As Tulsa continues to grow (both physically and populous), it would behoove the city to consider some better possibilities of mass transit (other than strictly bus lines).
Personally, I think a great strategy would be for Tulsa to extend a web over the current populated areas, including (East, West, North, South, Midtown, and Downtown). The ability to bypass traffic when traversing the city could cause enough demand on its own. In addition, travellers to the city would be able to get to the vicinity of their conference.
A transport web with stops at points of importance (event center, fairgrounds, colleges, airport, etc) could also be a drawing factor for more businesses to hold conventions in Tulsa, as well as produce an easier way to promote tourism in town.
Perhaps one or two stations per suburb with a nice parking garage would help draw suburbanites into the city of Tulsa to spend money.
I understand that Tulsa may not be able to support the system currently, but it should be on our mind as our city continues to grow. I also realize that Tulsa's road situation is comparatively docile compared to other cities and I also realize that midwesterners love their cars. But something like this could really help boost the city's transportation grid by reducing street traffic and reducing parking needed downtown.
Also, a maglev or light rail system between Tulsa and OKC could help spur growth between OKC and Tulsa. Who knows... in 50 years, it could be the Tulsa-OKC metroplex! (Okay, maybe that is wishful thinking, but it doesn't discredit the need for a transport between Tulsa and OKC.)
So, I am ultimately asking for discussion about mass transit opportunities for Tulsa and possibly the surrounding metro area. Is there any reason why the city seems to dismiss the idea outright without considering the fact that, if done correctly, an improvement in mass-transit could be beneficial to Tulsa?
Article (//%22http://www.realtor.org/sg3.nsf/Pages/summer05aboard?OpenDocument%22) from the National Association of Realtors describing how streetcars encourage development.
Snips:
"All aboard'' may be the new clarion call for American cities eager to revitalize their downtowns. That's because city planners and officials are discovering that streetcars are the most desirous and efficient way to help move people in and around urban cores.
"Maybe you have to be Atlanta or Washington D.C. to think big and heavy or Denver or Minneapolis to think light rail, but there are lots of smaller cities that would just be fantasizing about light rail that can realistically think about a streetcar system," said Hales.
Additionally, while buses often are used by the transit dependent, rail service attracts those who could drive, but choose not to. Getting a driver to jump on a trolley means there's one less car congesting streets.
The trolley attracts development dollars, she said, because the streetcars must run on track, which means there is a permanent commitment to the line.
Alright, Tulsa needs to step up its effort to have rail transit. Isn't a study currently being undertaken? I hope the results are what we (I) want.
quote:
Also, a maglev or light rail system between Tulsa and OKC could help spur growth between OKC and Tulsa. Who knows... in 50 years, it could be the Tulsa-OKC metroplex!
Eeew, let's hope not. I would hope better public transportation would lead to less sprawl and more density. Sprawl is just so darn expensive. The state cannot even maintain the roads and bridges it currently has, why should we build more so people can move further and further from where they work. People complain about taxes. . . well if we keep sprawling taxes will have to be increased just to keep up with the infrastructure maintenance costs.
So yes, let's talk transit!
Start with trolleys and bus stations keeping in mind, as ridership improves, making the areas where those stations are into high density core areas. This way when the population and density grows you will already have right of ways and "density infrastructure" to support light rail.
For the moment just getting enough ridership for trolleys mid-town may be a struggle. Let alone light rail. A good beginner loop would be along the 71st corridor from BA hitting the mall area and drawing from the growth around 81st, then on down 71st to Yale picking up the density each mile up and down Yale, then on to Riverside, down Riverside to Downtown, then from downtown back along the BA to BA then back south to 71st. There are already areas of budding density all along this loop and everything from shopping districts, to business and medical, recreational and hotels. From that have bus and trolley routs that intersect with, and pull from, the areas around each station on the light rail.
While that is far in the future. Having a potential route mapped out, and zoning for more density in areas around its future sub stations, now, would make a light rail more feasable, cost effective, and easier to install when that day finally comes.
A light rail "web" can not work in Tulsa at the moment. It would cost a fortune to make enough rail lines to cover the city at enough points. A "beginner loop" having high density, multi- use areas on it with bus and trolley routes "webbing" out from that as needed, would be the best scenario IMO.
It seems to me that for public transportation to work you need a compact territory that is densely populated. Tulsa has neither attribute.
The bus routes that exist today are tailored demographically to ensure the greatest ridership per mile. And they still lose a bunch of money. Does anyone know how much money they lose per rider?
If you accept my premise that that the existing routes are the most efficient, wouldn't expanding routes mean more loss?
One other thing. Why does everyone focus on trolleys? Aren't they functionally the same as buses? Are they just more socially acceptable?
Mr. Spivey, do you have any idea how corny you sound with your bus talk? Not only are busses ghetto, but all mention of the bus on online forums, is also ghetto talk.
(http://www.filehive.com/files/0122/tulsarailneeds.jpg)
Just food for thought.
What needs to be expanded is the rubber tire trolley system. That would not require installation of a rail or streetcar track, and would cater to a more upscale market than regular city buses do.
Uhh ... no. What Tulsa needs is the real deal. LRT is cheaper than BRT by far in the long run.
People will ride the real deal. These rubber-tire trollies are just plain kitschy.
I think trolleys would indeed not be practical for most places in Tulsa. But having a few downtown running the, Cherry Street, Utica, Philbrook, Garden Center, Brookside, Riverside (hopefully a development on Riverside) Back to downtown route would be a nice start. Plus if you were to have light rail that had stops in Downtown you could then easily get on the Trolley system from there to see the other things.
This would be very helpful if Tulsa ever decides it wants to cater to tourists, visitors, convention people, etc. Plus it could be a nascent start to get more people in downtown to use mass transit. Trolleys are friendlier and not as "serious" as buses, they can act as a way to acclimate the uninitiated to start using mass transit.
Any where else in Tulsa a trolley might look a bit ridiculous. Buses are fine.
Tulsa will have nothing it wants in significant transit improvements until the people step up and support it financially. A dedicated source of funding is the real key.
Even a half-penny sales tax, dedicated to fund transit expansion (including any mix of LRT, BRT, streetcars, commuter rail, etc), can have far-reaching implications.
I've worked with the current situation in Tulsa and I now work with the dedicated source of funding situation in Charlotte ...... it's like night and day.
If a tax was what was needed. I would say use a new tax to first flesh out our fledgling colleges (with some emphasis on the medical ones, I keep reading about the impending doctors and nurse shortage) This would help downtown as well. And boost general education. Then do some basic infrastructure improvements keeping in mind right of ways and places for future mass transit. THEN in time go for the light rail option.
But here again I think much of what TU Robby was initially saying was. Start "planning" for where light rail lines and stations will be needed, now, not necessarily build now. Perhaps that will be a component of the new Comprehensive Plan?
In the jungles of central America they are clearing away the brush from preexisting empires that was returned back to nature from the lack of planning. Tulsa is a city that is noted for intersection and strip planning. After the 40's businesses wanted the downtown areas and removed the stores that brought the citizen to town.
Now we have grown in a disenfranchised distribution of the population that is trying to beat the dead horse until it gets up to run another race.
The city is moving to the south and east and taking with it the down town stores. The city is without a hub for the installation of a mass transportation to bring the people to a central area. The love affair with the auto makes impossible even the present city layout to consolidate in a mass transportation system.
The down town sits on a undesirable part of restate far from the center of the city that could become a hub for any workable type of mass transportation. As the planning is being done to move the city hall now would be time to plan for transporting not only city dwellers but also the suburbs
When we use high rise towers for offices we cannot protect the employees from the 911 disasters. Not long ago we taught the children in school how to make rockets and their propellants. The time may come when such items are used against the governing bodies by unstable persons in high rise buildings.
If the downtown real state has so much value then sell it for loft dwellings to the brave of heart. We could build a new low profile city hall in a location where it represented the accumulated population taking in mind it would be a hub for mass transportation.
Simple words would correct our ails. "Intelligent planning"
quote:
Originally posted by SoonerRiceGrad
Mr. Spivey, do you have any idea how corny you sound with your bus talk? Not only are busses ghetto, but all mention of the bus on online forums, is also ghetto talk.
Sigh.
I hoped I could voice my opinion without a personal attack. Guess not.
Isn't a rubber tired trolley just a glorified bus? It has a driver, runs routes, takes money, etc. Withour sounding corny, can someone explain the difference (except one is socially acceptable and one isn't)?
I think a light rail system around a downtown/midtown route is a great idea. I just wonder if many people want to pay for something they will never use. Laying rail on farmland is one thing. Laying it in a developed city (while at the same time keeping it close enough to legitimate destinations) seems to be a pretty large task.
I hear three distinct public transportation scenarios and they are somewhat separate.
1. The one we have now. For lower income people who have no other way to get around. SRG calls this "Ghetto".
2. A botique trolley system like Ft Worth and many other cities. Mainly a tourist facility. Runs to the hotels, train station, Six Flage, the Stockyards, the zoo.
3. The one the Green people want (I'm getting greener all the time but I'm not quite there yet). Like NEW YORK CITY (get a rope) where people leave their BMWs at home and take a public transportation system to work.
I have no problem with doing a little work on 1 and 2 (I've seen the trolleys around but don't know much about them), but 3 ain't never gonna happen. Even with trolleys. That corny enough?
quote:
Originally posted by SoonerRiceGrad
Uhh ... no. What Tulsa needs is the real deal. LRT is cheaper than BRT by far in the long run.
People will ride the real deal. These rubber-tire trollies are just plain kitschy.
I think the best idea would be get the right of ways either in the form of bus lanes or separate bus only routes and see if the demand is there. At a later date LRT can be added.
Personally I would advocate guided bus ways, which I have mentioned on here before. The important thing is to pick buses not because they are the cheapest option, but they fit the cities needs. Tulsa has a fairly low density that would need lots of bus routes to have a degree of coverage. These bus routes could then converge onto a central artery to the city centre, along which buses could be running with high frequency.
People can ride buses, and a well designed bus system can improve property values along its route. However all to often buses are not considered a middle class mode and the money isn't spent on things such as real time information displays or air conditioned waiting rooms. If you are willing to spend the money with buses you can achieve a great level of service which on dedicated routes can match the capacity of LRT.
My 2 cents worth:
I think Tulsa should completely overhaul the bus routes and abandon the hub and spoke routes MTTA has used for years. Busses should run on the north/south and east/west grid pattern of major Tulsa streets. A Pine, Admiral, 11th, 21st, 3st, Peoria, Lewis, Harvard, etc. straight line bus routes, from one side of the city limits to the other, if possible. That way, people catching the bus would need to make only one transfer if at all, to reach close to most destinations. Some walking may be required to the departure and destination, but should be no more that a half mile at the most. Busses should be added so a person has to wait no more that 15 minutes at his original departure point, but I know that would take more money.
I have never perceived riding the bus as "ghetto." I rode the bus to and from work daily for nearly 12 years, when I used to work downtown.
First off, shadows, you need to learn how to spell real estate. And your comments are all way off base. High rise buildings will never go out of vogue because of 9/11. You're forgetting the Pentagon was also hit by a highjacked airplane. The Pentagon is definitely not a high-rise building. I encourage you to make an intellegent argument that shows Tulsa's high rise downtown buildings to be of importance to a worldwide terrorist organization. I find it ironic that you used the phrase "intellegent planning."
Second, I agree with the streetcar idea in the downtown and midtown districts. Many Tulsa-sized cities are either implementing or considering streetcars. As for the suburban areas of the city, I think the long range plan should have light rail considerations. In the short term, we should use the rubber-tire trolleys to bring people in from the suburban areas. I grew up in South Tulsa, and no one I knew there would ever consider riding a regular city bus. Maybe they were snobby, but from a marketing perspective, these suburbanites need a new form of public transportation. The bus trolleys could be used to travel on routes that are infeasible for trolley track, such as 71st and Memorial. They could bring passengers into the urban core areas, where the real sreetcars run.
I also think that a light rail would really do Tulsa well. I have really enjoyed the one in Denver a lot more then buses. Light rail systems are a little more sophisticated.
The way to know if a post is being read is misspell a word or two,
I have rode the trolleys and buses in Tulsa and the Sand Spring line in emergencies. My experience has been they were both failures as they mostly came to a dead end.
Compare the high rise casualties to those of the pentagon. The suburbs are outpacing the city per capital in expanding. Intelligent design refers to accepting the present to recognize our failures to accept the future. Time is now to place the dead horse in the hole we are going to dig the buried auto up from.
We could extend the sky ride the county is buying and grid the city with it. Or we could become a trade city like we once were and plan to make a productive city in the world trade market. Heaven forbid as our chief product is taxes and more taxes.
We see a lot of buses that are empty but making good rolling sign boards. Some citizens think they are on display when they are riding next to these sign boards. Intelligent Design?
I love the idea of a sky ride around the city.
Think how cool it would be to travel along brookside or cherry street or even cross the river.
It would probably be cheaper to build islands in the river though.
they could start by offering a non stop route from deep south tulsa to downtown. route 251 makes a stop...wrong!
quote:
Originally posted by inteller
they could start by offering a non stop route from deep south tulsa to downtown. route 251 makes a stop...wrong!
They moved out there they deserve what they get. I say, let em rot in traffic.
Double edge sword really: no one rides Tulsa transit because it is currently impractical and underfunded, it is impractical and underfunded because no one rides it.
When a city grows up with freeways and everyone has a car its hard to get people to leave them at home and hop a rail. That only really happens when the situation is insanely hopeless and the city has no other option (Ie. Denver, no room to widen the freeways and the city is growing denser).
While I like the idea of better transit it is unlikely that I would easily give up the convenience of a my car. [V]
Sky Ride. I love it. Can they make it so the windows open and I can lean out an take pictures?
As long it is the cost of providing transportation cost is an insignificant part of the overall picture. The Japanese elevated monorail system, like the sky ride, could be an attraction as well as a transportation system. The cost of this is to get the people back to the dying downtown.
The only thing that the citizen can think of when someone suggest a bond issue is where is the pencil to mark yes. Possibly few persons or those who will profit from the Arena has noticed that the cost of revenue bonds that have been sold. The name of the Arena was sold for some 11 million dollars but the interest rate on the bond may run more than 500 million dollars as such rate is more than the rate of sales taxes. The working poor will be paying millions of dollars for a bank to put their name on the new Arena.
All this increase in jobs and the economy is based on the premises that the working poor with their families will live in cold houses and go to bed hungry in order to pay the sales taxes on their substandard incomes. They should note who is getting the wage increase they are going hungry to pay for.
I always thought "Real-Estate" was spelled like this.
I dont remember the last time I actually met someone that lives in a cold house and goes hundry all the time (other than the bums on the street ,many of whom choose to live that way in one way or another). Try to remember that when people talk about "poor" they are talking abuot people that have a roof over their head, food in the mouths, cable TV and a car. In most countries, that would be the rich. In America, you can have all of those things and still be getting a check from the government, free housing, free daycare, free emdical care, and charity from private institutions and STILL be considered poor.
Anyway, the first thing I thought of when I read shadows post was "monorail, monorail, monorail, monorail... I sold monorails to shelbyville, new ogdenville and fanstasticville!" Seattle actually did build a monorail system and now its mostly a joke.
Shadows, are you trying to suggest that high-rise buildings are just going to fade out? High-rise buildings in downtown areas are the only structures that provide the required amounts of square footage needed for large companies. I don't think we're going to see a bunch of super wal-mart-designed office buildings being built in the downtowns of our major cities. Currently, downtown Tulsa's office occupancy is actually increasing. Encouraging that increase is one factor of downtown's revitalization. By your logic, we should all stop riding on airplanes for fear of getting highjacked. It doesn't pay to live in fear. We can't hide in the "shadows" forever...
"Anyway, the first thing I thought of when I read shadows post was "monorail, monorail, monorail, monorail... I sold monorails to shelbyville, new ogdenville and fanstasticville!" Seattle actually did build a monorail system and now its mostly a joke."
- That is awsome! I love that episode!
Las Vegas is building a really awesome monorail transit system connecting downtown and the Strip. I rode it while I was there a couple of years ago- it was awesome. Very expensive though. There is a big movement in Austin to build monorail. I've even heard that OKC was originally planning to build a larger monorail system when it installed the monorail at State Fair Park.
I think monorail works for a place like Vegas- where money flows pretty nicely and the monorail is yet another gimmick- but for real, practical transit, light rail is a lot cheaper.
quote:
Originally posted by recyclemichael
I love the idea of a sky ride around the city.
Think how cool it would be to travel along brookside or cherry street or even cross the river.
It would probably be cheaper to build islands in the river though.
Right OKC, Vegas found they needed to decentralize their tourist population and decided on the monorail concept. Their goal of decentralizing the tourist population through the use of the monorail has in effect happened and it has made is very easy to move around town. This new system augments other transit systems that are already in place in Vegas such as buses, taxis, and the like.
Tulsa might be a perfect fit if the passenger load per mile proved to be an acceptable number.
quote:
Originally posted by OKC_Shane
Las Vegas is building a really awesome monorail transit system connecting downtown and the Strip. I rode it while I was there a couple of years ago- it was awesome. Very expensive though. There is a big movement in Austin to build monorail. I've even heard that OKC was originally planning to build a larger monorail system when it installed the monorail at State Fair Park.
I think monorail works for a place like Vegas- where money flows pretty nicely and the monorail is yet another gimmick- but for real, practical transit, light rail is a lot cheaper.
It's true, do people want a public transport system that will carry the most people or a gimmick for tourists and something to showcase their city? I think the safest bet would still be have guided buses and if the demand shows it self upgrade to LRT or trams.
quote:
Originally posted by perspicuity85
[ Currently, downtown Tulsa's office occupancy is actually increasing.
I'm retracting this statement. While my personal observation of downtown office
building occupancy does seem to be increasing, office occupancy does not. As downtown starts to become more mixed-use oriented, the office-occupancy figures may still remain low as former office buildings become loft projects or street-level retail. With regards to mass transit, I think streetcar lines would serve a mixed-use downtown well, and provide a tourist destination.
Monorails make sense in Las Vegas because there are hundreds of thousands of potential passengers at each stop on any day... name one stop in Tulsa with that volume? Likewise, monorails are the most expensive form of mass travel you can build. Vegas can pay for that because hotels pay millions and millions for a monorail stop and pay subsidy taxes to keep them running. The cost of the system is made up for in Vegas because of the need to avoid foot traffic, the need to keep an image of cool, and the volume of traffic they can handle.
Tulsa just doesnt fit the bill. Though a clever jingle could always change my mind (that horse dead yet?).
Vegas's decentralization is a simple illustration of advanced planning. The closing of the distance between the strip and the downtown in Vegas has been well accomplished as it is a short fast communication for the guest they have in their city. The strip is not unlike our own 71st strip and our distant downtown. The only difference they have a very live downtown and we have a very dead one. We have no rapid transportation to gap the distance between the two. Instead we are building an arena in our congested downtown area in our "Field of Dreams" concept. The down town is not a focal point for a rapid transport system to our strip and back. Next we are going to develop the river without any regard to the lack of a system of transportation.
We should put a system of transportation at the top of our list of what the city needs. Let our great grand children develop the river.
I think one alternative that hasn't been considered is personal rapid transit. It has the same price as LRT, but while LRT on average has 10% of its users who previously drove PRT has 30%. A small town in the UK called Daventry is on the first steps of introducing the system, it would really place Tulsa on the map to have such an innovative and potentially successful transport system.
As a reminder, what is being studied right now is commuter rail and bus rapid transit from Broken Arrow to downtown Tulsa.
It is a simple study that is examining whether it makes sense.
Other potential commuter rail corridors where ROWs currently exist are:
Bartlesville-Collinsville-Owasso-Tulsa Int'l North-Downtown
Claremore-Catoosa-Tulsa Int'l South-Downtown
(A study request for intercity service on this route is pending with Amtrak)
Bixby-Aquarium/Riverwalk-Jenks-Union/Skelly-Downtown
Oklahoma City-Chandler-Stroud-Bristow-Sapulpa-Red Fork-Downtown (studied in 2000, $300-900 million, depending how fast you want to go).
Sand Springs-Downtown (Charles Page Line)
In my opinion, the existing Broken Arrow study should also include Muskogee and Coweta. Fifteen miles is a short distance for heavy rail commuter.
Maybe a vote could be scheduled whether to earmark excess revenues from VISION 2025 for establishing the Broken Arrow corridor, buying up the ROW or trackage rights on these others, and establishing a downtown street car circulator linking the commuter rail station with TCC, OSU-TULSA, OSU Medical Center, BOK/CIVIC Center, residential, and employment centers.
Sustained gasoline prices over $4 gallon, would change some minds. Combine these with visionaries among us and you could get it done.
quote:
Originally posted by Transport_Oklahoma
As a reminder, what is being studied right now is commuter rail and bus rapid transit from Broken Arrow to downtown Tulsa.
It is a simple study that is examining whether it makes sense.
Other potential commuter rail corridors where ROWs currently exist are:
Bartlesville-Collinsville-Owasso-Tulsa Int'l North-Downtown
Claremore-Catoosa-Tulsa Int'l South-Downtown
(A study request for intercity service on this route is pending with Amtrak)
Bixby-Aquarium/Riverwalk-Jenks-Union/Skelly-Downtown
Oklahoma City-Chandler-Stroud-Bristow-Sapulpa-Red Fork-Downtown (studied in 2000, $300-900 million, depending how fast you want to go).
Sand Springs-Downtown (Charles Page Line)
In my opinion, the existing Broken Arrow study should also include Muskogee and Coweta. Fifteen miles is a short distance for heavy rail commuter.
Maybe a vote could be scheduled whether to earmark excess revenues from VISION 2025 for establishing the Broken Arrow corridor, buying up the ROW or trackage rights on these others, and establishing a downtown street car circulator linking the commuter rail station with TCC, OSU-TULSA, OSU Medical Center, BOK/CIVIC Center, residential, and employment centers.
Sustained gasoline prices over $4 gallon, would change some minds. Combine these with visionaries among us and you could get it done.
Do you know if part of the study will include a transport model for the proposals such as TRANPLAN? Or if modelling work has been carried out in the Tulsa met area for other proposals in the past.
Was it not in the wizard of oz that the rabbit was answering by "Lets have a party",
Tulsa uses the same logic with "Lets make a study". They have rooms of these studies that are never implemented.
Has the Broken Arrow to Tulsa express bus stopped or is it still in operation where one can drive to the parking lot to take it which is nearly as far as the distance by car downtown Tulsa?
quote:
Originally posted by si_uk_lon_ok
quote:
Originally posted by Transport_Oklahoma
As a reminder, what is being studied right now is commuter rail and bus rapid transit from Broken Arrow to downtown Tulsa.
It is a simple study that is examining whether it makes sense.
Other potential commuter rail corridors where ROWs currently exist are:
Bartlesville-Collinsville-Owasso-Tulsa Int'l North-Downtown
Claremore-Catoosa-Tulsa Int'l South-Downtown
(A study request for intercity service on this route is pending with Amtrak)
Bixby-Aquarium/Riverwalk-Jenks-Union/Skelly-Downtown
Oklahoma City-Chandler-Stroud-Bristow-Sapulpa-Red Fork-Downtown (studied in 2000, $300-900 million, depending how fast you want to go).
Sand Springs-Downtown (Charles Page Line)
In my opinion, the existing Broken Arrow study should also include Muskogee and Coweta. Fifteen miles is a short distance for heavy rail commuter.
Maybe a vote could be scheduled whether to earmark excess revenues from VISION 2025 for establishing the Broken Arrow corridor, buying up the ROW or trackage rights on these others, and establishing a downtown street car circulator linking the commuter rail station with TCC, OSU-TULSA, OSU Medical Center, BOK/CIVIC Center, residential, and employment centers.
Sustained gasoline prices over $4 gallon, would change some minds. Combine these with visionaries among us and you could get it done.
Do you know if part of the study will include a transport model for the proposals such as TRANPLAN? Or if modelling work has been carried out in the Tulsa met area for other proposals in the past.
I've realised that Lockwood, Andrews & Newnam do VISSIM. Does anyone know what modelling tool (if any) they are using?
Quoted:
I've realised that Lockwood, Andrews & Newnam do VISSIM. Does anyone know what modelling tool (if any) they are using?
_____________________________________________________________
The present tool being used it "how much more can we fleece the public by selling them on another pipe dream",
If Tulsa annexed an area of a 75 mile circle then they might be able to sustain a light rail system with an additional sales taxes..
\\
Another article in the Whirled about this today... I tried to find the article online to link to it but couldnt... their website is a mess.
The article had no real 'news' in it for anyone paying attention, but made one good point: if BA continues to grow and downtown actually takes off, the go-to alternative is probably adding lanes to the BA.
That, I do not want to see. The BA manages to fit into the city as much as possible. The on ramps are small, buildings are wrapped by exits, and things are all squirrelly in generally. But that's ok. For a 6 lane freeway it has a small footprint. Many, many neighborhood and business would be ruined by enlarging the freeway (MINE INCLUDED!).
Not too mention an I-244 style 8 lane freeway is large, lifeless, untaxable, ugly, and a community divider. This may just by NIMBY, but while freeways are needed, we need to do something to stop them from growing ever larger in the middle of our cities.