The Tulsa Forum by TulsaNow

From USA Today: http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2010-05-05-urban-parks_N.htm (http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2010-05-05-urban-parks_N.htm)


This is something I'd really like to see happen in Tulsa. With the ARRA funding rebuilding the North (& West) legs of the IDL, it's clear those aren't going away any time soon (though I wish we could have used the $75 mil to remove  or bury the North or East legs and rehab the others). The South leg provides us an opportunity to do something like these highway 'caps'. It's already sunken, so that step is already accomplished. It would go a long way in re-establishing the link between Downtown and Riverview, and would be especially beneficial to establishing the link between Downtown and the Arkansas River. Not only would it give us the chance to create green from grey, but it also provides development opportunities. It's almost like a 'reverse' TOD. The potential is huge! (And we could call it 'Cap and Trade' ;))

Here's a little map I've done showing some possibilities... Restored connections and development/park potential:

(http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1138/4596662256_4edb42f568_b.jpg)

I remember an Uptown plan from the Savage days that incorporated capping of 51 from Main to Cheyenne.

(http://riverviewtulsa.org/images/uptown.jpg)

I would like to see something like this done over the railroad tracks somewhere north and east of the BOK Arena.

http://www.continental-realestate.com/retail/projectDetails.cfm?pID=20

Jack Crowley has some of this in his downtown master plan. Although he moved parking onto the caps and then put the parks where the parking used to be as every place where you put dirt and grass over concrete ends up being a major problem.

Water loading?

Phoenix did this some time ago when I-10 was built through central Phoenix. Here is a pic. It's about a half mile long and is home to a park named Deck Park, and the Burton Barr Library. I thought that stretch of 51 should have been this way after seeing it here on a vacation in 1987. It helps keep the flow of Central Avenue into downtown as part of the city instead of having I-10 as divider.


(http://i131.photobucket.com/albums/p309/kallsop2/DeckParkTunnel.jpg)

Central Ave and the light rail are elevated over the park so that the park runs continuosly for about a half mile.

Capping would be a good idea if we weren't driving around on something akin to chat gravel around the rest of Tulsa right now.  Anyone see how poorly Yale has been put back together between 36th & 31st where they've been doing the sewer line project?  I'd be too embarrassed to turn in an invoice if that were my work.  Speaking of road projects, anyone heard an update of where we are at with that big package we approved as far as funds collected and work that's been/being performed?

That's part of it, plus the fact that organic stuff moves. Roots intrude, dirt settles, etc. There are plans to redo the williams green to an arrangement with no fountains and much less dirt., partially due to water leaking into the garage below.

I'd love to see a cap, but I don't think we really need a linear park in that area. I think a focus on the streetscape would be more useful. Over the BA, at least, a lot of good could be done in that way.

Seems very, very expensive and unnecessary in Tulsa.  Our IDL essentially loops completely around our downtown.  There is plenty of room for infill within the IDL, tons of parking lots, abandoned buildings, and potential greenspaces that don't require "capping" a freeway.  Our downtown setup is pretty much ideal considering that the major highways don't cut through it, but loops all the way around it.  I say spend the money redeveloping a building or building a new park on an abandoned lot.

I think one of the biggest arguments for capping the IDL is the fact that it loops completely around downtown.  It's almost a noose that threatens to strangle the life out of it by cutting it off from the rest of the city.  I know this is a little over dramatic, but it paints the picture.  By capping the IDL, at least in part, it would give a way to reconnect it with the surrounding communities.

The point is to remove the isolation between "inside" the IDL and "outside" the IDL. It makes for a more vibrant neighborhood. I saw it first hand in Columbus. (My sister used to live there) It's a completely different feeling now traveling along High north of downtown. While it didn't singlehandedly revive the Short North (it was slowly turning around on its own), it solidified the new "alive" vibe, which in turn helped preserve all they had recently gained in new development and activity downtown.

What amazes me is that they managed to do it (and were successful!) even as the Easton Town Center and all the stuff on Polaris Parkway were being developed far off in the suburbs.

The current configuration of 51 downtown lends itself to very easy capping along one or more of the streets crossing overhead. I would be surprised if some of the bridges aren't already getting long in the tooth, so any such project could be done as part of a bridge replacement. It doesn't cost all that much more to double the width and build a couple of 2-3 story buildings on either side of it.

It would be a lot harder to come up with the money to do something similar with the rest of the IDL, which is above grade rather than below.

Couldn't resist:

(http://imagecache01a.allposters.com/images/pic/FTTD/N68~Drama-Queen-Posters.jpg)
(http://earlyrecovery.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/authentic-drama-queen.jpg)

yeah yeah, at least I admited it

Nathanm is right. There's movement in downtown, but it is choked off from ALL of the surrounding neighborhoods thanks to the noose (great comparison, custosnox) that is the IDL. And it doesn't have to be parks. It could be buildings. Shops. Apartments. Offices. I seriously wouldn't recommend just slapping some parking lots on it though--we have way too much of that as it is, and we might as well make it something interesting, useful and unique. I think a combination of parks and structures would make for a really interesting area and a great way to reconnect downtown to its nearby neighbors.

I'd love to see this BUT would rather push for better downtown transit and streetscapes first.  This is a low priority.

Instead of saying low priority maybe say long term goal as part of a larger plan.

Pretty sure everything in the City of Tulsa is a long term goal or part of a plan.

I can see where that would be a problem in an enclosed space like a subsurface parking garage, but we're talking about 6 lanes of traffic, open at both ends, with drainage already in place. And that might have been a problem 30 years ago when they built the Williams Center, Williams Green and PAC (and destroying loads of historic buildings with multiple uses in the process), but I think we've progressed in that amount of time. If it were such a big problem, Boston's Big Dig wouldn't have happened and they wouldn't be planning this in Dallas.

Capping the southern bit of the IDL is a great idea and I would agree that buildings over the roadway would be preferrable to park/open space right now.  However, there is WAY too much undeveloped land on either side of that portion of the IDL to justify creating new buildable area and I just don't think a cap over any length of that portion of the IDL would really incent new development down there.  At some point in our history I do believe that we'll densify to the point that reclaiming air rights for development will make sense but until then streetscaping could go along way to visually making the connections across the bridges.

One idea that I really wish got more traction is that of converting the eastern leg of the IDL to a boulevard.  I was walking underneath the interchange at the SE corner of the IDL and was astounded to realize just how much City space gives way to accommodate what I think is a redundant connector expressway.  If the Pearl District and East End (or whatever the latest moniker is) ever get going I think converting the east portion of the IDL to a boulevard would seem most feasible.  I would even argue that you wouldn't necessarily need a primary boulevard and that you could get creative (to the degree that the surrounding built fabric allows) with the layout. 

That portion of the IDL has to be on some sort of list for improvement at ODOT.  I would urge them to use the money to get rid of it and deed the land underneath back to the City.  Allow a developer(s) to come in and rebuild a street network and develop the land.

As we continue rebuilding our core it's good to throw these ideas out.

Taking out a leg of the IDL has been discussed before, and I'm one who likes the idea, but now that they are rebuilding the entire thing I think we are stuck with it for at least a few more decades.

As far as I know the state is only rebuilding the north and west leg (I-244) of the IDL.  I wasn't aware anyone was touching the south and east legs. 

Is there a schedule at ODOT indicating when a particular roadway will be looked at for improvement?  When was that stretch (east leg) last overhauled?  When it was created?

I really hope that it is found out when it is scheduled for major overhaul so that a campaign can be initiated to remove it.

So if we were to cap the IDL, how many years until the buildings or parks fall on to the motorists below?  We don't seem to be able to build anything that lasts more than about 20 to 30 years anymore.

Good luck with that..most downtown offices/businesses will campaign to make sure that doesn't happen.  Plus, the S and E leg is an unsigned interstate (444), and as such, would take a federal decree to remove it.

Yes, unfortunately I think we're stuck with the IDL for a long time.  We might as well look at solutions to enhance it in the mean time.  The SE interchange with all the pine trees is really nice, mainly because it shields Maple Ridge neighborhoods to the south, but something like that at the SW interchange by OSU Med Center would create an attractive gateway to downtown for people crossing the bridge.  Or something like what has been proposed for the north leg between OSU and the Brady District:
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v316/bg918/osu.jpg) 

Not sure I understand why downtown offices/businesses would campaign to make sure that it doesn't happen.  It's a redundant leg with only one local access point.  I don't see how downtown access would be adversely impacted at all.

Eliminating segments of federal interstates is not impossible.  Other cities has accomplished such feats.  If the planning starts early enough I don't see how they couldn't be won over.  It's not as if this small portion of I-444 is necessary for the purposes of National Defense (initial motivation behind the interstate highway system) or critical to the expediency of our national warehouse on wheels.  And again, I think the impact to vehicle circulation around the region would be unnoticeable and access to downtown would be diminished. 

The benefits of reconnecting the urban fabric between downtown and the eastern core - in time - would/ could be great and positive for the City's tax base and quality of life.

You just said 'federal' and 'not impossible' in the same sentence.  Think about it.

And please, cite me a reference where they have removed a highway in such a manner.  I looked and couldn't find one before I made my initial reply.  I have found cases of moving an interstate, but usually not very far.

I'm not saying it's impossible, but I am saying I don't expect to see it in my lifetime.

I think the West Side Hwy in Manhattan was I-478 (can't recall) and it was reduced to a boulevard a few years ago.  Most others I know of were not Federal Interstate Hwys but still well travelled limited access highways converted.  Being on the rolls as a Interstate Hwy will add another level of beuracracy sure but why should it be a deterrent?

Here's a list of other Citys considering highway removal and many are Interstate Highways: http://www.preservenet.com/freeways/FreewaysPlansProposals.html
Nashville has an incredible ambition!!

A well organized group in Louisville is pushing for the removal of a portion of an Interstate Hwy:
http://www.8664.org/video-rendering/

http://www.planetizen.com/node/23300

Removing Urban Freeways
United StatesOp-EdTransportation
19 March 2007 - 9:30am
Author: Charles Siegel
As part of our effort to slow global warming, we should be correcting one of the great errors in the history of American city planning: the post-war binge of urban freeway building.

During the twenty-five years following World War II, American cities changed dramatically as freeways were sliced through them -- and it soon became clear that they had changed for the worse.

Instead of reducing congestion, the freeways encouraged people to move to remote suburbs and drive long distances to work and to shopping, increasing traffic dramatically. One study found that, five years after a major freeway project is completed in California, 95% of the new capacity fills up with traffic that would not have existed if the freeway had not been built1.

The freeways also blighted the older parts of our cities. For example, San Francisco stopped most of its proposed freeways and it remained an attractive and prosperous city, but right across the bay, Oakland had several freeways cut through its center, and nearby neighborhoods decayed and were half-abandoned.

Americans soon realized how destructive urban freeways are, and citizens organized to stop them. The first freeway revolt was in San Francisco, where the Board of Supervisors voted to cancel seven of the city's ten planned freeways in 1959, after neighborhood groups presented them with petitions signed by 30,000 people.

The freeway revolt spread, and by the end of the 1970s, it was impossible to build a new freeway through the center of most American cities. But a great deal of damage had been done before the freeways were stopped.

Undoing the Damage
A few foresighted cities have begun to undo this damage. Several have torn down uncompleted freeway spurs, which are relatively easy to remove because they are not important parts of the regional freeway system. For example:

•San Francisco's Embarcadero Freeway was planned to connect the Golden Gate Bridge with the Bay Bridge, but only 1.2 miles were built before it was stopped. During the 1990s, the city demolished this freeway spur and replaced it with a waterfront boulevard and new trolley line. The freeway removal made room for thousands of new housing units and millions of square feet of office space. In addition, once the freeway no longer cut them off from the waterfront, the entire new neighborhoods of Rincon Hill and South Beach were developed on what had been underused land.

•Milwaukee's Park East Freeway was part of a plan to circle downtown with freeways, but only 1 mile of the Park East was built before this plan was stopped in 1972. In 2002-2003, the city demolished this freeway spur and replaced it with a traditional street grid. Hundreds of millions of dollars of new development have already been built, approved, or proposed in the 26 acre redevelopment district that had been occupied by the freeway or blighted because it was next to the freeway.
It is obviously more difficult to remove mainline freeways that are integral parts of the regional freeway network than to remove freeway spurs, but it has been done:

•Manhattan's West Side Highway, an elevated freeway along the Hudson River, collapsed and was closed in 1973. When it was closed, 53 percent of the traffic that had used this freeway simply disappeared. The political establishment took it for granted that they had to replace it with a bigger and better freeway, but citizen resistance delayed the replacement for two decades, and finally even the politicians saw that the city was getting along quite well without any freeway here. Instead of replacing the freeway, the city simply added new medians, a waterfront park, and a bicycle path to the surface street here.

•Seoul, South Korea, removed the Cheonggye freeway, the one major freeway that cut through the center of the city, in order to stimulate the economic revival of central Seoul's Dongdaemun district. The river that this freeway covered was restored as a park. Seoul built bus ways to replace the freeway capacity, with the goal of reducing automobile use from 27.5 percent to 12 percent of all trips.

•Paris, France, has closed the Pompidou Expressway during the summer, covered the roadway with sand, and turned it into Paris Plage (Paris Beach), which has become a very popular attraction. Recently, the city decided to close the Pompidou permanently as part of a larger plan to reduce automobile use by 40%.

This postcard of West Side Highway shows how the elevated highway overshadowed the street.
It's important to note that reducing road capacity does not reduce automobile use as dramatically as increasing capacity increases automobile use. Typically, only about 20 percent of the traffic that had used the road capacity disappears.

In the short term, Transportation Demand Management (TDM) policies can be used to mitigate the effect of freeway removal:

•Parking Cash-Out:Businesses could be required to give employees commute allowances instead of free parking. Employees could use the allowance to pay for the parking they used to get for free, they could use it to pay for transit, they could keep part of the allowance if they car-pooled to work, or they could keep the entire allowance if they walked or bicycled to work. It is estimated that this policy could reduce commuter traffic (and peak demand for road space) by about 20%.

•Congestion Pricing: As in London and Stockholm, drivers could be charged a fee for driving into the central business district at times when roads are congested. The revenues could be used to pay for better public transportation. This policy has been very successful where it has been tried, and the fee can be set at the level needed to reduce congestion to a manageable level.
In the long term, removing major urban freeways should be part of a more comprehensive approach to reduce automobile dependency by promoting public transportation and transit-oriented development. To slow global warming, we must move us from the heavy auto dependency of most American cities toward a more balanced transportation system that works for pedestrians and public transit as well as for automobiles.

Freeways in the Age of Global Warming
Many of the freeways built during the postwar binge are now approaching the end of their lifespan. Unfortunately, the political establishment seems to take it for granted that these freeways have to be replaced by bigger and better freeways, just as New York's establishment took it for granted that the West Side Highway had to be replaced.

For example, Philadephia is talking about undergrounding I-95, which cuts the city off from its waterfront.


Present day West Street in New York -- freeway gone, the roadway is now a pedestrian-friendly street.
Likewise, Seattle is debating what to do about the earthquake-damaged Alaska Way Viaduct on its waterfront. An active citizen's movement and one of the local newspapers says that the Alaska Way should not be rebuilt; it should be replaced by surface streets and transit. But Washington's governor has run a referendum that just lets voters choose between an elevated freeway and an underground freeway, and Seattle's Mayor, Greg Nickels, supports the underground freeway.

Nickels has taken many minor steps to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in Seattle. If he would back freeway removal and more balanced transportation, he could make Seattle into a leader in fighting global warming - an example for the rest of the country and the world to imitate.

Instead, Nickels has backed an alternative that hides the traffic but does nothing to reduce the region's auto dependency and carbon dioxide emissions. He has not learned anything from the huge cost overruns of Boston's Big Dig. And he does not realize that, as global warming causes sea levels to rise, his underground waterfront freeway could turn into the world's largest underground swimming pool.

Rebuilding freeways in an age of global warming is like rebuilding deck-chairs on the Titanic, so passengers can keep following their old habits while the ship sinks.

Now that Seattle voters have rejected both alternatives for replacing the Alaska Way, the politicians will have to start looking at alternatives that are more environmentally sound.

Politicians are looking for a technological fix for global warming and are usually afraid to call for any changes in our way of life. But this is a case where we could change our lives for the better.

Just look at the people who enjoy walking on San Francisco's Embarcadero or walking by Seoul's Cheonggye River. These places are much more livable than they were when they were blighted by freeways jammed full of people driving as if there were no tomorrow.

Charles Siegel is the author of The End of Economic Growth and the creator of the web site Removing Freeways -- Restoring Cities.

I like the idea...in theory.  However, I've seen what Oklahoma weather can do to trees that are planted in 3 feet of dirt.  Big storms eat these trees for lunch.  The Williams green used to have significantly more trees than it does today.  Most of them were popped out of the ground a few years ago in a big storm (roots, dirt, and all).  Never replanted b/c it was seen as a losing battle.  (As soon as the tree gets big enough to be enjoyable, there aren't enough roots to hold it down.)

You could probably do a nice job with a lot of ground cover and shrubs, where it would still make for a pleasant walk...if enough people would volunteer to maintain it!

I agree that the automobile sped up the flight from living in the city.  It wasn't started by the auto though.  Rich people had places in the country, now wrapped by the suburbs.  When (real) trolleys were available, suburbs became available to people with more moderate incomes.  Trolleys were often replaced by buses.  Public transit was the beginning of the death knell for cities having a monopoly on populations not living on the farm. Young, and some older, folk are now returning to the city but there was a significant number of years that a lot of people just didn't want to live in the city.  They wanted something between 5th Avenue and "Green Acres".

Trollies may have let people live slightly farther away, but it was mainly the car that let people live all the way out in Sapulpa or Glenpool and work in Tulsa.

I think 2-4 miles from the downtown core was what the streetcars opened up.

The recent construction has proven reasonably well that removing the east leg of the IDL would not be such a wise idea, at least not without significantly increasing capacity on the remaining parts, which will only make them even more of a barrier. And make no mistake, a fast, wide boulevard is also a significant pedestrian deterrent.

At first, you only needed to be a mile or two away.  Anyway at least around Tulsa a mile or two would do.  You are probably forgetting that the trolleys ran to both Sapulpa and Sand Springs. 

I was also thinking of where I grew up near Phila, PA.  There the trolleys ran 15 to 20 miles out of the city.  Not sure about the distances from NYC or Boston but I'm reasonably sure the rail systems there were not all built in the last 50 years. 

It's been years since I've been there but I remember Roosevelt Blvd in Philly as no place for pedestrians.

The difference is, that in the Northeast, the streetcars, trolleys, and trains were mostly used because it wasn't physically and financially possible to stuff more people into the area (tall buildings are expensive), rather than to the end of suburban sprawl, as became the norm later on.

In other parts of the country where they came later, they were used more to spread people out rather than continue the dense growth beyond what was reasonable to get around as a pedestrian.

The Phila area trolleys/light rail were originally set up to provide better transportation to outlying towns:  Media; the county seat of Delaware county, West Chester; county seat of Chester county, Norristown; county seat of Montgomery county (although the original route was planned to be competition for the PA RR main line to Harrisburg).  In the case of West Chester, the trolley replaced a toll road.   TOD followed.  Some of the development was nearly as dense as Phila.  The farther out, the less dense.

Sorry to keep harping on Phila but I spent my first 20 years in the area so I have an interest in its history and actually remember some of it first-hand.

It's good to have folks who know what they're talking about. :)

Perhaps my generalization of NYC to the rest of the northeast was premature. One must also keep in mind the much larger size of cities these days. There has been a lot of consolidation, and what were then considered far away towns are often now part of the city itself. (as it is here in Tulsa, where several named places were absorbed into the city, even a few rather close to downtown)

Along some routes from Phila to the "burbs" the only way you know you have crossed a township boundary is the sign saying "Leaving..." or "Welcome to..."

Well,  back to the thread.

There is little question that freeways have divided many cities.  It used to be (and still is in some cases) the RR tracks.  Ever hear of the expression "from the wrong side of the tracks"?   An easy way for pedestrians to cross would help to rejoin the segments.  I believe attractive pedestrian bridges could help.  I know others see them as less desirable and intimidating.  A caged in bridge about 10 ft wide is not what I have in mind although I believe that is better than nothing.

I saw this in Dallas this weekend.  It's actually pretty neat.  I could see it working in Tulsa on the southside of downtown where Hwy 51 is already sunk and could be "capped" without having to create a tunnel from scratch.  It would also help the 18th and Boston corridor expand northward and to try and encourage some development in south downtown.  Of course, the most likely result would be that the "cap" would turn into surface parking for TCC and the churches.

It also works well on the east end of downtown St. Louis, as I traveled there in March.  Especially right around the Arch.

Milwaukee just completed several tunnels, some of which pass beneath downtown buildings
(http://www.tunneltalk.com/images/companyNews/TLACS-control-of-the-tunnel-luminaries.jpg)