urban land use.  Actual freeway removal in central Tulsa would probably just result in more moonscapes of parking lots and undeveloped parcels...

Many, if not most, of those surface lots are being held by developers for future buildouts. If you concentrate on the true 'core' downtown area (1st St, Detroit, 7th St, Denver), you see very few parking lots as the land was too valuable to leave as parking. The outer areas are getting there.

[swake]

...I'm struck by how much surface area inside the IDL is devoted to surface parking lots.  I think I counted 20 entire city blocks that are just surface lots.  Plus many, many more partial blocks covered by parking and parking garages, so it's clear where the demand lays in that city for urban land use.  Actual freeway removal in central Tulsa would probably just result in more moonscapes of parking lots and undeveloped parcels...

Many, if not most, of those surface lots are being held by developers for future buildouts. If you concentrate on the true 'core' downtown area (1st St, Detroit, 7th St, Denver), you see very few parking lots as the land was too valuable to leave as parking. The outer areas are getting there.

The Google Maps photos are more than five years old and most of the empty/under used lots in the north and east ends of downtown are gone. There are seven full blocks on the north side that have been developed in that time that don't show on Google with three more about to be developed. On the east side one block has been developed, two more are under construction and another is about to start construction.

The south side still has quite a large crater of parking. Most of that parking is owned by the large churches in the area or Tulsa Community College and is not for sale.

[triplemultiplex]

That's good progress.  Keep it up, Tulsa!

[Stephane Dumas]

...I'm struck by how much surface area inside the IDL is devoted to surface parking lots.  I think I counted 20 entire city blocks that are just surface lots.  Plus many, many more partial blocks covered by parking and parking garages, so it's clear where the demand lays in that city for urban land use.  Actual freeway removal in central Tulsa would probably just result in more moonscapes of parking lots and undeveloped parcels...

Many, if not most, of those surface lots are being held by developers for future buildouts. If you concentrate on the true 'core' downtown area (1st St, Detroit, 7th St, Denver), you see very few parking lots as the land was too valuable to leave as parking. The outer areas are getting there.

The Google Maps photos are more than five years old and most of the empty/under used lots in the north and east ends of downtown are gone. There are seven full blocks on the north side that have been developed in that time that don't show on Google with three more about to be developed. On the east side one block has been developed, two more are under construction and another is about to start construction.

The south side still has quite a large crater of parking. Most of that parking is owned by the large churches in the area or Tulsa Community College and is not for sale.

I guess the satellite shots on Bing Maps is also as old as the Google one? https://www.bing.com/maps?osid=9abc56de-a403-4b0a-8977-c238d314602a&cp=36.153352~-96.001623&lvl=15&style=a&imgid=3635cd20-efd4-4a3e-b907-b66aa2041024&v=2&sV=2&form=S00027

[swake]

...I'm struck by how much surface area inside the IDL is devoted to surface parking lots.  I think I counted 20 entire city blocks that are just surface lots.  Plus many, many more partial blocks covered by parking and parking garages, so it's clear where the demand lays in that city for urban land use.  Actual freeway removal in central Tulsa would probably just result in more moonscapes of parking lots and undeveloped parcels...

Many, if not most, of those surface lots are being held by developers for future buildouts. If you concentrate on the true 'core' downtown area (1st St, Detroit, 7th St, Denver), you see very few parking lots as the land was too valuable to leave as parking. The outer areas are getting there.

The Google Maps photos are more than five years old and most of the empty/under used lots in the north and east ends of downtown are gone. There are seven full blocks on the north side that have been developed in that time that don't show on Google with three more about to be developed. On the east side one block has been developed, two more are under construction and another is about to start construction.

The south side still has quite a large crater of parking. Most of that parking is owned by the large churches in the area or Tulsa Community College and is not for sale.

I guess the satellite shots on Bing Maps is also as old as the Google one? https://www.bing.com/maps?osid=9abc56de-a403-4b0a-8977-c238d314602a&cp=36.153352~-96.001623&lvl=15&style=a&imgid=3635cd20-efd4-4a3e-b907-b66aa2041024&v=2&sV=2&form=S00027

No, those are much newer, probably in the last year. Look at the area around the baseball stadium or the area across the railroad tracks north of the arena. Lots of infill.

[DJStephens]

Even if that doesn't happen, I'd prefer that downtown Tulsa has complete freeway access like it does now, because to remove it would create a nightmarish scenario that will make the New Urbanists wonder if it really was worth it. (Short answer: No, it's not.)

No, it wouldn't.  New Urbanists love congestion.  Just look at the wailing surrounding NYC considering restoring six lanes on the BQE, never mind that the current four-lane configuration has seemingly failed to reduce usage as they claimed it would and has resulted in the road being a parking lot essentially all the time, even early on a Sunday morning.

(personal opinion)

The BQE, and the Gowanus should have been put underground decades ago.  Largely as "cut and cover" jobs.  Believe that there were proposals to bury the Gowanus, running into multiple Billions.
Simply too expensive now, opportunities were missed.   

[Bobby5280]

I think New York City is operating under a bubble economy that is not sustainable at all. Living costs there are just too hatefully expensive.

No city anywhere can survive without loser-level employees working low wage, shit jobs. Not even New York City. They're not going to pay someone $40 per hour to flip burger patties or stock grocery store shelves. But the housing costs in the NYC metro have gotten so douchebag ridiculous that service industry workers need to be making that kind of money to afford a place to live on their own. Service industry businesses can't survive solely on labor that's living with parents or bouncing from couch to couch. I would expect a big out-migration of those people (mainly the American-born ones). Labor shortages in these service industry businesses will affect quality of life for all the people who can afford to live in NYC. Then they'll want to move. The NYC metro could see one hell of a real estate market crash if they don't start trying to balance that perversely absurd cost situation.

In a severe real estate market downturn a project like re-vamping the I-278 corridor in Brooklyn could become a more do-able thing. Right now the cost of dismantling the elevated highway structures and replacing them with cut and cover tunnels would be prohibitively expensive. Even if property values were dramatically lower, putting the BQE underground would be quite a puzzle to solve. There are other existing tunnels in the area (subways) along with all sorts of other crap put under ground.

[J N Winkler]

No city anywhere can survive without loser-level employees working low wage, shit jobs. Not even New York City. They're not going to pay someone $40 per hour to flip burger patties or stock grocery store shelves. But the housing costs in the NYC metro have gotten so douchebag ridiculous that service industry workers need to be making that kind of money to afford a place to live on their own. Service industry businesses can't survive solely on labor that's living with parents or bouncing from couch to couch. I would expect a big out-migration of those people (mainly the American-born ones). Labor shortages in these service industry businesses will affect quality of life for all the people who can afford to live in NYC. Then they'll want to move. The NYC metro could see one hell of a real estate market crash if they don't start trying to balance that perversely absurd cost situation.

It's hard to put a limit on the misery low-paid NYC residents are willing to tolerate.  I know of people (including native-born Americans from affluent families, not just immigrants) who live or have lived in illegal plywood hovels.  Having sex with strangers just to have a place to sleep is apparently a thing too (Big Dating has ways to help!), and I am sure hot-bunking happens too.

[DJStephens]

I think New York City is operating under a bubble economy that is not sustainable at all. Living costs there are just too hatefully expensive.

No city anywhere can survive without loser-level employees working low wage, shit jobs. Not even New York City. They're not going to pay someone $40 per hour to flip burger patties or stock grocery store shelves. But the housing costs in the NYC metro have gotten so douchebag ridiculous that service industry workers need to be making that kind of money to afford a place to live on their own. Service industry businesses can't survive solely on labor that's living with parents or bouncing from couch to couch. I would expect a big out-migration of those people (mainly the American-born ones). Labor shortages in these service industry businesses will affect quality of life for all the people who can afford to live in NYC. Then they'll want to move. The NYC metro could see one hell of a real estate market crash if they don't start trying to balance that perversely absurd cost situation.

In a severe real estate market downturn a project like re-vamping the I-278 corridor in Brooklyn could become a more do-able thing. Right now the cost of dismantling the elevated highway structures and replacing them with cut and cover tunnels would be prohibitively expensive. Even if property values were dramatically lower, putting the BQE underground would be quite a puzzle to solve. There are other existing tunnels in the area (subways) along with all sorts of other crap put under ground.

Agree on your assessment, with the exception of referring to them as "losers".   People can get trapped in terrible circumstances.  It happens to the best of us.  "Baby Daddy/Mamma" drama might be the most common way many get trapped in low wage jobs.   Emotional issues such as autism might be another.   Frankly can't understand why supposedly eight million STILL live within the city limits, if one believes the "official" numbers.  One would think there'd be more of a desire to escape.   
But yes, any large scale burial of NYC expressways is practically impossible due to costs, and all the pre-existing subterranean infrastructure that has been in place, in some instances, since the late nineteenth century.   

[Bobby5280]

I put the "loser level" employees thing in italics as a form of satire on how I believe our society regards everyone working in those job classes. The feelings of contempt or even hatred being directed at low wage workers is pretty much right out there in the open. We as a nation are punching down and laughing about it. It's really pretty twisted. That bourgeois bullshit is going to backfire into long term consequences, like severe demographic imbalance between generations. Extreme cost cities like New York and San Francisco should feel those consequences first.

I think New York City really needs to go through an extreme economic downturn as a means of giving the city a much needed "enema" of sorts. Despite all the surface renovations that have taken place from investors gaming the housing market an enormous amount of ancient infrastructure still needs to be replaced. But it's cost prohibitive to re-build everything from subway tunnels to water supply lines due to the NYC housing market being treated as a global investing playground. There is a shit-ton of apartments, brownstones and even stand-alone homes just sitting empty, only existing to be used as an investment asset. With a severe real estate market correction a bunch of these speculative vultures will lose their asses. Then the housing market will get back to more of a normal but probably still pretty expensive level.

If Oklahoma could get its shit together it might benefit from out-migration of people leaving high cost cities in the Northeast or California. But the establishment in Oklahoma has been doing its own bit of punching down. They were openly treating teachers like shit, paying them terribly and pretty much accusing them of being communists. It shouldn't be surprising that most teachers really don't want to work here at all. The state's lawmakers only started softening their asshole tone when they realized Oklahoma wouldn't be functional at all if all the "communist" teachers packed up and left for other states (and a lot more pay).

Unless the federal government wants to lend a great deal of help via funding, I'm skeptical any major re-vamp of I-244 and the IDL in downtown Tulsa will happen any time soon. They need a lot of tax money to build out projects like a major cut and cover tunnel system with deck parks. Right now Oklahoma isn't doing enough to shore up its tax base. We're not making the state an attractive enough place for young adults to raise children. Most of the growth seems to be going South of the Red River into Texas.

[Fredddie]

They should make the IDL a giant roundabout. The inner lanes would be for local traffic and the outer lanes for through traffic.  Someone pitched a similar idea for the Kansas City alphabet loop.

[Bobby5280]

Roundabouts are one-way rotaries (all traffic going around the circle in one direction). They work best at intersections of two surface streets carrying modest amounts of traffic driving at slow to medium speeds.

I'm having a hard time imagining how a large scale roundabout, with downtown Tulsa in the middle, could even work. The roadway of this roundabout would still have to be limited access (likely elevated too) for it to function as a huge rotary. If it was dropped to the surface street level the "giant roundabout" would just be a huge square of surface streets with a bunch of at-grade intersections along the way. No more roundabout. The freeway connections at the four corners of the IDL would be a nightmare to re-configure. I think all thru traffic might end up staring at a bunch of traffic signals.

[Fredddie]

Roundabouts are one-way rotaries (all traffic going around the circle in one direction). They work best at intersections of two surface streets carrying modest amounts of traffic driving at slow to medium speeds.

I'm having a hard time imagining how a large scale roundabout, with downtown Tulsa in the middle, could even work. The roadway of this roundabout would still have to be limited access (likely elevated too) for it to function as a huge rotary. If it was dropped to the surface street level the "giant roundabout" would just be a huge square of surface streets with a bunch of at-grade intersections along the way. No more roundabout. The freeway connections at the four corners of the IDL would be a nightmare to re-configure. I think all thru traffic might end up staring at a bunch of traffic signals.

I know what a roundabout is and I know what a rotary is.  What I was thinking was traffic on both sides of the centerline would go counterclockwise, the outer lanes would be express lanes and only the inner lanes would have local exits and entrances.  You are right in that the quadrant interchanges would have to be reconfigured.  That's likely going to happen anyway.

Anyway, I said this before I took a hard look at the IDL. There is really only one intermediate exit between each corner interchange, so I doubt there would be much benefit.

[bugo]

That's a silly idea. Turning it into a one way loop wouldn't help anything. It is a poorly designed road to begin with, and making it one way would make it even worse.

[The Ghostbuster]

Didn't they propose something similar for the Kansas City Downtown Loop (a uni-directional freeway loop)? In any case, I don't think any of Tulsa's freeways should be torn down.