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 01, 2024, 05:42:45 am
Pages: 1 ... 18 19 [20]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Vision Extension - IDL Removal/Demolition  (Read 104933 times)
tulsamatt
Activist
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 67


WWW
« Reply #285 on: August 13, 2022, 10:01:26 am »


Really exciting to see the expansion of the trail system. Does anyone have an idea on the timeline?
Logged

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

Posts: 8179



« Reply #286 on: August 13, 2022, 01:32:34 pm »

Well one of my future Vision ideas is happening.  This is exciting news for the river trail system

https://ktul.com/news/local/tulsa-to-receive-162-million-grant-for-pedestrian-mobility-project?fbclid=IwAR0_ArOejyAaWnEC-Bm8X76b74CNF99oDmelo-JHHVh13zXLDKK5mLRzTQ0

What’s the status of the Jenks low water dam project?


The Tulsa World article says with this grant the south dam project is nearly fully funded.
https://tulsaworld.com/news/state-and-regional/tulsa-jenks-transportation-projects-get-federal-infrastructure-grants/article_7eff8ee8-1998-11ed-92b9-bbf9a4f3df9c.html
Logged
SXSW
City Father
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4842


WWW
« Reply #287 on: August 14, 2022, 08:27:27 pm »

Really exciting to see the expansion of the trail system. Does anyone have an idea on the timeline?

Found this on the City of Tulsa website…it will be a few years for the trails, not sure if this includes the low water dam.  I believe a lot of the environmental studies and engineering are already underway?

Quote
The Tulsa-Jenks Multi-Modal Safety project is planned to begin survey, design, and engineering efforts between early 2024 through late 2025, with construction beginning in mid-2025 and a scheduled completion by mid-2027.

https://www.cityoftulsa.org/press-room/local-leaders-celebrate-contribution-to-bring-south-tulsajenks-dam-project-one-step-closer-to-reality/
Logged

 
LandArchPoke
Philanthropist
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 847



« Reply #288 on: September 01, 2022, 08:42:13 pm »

https://ktul.com/news/local/greenwood-residents-and-lawmakers-call-for-removal-of-i-244

Haven't commented much on it here yet but there's been a lot going on between various officials for about the past year.

ODOT is working on an application for Reconnecting Communities to essentially block a community led application that would fully study removal options of the section of I-244 between US 75 and Tisdale.

ODOT and the mayors office have been working behind the scenes to block it and they are looking into options to expand I-244 to either 6-8 lanes through Greenwood. Absolutely ridiculous type of things going on by some, including some of INCOG leadership too. ODOT thinks if they study a tunnel option it will be able to show it's too expensive to do and allow them to expand the roadway and completely ignore even evaluating the possibility of removing it or dedicating so little of the study for it they can just gloss over the benefits and feasibility of it while claiming they have "studied it fully".

While the community efforts have been to dedicate a Reconnecting Communities grant (if awarded) only to studying removal options, which that is what they money is meant to go toward. With removal it would include redesignating Highway 11/Gilcrease as I-244 and eventually the new interstate between NWA to I-35 (most likely will be I-42).

« Last Edit: September 01, 2022, 08:44:26 pm by LandArchPoke » Logged
SXSW
City Father
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4842


WWW
« Reply #289 on: September 02, 2022, 07:59:28 am »

I get ODOT not wanting it, but I'm perplexed why the mayors office would be against the removal of 244?  It's not like it completely goes away either, as it would be replaced with an at-grade boulevard that reconnects the grid.  Are there any renderings available that show what would be proposed after 244 was dismantled?

I totally agree with this and think this would have a long-lasting impact on future development in North Tulsa
Quote
We have proposed that upon completion of the NW section of the Gilcrease that it would be re-designated I244 and the future interstate from Northwest Arkansas to I35. This is being done now in Syracuse, re-designating I481 (an eastern loop around the city) to I81 so that the current I81 can be repurposed with significant new development. Shifting regional traffic onto Highway 11/NW Gilcrease loop brings significant development opportunity for that area.
Logged

 
LandArchPoke
Philanthropist
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 847



« Reply #290 on: September 02, 2022, 10:27:48 am »

I get ODOT not wanting it, but I'm perplexed why the mayors office would be against the removal of 244?  It's not like it completely goes away either, as it would be replaced with an at-grade boulevard that reconnects the grid.  Are there any renderings available that show what would be proposed after 244 was dismantled?

I totally agree with this and think this would have a long-lasting impact on future development in North Tulsa

It's a mystery to me why the Mayor's office has decided to do this, because it's an opposite position of most of the council. Definitely complete opposite of the neighborhood organizations and community feedback that has came in over the past year + as well.

ODOT would actually benefit tremendously if they removed 244, because that would shift 40-50k worth of cars on to the Gilcrease turnpike (easily increasing revenue for OTA by $30 million+ a year or more | 45k cars per day @ $2.00 average). Plus with shifting traffic like that all of a sudden all that land in the Northwest Passage area and east in North Tulsa suddenly becomes incredibly desirable and feasible to do all sort of commercial and residential development versus it being along a highway that has 10k cars per day maybe - according to their own traffic studies.
Logged
LandArchPoke
Philanthropist
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 847



« Reply #291 on: February 28, 2023, 12:16:08 pm »

Tulsa was just awarded a Reconnecting Communities grant to start the planning process of what it would take to remove I-244. The award was given to the community led application that had Rep. Goodwin and others who have been advocating for this. $1.6 million at minimum to do traffic studies, preliminary engineering, community outreach, etc.

This was picked OVER the application submitted by ODOT, INCOG, and the Mayor's Office.  Grin
Logged
SXSW
City Father
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4842


WWW
« Reply #292 on: February 28, 2023, 01:05:49 pm »

Tulsa was just awarded a Reconnecting Communities grant to start the planning process of what it would take to remove I-244. The award was given to the community led application that had Rep. Goodwin and others who have been advocating for this. $1.6 million at minimum to do traffic studies, preliminary engineering, community outreach, etc.

This was picked OVER the application submitted by ODOT, INCOG, and the Mayor's Office.  Grin

Great news, excited to see what they come up with for an actual plan.  I assume this would include a boulevard in place of the existing highway and reconnecting the street grid?
Logged

 
LandArchPoke
Philanthropist
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 847



« Reply #293 on: March 02, 2023, 12:24:34 am »

Great news, excited to see what they come up with for an actual plan.  I assume this would include a boulevard in place of the existing highway and reconnecting the street grid?

Only non profit that was awarded one of the grants that didn't have the state DOT as a partner. So pretty big deal and really awesome to see USDOT taking a chance on awarding grants to community led efforts instead of letting state DOTs hijack stuff and waste money. ODOT wants to study tunneling 244 and had the support of INCOG, the chamber, mayor's office (not the city council though - Hall Harper is for removal as was McKee, I'm sure Laura feels the same as both of them), and others, and they've basically said it would never happen for another 30 years-ish. ODOT was purposely lying to some of the stakeholders about what they would/wouldn't study if they got the award to get support letters.

So this will allow for unbiased studies to be completed to really show how feasible it is for removing the highway soon, like in the next 5 years versus this long term BS ODOT is pushing.

There will likely be a few options looked at and would have to weigh the pros/cons of different ways to redo the grid. If you did it by the historical grid it wouldn't give you a full non stop east-west route, you'd likely have to dump some cars off on the 1st and 2nd Street, Archer, etc. Traffic studies will give a clear answer on what is feasible based on how much of the traffic is truly local use. My estimate is probably 15,000 - 20,000 a day is local and the rest is regional. So you'd just need to make sure you can support the local traffic and that wouldn't necessarily mean you'd have to build a boulevard - you might be able to get away with redoing it to the old street grid and still be able to filter traffic out through other downtown streets. A lot of it will depend on how much of the traffic is peak time traffic versus non-peak as well and not just the total daily trips. 244 has never had a lot of rush hour usage compared to say the BA, 169 and others - but it has a pretty steady traffic flow dispersed through out the day. So if the local traffic is evenly distributed out through the day then you can also get away with smaller, more walkable streets too. Hard to say what options make the most sense until the traffic studies are done and you have to weigh which options give back the most land for redevelopment as well and what is the appropriate trade off in traffic vs. economic development.
Logged
SXSW
City Father
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4842


WWW
« Reply #294 on: March 02, 2023, 09:25:06 am »

Only non profit that was awarded one of the grants that didn't have the state DOT as a partner. So pretty big deal and really awesome to see USDOT taking a chance on awarding grants to community led efforts instead of letting state DOTs hijack stuff and waste money. ODOT wants to study tunneling 244 and had the support of INCOG, the chamber, mayor's office (not the city council though - Hall Harper is for removal as was McKee, I'm sure Laura feels the same as both of them), and others, and they've basically said it would never happen for another 30 years-ish. ODOT was purposely lying to some of the stakeholders about what they would/wouldn't study if they got the award to get support letters.

So this will allow for unbiased studies to be completed to really show how feasible it is for removing the highway soon, like in the next 5 years versus this long term BS ODOT is pushing.

There will likely be a few options looked at and would have to weigh the pros/cons of different ways to redo the grid. If you did it by the historical grid it wouldn't give you a full non stop east-west route, you'd likely have to dump some cars off on the 1st and 2nd Street, Archer, etc. Traffic studies will give a clear answer on what is feasible based on how much of the traffic is truly local use. My estimate is probably 15,000 - 20,000 a day is local and the rest is regional. So you'd just need to make sure you can support the local traffic and that wouldn't necessarily mean you'd have to build a boulevard - you might be able to get away with redoing it to the old street grid and still be able to filter traffic out through other downtown streets. A lot of it will depend on how much of the traffic is peak time traffic versus non-peak as well and not just the total daily trips. 244 has never had a lot of rush hour usage compared to say the BA, 169 and others - but it has a pretty steady traffic flow dispersed through out the day. So if the local traffic is evenly distributed out through the day then you can also get away with smaller, more walkable streets too. Hard to say what options make the most sense until the traffic studies are done and you have to weigh which options give back the most land for redevelopment as well and what is the appropriate trade off in traffic vs. economic development.

Were there ever any plans done that shows what this could look like?  Assuming this just removes the IDL portion?  Trying to visualize it and wondering the following:
- How would the eastbound and westbound connections to the street grid look like at the 244/412 and 244/75 interchange?
- Rebuilding Easton seems like a good way to connect Denver to Elgin and could be turned into a wider boulevard.  John 3:16 would be in the way and would have to be relocated
- Same with Edison extending it east to connect to MLK/Detroit

Logged

 
LandArchPoke
Philanthropist
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 847



« Reply #295 on: March 06, 2023, 10:50:30 am »

Were there ever any plans done that shows what this could look like?  Assuming this just removes the IDL portion?  Trying to visualize it and wondering the following:
- How would the eastbound and westbound connections to the street grid look like at the 244/412 and 244/75 interchange?
- Rebuilding Easton seems like a good way to connect Denver to Elgin and could be turned into a wider boulevard.  John 3:16 would be in the way and would have to be relocated
- Same with Edison extending it east to connect to MLK/Detroit



Keep in mind this is just one option and no idea if it would even be fully studied, I've sketched out many ways it could ultimately be done. This would be a non-boulevard type plan to maximize redevelopment land area. 1st Street would essentially become the east-west Blvd instead of it being through the 244 right of way.



(Purple: on/off ramps modifications | White: street grid rebuild | Orange: redevelopment parcels)

- On the west side, you'd filter traffic out through Easton and Edison and extend them east. John 3:16 does present a challenge if Easton needed to be expanded, but I think it'd likely be ok as a 1 lane each way street. Edison could pick up the extra traffic.
- On the west side, reconfigure the on/off ramps to 1st Street and 1st becomes 2 ways again.
- On the east side, you'd reconfigure the on/off ramps a bit with 1st Street here as well, now 1st Street becomes a primary east/west through downtown. With the BOK blocking 2nd, this seems like a positive thing to do and would be less confusing to out of town visitors too. Would allow 2nd to becoming 2 way travel as well again and provide better connection for Blue Dome/East Village into the Pearl with 2nd street being local instead of cut off by ramps.
- On the east side, you'd utilize the ramps over the railroad already and just cut them off essentially and have a new intersection with Archer. Traffic could then travel in any direction - you'd need to build some additional grid capacity up through the EFT/BMX site on their west side along the rail lines and also build out some grid capacity through OSU, etc. which was identified in the Kirkpatrick Heights plan to reconnect that area.

An option like this would allow east-west travelers on 244 to divert south to the BA and then use the east/west legs of the IDL to get back to 244/412. Would also require about the least amount of interchange reworking too as you'd be utilizing many of the on/off ramps that are there already with modifications instead of major changes.
« Last Edit: March 06, 2023, 11:02:22 am by LandArchPoke » Logged
SXSW
City Father
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4842


WWW
« Reply #296 on: March 06, 2023, 11:31:06 am »

Keep in mind this is just one option and no idea if it would even be fully studied, I've sketched out many ways it could ultimately be done. This would be a non-boulevard type plan to maximize redevelopment land area. 1st Street would essentially become the east-west Blvd instead of it being through the 244 right of way.



(Purple: on/off ramps modifications | White: street grid rebuild | Orange: redevelopment parcels)

- On the west side, you'd filter traffic out through Easton and Edison and extend them east. John 3:16 does present a challenge if Easton needed to be expanded, but I think it'd likely be ok as a 1 lane each way street. Edison could pick up the extra traffic.
- On the west side, reconfigure the on/off ramps to 1st Street and 1st becomes 2 ways again.
- On the east side, you'd reconfigure the on/off ramps a bit with 1st Street here as well, now 1st Street becomes a primary east/west through downtown. With the BOK blocking 2nd, this seems like a positive thing to do and would be less confusing to out of town visitors too. Would allow 2nd to becoming 2 way travel as well again and provide better connection for Blue Dome/East Village into the Pearl with 2nd street being local instead of cut off by ramps.
- On the east side, you'd utilize the ramps over the railroad already and just cut them off essentially and have a new intersection with Archer. Traffic could then travel in any direction - you'd need to build some additional grid capacity up through the EFT/BMX site on their west side along the rail lines and also build out some grid capacity through OSU, etc. which was identified in the Kirkpatrick Heights plan to reconnect that area.

An option like this would allow east-west travelers on 244 to divert south to the BA and then use the east/west legs of the IDL to get back to 244/412. Would also require about the least amount of interchange reworking too as you'd be utilizing many of the on/off ramps that are there already with modifications instead of major changes.


This is a fantastic plan, well done!  You should submit this to the group studying the removal.  It would be great to see how the Kirkpatrick Heights plan integrates into this as this frees up another 6-7 blocks for redevelopment north of Easton. 

I love the idea of Edison reconnecting Denver to OSU which forms the boundary between "downtown" and the more residential neighborhood to the north.  And 1st and 2nd as two-way streets will be a huge improvement especially with all of the new development planned in Blue Dome

Good point on 244/future interstate traffic diverting south to the 444 loop.  Or use the Gilcrease Loop, which would be completed by the time this happens, to avoid downtown altogether.
Logged

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

Posts: 8179



« Reply #297 on: March 06, 2023, 10:36:36 pm »

Keep in mind this is just one option and no idea if it would even be fully studied, I've sketched out many ways it could ultimately be done. This would be a non-boulevard type plan to maximize redevelopment land area. 1st Street would essentially become the east-west Blvd instead of it being through the 244 right of way.



(Purple: on/off ramps modifications | White: street grid rebuild | Orange: redevelopment parcels)

- On the west side, you'd filter traffic out through Easton and Edison and extend them east. John 3:16 does present a challenge if Easton needed to be expanded, but I think it'd likely be ok as a 1 lane each way street. Edison could pick up the extra traffic.
- On the west side, reconfigure the on/off ramps to 1st Street and 1st becomes 2 ways again.
- On the east side, you'd reconfigure the on/off ramps a bit with 1st Street here as well, now 1st Street becomes a primary east/west through downtown. With the BOK blocking 2nd, this seems like a positive thing to do and would be less confusing to out of town visitors too. Would allow 2nd to becoming 2 way travel as well again and provide better connection for Blue Dome/East Village into the Pearl with 2nd street being local instead of cut off by ramps.
- On the east side, you'd utilize the ramps over the railroad already and just cut them off essentially and have a new intersection with Archer. Traffic could then travel in any direction - you'd need to build some additional grid capacity up through the EFT/BMX site on their west side along the rail lines and also build out some grid capacity through OSU, etc. which was identified in the Kirkpatrick Heights plan to reconnect that area.

An option like this would allow east-west travelers on 244 to divert south to the BA and then use the east/west legs of the IDL to get back to 244/412. Would also require about the least amount of interchange reworking too as you'd be utilizing many of the on/off ramps that are there already with modifications instead of major changes.


It would also be nice to get rid of the little rail yard that looks to be used mostly for parking cars. Re-route the northbound active rail line in the median of US-75 until you get to Latimer Pl.
Logged
LandArchPoke
Philanthropist
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 847



« Reply #298 on: March 07, 2023, 11:11:41 am »

It would also be nice to get rid of the little rail yard that looks to be used mostly for parking cars. Re-route the northbound active rail line in the median of US-75 until you get to Latimer Pl.

The rail area between Evans/BMX and OSU/Langston? Most of that will eventually be redeveloped too, the parking/on-off loading area can be relocated but the small main line can't be relocated without a lot of work. I agree if it had been moved into the 75 right of way that would have been nice but that ship has sailed because of ODOT.

I've been told the main rail operator is willing to lease or allow commuter rail to use the line which would provide access to Owasso, Collinsville and possibly Bartlesville. Too bad the air terminal isn't on the other side where a station could serve the airport and zoo/mohawk park too. 
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 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