Vision Extension - IDL Removal/Demolition

[natedog784]

Does anyone know if removing one or more legs of the IDL has been submitted for the Vision extension? 

Replacing highways with boulevards has been done in many other cities (San Francisco, Milwaukee, Chattanooga, and Portland to name some) with positive results. 

I'd think the east leg would be the best from a financial, connectivity, and political point of view, but the north leg would also be great to get rid of.

Does anyone have any thoughts on this? 

[TulsaGoldenHurriCAN]

Maybe in 5-10 years this would be a good idea. But with all of the empty parking lots in south/east downtown still, there are plenty of other places which need to be developed first. Lots of projects are underway which might help boost this idea in the future.

I'm all for this eventually. It sounds like a good long-term goal, to get downtown where real estate is in such high demand that a multi-million dollar demolition of part of the IDL would make sense.

[TulsaGoldenHurriCAN]

Additionally, currently the IDL allows people to get downtown much faster. If it is removed now, it will make the drive take longer for many people and will overall reduce traffic to downtown. I looked at 31st & Harvard to 2nd & Elgin for example. Removing the IDL would change the drive from 8 to 12 minutes. Doesn't sound like a huge deal, but that adds 8 minutes to a commute for an already congested stretch. Hopefully the Pearl District (which I think should be more of a priority) and east downtown will develop enough so that this could eventually make sense, but it looks like Tulsa will need the entire IDL for the foreseeable future.

[dbacksfan 2.0]

Kind of an apples and oranges comparison, not only on city sizes, but the reasons for the removal.

Harbor Drive in Portland was an outdated and underused being surpassed by newer highways when it was remove in 1974

The Embarcadero in San Francisco was being discussed for removal when the Loma Prieta earthquake damage it in 1989. Removal started in 1991 and was a 10 year process.

Alaskan Way in Seattle is also being removed, and moved underground because of damage from an earthquake in 2001.

Milwaukee was a project started in the 1960's and then halted before completion and was left unfinished.

Only in Milwaukee was the removal done as part of a restructuring and redesign effort.

Seattle realized they could expand their waterfront area by placing the road underground instead of repairing the existing roadway.

http://gizmodo.com/6-freeway-demolitions-that-changed-their-cities-forever-1548314937

foot note: The Embarcadero was also never completed. It had approximately 1.5 miles of usable surface.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_State_Route_480

[SXSW]

I doubt the IDL in its entirety would ever be removed, it's a key part of the metro highway system.  Burying it and/or capping it would be an alternative though a lot of money was just invested in the current infrastructure.  The section between the East End and Pearl would be a good eventual target for this, as well between OSU and Brady.

[swake]

The north and west legs have just been completely reconstructed, so they aren't going anywhere. You can't kill both the south and east legs or you orphan the north end of the Broken Arrow Expressway from the city expressway system. Anyway, the south leg is already built below grade and is pretty busy so it makes sense to keep that side of the IDL. What about capping the south leg instead of removing it?

That leaves the east leg as the only real viable candidate for removal. The south and east legs are supposed to start reconstruction in the next year or two so if you were to remove a leg you could make a case for using the money set aside to repair that leg to remove it instead of using Vision 2025 cash. I'm all for it. Rejoin the Pearl District to downtown.

Remove the east leg and cap the south.

[Hoss]

I doubt the IDL in its entirety would ever be removed, it's a key part of the metro highway system.  Burying it and/or capping it would be an alternative though a lot of money was just invested in the current infrastructure.  The section between the East End and Pearl would be a good eventual target for this, as well between OSU and Brady.

It's not just the metro highway system, it's ALL interstate highway, even if the east and south legs aren't signed as such, both are denoted in documentation as I-444.  The entire IDL is part of the Interstate Highway System so it's federally owned, is my understanding.

Good luck with that.

[natedog784]

The north and west legs have just been completely reconstructed, so they aren't going anywhere. You can't kill both the south and east legs or you orphan the north end of the Broken Arrow Expressway from the city expressway system. Anyway, the south leg is already built below grade and is pretty busy so it makes sense to keep that side of the IDL. What about capping the south leg instead of removing it?

That leaves the east leg as the only real viable candidate for removal. The south and east legs are supposed to start reconstruction in the next year or two so if you were to remove a leg you could make a case for using the money set aside to repair that leg to remove it instead of using Vision 2025 cash. I'm all for it. Rejoin the Pearl District to downtown.

Remove the east leg and cap the south.

Agreed. I think the most practical idea would be to remove the east leg and cap the south leg from approximately Cheyenne to Boston/Baltimore. Ideally, the north leg could be removed, but it was recently rehabbed and is part of 244. 

All expressway right-of-way around downtown is owned by the State of Oklahoma.  That would be a hurdle, but less of one that federal ownership I think.

[dbacksfan 2.0]

Agreed. I think the most practical idea would be to remove the east leg and cap the south leg from approximately Cheyenne to Boston/Baltimore. Ideally, the north leg could be removed, but it was recently rehabbed and is part of 244. 

All expressway right-of-way around downtown is owned by the State of Oklahoma.  That would be a hurdle, but less of one that federal ownership I think.

Removing the east leg practical? In what sense? You force traffic from the north into a four mile lap around downtown to get to the BA. Same for traffic from the south east on the BA. You get one accident on the west leg and you have traffic backed up for miles, then you overload the surface streets with traffic trying to avoid the delay.

[natedog784]

You replace it with a boulevard that makes present connections. Granted, one couldn't blast down the highway at 70, but a consistent 35mph with timed, synchronized traffic lights would be  small price to pay to remove the noose of highways that cuts downtown off from the rest of the city.

[LandArchPoke]

Does anyone know if removing one or more legs of the IDL has been submitted for the Vision extension? 

Replacing highways with boulevards has been done in many other cities (San Francisco, Milwaukee, Chattanooga, and Portland to name some) with positive results. 

I'd think the east leg would be the best from a financial, connectivity, and political point of view, but the north leg would also be great to get rid of.

Does anyone have any thoughts on this? 

A proposal like this 

www.infrastructuretulsa.org

I'll add more details when I have the time this afternoon/evening hopefully.

[DowntownDan]

Tulsans would riot in the streets if you tried to remove a highway.  I think that there is plenty of room inside the IDL for infill, especially south, so I don't think we are in any desparate need of space to extend.  Land bridges or capping were mentioned and that would probably be a better and more realistic discussion.  Near Boston to connect the 18th and Boston area to downtown might be nice if infill ever reaches south of the central business district (i.e., if the infamous parking crater ever disappears).

[TheArtist]

  I think of some places that I really love and it seems that for some reason or another they are "landlocked" or constrained in some respects (rivers, cliffs/mountains, lakes, green space, etc.).  This can force a place to become more dense and or help it create a unique identity.  If downtown were an island surrounded on several sides by rivers and was only connected to other parts of the city by bridges and a couple land areas, I doubt we would be having this conversation.  

 Perhaps it's not that the barrier the highway makes is entirely bad, for we can see examples where "barriers" can have positive consequences, perhaps it's more that the barrier in this case is not an attractive one.

[Conan71]

A proposal like this 

www.infrastructuretulsa.org

I'll add more details when I have the time this afternoon/evening hopefully.

Is that your web site or do you know who is behind it?  Some pretty good research.

[dbacksfan 2.0]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Freeway


JMO, the Central Freeway and Embarcadero are not valid comparisons.  They were proposed in the 50's and construction started in the early 60's and never completed do to the "Highway Revolt" and stood as incompleted roads until they were demolished in the years after the Loma Prieta quake as a result of being damaged and too expensive to repair. SF already had in place public transit infrastructure to take the place of the failed highways. Also it took the better part of 10 to 12 years for completion.