The Tulsa Forum by TulsaNow

https://www.cityoftulsa.org/media/773607/144017ao-144018%20ph%201%2011x17.pdf

Just saw this on the released set of plans. 1st street from elgin to lansing. In front of McNellies to I-244 off ramp. Sheets 39-40 are the ones that will probably most interest everybody. They aren't replacing the curb and gutter, so the bumpouts are just painted, not physical so that makes me sad.

A light is getting added to 1st and greenwood (sheet 57) as well. The pay items have a few interesting things. There are 2 bike racks getting installed, not sure where. They have decorative light fixtures, but the plans appear to only cover the base and the wiring. Not the fixtures themselves.

Maybe in anticipation of the fixtures being donated? 
With luck, they will be warm-white shielded fixtures that will add a welcoming, low-glare ambiance to the street (as opposed to a sickly-blueish glare bombs seen nearby).   

1st needs a better streetscape, new sidewalks and more trees.  Maybe that can be done in a second phase.  I imagine the south side will get an enhanced streetscape with the Santa Fe Square development but that will stay parallel parking?

There is absolutely no reason for 30'-radius curbs at intersection in a downtown setting. Someone get Jeff Speck on the phone.

Agree most downtown streets need a major road diet.  I worry traffic engineers created this because of the perceived need for traffic volume to feed the highways on 1st and 2nd.  If both are going to be mixed use streets they should be at least one lane narrower with wider sidewalks and MORE TREES.  Look at the Complete Streets design template for downtown streets successfully implemented in other cities. 

Yeah, I really wish they would budget money in all roadway projects for intersection curbs to redone. It is just a patch/mill/overlay and not a geometric redesign, which really limits what you can do then. They are narrowing 2 of the lanes with stripes, but I think curb extensions would have gone a long way to help it out.

Also, this set is really weird because the sheets have different dates on the signature. The cover was dated april 12, 2016 and the first traffic sheet was done in October and the second sheet was done in August. The traffic light was designed in April 2015, and I hope they knew that greenwood is supposed to get bike lanes when they designed it.

It's still a 3-lane one way road.  That's wider than I-44 in many places.

Rats!  The link is broken.  So often, public exhibits bounce around so it makes it hard to keep an eye on things. (Like when you get a full development exhibit in a TMAPC agenda item, but then it disappears for a while and you can't access it until it shows up in the approved minutes.)

Is there any way that TN could host a database of files like these that come up in topics, so they could be more permanent?

I have a copy of that exhibit. Unfortunately, it is 133mg so I can't email it to you.  Tell me how to get it to you, and I'm on it.

I'll start including a link to dropbox or something. I think this went down because of the new city website. Also, once I get home I'll upload the file. I keep them all around (part of the industry so it makes way more sense than some random dude hoarding plans)

Another day, another gigantic turn radius being drawn up for a vibrant pedestrian-oriented neighborhood. This time on Main Street between Brady & Cameron.

Good news: City planning department requested revisions to the streetscape plans to include neckdowns/curb bump-outs.
Bad news: The turning radius, at 15 feet, is still large enough to allow cars to speed through a turn, possibly injuring folks on foot crossing the street.

NACTO guidance on turning radii (http://nacto.org/publication/urban-street-design-guide/intersection-design-elements/corner-radii/): "Corner radii directly impact vehicle turning speeds and pedestrian crossing distances. Minimizing the size of a corner radius is critical to creating compact intersections with safe turning speeds. While standard curb radii are 10–15 feet, many cities use corner radii as small as 2 feet. In urban settings, smaller corner radii are preferred and actual corner radii exceeding 15 feet should be the exception. The size of the corner relates directly to the length of the crosswalk. Longer crosswalks take more time to cross, increasing pedestrian exposure risk and diminishing safety. A smaller curb radius expands the pedestrian area, allowing for better pedestrian ramp alignment."

"Use “crawl” speeds, as opposed to design speed, when determining local street geometry factors associated with the design vehicle. Vehicles traveling at slower speeds have more flexibility and can make difficult turns that may be challenging or unsafe at higher speeds."

http://www.tulsadevelopmentauthority.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/ThedfordStaffReport.pdf (http://www.tulsadevelopmentauthority.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/ThedfordStaffReport.pdf)

Thanks for the info, dsjeffries.

On the southeast corner of Main and Cameron, there's an existing curb ramp for the crosswalk across Cameron.  If the existing curb ramp is to remain in place, it will need a rebuilt flared side and tapered curb to the west.  The drawings seem to indicate a regular sidewalk and curb there.

I understand the concept behind necking down crossings for pedestrians, but the sidewalks and curb ramps on southeast corner of Cameron & Main are less than six years old.  It's fifty-six feet between curbs on Main Street now.  The plan is to neck down the width to twenty-six feet.

Two questions:

1.  Why not leave the existing relatively new pavement and curb ramps in place on the southeast corner, redo the southwest corner, and let the new crossing width be forty-one feet there?

2.  Why not wait for the downtown walkability study before moving any more curbs, especially curbs that were already moved less than six years ago?
  

The Cameron ones could have been turned down to 10' probably, but the Brady radius are going down to a 15' effective. That will still force buses and semi into the other lanes when turning. NACTO guidance is more about making sure you count radius that the right wheel will take, and not designing roads for buses unless you expect a bus in the area. I'm not sure that I agree with going to a 2' radius, considering the vehicles that go to and circle the brady. You don't reduce crosswalk width anyway.

I don't consider 15 feet to be a gigantic radius size, based on the distance between curbs at the crosswalks and the Cameron/Main/Mathew B. Reconciliation Way lane widths.  2' radii at corners can and do work where there are parking lanes (which includes many streets downtown), but in those locations with parking lanes, small radii don't help much for slowing down vehicles turning right on green lights.  Take a look at the tire marks at the southeast corner of 2nd & Boulder (https://www.google.com/maps/@36.1539063,-95.9927344,3a,75y,102.65h,85.63t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1ssT4iebvp1JoO7BF72V4ysw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656), for example.  The corner radius there appears to be about 10 feet, but it could be reduced to around 5 feet without impacting the effective "right turn" lane.

The intersection of Cameron and Main has four-way stop signs.  So does Mathew B. Reconciliation Way and Main intersection.  Vehicles should be coming to full stops at stop signs and not speeding around corners.

Moving curbs and drainage structures is expensive.  Neck-downs and bump-outs can be beneficial for working out curb ramps, but there are relatively new (less than six years old) curb ramps at the southeast corner of Cameron and Main.  The curb ramps appear to be ADA compliant.  The concrete is new and in good condition.  I think the City should leave that corner as it is.  The curb line was moved less than six years ago.  

There are some rough spots in the sidewalks along Main, but the area is already vibrant.  I don't see how ripping out curbs/sidewalks that are less than six years old and in good condition will increase vibrancy in the district.  Instead, why not replace some sidewalks that are in poor condition?  Or why not build new sidewalks for pedestrians along streets where there aren't any sidewalks or where segments of old sidewalks are missing? 

Priorities...
  

15 feet is the maximum that NACTO would recommend. They say (and rightly so) that smaller is better.


That's one reason they're adding curb extensions/bump-outs/neckdowns. One of many reasons, which include reducing the crossing distance for pedestrians and slowing the cars.

Fixed it for you.

They're already doing work on the street. Which costs more? Adding some neckdowns (for people); or tearing up, re-paving, and re-striping 300+ feet of a street and parking (for cars).


So we shouldn't make it better for pedestrians because some of the corners at the intersection have new concrete? Reducing crossing times, slowing down turning cars, improving safety for people walking aren't important? We should just leave them there because more than half a decade ago, somebody made a bad decision and re-built a couple corners of a cars-first intersection, instead of doing the right thing? I don't think so.


Again, that's not true even of the corners of the intersection, let alone the entire sidewalk on the west side of Main. Also - though no one has claimed that this project will increase the area's vibrancy, improving pedestrian safety is kind of an important part of whether people will want to walk in an area.


Replacing sidewalks in poor condition and completing our sidewalk system are also important. No one has argued otherwise. But this design change is also important, and signals a shift in the mindset behind our street design in pedestrian-oriented areas.

I was thinking of some rough spots in the public sidewalk on the east side of Main.  The sidewalk at the southeast corner of Cameron and Main is smooth, safe, and it's in nearly perfect condition.  The curb ramps there are designed and constructed well, as opposed to the curved curb ramp one block to the south.



The sidewalks and curbs at the southeast corner of Main and Cameron were re-built a few years ago.  The curb line was moved.  The existing curb ramps there are well-designed.  What I'm suggesting is for that particular corner to remain as it is.  Bump-outs and neck-downs are okay with me, but if the southeast corner stays as it is and the southwest corner is revised as the drawings indicate, then the distance across Main from curb to curb will be reduced to about forty feet at the crosswalk, like it has been reduced at Boston Avenue, one block to the east.  In my opinion, it's not difficult or unsafe to walk across Boston.  It's only forty feet between curbs, and vehicles are supposed to stop.  I know some drivers ignore stop signs, but most drivers do stop and do yield to pedestrians.

Moving curbs is relatively expensive.  The curb at the southeast corner of Main and Cameron was moved a few years ago.  Rather than moving the curb again, I'd rather see the money spent on the other side of intersection, where there's no sidewalk at all -or- at other locations to repair sidewalks that are broken/unsafe.  The sidewalks and curb ramps on the southeast corner of Main and Cameron are not unsafe for pedestrians, whereas other locations nearby are unsafe.   

https://www.cityoftulsa.org/media/3273/sp-13-05-drawings.pdf

The lighting plan was done by a different firm. Cyntergy looks to be doing all of the lights in the area. 4000k LED lamps as provided by Philips. http://www.lumec.com/pdf/series/Domus_series.pdf

Thanks for the links, buffalodan!

It's nice to see fixtures that will direct light downward, instead of glaring acorn lights.

One day I want one of you crazy light guys to have a beer with me and show me what you see in light plans. I still don't understand all this.

I think we all could benefit from a lighting lesson from patric! Happy hour and lighting discussion??


Buffalodan, here's the illustration they're referencing. They look similar to the lights installed in the Brady Arts District in recent years, which point light (mostly) down toward the sidewalk instead of up and out (like the acorn lights along Boston Avenue).

(http://www.tulsanow.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/blue-dome-light-illustration.png)

First Street is being reconstructed, and as the plans showed, the sidewalks in front of McNellie's and Albert G's have not been widened. The City is moving forward with its original vehicle-oriented design. Truly a missed opportunity to improve the environment for people on foot and make the whole area more friendly. The sidewalks here are already too narrow, and the problem will only get worse as the area's popularity and foot traffic ticks up.

(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4729/38280958675_fa1eecc6d9_c.jpg)

Philips Luxeon LEDs come in the warmer 3000K color, why did someone decide on the colder, bluer, less inviting 4000K that other cities have had to replace due to public protest?

The choice of fixture is much better than we would have seen a decade ago, FWIW.  The bluer 4000K fixtures are marketed as having a slightly higher lumens-per-watt efficacy but in the grand scheme of things the difference doesnt matter as much as the cold/warm appearance.

Have you thought about reaching out to the engineer that signed the drawing? They may be able to offer some insight into the "why" and offer a way to change it.

Often in the past its been the vendor that decides what the city should buy (by way of marketing) but thats a thought.