A grassroots organization focused on the intelligent and sustainable development, preservation and revitalization of Tulsa.
 
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 07:57:04 am
Pages: 1 ... 16 17 [18] 19 20   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Vision Extension - IDL Removal/Demolition  (Read 106208 times)
LandArchPoke
Philanthropist
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 847



« Reply #255 on: November 09, 2021, 12:14:30 pm »

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

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

There are no set projects yet that will be funded by the Reconnecting Communities program. It will be a competitive grant process much like TIGER and other programs have been. Tulsa would obviously be at the top of the list to get funding if it wants it, Biden mentioned it like you said. There's some conflicting information on how the grant money will be given out, I've heard it might only be $100 million per year for 10 years which will not pay for very many projects anywhere in the US. So, would likely have to either change that or be able to get funding from other DOT programs too or one city would easily take up 1 or 2 years worth of funding easily with project costs at least in the $30 million/mile range.

The reconciliation bill has another $4 billion that will go to the Reconnecting Communities program as long as it is not cut, which would make $500 million a year available at least and would actually make the program something worthwhile.

If Tulsa were to go after these funds it would likely be 2-5 years before you'd see anything happen. You'd have to start the environmental review process, community input, etc. which takes at least 2 years or longer depending on various things.
Logged
David Cardamone
Citizen
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 47


« Reply #256 on: November 11, 2021, 02:27:04 am »

Removal of I-244 will be bad for north Tulsa, so I am against removing I-244.
Logged
Red Arrow
T-Town Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 10889


WWW
« Reply #257 on: November 11, 2021, 11:52:44 am »

Removal of I-244 will be bad for north Tulsa, so I am against removing I-244.

A lot of folks believe it would be good to reunite that portion of Tulsa.  Why do you think it would be bad?

Logged

 
LandArchPoke
Philanthropist
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 847



« Reply #258 on: February 10, 2022, 11:43:38 pm »

Bill was filed for this session from Rep. Goodwin to get $400,000 for studies on redeveloping the I-244 portion of the IDL. This would be the local match to the Reconnecting Communities federal program. City Council is planning to hold public meetings on this later this year.

The Congress for the New Urbanism is doing a session on this at their conference coming up.

Things are moving along to get the needed studies done. Interestingly enough, now that the Turnpike Authority has announced they will finish the Gilcrease northwest loop portion from 412 to the Tisdale - it would actually be in their financial interest to get rid of 244 and have regional east-west traffic funnel on to the turnpike.
Logged
SXSW
City Father
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4852


WWW
« Reply #259 on: February 11, 2022, 04:40:20 pm »

Bill was filed for this session from Rep. Goodwin to get $400,000 for studies on redeveloping the I-244 portion of the IDL. This would be the local match to the Reconnecting Communities federal program. City Council is planning to hold public meetings on this later this year.

The Congress for the New Urbanism is doing a session on this at their conference coming up.

Things are moving along to get the needed studies done. Interestingly enough, now that the Turnpike Authority has announced they will finish the Gilcrease northwest loop portion from 412 to the Tisdale - it would actually be in their financial interest to get rid of 244 and have regional east-west traffic funnel on to the turnpike.

Interesting I missed that the OTA will finish the Gilcrease Loop, is that tied to the federal infrastructure bill?  Excited to see what they come up with as the alternate here if it's a boulevard along the same alignment or mostly just reconnecting the original street grid.
Logged

 
LandArchPoke
Philanthropist
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 847



« Reply #260 on: February 14, 2022, 10:49:57 am »

Interesting I missed that the OTA will finish the Gilcrease Loop, is that tied to the federal infrastructure bill?  Excited to see what they come up with as the alternate here if it's a boulevard along the same alignment or mostly just reconnecting the original street grid.

It's not tied to the infrastructure bill, OTA probably sees the writing on the wall that 244 is not wanted and they can either finish the loop and profit off of it or the city could finish it with federal infrastructure funds and it be a free highway.

It was announced fairly quietly as part of their upcoming $5 billion long-term plan which includes widening the Will Rogers to Claremore and also the Turner all the way to OKC.

https://www.publicradiotulsa.org/local-regional/2021-12-07/turnpike-authority-sees-toll-road-improvements-as-significant-investment-in-oklahomas-future-as-it-develops-15-year-plan
Logged
LandArchPoke
Philanthropist
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 847



« Reply #261 on: February 22, 2022, 05:52:33 pm »

New website is up for all the planned improvements in the $5 billion plan.

Link to the Gilcrease portion: http://www.accessoklahoma.com/gilcrease-expressway

About 75% of the projects are OKC related, kind of ridiculous but typical of our DOT.
« Last Edit: February 22, 2022, 05:57:20 pm by LandArchPoke » Logged
shavethewhales
Philanthropist
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 606


« Reply #262 on: February 22, 2022, 06:36:21 pm »

It's insane how focused they are on building more and more loops around our cities, especially OKC. It's like they are trying to extend OKC throughout the whole damn state. The Kickapoo turnpike is so unnecessary and such a waste and sprawl creator.

All I want them to focus on is a few widening projects (namely Turner and Will Rogers), and then just interchanges everywhere.
Logged
SXSW
City Father
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4852


WWW
« Reply #263 on: February 23, 2022, 11:43:25 am »

It's insane how focused they are on building more and more loops around our cities, especially OKC. It's like they are trying to extend OKC throughout the whole damn state. The Kickapoo turnpike is so unnecessary and such a waste and sprawl creator.

All I want them to focus on is a few widening projects (namely Turner and Will Rogers), and then just interchanges everywhere.

I wish they could make 75 a limited access toll road from Tulsa all the way to the TX border (similar to the Indian Nation Turnpike which is partially on this route).  The biggest challenges are in Okmulgee and Henryetta, which would need bypasses, and along the small towns north of Durant like Atoka and Stringtown.
Logged

 
swake
T-Town Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 8185



« Reply #264 on: February 23, 2022, 12:47:45 pm »

I wish they could make 75 a limited access toll road from Tulsa all the way to the TX border (similar to the Indian Nation Turnpike which is partially on this route).  The biggest challenges are in Okmulgee and Henryetta, which would need bypasses, and along the small towns north of Durant like Atoka and Stringtown.

It would be an extension of I-45, it should happen.
Logged
Red Arrow
T-Town Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 10889


WWW
« Reply #265 on: February 23, 2022, 01:23:07 pm »

It would be an extension of I-45, it should happen.

Looks like if I-45 is extended it will follow US 69 rather than US 75 through Tulsa.

https://www.interstate-guide.com/i-045/

Quote
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, upon the request of the Oklahoma State highway agency, the Secretary shall designate the portion of United States Route 69 from the Oklahoma-Texas State line to Checotah in the State of Oklahoma as a part of the Interstate System pursuant to section 139 of title 23, United States Code.

A subsequent unrealized plan was to construct a new segment of the Oklahoma Turnpike along the U.S. 69 corridor.
Logged

 
swake
T-Town Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 8185



« Reply #266 on: February 23, 2022, 01:47:45 pm »

Looks like if I-45 is extended it will follow US 69 rather than US 75 through Tulsa.

https://www.interstate-guide.com/i-045/


Plans can change. Look at the map upgrading US-69 from Muskogee to I-44 would be far more expensive and with less benefit to Oklahoma than upgrading US-75 between Glenpool and Henryetta. 

The section of US-75 in from Glenpool to the Tulsa county line is already in the works and will be done regardless. The biggest new part would be a bypass around Okmulgee and upgrading the section in Henryetta.

Upgrading US-69 would require new full highway interchanges at the Muscogee Turnpike and I-44 and probably upgrades to the interchange with US-412. Then bypasses around Muskogee, Wagoner, Chouteau, Pryor and Adair would be needed. The cost for that would be astronomical and serve many fewer Oklahomans.
Logged
Red Arrow
T-Town Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 10889


WWW
« Reply #267 on: February 23, 2022, 02:39:07 pm »

Plans can change. Look at the map upgrading US-69 from Muskogee to I-44 would be far more expensive and with less benefit to Oklahoma than upgrading US-75 between Glenpool and Henryetta. 

The section of US-75 in from Glenpool to the Tulsa county line is already in the works and will be done regardless. The biggest new part would be a bypass around Okmulgee and upgrading the section in Henryetta.

Upgrading US-69 would require new full highway interchanges at the Muscogee Turnpike and I-44 and probably upgrades to the interchange with US-412. Then bypasses around Muskogee, Wagoner, Chouteau, Pryor and Adair would be needed. The cost for that would be astronomical and serve many fewer Oklahomans.

I agree following US-75 would be more beneficial to more people in general, not just Oklahoma.  An Interstate to KC and another one to Wichita  from Tulsa would be nice but I don't know if the cost is warranted. A couple of years ago I needed to go to Newton, KS, north of Wichita.  I flew my plane since the weather was nice. Not everyone has that opportunity.  MANY years ago the company I was working for had a consultant in Wichita.  They flew me up by commuter airline rather than make me drive.

The link only proposed extending I-45 to I-40.  It would make sense to me to continue north to KC.  The improvements you mention north of I-40 would be extensive.

Bypasses around Okmulgee and upgrading the section in Henryetta would be expensive.  The towns between McAllister and the TX border would fight bypasses as they would probably lose a lot of traffic enforcement revenue.
Logged

 
SXSW
City Father
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4852


WWW
« Reply #268 on: March 16, 2022, 11:05:48 pm »

When is the next Vision sales tax renewal vote, 2029?  I would think something like this would likely be part of it by then especially with matching federal funds.  Anyone driven 75 northbound from the BA lately?  It’s in bad shape and will be the last section rebuilt after they finish southbound 75.

Speaking of the Vision renewal below are some other things I think should be in it other than the IDL (knowing it’s still several years out):
1. Extensive renovation/expansion of the PAC downtown
2. New downtown convention hotel on the Page Belcher site
3. Downtown streetcar circulator between the CBD, Blue Dome and Arts District
4. Acquisition of land west of Chandler Park creating the county’s largest urban wilderness area
5. River trail expansion to Bixby, from Jenks to Turkey Mtn and to Sand Springs
6. Airport concourse expansion and modernization
7. OSU-Tulsa downtown expansion -creation of a Research Campus in Greenwood
8. OU-Tulsa midtown expansion
9. New sidewalks, bike lanes and street light repairs
10. Tree planting along thoroughfares all over the city
Logged

 
ComeOnBenjals
Civic Leader
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 256



« Reply #269 on: March 17, 2022, 09:24:50 am »

I dig all those things^. I'd love some protected bike lines... curbs or plastic barriers would make me a lot more likely to bike places.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 16 17 [18] 19 20   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

 
  Hosted by TulsaConnect and Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
 

Mission

 

"TulsaNow's Mission is to help Tulsa become the most vibrant, diverse, sustainable and prosperous city of our size. We achieve this by focusing on the development of Tulsa's distinctive identity and economic growth around a dynamic, urban core, complemented by a constellation of livable, thriving communities."
more...

 

Contact

 

2210 S Main St.
Tulsa, OK 74114
(918) 409-2669
info@tulsanow.org