|
Title: Why not knock down the north side of the IDL? Post by: deinstein on July 31, 2008, 03:54:35 pm -It would connect OSU-Tulsa with the Brady District.
-It would not separate downtown from North Tulsa, and thus encourage development beyond the I-244 boundary. -It's in horrible condition and is just more tax dollars going to waste for years to come. -You already have a detour taking the I-444/75 route on the east side of the IDL. -The only people this would be a pain for is commuters coming on I-244 heading towards Sand Springs/Stillwater...and they can just deal with the extra two minute commute. Thoughts? Title: Why not knock down the north side of the IDL? Post by: FOTD on July 31, 2008, 03:59:01 pm That's nuts.
Title: Why not knock down the north side of the IDL? Post by: mrB on July 31, 2008, 04:35:33 pm Here's my similar thought from this thread: Cathedral Square (http://"http://www.tulsanow.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=5534")
quote: Title: Why not knock down the north side of the IDL? Post by: booWorld on July 31, 2008, 05:25:35 pm It would be fine with me to see the entire IDL demolished.
Tulsa was a better city before the IDL, IMO. Title: Why not knock down the north side of the IDL? Post by: deinstein on July 31, 2008, 05:31:40 pm quote: I argue it's nuts to have it there and I gave my reasons. What's your argument besides it just being there? Title: Why not knock down the north side of the IDL? Post by: FOTD on July 31, 2008, 05:37:41 pm quote: Why destroy destruction? Makes no sense. Sorry Einstein. Title: Why not knock down the north side of the IDL? Post by: deinstein on July 31, 2008, 05:43:14 pm Are you just trying to pad your post count or can you give me some legitimate reasons why keeping it there would do better for Downtown & Greenwood?
Title: Why not knock down the north side of the IDL? Post by: SXSW on July 31, 2008, 06:12:33 pm I'd like to see it torn down too. But I'd rather see limited transportation funds go towards a light rail system and finally completing the Gilcrease Expressway first.
Title: Why not knock down the north side of the IDL? Post by: YoungTulsan on July 31, 2008, 06:32:00 pm Complete the Gilcrease loop and there are a plethora of options you can use from there.
First step: Re-sign the Gilcrease as 244 / US412. - Could get rid of the north leg of the IDL - Could even get rid of current I-244 from Downtown to Memorial theoretically - Could get rid of the West Tulsa leg of I-244 that runs from US-75 to I-44 Lots of North Tulsa and West Tulsa development problems would be fixed without highways cutting through neighborhood flow/connectivity. Admiral could be the new 71st street if I-244 were demolished/all of that space cleared. (I say the new 71st from a development opportunity standpoint, not to piss off all the hippies who want the car banned) (Yes, I know this idea would never happen) Title: Why not knock down the north side of the IDL? Post by: Red Arrow on July 31, 2008, 07:54:34 pm Not having a "Berlin Wall" in downtown would probably help development. Until there is a transit option or an alternate route for rubber tire vehicles, it would be foolish to consider getting rid of major portions of the IDL. Finishing the widening of I-44 would be a good first start for through traffic. They have no need to go through downtown. From my experience, I wouldn't want to go through downtown of a place I was passing through. The exception is US75 to I-35E in Dallas. Any other option to South Texas adds about 50 miles to the trip. (Just did that trip last Saturday and Tuesday.
Title: Why not knock down the north side of the IDL? Post by: Double A on July 31, 2008, 09:01:53 pm quote: +1. This guy is full of expensive, hair brained ideas. I'm surprised he's not employed in the Taylor administration. Title: Why not knock down the north side of the IDL? Post by: deinstein on July 31, 2008, 10:00:43 pm quote: Really? Because my argument is how not having it would save money long-term, while stimulating the area even more economically. So, what's your counter-argument for it staying? Title: Why not knock down the north side of the IDL? Post by: Kenosha on July 31, 2008, 10:02:02 pm quote: Wanna know what else is expensive? Maintaining an elevated highway. Title: Why not knock down the north side of the IDL? Post by: Double A on July 31, 2008, 10:45:03 pm quote: If it ain't broke(it's not) why fix it? This is all pure speculation on your part. Show me the evidence that tearing this down will pay for itself. The closest thing I can think of is the big dig, and that was a huge boondoggle that hasn't gotten anywhere near the return on that investment. Wanna help North Tulsa? Finish the f#*king Gilcrease expressway. Get light rail out there(the infrastructure is already mostly in place) and get reliable, efficient, convenient, bus service. Spend a little time out on the Northside and learn about their needs before deciding what's best for them. This isn't it. This is as ridiculous as your idea about getting rid of the on street parking on Cherry St. for bike lanes. Title: Why not knock down the north side of the IDL? Post by: Double A on July 31, 2008, 10:48:47 pm quote: Not maintaining it and letting it deteriorate to the state it's in makes it expensive, if it had been maintained it wouldn't be that expensive. Title: Why not knock down the north side of the IDL? Post by: deinstein on July 31, 2008, 11:10:53 pm The closest thing you can think of is the Big Dig?
Uh, that was a project to BUILD more roads. That might be the worst example you could have thrown out there. This idea is the anti-thesis to the Big Dig. Try Harbor Freeway in Portland for a better example. If it ain't broke why fix it? It is broke. It's in a horrible shape, it has deteriorated the area, it divides the area and we are better off without it. You don't need four highways surrounding downtown. And even if it was properly maintained (which it never will be, let's get real) it would still cost money. And I do spend time on the north side...if you think finishing a freeway (that will end up is crappy condition anyway) is the answer then you're absolutely clueless. No one will disagree with you on light rail and bus service... And I asked if bike lanes were a proper buffer like street parking. I think there should be bike lanes there, and I know there are space issues and wanted it to be discussed. But yeah, have fun building another highway. Title: Why not knock down the north side of the IDL? Post by: YoungTulsan on July 31, 2008, 11:15:20 pm It wouldn't be like the Big Dig, because we would simply get rid of it.
But anyway, the obvious counter argument is that you don't just destroy infrastructure, because of all the money that was put into building it in the first place. I would never consider putting into motion the ideas I suggested earlier without some very thorough studies to suggest the benefits outweigh the cost. I can't just GUESS they do. I think it would be splendid if they did though. AA, in two posts you went from saying "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" to talking about how good & broke it is (not maintaining it and letting it deteriorate). Definitely, finish the Gilcrease and I-44 first. THEN open the doors to talk about the feasibility of replacing old 244 with a connected community. Title: Why not knock down the north side of the IDL? Post by: deinstein on July 31, 2008, 11:20:19 pm I think it's regressive to continue building freeways and/or expanding them and letting them go to crap...
When will it stop? Seriously. Title: Why not knock down the north side of the IDL? Post by: booWorld on July 31, 2008, 11:27:26 pm (http://www.tulsalibrary.org/JPG/G0789.jpg)
Photo source: Beryl Ford Collection/Rotary Club of Tulsa, Tulsa City-County Library, Tulsa Historical Society Title: Why not knock down the north side of the IDL? Post by: YoungTulsan on July 31, 2008, 11:38:40 pm Comedy gold right there.
Also keep in mind they envisioned Riverside as being an expressway. The fact that it would have cut up Maple Ridge is, what I gather (wasn't around then), the main reason it was blocked. Without a highway there, US-75 in West Tulsa between Union and Elwood became the logical North/South route. And that was a little close to also justify the Gilcrease ("Sequoyah") loop on the West Side. I believe the Gilcrease is justified now. Title: Why not knock down the north side of the IDL? Post by: deinstein on July 31, 2008, 11:56:29 pm How are any new highways justified?
Title: Why not knock down the north side of the IDL? Post by: YoungTulsan on August 01, 2008, 12:17:07 am quote: Well, for one, it would be the only way your idea of tearing down the IDL would ever be feasible. US-412 is considered a High-Priority Corridor from Tulsa to Nashville TN. I-244 is a federally funded Interstate. You can't just knock out a section of it without providing a suitable alternative. The Gilcrease circumnavigating downtown would provide that alternative, could potentially be given Interstate status (and funding), and there are only about 7 or 8 miles left to be done to complete it. Much of the area it would cut through is already clear. Title: Why not knock down the north side of the IDL? Post by: deinstein on August 01, 2008, 12:40:46 am [}:)] @ high priority corridor from Nashville to Tulsa. No one takes that route, come on now.
And it would be rerouting...I-244 would be rerouted on the other parts of the IDL, same with 412. Title: Why not knock down the north side of the IDL? Post by: YoungTulsan on August 01, 2008, 01:18:20 am quote: That is just what it is classified by the FHWA. That also means there is future possibility of the route being classified as a new Interstate (which is important for funding). Tulsa to Stillwater and Tulsa to NE Arkansas are going to do nothing but grow traffic volume. Taking out the north leg of the IDL would require passers through to make about 4 turns in a 1 mile stretch. It would clog up traffic, cause accidents, and just generally be a clusterf---. The north loop (Gilcrease) would add a couple of miles to the trip, but be smooth & trouble free. What we have now serves its function just fine. If you don't complete the Gilcrease loop, but still are hellbent on knocking out a leg of the IDL, the south or east legs would cause the least problems. No passers through would be forced to make 4 turns ¯|_|¯ as a result. You have to have the Gilcrease if you want to tear down the north leg. Title: Why not knock down the north side of the IDL? Post by: Kenosha on August 01, 2008, 01:54:55 am quote: I don't know how to say this nicely. You are talking out of your donkey. Really...you don't know what the f**k you are talking about. Nonetheless, your uninformed, offhanded comments are relayed as facts, which they are not.... Maintaining highways is expensive. Which is why it hasn't been done properly. If it wasn't expensive, we wouldn't be having this conversation. Secondly, I repeatedly hear you say that this or that won't pay for itself when referring to public projects. Let's get something straight. If public money only went towards things that paid for themselves we'd have.....NOTHING. No Sewers No Sewage Treatment No Stormwater Management No ROADS...which are the worst offender of the "not paying for itself" criteria No Urban Planning of any sort. Social Security Wars...wait, maybe we are on to something here. Public Transportation Parks Sidewalks Any kind of maintenance for the above items. Police Fire ..... Truthfully, my brain hurts trying to think of all the things that don't "pay for themselves". We might have water and garbage service. The point is...this is an unacceptable criteria for evaluating the value of most public projects. They do create value, which may or may not translate in to increased revenue operational and capital needs. The only reason the "pay for itself" is brought up is to scuttle an otherwise worthy project. I paint my house. It creates value. Is it dollar for dollar value? No, but not painting it is, dollar for dollar, much worse. Title: Why not knock down the north side of the IDL? Post by: Breadburner on August 01, 2008, 06:10:30 am Sewers.....[;)]
Title: Why not knock down the north side of the IDL? Post by: FOTD on August 01, 2008, 09:25:03 am Dimesteen....the hidden intent behind putting it in that location was to disect north Tulsa neighborhoods devaluing property and dispersing an ethnic (and much feared) colony.
That objective was a suckcess. So, you might have a point. But FOTD doubts it. Just demonizing the 1960's city leadership. Title: Why not knock down the north side of the IDL? Post by: carltonplace on August 01, 2008, 09:47:15 am The exchange from N/S 75 on the east side of downtown onto E/W 51 is already a mess during rush hour. Traffic exiting 75 to East bound 51 backs up from Lewis and traffic exiting west bound onto 51 backs up from the I44 exchange (that bridge is too small). I can't imagine the Dallas like snarl we'd get by adding more traffic onto 51 during peak hours.
The IDL was a mistake. It chokes downtown and cuts it off from the surrounding neighborhoods. Its construction destroyed dozens of old houses that would have been desirable today (along with parks etc) and it (along with white flight) initiated the devaluation and decay of the remaining homes outside of the IDL. The IDL also encourages the mass exodus away from downtown to the burbs everyday. But it's done. I don't know how you could move or divert it without recreating those same issues in another part of town. Title: Why not knock down the north side of the IDL? Post by: Kenosha on August 01, 2008, 10:22:44 am thx...
Sewers... Title: Why not knock down the north side of the IDL? Post by: Gaspar on August 01, 2008, 11:04:55 am quote: I use Riverside as an expressway. Just have to time the lights just right. Title: Why not knock down the north side of the IDL? Post by: Breadburner on August 01, 2008, 11:29:38 am quote: Lol...Yw.... Title: Why not knock down the north side of the IDL? Post by: PonderInc on August 01, 2008, 02:23:45 pm Boo, you posted the wrong picture. I like this one better, b/c you can insert your own quote:
"And then some day, people will actually choose to live way out here..." (http://www.tulsalibrary.org/JPG/G0585.jpg) Title: Why not knock down the north side of the IDL? Post by: booWorld on August 01, 2008, 06:16:56 pm quote: Actually, I was saving that one for you and pfox, but with a different caption. Now, you've stolen my thunder... Title: Why not knock down the north side of the IDL? Post by: Double A on August 01, 2008, 09:54:28 pm Pop Quiz, Hotshots:
Is there a business boom now that the main mall is ripped out? What is the timeline before the cost of that is repaid in sales tax dollars generated in that area? Title: Why not knock down the north side of the IDL? Post by: RecycleMichael on August 01, 2008, 10:12:23 pm It made it better for Mayfest.
Title: Why not knock down the north side of the IDL? Post by: PonderInc on August 03, 2008, 10:59:16 pm Now that I'm living way out in the burbs near 41st and Harvard[;)]... I've just learned something interesting: People in south Tulsa think that "north Tulsa" means anything north of I-44!
Geez...I've been expecting to receive my Elite Midtown Money Belt in the mail any day now...but now, I don't know if I qualify... Title: Why not knock down the north side of the IDL? Post by: Red Arrow on August 03, 2008, 11:40:13 pm quote: I-44? I thought it was 71st Street [:D] Title: Why not knock down the north side of the IDL? Post by: deinstein on August 04, 2008, 01:45:41 am I have not been to South Tulsa in over a year.
+1 Title: Why not knock down the north side of the IDL? Post by: MH2010 on August 04, 2008, 07:41:34 am quote: No one has missed you in south Tulsa. If you could get about 10,000 more people like you, traffic might ease up a little. Title: Why not knock down the north side of the IDL? Post by: waterboy on August 04, 2008, 08:09:39 am Red, its 71st now, and rapidly moving southward.
As far as traffic, I can't tell you the last time I saw a scooter south of 81st between Yale and 169. Are they illegal out there? Or have they all been sucked up into the SUV air intakes? Title: Why not knock down the north side of the IDL? Post by: MH2010 on August 04, 2008, 08:50:07 am My 4x4 truck just crushes them into the pavement. I've been trying to fill the potholes with them but there just isn't enough scooters yet.
Title: Why not knock down the north side of the IDL? Post by: waterboy on August 04, 2008, 09:05:02 am [:D]Its working out there.
Title: Why not knock down the north side of the IDL? Post by: deinstein on August 04, 2008, 01:24:23 pm quote: Have fun at Applebees tonight. Title: Why not knock down the north side of the IDL? Post by: MH2010 on August 04, 2008, 03:44:58 pm Haven't been to one in years. Are you so small minded that you think the only "cool" local restaurants are in midtown?
Title: Why not knock down the north side of the IDL? Post by: perspicuity85 on August 04, 2008, 04:48:12 pm quote: A variation of what you're proposing has already been studied by the city. Two years ago, the city investigated suppressing the north section of the IDL, and allowing the streets to pass over the freeway, the way the rest of I-244 is designed. What became of the study? Who knows? It was probably put on the backburner after the $1 billion figure for maintaining existing city streets was released. Personally, I think all freeways in urban areas should be designed with the city streets going over them. The natural streetscape is better preserved, and traffic exiting the freeway goes uphill while reducing speed from 65 miles an hour to a dead stop. To me, the uphill exit makes service roads such as Skelly Drive safer. Title: Why not knock down the north side of the IDL? Post by: deinstein on August 04, 2008, 06:33:40 pm quote: Interesting, and I agree. Title: Why not knock down the north side of the IDL? Post by: deinstein on August 04, 2008, 06:35:55 pm quote: Are you still talking? Title: Why not knock down the north side of the IDL? Post by: MH2010 on August 04, 2008, 07:27:58 pm quote: Oh look! The ignore button..... Title: Why not knock down the north side of the IDL? Post by: booWorld on August 04, 2008, 09:29:37 pm quote: I agree, but short downhill entrance ramps can be a problem if they are too steep and don't give enough merging lane. The ramp on to west-bound BA around Toledo west of Yale is an example. Wherever there is grade-separated traffic, there's the need for bridges at intersections. With a sunken expressway, the bridges are usually narrower but longer. The bridges over an depressed expressway would carry the lighter street traffic at slower speeds, but they would deteriorate over time and would require maintenance. However, it's probably easier to shut down a less busy street for bridge repair than it is to divert expressway traffic. But why do we need expressways forming a loop around downtown, anyway? Is it really necessary for traffic to roar through the heart of city at 55 mph or faster? I remember when the posted speed limit on the IDL was 50 mph. I think Tulsa ought to try boulevards and more parkways in the city. This would slow traffic down to 35 or 40 mph for a few miles, and most of the intersections could be at grade. Signalization would cost money, but there would be huge savings in bridge construction and maintenance costs, plus most of the cut and fill earthwork would be eliminated. Boulevards and parkways can carry lots of traffic before they are undesirable as pedestrian commercial streets with restaurants and shops along the sidewalk facing the roadway. I think that John Fregonese said during a PLANiTULSA presentation last month that 20,000 vehicles per day was the approximate limit for that type of commercial street. I'd rather see more boulevards running through the city than grade-separated expressways. In the very core of the city, it would be nice to have parallel through routes at no more than quarter-mile intervals. IMO, the traffic which has no intention of stopping in Tulsa should go around on a loop road and/or pay a toll to take a quicker and easier route. If highway traffic truly reached crisis levels, it would be great if the City operated the loop highways and through expressways as toll roads -- the toll amounts could vary to encourage traffic away from congested areas as needed. (And I want to emphasize that I don't believe this is needed in Tulsa currently since there are no extreme traffic problems here -- so please no one reply that this would be a tinier version of the nightmarish Oklahoma Turnpike Authority.) It was suggested that Skelly Drive become a toll road and that the Creek Turnpike become free or that its tolls be reduced to encourage traffic away from Skelly. Local traffic which didn't want to pay the fee could use the access roads adjacent to Skelly. I know people who avoid using the expressways and actually prefer the slower surface streets to get around Tulsa. It doesn't matter to them that trips take a few more minutes. Aesthetics aside, one of the advantages of Tulsa's roadway system is that we have a well-defined, easy-to-use street grid with a few expressways cutting through it. That's what makes getting around Tulsa relatively quick and convenient for a city of its size and density. Removing the north leg of the IDL wouldn't change the overall situation very much. Title: Why not knock down the north side of the IDL? Post by: Red Arrow on August 04, 2008, 10:26:42 pm Flood control may be a problem for sunken expressways around Tulsa.
I avoid the Creek Tpk from Jenks to Memorial going home from work. It can take 5 minutes or more to get on the Turnpike. Then there is about 4 miles of go fast. Then there is near gridlock on southbound Memorial. It's actually about the same time to go through Jenks and take Delaware Ave to 121st Street. Going to work the Turnpike works out well at the time I use it. Title: Why not knock down the north side of the IDL? Post by: deinstein on August 04, 2008, 10:36:33 pm quote: Later. Title: Why not knock down the north side of the IDL? Post by: deinstein on August 04, 2008, 10:37:38 pm quote: Has the south part of the IDL ever had problems with that? That's a reasonable concern. Title: Why not knock down the north side of the IDL? Post by: Red Arrow on August 04, 2008, 11:23:06 pm quote: I don't know about the IDL in particular. There are several low spots around town that make the news whenever we get a lot of rain. Downtown may be enough higher than the river to allow storm drainage even from a sunken expressway. It would need to be considered. |