|
Title: Street design Post by: OurTulsa on December 15, 2008, 03:19:25 pm One outcome I would really like to see from PlaniTulsa is better street design.
What I mean by this is start designing streets that add value to this City beyond efficient vehicle flow. I understand potholes make a statement however I think many underestimate the value what a street says about a place and the ability of a street to make or complete a place. I would like to see the City of Tulsa have an urban designer design the streets as opposed to a traffic engineer; or at least in collaboration with a traffic and stormwater engineer. With very few exceptions our City streets are not very attractive and in many cases are absolute eyesores. In many cases our City streets, particularly the arterials, divide our neighborhoods. How about a movement such that everytime the asphalt is ripped up (resurfacing, utility repair...) we take that opportunity to improve the streetscape as well. Add a decent sidewalk, plant some trees, put in better lighting... Our streets can bring our neighborhoods together. Peoria Ave. between Brookside and Cherry St. doesn't need to be 4 lanes. Why not three so that traffic can still get through but in a calmed manner. Widen the sidewalk, make crossings shorter, plant trees between the sidewalk and street, median the center lane along portions, attractive street lighting, have the street tell the story of the area (if only informing where one is with monuments to the area. 21st, 31st, 41st, 61st, Lewis, N. Cincinnati all have large stretches that don't need so much asphalt/concrete. There would be public benefits to such a redesign of public streets including slower speeds around neighborhoods = less noise from traffic. Trees would help keep the places cooler in the summer and may have incremental value related to our air quality. There could be a significant benefit to stormwater drainage. Streets could be redesigned such that the medians actually help hold some of the stormwater. Trees planted along the streets as well as the planted medians could actually mitigate some of the stormwater. I think that such redesigns would also significantly boost property values in the surrounding neighborhoods. The redesigns, if sidewalks are given great consideration, could actually entice some of us Tulsans out of our car more often. I've often thought of walking from Cherry St. to Utica Sq. to Woodward Park (which is not a far walk) but the walking environment is harsh. Walking 5 unimpeded feet from 30-40 mph. moving cars and big trucks is unerving alone nevermind with children. Thoughts? Title: Street design Post by: Red Arrow on December 15, 2008, 10:24:35 pm The streets could certainly look nicer.
I think that calming the speed along the arterials would invite more traffic through the neighborhoods. Title: Street design Post by: OurTulsa on December 15, 2008, 10:58:41 pm quote: While your concern is valid I don't think calming traffic would divert driver to the neighborhoods, particularly where you live (can't cut through the subivisions easily). Even in the urban context where neighborhood streets run continuously, if a third lane for left turns is established so that through vehicles are unimpeded it wouldn't make sense for a person travelling in a given direction to cut through hoods as stop signs and even slower speed limits would add travel time. I think a person travelling in a given direction would stay on the straight line. I don't think traffic, outside of 30 min. to 1 hr. windows (maybe not even that wide) would back up to the point of traffic diverting congestion. The speed limit is 25 mph through Brookside and I can't think of a time when someone said that the speed limit detered them from that route. Title: Street design Post by: YoungTulsan on December 15, 2008, 11:00:00 pm I think it is simply a lack of coordination between city planners and utilities that causes a lot of the ugliness. That, and poor maintenance.
They are always demolishing perfectly good concrete for random utility work it seems. Then there are the water main breaks. With the current temps we should expect a few over the next day or so. The conversion of midtown streets to 3-lane + sidewalk connected neighborhood design has been mentioned before, and is a well-liked idea. You just need as many half-mile through streets to provide a good load-balance of traffic flow instead of funneling all the traffic into one autobahn. Title: Street design Post by: Red Arrow on December 15, 2008, 11:55:42 pm quote: I doubt anyone would get much support to calm traffic the way you are thinking about on Memorial or 111th. I don't get to Brookside, Cherry St or those parts of the city often. I based my concern on the occasional TV spots on people already complaining about drivers cutting through neighborhoods, (perhaps other neighborhoods) usually going too fast and running stop signs. If I have a reason to be in an area like Brookside, a 25 MPH speed limit won't deter me. Otherwise I will try to pick another route. The only reason I drive through Jenks on Main St on the way home from work is because traffic getting on the turnpike is backed up about 10 minutes and southbound Memorial between the turnpike and 111th is terrible at rush time. Other times I take the turnpike to avoid Jenks' Main St and Delaware or 101st. The difference between Main St/Delaware and using the turnpike is about 1/2 mile and only a few minutes depending on traffic. Title: Street design Post by: YoungTulsan on December 16, 2008, 01:12:45 am quote: In some cases, it is the poor street planning that causes people to speed through neighborhoods. If no sufficient through street is available where one is in need, while the arterials on each side of the neighborhood are clogged up nightmares, people will improvise and make their own thoroughfare out of your peaceful neighborhood street. It's all about load-balancing. If you have more through streets, ALL streets will be less jammed with less of a need for crazy speeding to compensate for the frequent traffic jams. Midtown is a candidate for this type of street plan because things are pretty much already where they need to be. In addition to the 1-mile arterials, you have Utica, Delaware, 36th, 15th, even Terwilliger and Forest providing a lessened traffic burden on all the streets. Add to that the fact that Brookside and Cherry streets are comprised of smaller, more pedestrian friendly businesses - the lack of a huge big-box shopping district - traffic for the most part is pretty quaint. Quaint enough that folks like us could envision all of the 4-lane streets being converted into 3-laners with sidewalks and calmed down speed limits. Dead ends, barriers against traffic flow, need to be solved. I really wish the I-44 widening from Riverside to Yale included passages between the neighborhoods at Detroit, Utica, Columbia, and Pittsburgh. People just going from hood to hood could do so peaceably, while the intersections of Riverside, Peoria, Lewis, Harvard, and Yale would all be a little bit calmer. I do think the planned construction will help quite a bit, the turnarounds are a big helper as are the increased capacities of the intersections themselves. But I think I-44 will remain the Berlin Wall despite the improvements. Title: Street design Post by: MichaelBates on December 16, 2008, 02:10:09 am quote: Excellent suggestions all. The more you can keep local traffic off the arterials, the better the arterials can flow. The reason 71st is such a nightmare is that there are no alternative paths for people who simply want to go from one store or shopping center to another. I'm afraid you're right about the I-44 design, sorry to say. That's one thing they did right when they built I-244 (to the extent that you can mitigate the harm from running an eight-lane freeway through an established neighborhood). Title: Street design Post by: sgrizzle on December 16, 2008, 07:19:29 am Bates has long been a proponent of alternate routes on 71st and I agree. Look at a satellite photo, there is a strong case for 66th Street from Garnett to Mingo at least.
Even crazier idea, but I've heard that once the rail program has taken over existing rail paths, that 71st might be a location for a new rail line. Title: Street design Post by: Red Arrow on December 16, 2008, 10:49:03 am Connecting the parking lots along 71st might be a good start. Some already are. You can get from Best Buy to Mingo without getting on 71st. If they were just connected to a place with an existing traffic light it would help. It's no fun pulling up behind someone and then they turn on their left turn signal. It's especially no fun if they are hogging half the right turn lane.
A streetcar/(real)trolley along 71st could be successful if it wasn't in traffic. Carving out some space on either side or in the median could work. 71st is a BIG street to cross on foot so pedestrian bridges at some of the trolley stops would be necessary. Otherwise, take the trolley around the end of the loop. That whole strip will never be "pedestrian friendly" but could be pedestrian tolerable. If you can walk from the outer reaches of the Woodland Hills parking lot to the mall, you can probably walk a few hundred yards to the other stores set back from the street. I think a day pass fare would be necessary or people would hate it as much as turnpike toll booths every few miles. A rail system wouldn't be inexpensive but it may be less expensive than some alternatives. Considering land use etc, it could become even more attractive. Title: Street design Post by: Red Arrow on December 16, 2008, 11:38:28 am quote: I have to agree that I-44 is something like the Berlin Wall. The question is how many people want to go from hood to hood other than to escape the traffic on the arterials? I'm sure that when I-44 went in many years ago that it split the neighborhoods and many friends became separated by a 2 mile ride. What would really be gained by rejoining those neighborhoods now? How many of those residents want to calm the traffic on the arterials by having cars on their streets? My thoughts are obviously influenced by my suburban perspective rather than a desire to live an urban lifestyle. Title: Street design Post by: carltonplace on December 17, 2008, 11:02:45 am I think more throughways would be valuable. Look how many people use Darlington to escape Yale...so many that I feel sorry for the people that own a house on the street.
The area between Yale and Sheridan should have two I44 crossings at a minimum. Peoria/Lewis Lewis/Harvard Harvard/Yale each need at least one permeation through the highway. Title: Street design Post by: Red Arrow on December 17, 2008, 04:03:34 pm quote: The more streets you have for a given traffic load, the less traffic each has to handle. You can somewhat control the flow on each with number of lanes, lane size, desirability (stop signs, speed bumps) etc. Works with electricity, ought to work with streets and traffic. If new streets could be added, I would agree heartily. Since it is only possible to convert present residential streets, I think it would be best to consider the desires of the people that live on those streets that would be converted. Most of them bought into a known traffic pattern and now "you" want to change it for your convenience. As you noted, the traffic on Darlington is not desirable. Uncalming residential streets in order to calm an arterial would be popular with everyone except the folks on the uncalmed streets. I'm sure there are areas in Tulsa that may benefit from the ideas presented in this thread. It may keep casual through traffic out of a particular area entirely. Unfortunately, the traffic situation in southeast Tulsa would indicate otherwise. I wouldn't expect to turn most of the major arterials into pedestrian friendly, calm traffic in my lifetime. Just to sound self-contradictory here, large streets do not lead to less traffic. They do all the nasty things like promote sprawl and more cars that this forum notes. The only way I see out of the situation is to develop a public transit system that would be convenient and used by a large number of people. How to do that has been discussed on other threads. Title: Street design Post by: OurTulsa on December 17, 2008, 11:17:42 pm I really don't think reducing a streets traffic load capacity will cause rediculous traffic particularly in the areas in listed in my initial post. I wouldn't dare suggest that we take Sheridan Rd. at any point in our jurisdiction down to 3 lanes.
I think the design value and added quality to the public space will far out weigh the tiny amounts of one lane traffic at a given signaled intersection. Those streets I mentioned for the most parts already have small traffic counts relative to the large majority of our other arterials. Delaware Ave. in TU is a good example of adding value to a place. The 4 lane Delaware was atrocious. The three laner is far better (sans acorn lighting) and the center median is a large part of that. I don't think it's count was significant enough to provide an indication as to impact to traffic. From my perspective, there is as little traffic on Delaware Av. now as there was before and no back-up; however I don't attend TU classes at 8am either. My visits are mid day and evening. Title: Street design Post by: carltonplace on December 18, 2008, 12:18:51 pm Red Arrow made some good points. Once we've done something it's very difficult to undo it.
The insertion of HWY 51 into downtown made it much easier for people to get in and out, but it had the unintended consequence of helping people move further away from the core and turning some residential streets into high speed on ramps. Really the only practical way to reduce congestion on the arterial streets is to get people to the destinations without their cars. Title: Street design Post by: dsjeffries on December 18, 2008, 03:00:17 pm quote: I really wish we had a more pronounced, contiguous 1/2-mile system. 8am classes at TU don't cause much traffic (really, nothing at TU causes much traffic except sporting events) since around 65-70% of students live on-campus now, and Delaware is MUCH more pleasant now that it has the median. I'd LOVE to be able to take Delaware from campus all the way to 21st Street, but as it stands now, it basically dead-ends when it reaches the Broken Arrow Expressway, so I'm forced to use 15th Street and go either to Lewis or Harvard. Dead-ends are a major problem in Tulsa, even in midtown, due to "urban planning" in the early 90's. like in Kendall-Whittier, where they turned through streets into culs-de-sac (4th & 5th Streets which used to connect to Lewis now don't). Map (http://"http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&q=4th+%26+Lewis,+Tulsa,+ok&sll=36.924646,-104.735413&sspn=0.622472,1.054687&ie=UTF8&ll=36.154886,-95.958543&spn=0.00256,0.00412&t=h&z=18") I'd really like to see the area north of Cherry Street on the other side of the B.A. become more connected with Cherry Street. There's one through-street (St. Louis, I think), but the whole area (like much of Tulsa) is really cut off from something within eyesight. Map (http://"http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&q=4th+%26+Lewis,+Tulsa,+ok&sll=36.924646,-104.735413&sspn=0.622472,1.054687&ie=UTF8&ll=36.143056,-95.972561&spn=0.00512,0.012317&z=17") Title: Street design Post by: PonderInc on January 07, 2009, 04:10:20 pm I-44 and Yale is an excellent example of the "engineer's solution." Sure, they solved the traffic problem, but at what cost? The road is now so wide, you would never dream of crossing it on foot or bike. It's also so large that it creates a shocking heat island (like driving around inside a brick oven). And there was no attempt to make the street interesting or welcoming to humans. Just convenient for cars.
Perhaps this is understandable for an area adjacent to an interstate...but it's the same for all wide arterial streets in Tulsa. I remember years ago someone visiting Tulsa from Europe and commenting: "Why do you make all your major streets so ugly?" Basically, they wondered why we don't value the public spaces that we all utilize the most: our streets. Good question. Title: Street design Post by: OurTulsa on February 22, 2009, 01:28:58 am Will someone in City Hall remind public works and their contract crews that sidewalks are supposed to serve a function beyond as a place for large utility poles, traffic signal poles, construction warning signs...almost making the sidewalks impassable. I know there aren't many who walk in this City but it would be nice if they didn't have blatant disregard for sidewalk space.
While I'm at it, Thanks for making 15th and Utica Av. better...all for those 30 minute gaps of traffic that back up when shifts change at St. Johns...and making the time for me to cross the street and time I'm exposed to traffic while walking in the intersection longer. Yea, that's a better intersection now. Why do we plan and design for extremes, particularly when it comes for cars? It kills every aesthetic possibility. It's a wonder we can't keep up with potholes and basic street maintenance yet we continue to program for additional streets in our City limits. And I dare guess that not many street additions are accommodating additional tax base (paying for themselves). We're just adding inventory to a showroom we can't afford to maintain as is even while we have old show space just rotting away. I don't get it. Title: Street design Post by: dsjeffries on February 22, 2009, 02:50:55 am quote: What, do you mean things like these aren't good for sidewalks? (http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3546/3293414155_dbdb6ff152.jpg) (http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3037/3294239074_6f10af0eb3.jpg) (http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3313/3293414635_8d1613ffce.jpg) (http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3464/3293414551_c56f9ddfc7.jpg) Title: Street design Post by: waterboy on February 22, 2009, 09:37:42 am quote: I've had to cross that intersection several time on foot during the last month. You're right that currently with all the impediments the construction crew has set up, it is quite a challenge. Add in the folks who insist on making an illegal left turn and you have a real mess for pedestrians. That intersection has always been a high accident corner. Sometimes I just cross a block South of it and walk through the cozy little hood there. However, I can see that it will greatly improve the flow through that intersection. The 14th & Utica entrances/exits force traffic into that short stretch of Utica to get to the hospitals and clinics. With the changes to Cherry Street to the west of Utica, the traffic demands will only increase. St.John's has also expanded with a clinic and a nearby credit union. Putting a drive through bank there was irresponsible and the new Bumgarner commercial stuff on 14th is pretty silly too but they are reality and only serve to congest the area more. Its regrettable that a hamfisted approach to development has decimated the area for pedestrian use, but reality is that the intersection badly needed expanding to include left turn lanes. Should have been done three decades ago. I hope they make the corner safe for pedestrians as there are still some of us who enjoy the walk along Cherry. Title: Street design Post by: pmcalk on February 22, 2009, 11:17:55 am IMO, the real issue with "cut through" traffic in neighborhoods is not so much the cars as it is the speed of the cars. In other cities, this is easily solved by making all intersections in residential areas four way stops. If you have to drive a block, stop, drive a block, stop, etc...., you will only go through a neighborhood if the traffic is really, really bad, or if you need to get into the neighborhood. Given that on any given corner in a neighborhood, you may have kids playing, people walking their dog, etc...., cars should stop at each intersection. And the likihood that your speed would exceed 25 mph would be much less.
Title: Street design Post by: TheArtist on February 22, 2009, 12:14:00 pm Some thoughts and observations on street design.
And yes, its another of my famously long, Sunday morning posts lol. Blanket statements like, wide streets are bad, small streets are good.... well, sometimes, sometimes not. Take 71st by the mall area. Its a wide street. Yet I have seen streets and been in cities with even wider streets that were wonderful and pedestrian friendly. The difference was, the buildings on the sides of the streets were up to the sidewalks and appropriate to the scale of the street(aka, wider streets, taller buildings, wider sidewalks). Yes its a pedestrian mess now. But lets imagine a possible future when perhaps the area continues to grow, things start building up and becoming more dense. It could happen. Then we may be fine having those wider streets and not be in the position of having to take out buildings to widen the streets like they often did in larger, older cities. If its thought of as a major corridor, and one that may evolve, we may want to encourage that evolution and growth in a certain, more pedestrian friendly, direction. The street may be fine, its whats growing up on either side of it thats perhaps not happening as it might. The highways.... We can think of 2 approaches. Removing them, or designing with them in mind. Removing them/scaling them down to encourage easy crossing from one side to the next. But that supposes that its worth it to do so. That there are lots of reasons, all up and down the length of the highway to do so. As in, there is a pedestrian friendly street on one side that is cut through and is now hard to get to the pedestrian friendly street or area on the other side for instance. I dont really see that in most instances so propose some other thoughts. When I look at our city as a whole, I can see a development scenario in which our city becomes more "nodal". Having a number of scattered "Urban Villages" or "Mini downtowns" or denser, pedestrian friendly areas. Connected by mass transit bus or rail, bike lanes,etc. Just like every street downtown doesnt have to be pedestrian friendly, shouldnt be actually. All areas and streets of the city dont have to be perfect, pedestrian friendly places, and in actuality can't be. As long as these "nodes" are pedestrian friendly, thats what really matters. For then, for the most part, whatever you need is within walking distance in those denser nodes, or accessible by mass transit or cars to the other nodes. Even mass transit becomes more viable when there are denser nodes here and there where people will likely walk and there are more people nearby to utilize the mass transit. A highway and some suburban sprawl/neighborhoods, in this scenario are nothing more than a river and some fields between "towns". You wouldnt want to walk across them unless you were on a long trek lol. Downtown and its IDL is a slightly different beast. But even here, perhaps our imaginations tend to be limited because of our limited experiences and our limited city at the moment. If say the arena were more connected to a great area just in front of it connected to a "node" around Bartlett Square for example. That node in and of itself could be a nice bustling, mixed use, pedestrian friendly area. If you wanted to then go to the Greenwood area, hopefully, eventually another bustling node. You just take a bus or "trolley". When I was in Paris, you didnt walk absolutely everywhere, there were nodes even within that city and would take the subway or buses to each one. There were busy, pedestrian friendly streets, and dead streets. There were bustling, pedestrian friendly areas, and areas where you wouldnt want to walk or where the distances were very far across a river, plazas, roadways, past huuuuge buildings where nobody walked, etc. so you took mass transit or automobiles from one "node" to another. One last notion that occurred to me the other day though. I was thinking about Brookside and how successful it was and is becoming, and noting how that in many instances it was livelier at more times of the day and on more days than even many parts of downtown. I had made an analogy in another forum about how Brookside was in many ways a mini version of the Champs Elysee in Paris. A VERY mini version lol, but there were still similarities. They are both busy at all times of the day and evening because of the mixture of things along the street. There is stuff you do during the day like shop and dine, and stuff you do during the evenings, like shop and dine and late evenings like going to the clubs and coffee houses. There are grocery stores, and businesses, gym, offices, restaurants, barber, furniture stores, flower shop, laundry,,,, multiple reasons to go there and things that people will go to at all times of the morning, day and evenings. And of course its pedestrian friendly. Downtown has things that happen during all times of the day and night, but not streets like that. So when I imagine us creating a bustling street downtown, our Main Sreet, our Champs Elysee or busy Brookside. I can imagine that we can do that. We can have a pedestrian friendly, mixed use, always busy street... but then something occurred to me. The other similarity between the Champs Elysee and Brookside is that they are both arterial streets. They not only serve the people who live nearby, but also get a lot of traffic flow because they are arterial streets. They are easily accessible. They are not only destinations in and of themselves, you can use them on a regular basis to get from one point to another. Easy to get to and through. They are a natural part of the flow of the city and where people go. Downtown is kind of cut off from the natural flow. Brady Street for instance as a possible street that could become a great pedestrian friendly street, is,,, well, out of the way. Its not part of any traffic flow. It seems like that is a negative to businesses along some of those street versus other arterial streets. Streets like 21st near Utica, Utica, 15th street, Brookside, are all part of your natural "getting around" from one point to another in those areas of town. Downtown, Brady and other like streets, not so much. For it seems that at this point in our cities development our small, pedestrian friendly nodes, still could use traffic flow to help the businesses in them. Not just people coming for a game, or to the bars, and there arent enough people living right by them to make them viable either. I go down Peoria and 21st all the time, yet downtown still seems out of the way. Not only does downtown seem to be isolated via pedestrian friendly routes from one area to another, but it also seems to be isolated via car! Those other areas I spoke of as being "urban villages" "mini downtowns" earlier would all be on the main city grid and part of our daily flow from one place to another. But not so much downtown. Its like it, and the particular street you may want to go to, is surrounded by a moat consisting of; a river, highways, dead end streets, slummy abandoned areas, industrial sites, windy twists, one way streets, closed bridges, etc. Will these things really matter? Could we do more to help things, and what and where lol? Am I barking up the wrong tree and the "natural traffic flow" thing wont matter with downtown? Title: Street design Post by: Red Arrow on February 22, 2009, 01:36:37 pm I'm sure it has been mentioned before. How about making pedestrian islands to help crossing major intersections. That would make it so the pedestrial would only need to cross half the road at a time. This would be especially useful for our citizens that are not track & field stars.
The islands could be a really wide spot in the turn lane barriers. They would need to be wide enough to give pedestrians confidence that they wouldn't get run over standing there waiting for the next crossing light. It would be a waste of space for smaller intersections but could be good for linking one ped friendly area to another across a major arterial. Title: Re: Street design Post by: SXSW on November 18, 2010, 11:33:44 am I'm sure it has been mentioned before. How about making pedestrian islands to help crossing major intersections. That would make it so the pedestrial would only need to cross half the road at a time. This would be especially useful for our citizens that are not track & field stars. The islands could be a really wide spot in the turn lane barriers. They would need to be wide enough to give pedestrians confidence that they wouldn't get run over standing there waiting for the next crossing light. It would be a waste of space for smaller intersections but could be good for linking one ped friendly area to another across a major arterial. I like this idea for 11th through the TU campus, and possibly extended further east and especially west. When I was living in Denver I lived near DU's campus, which is very similar in many ways to TU. A major through street (Evans) cut right through the campus. To make it easier for pedestrians to cross several lights were put at intersections as well as a landscaped median to make the crossing of 4 lanes not so daunting. This would be a big improvement on 11th, IMO. That and at least one more lighted intersection between Delaware and Harvard (at Florence). Title: Re: Street design Post by: nathanm on November 18, 2010, 12:26:27 pm I like this idea for 11th through the TU campus, and possibly extended further east and especially west. When I was living in Denver I lived near DU's campus, which is very similar in many ways to TU. A major through street (Evans) cut right through the campus. To make it easier for pedestrians to cross several lights were put at intersections as well as a landscaped median to make the crossing of 4 lanes not so daunting. This would be a big improvement on 11th, IMO. That and at least one more lighted intersection between Delaware and Harvard (at Florence). They already put a light between Evanston and College at the 11th street vehicular entrance.Title: Re: Street design Post by: TheTed on November 18, 2010, 12:41:16 pm <blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by OurTulsa</i> Will someone in City Hall remind public works and their contract crews that sidewalks are supposed to serve a function beyond as a place for large utility poles, traffic signal poles, construction warning signs...almost making the sidewalks impassable. I know there aren't many who walk in this City but it would be nice if they didn't have blatant disregard for sidewalk space. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote"> What, do you mean things like these aren't good for sidewalks? (http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3546/3293414155_dbdb6ff152.jpg) (http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3037/3294239074_6f10af0eb3.jpg) (http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3313/3293414635_8d1613ffce.jpg) (http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3464/3293414551_c56f9ddfc7.jpg) I usually move those things when I see something like that. Too bad there's a fence right next to that sidewalk, so there's nowhere to move them. There are plenty of downtown surface lot owners who put their big parking signs on the sidewalk. I usually help them out by moving them. I do wonder if in the history of Tulsa, anyone has ever been ticketed for blocking the sidewalk? Does the parking enforcement guy even know that's a violation? Makes me want to volunteer as a parking cop. I could write a half-dozen tickets a day without even trying. Just attempt to walk down Cheyenne during a BOK Center event and you'll see a several people parked across the sidewalk. Title: Re: Street design Post by: SXSW on November 18, 2010, 01:30:56 pm They already put a light between Evanston and College at the 11th street vehicular entrance. There should be another in addition to this one. Florence is a good place because it connects to the pedestrian walkway next to Chapman Stadium and to leads into the heart of campus. If TU built its new housing above retail storefronts along 11th this and the light at Tucker Dr. (at the "U") would be the primary paths across 11th, in addition to Delaware and Harvard. Look no further than OU and Boyd Street for how a campus and mixed-use retail environment can coexist across the street from each with positive flow between the two. Title: Re: Street design Post by: Conan71 on November 18, 2010, 03:20:37 pm There should be another in addition to this one. Florence is a good place because it connects to the pedestrian walkway next to Chapman Stadium and to leads into the heart of campus. If TU built its new housing above retail storefronts along 11th this and the light at Tucker Dr. (at the "U") would be the primary paths across 11th, in addition to Delaware and Harvard. Look no further than OU and Boyd Street for how a campus and mixed-use retail environment can coexist across the street from each with positive flow between the two. Another light? Two blocks away? Are you serious, or are students too lazy to walk two blocks out of their way for a safe crossing? Title: Re: Street design Post by: SXSW on November 18, 2010, 04:32:10 pm Another light? Two blocks away? Are you serious, or are students too lazy to walk two blocks out of their way for a safe crossing? It would help slow traffic down. With 11th by TU in its current form the light at Tucker is fine, but if TU wanted to create more of a mixed-use development across the street they would need the other light at Florence. Does anyone know who is in charge of their facilities and development? I would like to send them some of my ideas for that area. Title: Re: Street design Post by: YoungTulsan on November 18, 2010, 04:37:30 pm Just to slow traffic down? Let's not pretend you are interested in traffic flow - that is simply an issue of your dislike of people driving cars in general and the thought of the solution being to make things more difficult on the drivers so they'll say "Gee, I guess I was wrong to drive this carbon burning leviathan".
My interest in traffic calming is so I can actually have a smoother drive across town AND get to my destination quicker. Title: Re: Street design Post by: SXSW on November 18, 2010, 06:11:36 pm My interest in traffic calming is so I can actually have a smoother drive across town AND get to my destination quicker. My interest is in creating pedestrian-friendly environments and promoting alternative transportation such as bicycling and transit use. Agree to disagree. Title: Re: Street design Post by: Red Arrow on November 18, 2010, 08:45:55 pm Maybe this is a better solution.
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=uvalde,+tx&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=60.246331,131.572266&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Uvalde,+Texas&ll=29.216264,-99.792836&spn=0.00412,0.008031&t=k&z=18&layer=c&cbll=29.216239,-99.792929&panoid=Iw-RRMOIA6rIYK1wJmvc5w&cbp=12,235.71,,0,5 Title: Re: Street design Post by: PonderInc on December 22, 2010, 03:17:40 pm Tulsa's current standards for street design are crazy. They require new arterial street lanes to be WIDER THAN the federal requirements for INTERSTATE HIGHWAYS.
The interstate highway system requires a minimum lane width of 12 feet (minimum design speed of 75 MPH). The Tulsa "Trafficway Right-of-Way Standards" indicate that "secondary arterials" should have two lanes in each direction: one 12' and one 14' wide. A primary arterial should have three lanes in each direction: 12', 14' and 12' wide. (Same for a "Parkway," whatever that is.) Meanwhile our standards for a "Freeway" are "two or more 12' lanes." This strikes me as crazy. Why should city street lanes be wider than freeways and interstate highways? I've noticed that when I drive, I don't notice speed limit signs as much as I respond to the street design. I speed up or slow down based on the width of the lanes and the setback of buildings from the street. If I'm on more narrow roads with buildings closer to the street, I slow down instinctively. If the streets are huge and wide, and the setbacks are enormous, I feel like...well, like I'm on an interstate. I got a ticket once in Stillwater for going 45 in a 30 MPH zone, on a street designed for 90 MPH. Title: Re: Street design Post by: Red Arrow on December 22, 2010, 06:26:58 pm This strikes me as crazy. Why should city street lanes be wider than freeways and interstate highways? So we can run a street car / real trolley down them in the future. :) Title: Re: Street design Post by: SXSW on January 14, 2011, 03:32:51 pm 41st between Lewis and Peoria appears to finally be finished. Very nice road, not excessively wide (4 lanes, no turn lane), and with a nice sidewalk along the north side. Wish they would've connected to Lewis though. Now the sidewalk goes from Peoria to about a block from Lewis before stopping near that big house at the NW corner.
It looks like instead of working around the existing power poles they moved the poles to create a straight sidewalk. Why can't they do this in other areas? It looks much better. Title: Re: Street design Post by: Townsend on August 09, 2011, 02:03:26 pm http://autos.yahoo.com/news/15-dangerous-cities-for-driving.html (http://autos.yahoo.com/news/15-dangerous-cities-for-driving.html)
15 Dangerous Cities for Driving 15. Oklahoma City, Okla. Population: 551,789 Total fatality rate per 100,000 population: 13.41 Total fatalities: 74 Percentage of fatalities that were pedestrians: 13.5 14. Birmingham, Ala. Population: 228,798 Total fatality rate per 100,000 population: 13.55 Total fatalities: 31 Percentage of fatalities that were pedestrians: 15.2 13. Tulsa, Okla. Population: 385,635 Total fatality rate per 100,000 population: 14.00 Total fatalities: 54 Percentage of fatalities that were pedestrians: 18.5 12. St. Petersburg, Fla. Population: 245,314 Total fatality rate per 100,000 population: 14.27 Total fatalities: 35 Percentage of fatalities that were pedestrians: 28.6 11. Jacksonville, Fla. Population: 807,815 Total fatality rate per 100,000 population: 14.36 Total fatalities: 116 Percentage of fatalities that were pedestrians: 13.8 10. Lubbock, Texas Population: 220,483 Total fatality rate per 100,000 population: 14.97 Total fatalities: 33 Percentage of fatalities that were pedestrians: 15.2 9. Memphis, Tenn. Population: 669,651 Total fatality rate per 100,000 population: 15.08 Total fatalities: 101 Percentage of fatalities that were pedestrians: 11.9 8. Jackson, Miss. Population: 173,861 Total fatality rate per 100,000 population: 15.53 Total fatalities: 27 Percentage of fatalities that were pedestrians: 18.5 7. Chattanooga, Tenn. Population: 170,880 Total fatality rate per 100,000 population: 16.39 Total fatalities: 28 Percentage of fatalities that were pedestrians: 17.9 6. Salt Lake City, Utah Population: 181,698 Total fatality rate per 100,000 population: 16.51 Total fatalities: 30 Percentage of fatalities that were pedestrians: 26.7 5. San Bernardino, Calif. Population: 198,580 Total fatality rate per 100,000 population: 17.12 Total fatalities: 38 Percentage of fatalities that were pedestrians: 15.8 4. Little Rock, Ark. Population: 189,515 Total fatality rate per 100,000 population: 17.94 Total fatalities: 34 Percentage of fatalities that were pedestrians: 26.5 3. Augusta-Richmond Co., Ga. Population: 194,149 Total fatality rate per 100,000 population: 19.57 Total fatalities: 38 Percentage of fatalities that were pedestrians: 15.8 2. Orlando, Fla. Population: 230,519 Total fatality rate per 100,000 population: 19.95 Total fatalities: 46 Percentage of fatalities that were pedestrians: 10.9 The most dangerous city to drive in: Fort Lauderdale, Fla. 1. Fort Lauderdale, Fla. Population: 183,126 Total fatality rate per 100,000 population: 22.39 Total fatalities: 41 Percentage of fatalities that were pedestrians: 24.4 Title: Re: Street design Post by: Conan71 on August 09, 2011, 02:09:54 pm Why does Oklahoma attract such crappy drivers? I'm serious, some of the worst drivers in the country live here in Tulsa.
Title: Re: Street design Post by: Gaspar on August 09, 2011, 02:27:26 pm Why does Oklahoma attract such crappy drivers? I'm serious, some of the worst drivers in the country live here in Tulsa. We're afraid to use our horns. Title: Re: Street design Post by: TheArtist on August 09, 2011, 02:48:28 pm Why does Oklahoma attract such crappy drivers? I'm serious, some of the worst drivers in the country live here in Tulsa. Because we have a huge underclass of people who don't have the educational, social, and moral skills to take care of themselves let alone responsibly look out for anyone else. Title: Re: Street design Post by: Townsend on August 09, 2011, 02:50:17 pm Because we have a huge underclass of uneducated people who don't have the skills to take care of themselves let alone responsibly look out for anyone else. "SLAP!" I said Title: Re: Street design Post by: Townsend on August 09, 2011, 02:58:21 pm So I read today that Tulsa is racing to suck up even more land to our North and then I read this on the TW FB:
Quote Revenue projections for the city’s 2006 third-penny sales tax and 2008 Fix Our Streets initiatives show a $55.1 million shortfall by the time they end in 2014, potentially leaving projects unfunded. Nothing wrong there... Title: Re: Street design Post by: DolfanBob on August 09, 2011, 03:05:24 pm If you have ever been in a car in Fort Lauderdale you would agree with the number one listing.
A couple of buddies of mine had me come down for 10 days and they themselves drove like maniacs on purpose screaming and yelling at older retirees and the non English speaking population of drivers. Constant road rage and they loved it. Title: Re: Street design Post by: Conan71 on August 09, 2011, 03:07:55 pm Because we have a huge underclass of people who don't have the educational, social, and moral skills to take care of themselves let alone responsibly look out for anyone else. Our underclass drives some nice cars. The chances of someone using their turn signal appears inverse to the price of their car. I was also curious if we have an disproportionate number of cell phone users behind the wheel. I see people texting all the time. Generally holding the cell phone with the left hand seems to be the culprit for no turn signal. Title: Re: Street design Post by: Hoss on August 09, 2011, 03:11:37 pm If you have ever been in a car in Fort Lauderdale you would agree with the number one listing. A couple of buddies of mine had me come down for 10 days and they themselves drove like maniacs on purpose screaming and yelling at older retirees and the non English speaking population of drivers. Constant road rage and they loved it. Kinda surprised Dallas didn't make that list. For all the time I was up there, that place has the WORST drivers of any place on earth. Believe it or not, when I lived in Houston, although the traffic sucked, drivers were mainly courteous and knowledgeable. They just drove fast. :) Title: Re: Street design Post by: custosnox on August 09, 2011, 04:48:18 pm I do my part in educating people to some degree. I drive a crappy car, so I hope some idiot with a nice car (good insurance) runs into me, so when they rush up to the barrels on a lane merge and try and force their way over, or try to come into my lane as if I'm not there, I don't bother with avoidance maneuvers. To be honest, I'm surprised I haven't gotten a new car yet...
Title: Re: Street design Post by: nathanm on August 09, 2011, 05:51:59 pm If you have ever been in a car in Fort Lauderdale you would agree with the number one listing. It is pretty funny how you've got this mix of old people driving poorly because they haven't been able to see in the last 20 years and young people driving poorly because they have to subscribe to the crazypants theory of driving whenever they're not boxed in by old people if they want to get anywhere on time.Title: Re: Street design Post by: TheArtist on August 09, 2011, 08:01:04 pm So I read today that Tulsa is racing to suck up even more land to our North and then I read this on the TW FB: Nothing wrong there... Really? Why, and where exactly? Title: Re: Street design Post by: Townsend on August 09, 2011, 09:47:50 pm Really? Why, and where exactly? Gilcrease expressway because state law changes will make it harder to do so in the future. I'll post a link tomorrow when not using my phone. Title: Re: Street design Post by: Hoss on August 09, 2011, 09:49:41 pm Gilcrease expressway because state law changes will make it harder to do so in the future. I'll post a link tomorrow when not using my phone. So in other words, much of the SE part of Osage County? Or are they just going to buy the parcels that would include the Expressway ROW? Title: Re: Street design Post by: Townsend on August 09, 2011, 09:51:53 pm So in other words, much of the SE part of Osage County? Or are they just going to buy the parcels that would include the Expressway ROW? Fenceline per article Title: Re: Street design Post by: Hoss on August 09, 2011, 10:01:17 pm Fenceline per article While you do that tomorrow, I was doing a search and found a pretty fascinating document I'm still reading of all places, on the Tulsa City Council website that details the history of annexation in Tulsa. It kind of makes clear why the city and the outlying suburbs don't necessarily get along... http://www.tulsacouncil.org/media/79331/Annexation%20History.pdf Note: You'll need a PDF reader (Adobe or equivalent) to read this. Title: Re: Street design Post by: dbacks fan on August 09, 2011, 11:30:38 pm While you do that tomorrow, I was doing a search and found a pretty fascinating document I'm still reading of all places, on the Tulsa City Council website that details the history of annexation in Tulsa. It kind of makes clear why the city and the outlying suburbs don't necessarily get along... http://www.tulsacouncil.org/media/79331/Annexation%20History.pdf Note: You'll need a PDF reader (Adobe or equivalent) to read this. Thanks Hoss, that explains a lot of things. When Gilcrease Hills was being developed in the early 70's my parents thought about moving there but dad was not thrilled about driving from there to McDonnell/Douglas since we lived near 25th and Memorial, and he liked the shorter drive to and from work. At one time I had a map of Tulsa back about the same time and it showed the proposed highway plans on it including the Creek Turnpike from either Hwy 75 or the Turner, along the path that it is now to Hwy 169. This document also explains quite a bit of why Tulsa expanded the way that it did, since downtown proper is based in a corner and with the annexation problems really had no where else to go. Title: Re: Street design Post by: Hoss on August 09, 2011, 11:44:53 pm Thanks Hoss, that explains a lot of things. When Gilcrease Hills was being developed in the early 70's my parents thought about moving there but dad was not thrilled about driving from there to McDonnell/Douglas since we lived near 25th and Memorial, and he liked the shorter drive to and from work. At one time I had a map of Tulsa back about the same time and it showed the proposed highway plans on it including the Creek Turnpike from either Hwy 75 or the Turner, along the path that it is now to Hwy 169. This document also explains quite a bit of why Tulsa expanded the way that it did, since downtown proper is based in a corner and with the annexation problems really had no where else to go. And evidently the 1966 'super annexation' was all due to Sand Springs annexation west all the way to the Dam. And then hiding the fact that they did it. Tulsa then decided it would be proper to demarcates its 'interests' with the use of annexation and fenceline grabs (since marking fenceline doesn't mean you have to provide services). It certainly explains a lot. Title: Re: Street design Post by: brhino42 on August 17, 2011, 03:32:37 am What is the problem we're trying to fix? Arterials are meant to conduct traffic between and around neighborhoods. Beautification, while important, shouldn't be the primary reason for changing street design. Tulsa has the lowest commute time of virtually any of the largest 100 cities in the U.S. While we don't need MORE speed, we also don't need MORE cars cutting through neighborhoods, and there's no advantage to cutting speeds on arterials. We could try enforcing the existing speed limits if we think dragsters are creating unsafe conditions--do Tulsa police enforce speed limits any more? But the overall message is that our road design is working.
As for sidewalks, I worry that the beautification crowd will think better sidewalks mean something like the disaster that HUD installed on North Peoria. Wider sidewalks along non-store-front arterials are WASTED MONEY. North Peoria looks like a multi-use trail, but it defies the major safety standards for a multi-use trail: 1) DO NOT INSTALL PARALLEL SIDEPATHS OR SIDEWALK STYLE PATHS ADJACENT TO THE ROADWAY; 2) DO NOT INSTALL PATHS WITH HIGH INCIDENCE OF TURNING TRAFFIC (i.e., driveways and side-streets); 3) DO NOT INSTALL PATHS in urban areas. In order to give these the appearance of safety, the design had to include stop signs for the sidepath EVERY block, a huge expense. A 4' sidewalk is fine for pedestrian traffic. Cyclists need to keep to the roadway and should not be treated as pedestrians. Pedestrian speed is 2 mph, but cyclists on WIDE sidepaths travel 12 to 20 mph, which is ridiculously unsafe, and they often fail to yield at side-streets and driveways. Encouraging more of this traffic on sidepaths is contrary to safety and common sense. I am downright alarmed by some of your suggestions: planting trees between the curb and the sidewalk destroys the sight-line, which will result in more people nosing out into traffic without being able to see. There will be more accidents, esp. w/ respect to pedestrian crossings and bicyclists who foolishly ride on the sidewalks (an all too common occurrence on Brookside). Trees should be planted--but back from the roadway on the OTHER side of the sidewalk. This road diet you're proposing looks like a disaster in the making, which is why traffic engineers, not urban planners, should remain in charge of street design. It's like the difference between an architect and an interior decorator. Title: Re: Street design Post by: SXSW on August 17, 2011, 11:09:28 am I am downright alarmed by some of your suggestions: planting trees between the curb and the sidewalk destroys the sight-line, which will result in more people nosing out into traffic without being able to see. There will be more accidents, esp. w/ respect to pedestrian crossings and bicyclists who foolishly ride on the sidewalks (an all too common occurrence on Brookside). Trees should be planted--but back from the roadway on the OTHER side of the sidewalk. This road diet you're proposing looks like a disaster in the making, which is why traffic engineers, not urban planners, should remain in charge of street design. It's like the difference between an architect and an interior decorator. It depends on the area. Urban areas like downtown, Brookside, Cherry Street, etc. with sidewalk restaurants/retail need trees planted adjacent to the roads to shield the heavily used sidewalks from the sun and create a more pleasant environment for walking. You also don't have as much pulling/backing out of traffic in these areas as most parking is behind the buildings, along the street, or in a garage. In neighborhoods it also makes sense...look at Tulsa's beautiful older neighborhoods and you will see a tree-lined median between the road and sidewalk. Traffic is low on most neighborhood streets making this work. I agree 71st between Memorial and Mingo probably doesn't need trees planted next to the road (but they should be planted on the other side of the sidewalk). Cincinnati, Detroit, etc. through downtown does need them. Title: Re: Street design Post by: Red Arrow on August 17, 2011, 11:23:09 am Trees between the street and sidewalk will result in broken sidewalks. We had trees there in the neighborhood where I was a kid. The roots would lift and crack the sidewalks and curbs. Recent Google Streetview pictures show they are all gone now. The uneven sidewalks did make skateboarding more fun.
Title: Re: Street design Post by: nathanm on August 17, 2011, 02:27:53 pm Trees between the street and sidewalk will result in broken sidewalks. We had trees there in the neighborhood where I was a kid. The roots would lift and crack the sidewalks and curbs. Recent Google Streetview pictures show they are all gone now. The uneven sidewalks did make skateboarding more fun. As usual, the real problem is deferred maintenance. If you choose slow growing species and keep them trimmed regularly, they won't grow enough of a root system to cause problems, but if you let the top half grow too much, the bottom half grows to meet the demand. Title: Re: Street design Post by: patric on August 17, 2011, 10:16:15 pm So how does this ANSI model stack up?
(http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2005-12/1116161/street_elements.jpg) |