This is an article from the awful Tulsa World (https://tulsaworld.com/news/local/racemassacre/interstate-244-it-took-the-heart-out-of-greenwood/article_f61d48f4-ba7a-11eb-8e0e-67790e03b317.html). It talks about the 1921 race riot, but later on in the story it talks about removing part of the Inner Dispersal Loop (IDL) in downtown Tulsa. I-244 uses this stretch of highway, and US 412 is signed as a follow route. The eastern and southern legs of the IDL make up the secret I-444. This stretch of highway is very busy, and removing it would cause a traffic nightmare. The article claims that the noise from the expressway is as loud as a freight train is utter bullshit, and I know that from personal observations. The story tries to tie in the race riot and removal of I-244, which I find disingenuous. The activists are talking about reconnecting the Greenwood district with north Tulsa, which is also utter bullshit. Other than an AME church just north of I-244 and the OSU-Tulsa campus plus the Greenwood Cultural Center, there is literally nothing north of the highway. The Greenwood district is popularly known as Black Wall Street. Removing the highway wouldn't reconnect anything, because there is nothing to connect to. Urban renewal programs in the 1960s and 1970s removed almost every building in the Greenwood district all the way to Pine. There's nothing up there. Yes, the highway shouldn't have been built where it was, but that is where it was built and we have to deal with it. The underpass where Greenwood goes under I-244 is open and well lit, and the area feels safe, even with the freeway. It is a breeze to walk through. If I-244 were an at grade boulevard, crossing it right here would be an adventure, if not flat out unsafe. Out of all of the proposed freeway renewals, this one would do the least amount of good, because it wouldn't benefit anybody other than the anti-car cultists.
This satellite image (https://www.google.com/maps/@36.1610246,-95.9853384,479m/data=!3m1!1e3) is of the heart of the Greenwood district. You can see that removing the highway would do no good. The few buildings on Greenwood from I-244 to the railroad tracks were built after 1921, and the historical value of the area is gone. This area has become quite gentrified, and there is a minor league baseball stadium just to the west. The land has historical value, but the buildings and structures other than the Vernon AME Church are not historic. It is sad that the district is gone, but it is and can never be brought back. Never forget 1921, and never let it happen again.
I mean, good luck with that. OKC was wanting an urban arterial built in place of the old I-40 when it was torn down, but no matter how many meetings they had with ODOT, that is nowhere close to what they got. And that's with the city having to take over maintenance of whatever ODOT built. If the government of the state's capital city can't even get ODOT to do what it wants, a handful of activists in Tulsa stand no chance.
Anti-highway activists in Tulsa are nothing new, though. There was a big group called Tulsans Against Turnpikes that formed to stop the Creek Turnpike. They even went so far as to vandalize construction equipment. We can see how seriously they were taken.
Yes, it is the standard reconnect something that is so disconnected than any type of connection was broken before the protesters were even born. While the people groups who may have genuinely been displaced decades ago are brought into the protests, even in the face of urbanism, it is the people who will develop the new property that are the ones that stand to gain. Remove the freeway and new development is available where none was previously possible. You sell the newness of it all and suddenly it is the place to be. Give that 15 to 20 years and again it passes to the next place.
Removing a freeway may spur localized development, but it rarely or never actually helps the people who lived there decades ago when the freeway was built and generally gentrification displaces the lower income people that the removal is "supposed" to help.
Let's face it, Tulsa is not Detroit or Baltimore, but there is plenty of history lost that freeway removal and rebuilding cannot get back. Where would the traffic go if there was no I-244? Yes, it probably should've never been built through Greenwood, but there are lots of residential areas north of the freeway that would've been just as vocal in opposition. As it is, this is a game that nobody wins because of the worsening traffic a boulevard conversion would bring, and the threat of gentrification, as stated above.
Quote from: bwana39 on September 27, 2021, 12:12:05 AM
Yes, it is the standard reconnect something that is so disconnected than any type of connection was broken before the protesters were even born. While the people groups who may have genuinely been displaced decades ago are brought into the protests, even in the face of urbanism, it is the people who will develop the new property that are the ones that stand to gain. Remove the freeway and new development is available where none was previously possible. You sell the newness of it all and suddenly it is the place to be. Give that 15 to 20 years and again it passes to the next place.
Removing a freeway may spur localized development, but it rarely or never actually helps the people who lived there decades ago when the freeway was built and generally gentrification displaces the lower income people that the removal is "supposed" to help.
The key phrase here is "urban removal"....where redevelopment of a neighborhood is done by promising its residents new jobs, only to build to attract newer, wealthier people to that neighborhood, mostly by kicking out the current residents.
One of the very reasons why the I-10 Claiborne Elevated teardown in New Orleans was shelved (at least temporarily for now) was that very concern that the new development of Treme through the new boulevard would be used as a stick to remove current residents and rebuild that neighborhood as more upscale for wealthier imports. That's quite an irony considering the appeal of "restoration" of old Black neighborhoods cut down by freeways that the New Urbanists exploit in their anti-freeway zealotry.
Devil's Advocate: complete/improve the Gilcrease Expressway to remove thru traffic (including the under-construction portion) and then it becomes less unreasonable to shit-can Tulsa's downtown freeways. Brand new can of worms to build a freeway thru the Osage Res, but it would provide all the thru connections currently used by those downtown freeways. One would be left with five stubbed freeways feeding downtown likely still putting most commuters within a few blocks of their destination.
I don't think it would fully solve anyone's problems, though. You can never undo the damage that was caused. My observation of freeway cancellation and removal in Milwaukee shows that the abandoned r/w either sits fallow for decades if the neighborhood is too economically depressed, or it gets snapped up by market-rate development and prices out those who currently live in the neighborhood.
The last 50 years with the Park Freeway illustrate this nicely. It took over 30 years to begin to redevelop most of the land cleared for the Park Freeway west of I-43. Land cleared for the same freeway east of the Milwaukee River got snapped up by developers very quickly and high-end rentals went up immediately, even in Milwaukee's early years of decline in the late 70's and early 80s.
While I'm in favor of some freeway teardowns (e.g., I think the Park Freeway removal in Milwaukee was good. The Claiborne Freeway should be removed though the neighborhood will change because that's what cities do.), tearing down I-244 in Tulsa won't help the neighborhood much, won't undo the damage done decades ago, and will cause problems elsewhere.
It reminds me of the insane effort to remove I-70 (now I-44) in St Louis just north of downtown. I have a feeling the Tulsa effort is much like the St Louis effort which was the desires of white hipsters and urbanists with no input from the local African-American population. It would have negatively impacted the African-American community in St Louis as it was easily the best way to drive from the largely black North City and North County to downtown and to the job-rich industrial area just south of downtown. This was before the Musial Bridge so the highway's removal would also have disconnected the North Side from the also largely African-American East St Louis and adjacent communities.
More of this stupid talk: https://www.route-fifty.com/infrastructure/2022/12/reconnecting-communities-billion-dollars-highway-removal-tulsa-new-orleans/380802/
Even worse is I-10 through New Orleans. That freeway is extremely important and needs to be rebuilt.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on December 13, 2022, 02:35:10 PM
More of this stupid talk: https://www.route-fifty.com/infrastructure/2022/12/reconnecting-communities-billion-dollars-highway-removal-tulsa-new-orleans/380802/
Even worse is I-10 through New Orleans. That freeway is extremely important and needs to be rebuilt.
I-244 through Tulsa is part of a larger through routing from the Sand Springs Expressway to the Crosstown Expressway and acts much like US 75/I-345 in Dallas. The entire corridor should have been built a bit further north originally but now that the entire system is built its removal would be a huge and costly mistake.
OTOH, I-10 through New Orleans is redundant, destroyed and continues to negatively affect a neighborhood, and won't be rebuilt because the cost to rebuild it is less than its removal. It's a cost v benefits and the few benefits are vastly outweighed by the cost, both economically and the city environment. Only the few who whine that it adds a few minutes to their commute think it's important. Everything between Elysian Fields and the Superdome could be removed. It won't fix Iberville and Treme but it will make it better for the locals (though they'll whine about the inevitable gentrification). But that discussion belongs in Mid-South, not here.
Every single time I've been on that stretch of I-10 it has been absolutely packed and I use it all the time when I'm there. I'm on it roughly a dozen or so times a year. It is definitely needed and hopefully is rebuilt. Not sure it matters whether or not it is cheaper to tear it down vs rebuild it. It'd be cheaper to just tear out all infrastructure and neglect it. Yet we don't do that. Hopefully LaDOT has the sense to rebuild it.
As a white woman, it's none of my business talking about race here, so I'll address the other elephant in the room: the AADT on I-244 (as high as 84k!) is way too high for any serious talks of tearing it down.
IMHO, if I-244 is torn down in the Downtown Tulsa area it will speed up the process of businesses and residents migrating to other parts of the Tulsa metro.
I go to (and thru) Tulsa from time to time. Yet it is a rarity that I ever have to go to the Downtown area. Normally I'm visiting spots near or South of the I-44 corridor. I have an Aunt who lives in Owasso, but I stay on I-44 and take the Mingo Valley Expressway (US-169) to get there. If some New Urbanist types want to make visiting Downtown Tulsa even more of a pain in the ass I just won't go there. Driving on surface streets in other parts of Tulsa (such as Memorial Road) is bad enough.
If it was my call, the only thing I would be open to doing is removing the North span of the IDL in return for beefing up the South and East sides of the IDL. Or they could get rid of the South side of the IDL in return for improving the West, North and East segments. It is critical for super highway connectivity to be maintained for I-244 and US-412 somehow. They can't just make those freeways turn into dead ends without serious consequences.
IMO There's no way this is going to happen, especially since US-412 is going to get a new Interstate designation. Too many people use the north section of the IDL, and people would riot if any serious plans for its removal were made.
Quote from: skluth on December 14, 2022, 11:57:34 AM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on December 13, 2022, 02:35:10 PM
More of this stupid talk: https://www.route-fifty.com/infrastructure/2022/12/reconnecting-communities-billion-dollars-highway-removal-tulsa-new-orleans/380802/
Even worse is I-10 through New Orleans. That freeway is extremely important and needs to be rebuilt.
I-244 through Tulsa is part of a larger through routing from the Sand Springs Expressway to the Crosstown Expressway and acts much like US 75/I-345 in Dallas. The entire corridor should have been built a bit further north originally but now that the entire system is built its removal would be a huge and costly mistake.
OTOH, I-10 through New Orleans is redundant, destroyed and continues to negatively affect a neighborhood, and won't be rebuilt because the cost to rebuild it is less than its removal. It's a cost v benefits and the few benefits are vastly outweighed by the cost, both economically and the city environment. Only the few who whine that it adds a few minutes to their commute think it's important. Everything between Elysian Fields and the Superdome could be removed. It won't fix Iberville and Treme but it will make it better for the locals (though they'll whine about the inevitable gentrification). But that discussion belongs in Mid-South, not here.
"Redundant", MY ASS.
The Claiborne Elevated is the ONLY direct freeway connection between downtown New Orleans, the French Quarter, the Superdome, and the Medical Center district, and New Orleans East. It also serves as the primary connection from New Orleans East to the Westbank Expressway via the Crescent City Connection.
To remove it and divert traffic up the Ponchatrain Expressway to I-610 would not only NOT service the major traffic that serves that area from NOLA East, but it would add additional problems to the surface level Claiborne Avenue, especially if proponents of the freeway teardown propose to keep it at a 4-lane boulevard.
In addition, there are many residents of Treme who oppose any teardown because of fears that any redevelopment will be exploited by business and real estate developers to remove current residences of that community in the name of "urban renewal".
No, DO NOT TEAR DOWN the Claiborne Elevated. Instead, do as what is being done with the I-49 Lafayette Connector and incorporate CSS and neighborhood integration into any rebuild. THAT makes more sense than putting 144K VPD of traffic onto to a 4-lane boulevard and already pressed city streets.
(If you want to move this to Mid-South, mods, that would be fine with me.)
And, I oppose tearing down I-244 in Tulsa for the same reason. Major critical freeway arterials should not be removed just for the feelz of New Urbanists and the myopic desire to restore the past.
I'll play devil's advocate.
The new interstate can use the Gilcrease to bypass the section of I-244 in question. Whip up a better interchange on the west end there and that problem goes away.
The thing about downtown freeways like Tulsa is the vast majority of the traffic has an origin/destination downtown somewhere. Very little of the traffic is thru traffic, especially in a place like Tulsa where the major interstate completely bypasses the urban core. Yes there's a lot of traffic on these freeways, but that's because most of it is getting on/off somewhere around there. The comparatively little thru traffic gets a minor inconvenience by taking some sort of belt routing. The rest of the traffic melts into the street grid to take more direct routes to where those drivers are going. So you have to drive seven blocks through downtown instead of whipping around to the other side of an inner freeway loop and getting there two minutes earlier, big whoop. I'd hardly call that an onerous burden.
We've learned over the last few decades that it is extremely difficult to fix the mistakes of past generations in our cities. And we've also learned that once an urban neighborhood is significantly altered by some kind of large urban renewal project, you will never get the old neighborhood back. The circumstances that led to that neighborhood cannot be recreated. Building practices change. People's needs and wants change. New technology makes certain features anachronistic. And more and more, every Tom, Dick and Harry feels the need to have their specific, whiny voice heard. "What about parking? That building is ugly! I associate that type of thing with crime in a way that definitely doesn't make my biases obvious!" Simple things like it's way too expensive to build things out of masonry these days, so you'll never recreate all the 'quaint' brick architecture that was so prevalent a hundred years ago.
So it's true to say you're not going to recreate Rosewood simply by removing a chunk of I-244. But does that mean we have to be completely invested in the status quo? I'm seeing a bit of reverse-NIMBYism here. "You can't tear down my freeway and put up a neighborhood!" It's the same energy.
Quote from: triplemultiplex on December 15, 2022, 01:46:02 PM
I'll play devil's advocate.
The new interstate can use the Gilcrease to bypass the section of I-244 in question. Whip up a better interchange on the west end there and that problem goes away.
The thing about downtown freeways like Tulsa is the vast majority of the traffic has an origin/destination downtown somewhere. Very little of the traffic is thru traffic, especially in a place like Tulsa where the major interstate completely bypasses the urban core. Yes there's a lot of traffic on these freeways, but that's because most of it is getting on/off somewhere around there. The comparatively little thru traffic gets a minor inconvenience by taking some sort of belt routing. The rest of the traffic melts into the street grid to take more direct routes to where those drivers are going. So you have to drive seven blocks through downtown instead of whipping around to the other side of an inner freeway loop and getting there two minutes earlier, big whoop. I'd hardly call that an onerous burden.
We've learned over the last few decades that it is extremely difficult to fix the mistakes of past generations in our cities. And we've also learned that once an urban neighborhood is significantly altered by some kind of large urban renewal project, you will never get the old neighborhood back. The circumstances that led to that neighborhood cannot be recreated. Building practices change. People's needs and wants change. New technology makes certain features anachronistic. And more and more, every Tom, Dick and Harry feels the need to have their specific, whiny voice heard. "What about parking? That building is ugly! I associate that type of thing with crime in a way that definitely doesn't make my biases obvious!" Simple things like it's way too expensive to build things out of masonry these days, so you'll never recreate all the 'quaint' brick architecture that was so prevalent a hundred years ago.
So it's true to say you're not going to recreate Rosewood simply by removing a chunk of I-244. But does that mean we have to be completely invested in the status quo? I'm seeing a bit of reverse-NIMBYism here. "You can't tear down my freeway and put up a neighborhood!" It's the same energy.
They really are only talking about taking out the north downtown section of I-244 from the Tisdale to US-75, just 10 blocks or a little less than a mile. Greenwood was only in this section. The section of I-244 just east of downtown was a poor white area, in fact that neighborhood was setting for The Outsiders.
The biggest problem with removing the highway even in downtown is the section that is actually historic Greenwood has two historic churches, the Greenwood Cultural Center and OSU-Tulsa directly abutting the highway to the north of the highway. And the south side of the highway has the remaining historic Greenwood buildings, Tulsa's baseball stadium and the park that is a memorial to the race massacre right up to I-244. Removing the highway would just create a 200-300 foot strip of un-developable land between all this.
Beyond that, the section of Historic Greenwood to the south of the highway, the part that is in downtown, is gone. This area was the commercial "Black Wall Street" heart of Greenwood, but today it is completely redeveloped and gentrified. There's no land left for the community to rebuild. The pictures on google maps are very badly out of date.
The western section of the highway where if I-244 were removed that could be redeveloped is NOT part of Greenwood, it was actually a wealthy white neighborhood called Brady Heights, named for an early Tulsa city father and KKK member. Removing the highway here would only connect maybe five blocks of developable land.
So if I-244 was removed you would spend $500 million plus to reconstruct two 3 stack interchanges and remove a busy highway that would create a very small amount of developable land in the wrong location.
Better to keep the highway as a memorial to the wrongs that were committed.
Quote from: triplemultiplexThe thing about downtown freeways like Tulsa is the vast majority of the traffic has an origin/destination downtown somewhere.
US-412 is a thru route on the Northern leg of the IDL. That's on top of I-244 running as a thru route on the West and North legs of the IDL. US-75 is technically a thru route on the South and East parts of the IDL. The Broken Arrow Expressway also functions as a regional thru route. Someone driving from Muskogee to Stillwater would likely use the BAE to pick up US-412 at the downtown IDL.
A completed Gilcrease Tpk provides most of the through connections that currently go through central Tulsa. Build that last 'missing' piece between the Tisdale and US 412/future I-whatever, then the IDL is redundant as far as thru traffic is concerned.
Thru traffic is negligible compared to vehicles with an origin/destination in the central business district, so thru traffic can easily be served by suburban freeways/turnpikes. There is no reason those vehicles should have to go thru downtown. The Muskogee - Stillwater example, that vehicle can use I-44 and the Gilcrease to get to where they are going.
I think a map is coming.
does there need to be a full box around downtown? maybe 1 of 4 legs could disappear with little to no effect? :hmmm:
Quote from: triplemultiplex on December 16, 2022, 10:53:05 AM
A completed Gilcrease Tpk provides most of the through connections that currently go through central Tulsa. Build that last 'missing' piece between the Tisdale and US 412/future I-whatever, then the IDL is redundant as far as thru traffic is concerned.
Thru traffic is negligible compared to vehicles with an origin/destination in the central business district, so thru traffic can easily be served by suburban freeways/turnpikes. There is no reason those vehicles should have to go thru downtown. The Muskogee - Stillwater example, that vehicle can use I-44 and the Gilcrease to get to where they are going.
I think a map is coming.
Have you ever been through or to Tulsa? As mentioned upthread, you are diverting upwards of 85,000 vehicles onto other routes. No one, and I repeat, NO ONE will take a Gilcrease route around the north side. Putting that much traffic on the other 3 legs would require a massive rebuild of 3 stack interchanges as well as widening the existing roadway (which is problematic as there isn't any easily available ROW).
I lived and worked near downtown for 11 years and removing the north leg of the IDL would have been a pain for my travel patterns, especially as many of those trips were to OSU-Tulsa. I wouldn't recommend burying it due to the obscene cost of doing so. Swake is right. Leave it as a memorial to the wrongs that were committed.
Quote from: triplemultiplexA completed Gilcrease Tpk provides most of the through connections that currently go through central Tulsa.
Through? No. That suggestion
would take traffic well over and around the downtown area, well out of the way. It is NOT a "direct" connection. It would add a decent number of miles to the route,
not to mention a bit more in toll fees.
Like it or not, that square-shaped IDL is a highway connection hub going around downtown Tulsa. Removing one or more legs of it would unleash a series of consequences (some of which I've already mentioned).
Quote from: triplemultiplex on December 16, 2022, 10:53:05 AM
A completed Gilcrease Tpk provides most of the through connections that currently go through central Tulsa.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on December 16, 2022, 12:15:46 PM
Through? No. That suggestion would take traffic well over and around the downtown area, well out of the way.
Yeah. "Through" as in "through-traffic", i.e. traffic with a destination other than Tulsa. Going over and around the downtown of a city is, in my opinion, preferable for through-traffic.
Quote from: triplemultiplex on December 15, 2022, 01:46:02 PM
The thing about downtown freeways like Tulsa is the vast majority of the traffic has an origin/destination downtown somewhere. Very little of the traffic is thru traffic, especially in a place like Tulsa where the major interstate completely bypasses the urban core. Yes there's a lot of traffic on these freeways, but that's because most of it is getting on/off somewhere around there. The comparatively little thru traffic gets a minor inconvenience by taking some sort of belt routing. The rest of the traffic melts into the street grid to take more direct routes to where those drivers are going. So you have to drive seven blocks through downtown instead of whipping around to the other side of an inner freeway loop and getting there two minutes earlier, big whoop. I'd hardly call that an onerous burden.
Can you provide concrete evidence that most traffic going through downtown Tulsa gets off the freeway and isn't through traffic?
Quote from: kphoger on December 16, 2022, 12:52:45 PM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on December 16, 2022, 10:53:05 AM
A completed Gilcrease Tpk provides most of the through connections that currently go through central Tulsa.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on December 16, 2022, 12:15:46 PM
Through? No. That suggestion would take traffic well over and around the downtown area, well out of the way.
Yeah. "Through" as in "through-traffic", i.e. traffic with a destination other than Tulsa. Going over and around the downtown of a city is, in my opinion, preferable for through-traffic.
I Am " Through Traffic " ... I was on Interstate 44 which seemed to take me through A Very Beautiful Downtown that does not seem disturbed by a Superhighway being near it. It also did not disturb me to take this Unstylish Route. Since I was in a hurry, I most certainly would not prefer a needlessly longer distance.
Quote from: In_Correct on December 16, 2022, 05:34:21 PM
I Am " Through Traffic " ... I was on Interstate 44 which seemed to take me through A Very Beautiful Downtown that does not seem disturbed by a Superhighway being near it. It also did not disturb me to take this Unstylish Route. Since I was in a hurry, I most certainly would not prefer a needlessly longer distance.
Interstate 44 doesn't go through downtown, so I'm not sure what you were seeing.
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?
Quote from: dvferyance on December 16, 2022, 09:19:42 PM
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.
For argument's sake:
(https://triplemultiplex.files.wordpress.com/2022/12/tulsa-no-idl.jpg)
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.
Quote from: triplemultiplex on December 19, 2022, 01:05:12 PM
For argument's sake:
(https://triplemultiplex.files.wordpress.com/2022/12/tulsa-no-idl.jpg)
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.
Quote from: triplemultiplex on December 19, 2022, 01:05:12 PM
For argument's sake:
(https://triplemultiplex.files.wordpress.com/2022/12/tulsa-no-idl.jpg)
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.
Quote from: skluth on December 19, 2022, 03:11:49 PM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on December 19, 2022, 01:05:12 PM
For argument's sake:
(https://triplemultiplex.files.wordpress.com/2022/12/tulsa-no-idl.jpg)
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.)
Quote from: Henry on December 19, 2022, 06:59:37 PM
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)
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? ;)
Quote from: triplemultiplexThing 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.
Quote from: triplemultiplex on December 20, 2022, 01:42:14 PM
...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.
Quote from: rte66man on December 25, 2022, 08:02:48 AM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on December 20, 2022, 01:42:14 PM
...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.
That's good progress. Keep it up, Tulsa! :)
Quote from: swake on December 25, 2022, 04:46:27 PM
Quote from: rte66man on December 25, 2022, 08:02:48 AM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on December 20, 2022, 01:42:14 PM
...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
Quote from: Stephane Dumas on December 31, 2022, 01:15:21 PM
Quote from: swake on December 25, 2022, 04:46:27 PM
Quote from: rte66man on December 25, 2022, 08:02:48 AM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on December 20, 2022, 01:42:14 PM
...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.
Quote from: vdeane on December 19, 2022, 09:08:44 PM
Quote from: Henry on December 19, 2022, 06:59:37 PM
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.
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.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on January 01, 2023, 12:32:59 PMNo 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.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on January 01, 2023, 12:32:59 PM
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.
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.
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.
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.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on February 17, 2023, 09:16:44 PM
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.
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.
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.
Federal received.
They need to consider tunnel or capping it partly, not tearing it down.
https://tulsaworld.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/federal-grant-awarded-to-study-removal-of-part-of-i-244-through-greenwood/article_cea9034e-b78f-11ed-8dd0-ab3bd867d4f9.html#tracking-source=home-top-story
QuoteThe U.S. Department of Transportation announced Tuesday that it was awarding a $1.6 million grant to the North Peoria Church of Christ
Holy 1st Amendment violation, Batman. Why the fuck are we having
churches involved in transportation planning?!
(Y'all see why I want to move, now?)
Quote from: Scott5114 on March 01, 2023, 06:38:26 AM
(Y'all see why I want to move, now?)
You've said both these things:
1.
Quote from: Scott5114 on September 30, 2022, 07:35:47 PM
This is especially true of Massachusetts. I have, in a few places online, mentioned that I am thinking about moving to another state, and without fail someone from Massachusetts will immediately respond saying that I would be welcome there and asking me to consider it as an option. It would certainly be tempting, if I weren't concerned my southern-Californian wife would freeze to death in the winter.
2.
Quote from: Scott5114 on February 21, 2023, 04:32:03 PM
Quote from: kphoger on February 21, 2023, 03:08:43 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on February 20, 2023, 05:16:25 PM
Were I ever to find myself in a long term committed relationship with someone else
Also, forgive me for making assumptions, but I just assumed that's the sort of relationship you and R had.
It is currently, but it seems likely that will not always be the case going forward.
Quote from: Scott5114 on February 21, 2023, 06:25:08 PM
Quote from: kphoger on February 21, 2023, 05:04:58 PM
In all seriousness, though, Scott, I'm sorry to hear that.
Thanks for the well wishes. We've kind of come to the conclusion that we have different things that we're looking for in a relationship, and we intend to remain friends if nothing else, so it's as amicable as the circumstances can be. (We also have not set an exact end date for anything yet, as right now it's financially advantageous for both of us to not make any changes.)
So you can move to Massachusetts?
Quote from: Scott5114 on March 01, 2023, 06:38:26 AM
QuoteThe U.S. Department of Transportation announced Tuesday that it was awarding a $1.6 million grant to the North Peoria Church of Christ
Holy 1st Amendment violation, Batman. Why the fuck are we having churches involved in transportation planning?!
(Y'all see why I want to move, now?)
This is bizarre. I'm thinking someone screwed up at USDOT.
Quote from: 1 on March 01, 2023, 06:48:37 AM
So you can move to Massachusetts?
Hmmm...I could, but I really don't like the snow, and I do really like Nevada...
I suppose I should consider doing at least a due-diligence trip to check Massachusetts out at some point. (I've gotten more "you should live here!" posts from MA residents than any other state, both here and on Reddit.) My boss wants me to check out New Jersey, but he lives in New Hampshire, so I'm sure he'd like having me one state to the south in case he needs someone to help him sort license plates.
Quote from: Rothman on March 01, 2023, 07:03:14 AM
Quote from: Scott5114 on March 01, 2023, 06:38:26 AM
QuoteThe U.S. Department of Transportation announced Tuesday that it was awarding a $1.6 million grant to the North Peoria Church of Christ
Holy 1st Amendment violation, Batman. Why the fuck are we having churches involved in transportation planning?!
(Y'all see why I want to move, now?)
This is bizarre. I'm thinking someone screwed up at USDOT.
Who would have standing to sue? Anyone? No one?
Quote from: Scott5114 on March 01, 2023, 08:09:45 AM
Quote from: Rothman on March 01, 2023, 07:03:14 AM
Quote from: Scott5114 on March 01, 2023, 06:38:26 AM
QuoteThe U.S. Department of Transportation announced Tuesday that it was awarding a $1.6 million grant to the North Peoria Church of Christ
Holy 1st Amendment violation, Batman. Why the fuck are we having churches involved in transportation planning?!
(Y'all see why I want to move, now?)
This is bizarre. I'm thinking someone screwed up at USDOT.
Who would have standing to sue? Anyone? No one?
I have no idea. Haven't heard of anyone suing over a screwy grant award like this.
I am just wondering what a church would know about the federal-aid process or even how to acquire a consultant per federal requirements. Even though it's just a study, whoever is overseeing this is going to have their hands full (ODOT or FHWA).
Come to think of it, the church may just hand it over to ODOT when they find out how onerous the project is. NY has had cases where small, inexperienced municipalities kick project administration up to their county, for example.
Is there any chance that the numerous left-handed exit and entrance ramps along Interstate 244 could be moved to the right-hand side without too much disruption to the surrounding area the Interstate passes through?
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on March 01, 2023, 04:04:06 AM
Federal received.
They need to consider tunnel or capping it partly, not tearing it down.
https://tulsaworld.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/federal-grant-awarded-to-study-removal-of-part-of-i-244-through-greenwood/article_cea9034e-b78f-11ed-8dd0-ab3bd867d4f9.html#tracking-source=home-top-story
The highway is elevated today, you can't cap it. Rebuilding it below grade, aside from extreme cost, is also problematic due to the rail lines that run right through the middle of the I-244/US-75 interchange.
The neighborhood wants I-244 torn down, not the state.
Quote from: Rothman on March 01, 2023, 09:22:50 AM
Quote from: Scott5114 on March 01, 2023, 08:09:45 AM
Quote from: Rothman on March 01, 2023, 07:03:14 AM
Quote from: Scott5114 on March 01, 2023, 06:38:26 AM
QuoteThe U.S. Department of Transportation announced Tuesday that it was awarding a $1.6 million grant to the North Peoria Church of Christ
Holy 1st Amendment violation, Batman. Why the fuck are we having churches involved in transportation planning?!
(Y'all see why I want to move, now?)
This is bizarre. I'm thinking someone screwed up at USDOT.
Who would have standing to sue? Anyone? No one?
I have no idea. Haven't heard of anyone suing over a screwy grant award like this.
I am just wondering what a church would know about the federal-aid process or even how to acquire a consultant per federal requirements. Even though it's just a study, whoever is overseeing this is going to have their hands full (ODOT or FHWA).
Come to think of it, the church may just hand it over to ODOT when they find out how onerous the project is. NY has had cases where small, inexperienced municipalities kick project administration up to their county, for example.
ODOT, INCOG and the city of Tulsa put in a grant request that was denied. This was a competing request backed by the Greenwood neighborhood and the two State Representatives from Greenwood, the church is the entity it was filed with. The state request was based on improving access to across the highway with a long term goal of removal. 30+ years long term. The approved grant was based on removal now, which is what the Greenwood neighborhood wants. ODOT, INCOG and the city of Tulsa wanted to slow play the neighborhood.
I'm not sure how you can possibly get a project of this scope done when it's not backed by ODOT, INCOG and the city, but ok.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on March 01, 2023, 01:32:37 PM
Is there any chance that the numerous left-handed exit and entrance ramps along Interstate 244 could be moved to the right-hand side without too much disruption to the surrounding area the Interstate passes through?
I-244 was completely rebuilt with all new concrete in the last few years, so those left hand exits aren't going anywhere.
Quote from: swake on March 01, 2023, 04:58:20 PM
Quote from: Rothman on March 01, 2023, 09:22:50 AM
Quote from: Scott5114 on March 01, 2023, 08:09:45 AM
Quote from: Rothman on March 01, 2023, 07:03:14 AM
Quote from: Scott5114 on March 01, 2023, 06:38:26 AM
QuoteThe U.S. Department of Transportation announced Tuesday that it was awarding a $1.6 million grant to the North Peoria Church of Christ
Holy 1st Amendment violation, Batman. Why the fuck are we having churches involved in transportation planning?!
(Y'all see why I want to move, now?)
This is bizarre. I'm thinking someone screwed up at USDOT.
Who would have standing to sue? Anyone? No one?
I have no idea. Haven't heard of anyone suing over a screwy grant award like this.
I am just wondering what a church would know about the federal-aid process or even how to acquire a consultant per federal requirements. Even though it's just a study, whoever is overseeing this is going to have their hands full (ODOT or FHWA).
Come to think of it, the church may just hand it over to ODOT when they find out how onerous the project is. NY has had cases where small, inexperienced municipalities kick project administration up to their county, for example.
ODOT, INCOG and the city of Tulsa put in a grant request that was denied. This was a competing request backed by the Greenwood neighborhood and the two State Representatives from Greenwood, the church is the entity it was filed with. The state request was based on improving access to across the highway with a long term goal of removal. 30+ years long term. The approved grant was based on removal now, which is what the Greenwood neighborhood wants. ODOT, INCOG and the city of Tulsa wanted to slow play the neighborhood.
I'm not sure how you can possibly get a project of this scope done when it's not backed by ODOT, INCOG and the city, but ok.
What will happen is the church will get mired in red tape that they don't know how to navigate while ODOT's concept progresses forward, since this is just a study.
I don't think FHWA will yank the money if the church can't progress the study (despite grant guidance that states otherwise), but the delay due to the learning curve may actually make ODOT's concept of a later demolition a de facto reality.
Really would like to know how many millions are wasted on studies that don't lead to action nationwide...
I'm on the wrong side of the table in this business...
ODOT needs to get on the ball then and just build a new freeway and ensure it won't be torn down for at least 70 years.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on March 01, 2023, 07:13:43 PM
ODOT needs to get on the ball then and just build a new freeway and ensure it won't be torn down for at least 70 years.
A complete rebuild of the north leg of the IDL was completed in 2011. All the way down to the dirt, all new concrete. It pretty much is new now.
Quote from: swake on March 01, 2023, 07:51:07 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on March 01, 2023, 07:13:43 PM
ODOT needs to get on the ball then and just build a new freeway and ensure it won't be torn down for at least 70 years.
A complete rebuild of the north leg of the IDL was completed in 2011. All the way down to the dirt, all new concrete. It is pretty much is new now.
Amazing. And they didn't have the foresight to remove the left exits.
ODOT needs to bite the fucking bullet and build an actual tunnel with a mid portal to connect downtown. Traffic I-44 bound can use the other legs.
Eventually Tulsa is going to have real traffic issues like major cities and that's coming sooner rather than later. Through traffic will find it less time to use Creek turnpike then cut through town.
Quote from: Rothman on March 01, 2023, 07:01:39 PM
I don't think FHWA will yank the money if the church can't progress the study (despite grant guidance that states otherwise), but the delay due to the learning curve may actually make ODOT's concept of a later demolition a de facto reality.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on March 01, 2023, 07:13:43 PM
ODOT needs to get on the ball then and just build a new freeway and ensure it won't be torn down for at least 70 years.
I don't think ODOT has any intent to actually demolish the freeway. Historically they have taken a dim view of this whole urbanism thing. Take a look at how the Oklahoma City Boulevard was built in the old I-40 footprint–nothing about that screams that they took the assignment seriously, at least from the perspective of someone with an urbanist mindset. ODOT is still in the classic DOT mindset of wanting to move cars. This is probably why community leaders had a church apply for a grant rather than going through ODOT.
ODOT is only saying 30 years is the minimum that they could implement an alternative place to send all that traffic, not that they are for sure going to do it 30 years from now. Anytime ODOT thinks they want to pursue a project it gets put at the end of an 8-year plan. Many times as things advance they get bumped back from year 4 to year 6 or whatever because there is no funding. So something might stay in year 6 of the 8-year plan for 10 years until funding becomes available. And it might quietly disappear from the plan during that timeframe too.
And that brings us around to the Legislature. Finding a place to put those 74,000 cars a day is no easy task. The Springdale to Enid interstate will be in this area too and that might raise traffic levels. This will be a bigger and more expensive project than the OKC I-40 realignment, and that required constant pressure from the Governor's office to get the Legislature to cough up the money to get it done. Neither the Oklahoma Legislature nor the current Governor are progressive enough to care about this issue at all, much less commit any money toward it. The Republicans have an 81-20 majority in the Oklahoma House right now, so you're going to have to convince a whole bunch of Republicans to support this (which would mean convincing them to not think about the word "woke" for ten seconds) or you are going to have to get a shitload of Democrats in the Legislature representing districts far from Tulsa. Neither of those are going to happen, so this project is dead on arrival.
^^^ it's called a fucking tunnel! Well, maybe this will get Oklahoma its first real actual road tunnel. One of my favorite types of road.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on March 02, 2023, 05:24:43 AM
^^^ it's called a fucking tunnel! Well, maybe this will get Oklahoma its first real actual road tunnel. One of my favorite types of road.
I think it's far more likely that the north leg of the IDL will still be there in something resembling its current form 30 years from now, although it might be I-46 or 48 or 50 instead of 244.
It's not much of a dispersal loop if it's too underground to disperse anything.
Quote from: Scott5114 on March 02, 2023, 06:05:11 AM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on March 02, 2023, 05:24:43 AM
^^^ it's called a fucking tunnel! Well, maybe this will get Oklahoma its first real actual road tunnel. One of my favorite types of road.
I think it's far more likely that the north leg of the IDL will still be there in something resembling its current form 30 years from now, although it might be I-46 or 48 or 50 instead of 244.
It's not much of a dispersal loop if it's too underground to disperse anything.
Well, that's what I was I thinking. Given the new interstate designation it seems like that ensures the future of this segment especially given ODOTs pro freeway stance.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on March 01, 2023, 08:16:48 PM
Quote from: swake on March 01, 2023, 07:51:07 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on March 01, 2023, 07:13:43 PM
ODOT needs to get on the ball then and just build a new freeway and ensure it won't be torn down for at least 70 years.
A complete rebuild of the north leg of the IDL was completed in 2011. All the way down to the dirt, all new concrete. It is pretty much is new now.
Amazing. And they didn't have the foresight to remove the left exits.
Foresight?? The cost to do what you have described would be hundreds of millions of dollars, which would siphon off all available funds for more worthwhile projects statewide. Not meeting current design standards? Yes, but unless ODOT wins the lottery, it ain't gonna happen.
Quote from: rte66man on March 02, 2023, 08:28:37 AM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on March 01, 2023, 08:16:48 PM
Quote from: swake on March 01, 2023, 07:51:07 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on March 01, 2023, 07:13:43 PM
ODOT needs to get on the ball then and just build a new freeway and ensure it won't be torn down for at least 70 years.
A complete rebuild of the north leg of the IDL was completed in 2011. All the way down to the dirt, all new concrete. It is pretty much is new now.
Amazing. And they didn't have the foresight to remove the left exits.
Foresight?? The cost to do what you have described would be hundreds of millions of dollars, which would siphon off all available funds for more worthwhile projects statewide. Not meeting current design standards? Yes, but unless ODOT wins the lottery, it ain't gonna happen.
We've gotta get off the cheap train.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on March 01, 2023, 08:16:48 PM
Amazing. And they didn't have the foresight to remove the left exits.
I took a look at the area with GE and was reminded that whichever ODOT engineer designed 244 in the 60's was in love with left exits. Leaving aside the IDL interchanges, they put them in WB at the Detroit/Cincinnati exit for no apparent reason. They also put them in both directions at Sheridan and Memorial. An argument could be made the one at Memorial was needed to separate the traffic signals at the top of the ramps from the ones at Memorial and Admiral but there is no good reason for the ones at Sheridan that I can see especially as there are service roads on both sides.
Quote from: rte66man on March 03, 2023, 08:49:15 AM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on March 01, 2023, 08:16:48 PM
Amazing. And they didn't have the foresight to remove the left exits.
I took a look at the area with GE and was reminded that whichever ODOT engineer designed 244 in the 60's was in love with left exits. Leaving aside the IDL interchanges, they put them in WB at the Detroit/Cincinnati exit for no apparent reason. They also put them in both directions at Sheridan and Memorial. An argument could be made the one at Memorial was needed to separate the traffic signals at the top of the ramps from the ones at Memorial and Admiral but there is no good reason for the ones at Sheridan that I can see especially as there are service roads on both sides.
As someone who uses those left exits on the regular (I live just down the road from I-244 and Memorial) I can tell you the distance from the signals on both Memorial and Sheridan cause an issue; but it's also Easton St intersection to the south of the Sheridan exit that can be problematic.
Just not sure why all the hate for left exits. These seem to serve a purpose. I guess as someone who was born and grew up here, it never really affected me in that manner.
Left exits are, in general, considered poor design because it causes conflicts between slow traffic going to/coming from the ramps and faster traffic in the passing lane.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on March 02, 2023, 04:34:04 PM
Quote from: rte66man on March 02, 2023, 08:28:37 AM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on March 01, 2023, 08:16:48 PM
Quote from: swake on March 01, 2023, 07:51:07 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on March 01, 2023, 07:13:43 PM
ODOT needs to get on the ball then and just build a new freeway and ensure it won't be torn down for at least 70 years.
A complete rebuild of the north leg of the IDL was completed in 2011. All the way down to the dirt, all new concrete. It is pretty much is new now.
Amazing. And they didn't have the foresight to remove the left exits.
Foresight?? The cost to do what you have described would be hundreds of millions of dollars, which would siphon off all available funds for more worthwhile projects statewide. Not meeting current design standards? Yes, but unless ODOT wins the lottery, it ain't gonna happen.
We've gotta get off the cheap train.
So money grows on trees now. Got it.
There's a reason basically every major road improvement in Oklahoma in the past 20 years has been a city-owned freeway (Tisdale/Gilcrease) or a turnpike.
Quote from: US 89 on March 07, 2023, 06:31:56 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on March 02, 2023, 04:34:04 PM
Quote from: rte66man on March 02, 2023, 08:28:37 AM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on March 01, 2023, 08:16:48 PM
Quote from: swake on March 01, 2023, 07:51:07 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on March 01, 2023, 07:13:43 PM
ODOT needs to get on the ball then and just build a new freeway and ensure it won't be torn down for at least 70 years.
A complete rebuild of the north leg of the IDL was completed in 2011. All the way down to the dirt, all new concrete. It is pretty much is new now.
Amazing. And they didn't have the foresight to remove the left exits.
Foresight?? The cost to do what you have described would be hundreds of millions of dollars, which would siphon off all available funds for more worthwhile projects statewide. Not meeting current design standards? Yes, but unless ODOT wins the lottery, it ain't gonna happen.
We've gotta get off the cheap train.
So money grows on trees now. Got it.
There's a reason basically every major road improvement in Oklahoma in the past 20 years has been a city-owned freeway (Tisdale/Gilcrease) or a turnpike.
Yep. That's exactly it. Money grows on trees. Nothing more to be said because that's exactly what I said. Streets ought to be paved with gold. That's exactly what I suggested. [Personal attack redacted. -S.]
"Oklahoma doesn't have enough money to do this" and "Oklahoma should have enough money to do this" are two ideas that can both be true.
If money grows on trees, then $100 bills fall out of my rear end every time I visit the john.
Quote from: Scott5114 on March 07, 2023, 07:06:51 PM
"Oklahoma doesn't have enough money to do this" and "Oklahoma should have enough money to do this" are two ideas that can both be true.
Bullshit
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on March 08, 2023, 01:56:40 AM
Quote from: Scott5114 on March 07, 2023, 07:06:51 PM
"Oklahoma doesn't have enough money to do this" and "Oklahoma should have enough money to do this" are two ideas that can both be true.
Bullshit
How so?
Quote from: Scott5114 on March 08, 2023, 01:58:30 AM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on March 08, 2023, 01:56:40 AM
Quote from: Scott5114 on March 07, 2023, 07:06:51 PM
"Oklahoma doesn't have enough money to do this" and "Oklahoma should have enough money to do this" are two ideas that can both be true.
Bullshit
How so?
I was being facetious sorry i should've added an /s tag. But to be fair ODOT could've done this the right way if they wanted to and simply was being cheap. That's my point. Moving the exits to the right isn't a pie in the sky proposal here. They can do it.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on March 08, 2023, 06:09:06 AM
Quote from: Scott5114 on March 08, 2023, 01:58:30 AM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on March 08, 2023, 01:56:40 AM
Quote from: Scott5114 on March 07, 2023, 07:06:51 PM
"Oklahoma doesn't have enough money to do this" and "Oklahoma should have enough money to do this" are two ideas that can both be true.
Bullshit
How so?
I was being facetious sorry i should've added an /s tag. But to be fair ODOT could've done this the right way if they wanted to and simply was being cheap. That's my point. Moving the exits to the right isn't a pie in the sky proposal here. They can do it.
You have more faith in ODOT than I do then...
Quote from: BigOkie on March 07, 2023, 11:08:29 AM
Quote from: rte66man on March 03, 2023, 08:49:15 AM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on March 01, 2023, 08:16:48 PM
Amazing. And they didn't have the foresight to remove the left exits.
I took a look at the area with GE and was reminded that whichever ODOT engineer designed 244 in the 60's was in love with left exits. Leaving aside the IDL interchanges, they put them in WB at the Detroit/Cincinnati exit for no apparent reason. They also put them in both directions at Sheridan and Memorial. An argument could be made the one at Memorial was needed to separate the traffic signals at the top of the ramps from the ones at Memorial and Admiral but there is no good reason for the ones at Sheridan that I can see especially as there are service roads on both sides.
As someone who uses those left exits on the regular (I live just down the road from I-244 and Memorial) I can tell you the distance from the signals on both Memorial and Sheridan cause an issue; but it's also Easton St intersection to the south of the Sheridan exit that can be problematic.
Just not sure why all the hate for left exits. These seem to serve a purpose. I guess as someone who was born and grew up here, it never really affected me in that manner.
Maybe said Engineer, or group of engineers were from Connecticut. Believe at one time, I-84 going through the state, had more Left exits than any other state in the country.
Quote from: swake on March 01, 2023, 04:57:17 PM
The neighborhood wants I-244 torn down, not the state.
This is where the pro-demolition crowd is being dishonest. There is no "neighborhood" that would benefit from the highway being removed. There is only a church and OSU-Tulsa north of I-44. There are some multistory apartment buildings near Greenwood and Archer, but they are a result of gentrification. It would not improve the quality of life there to tear down I-244. I worked at the site for the Greenwood museum at Greenwood and Archer, and the highway isn't particularly intrusive there. The Greenwood underpass is wide open and brightly lit at night, and there's nothing preventing walking under the freeway. I imagine a lot of the naysayers don't even live in that part of town.