Downtown Development Overview

[heironymouspasparagus]

How would you have them timed when there is traffic in both directions?  I don't believe it possible to keep both directions moving at the same time.

Overpasses....

[Conan71]

Isn't that supposed to be illegal now?   Guess not...I see just as many texting as before...

Just like how gun control laws in certain states have been so useful at curbing gun violence with those specific types of weapons. 

[Hoss]

Between 91st & 111th on Memorial is bucking awful.  I feel sorry for people who have to drive that every day.

It reminds me of living in Houston in the early 90s.  Westheimer between 610 westbound to Gessner.  Every 200 feet a signal.  And this was on a (mainly) eight lane (yes, eight) arterial.

[Red Arrow]

Between 91st & 111th on Memorial is bucking awful.  I feel sorry for people who have to drive that every day.

Thank you.

[Bamboo World]

I'll never understand why they made Boulder a one way street, it makes no sense.

The one-way traffic flow scheme was conceived in the 1940s, or perhaps even earlier, as quick access to the proposed expressway system.

The one-way streets worked in pairs.  Boulder was paired with Cheyenne.  The Boulder/Cheyenne idea was to provide a route to/from the Tisdale access ramps at Fairview St.  Cheyenne also provided access to the east-bound on-ramp on the south leg of the IDL and on to the BA Expressway.

Cincinnati/Detroit provide access to the north leg and the southeast IDL interchange.  1st/2nd provide access on the east and west legs, as do 7th/8th.

The intersections are mostly 380 feet apart.  By alternating the directions of the one-way streets pairs, traffic signals in the downtown core could be coordinated (most of the time) for relatively smooth traffic flow.

A two-way Boulder will need re-designed signals at 2nd, 7th, 8th, and 10th, at a minimum.  6th also probably has enough traffic to require a signal, maybe 3rd, too.  But 4th and 5th?  Stop signs on the those streets might work. 

A two-way Cheyenne will need re-designed signals at 1st, 2nd, 7th, and 8th, at a minimum.  5th St is one-way west-bound at Cheyenne; 4th is one-way east-bound. Three stop signs would probably work at both of those intersections.  3rd & Cheyenne and 6th & Cheyenne don't seem to me to have much traffic, although I don't know what the counts are.  The City could try 4-way stops at 3rd and at 6th, at least initially.

If the goal is to have smooth flow of vehicular traffic, then paired one-way THROUGH streets with synchronized signals work well.  But if it's not important for cars to be able to roar through the downtown without stopping, then a few more relatively cheap stop signs would probably work almost as well as very expensive signals.  Many times, I've seen cars stopped at 3rd, 4th, 5th, and 6th, waiting for a light to turn green, without any cross traffic at all.

For pedestrian crossings, I think the one-way streets with the synchronized signals work the best.

[dsjeffries]

Team Soundpony posted the following on their Facebook page yesterday:

CYCLIST NEWS ALERT:
Wednesday, March 2, 1:30pm,
15th Floor Boardroom at City Hall,
One Technology Center, 175 E. 2nd Street.

The City of Tulsa Gov commissioned The GO Plan to utilize best practices for bicycles and pedestrians. Now, when it is time to use the recommendations, they are ignoring it.

Boulder Ave and Cheyenne Ave are being converted to 2-way traffic. The GO Plan calls for a cycle track on Boulder. The city, however, is planning to only paint sharrows on the street, which means bicyclists would have to share the lane with cars - read, no dedicated space for bicyclists.

Basically, where the GO Plan calls for the best bike infrastructure the city is planning to give us the worst bike infrastructure.

If we can't get a cycle track on Boulder, a very low traffic street, we will be hard pressed to get a cycle track installed anywhere in this city.

The DCC has already approved the sharrows design, but are willing to reconsider and hear us out. It would be great to have a huge group of supporters in attendance wearing bicycle pins and/or bicycle shirts. If we get a large group of people to show up, it will be that much harder for the DCC to vote down the cycle track option.

Please consider supporting local cyclists on March 2nd if you are able.

[TheArtist]

Interesting.  I need to find last months agenda.  I just barely remember the topic.  Seems like it was a "fait accompli" item on the agenda presented to us without much fan-fair and little discussion, along with the list of other items on the agenda.  "Here is the plan for this... any comments? Everyone in favor? Next item...." 

Guess I need to do more research on these different plans that are out there which may affect downtown.  But some of this may go to my usual frustration that it seems like we commission and spend money on plans and "professional advice" then its all ignored.  But then again, what sometimes seems to be the case is that the plan has no legal weight to it, no reason for someone to follow it.  Just because its a plan doesn't mean anything, and if someone doesn't like whats in the plan or there is the slightest difficulty in implementing a part of it, then they will point that out and you might as well not have had the plan at all.   

Have no idea what happened here and don't remember the discussion at the last meeting but will look into it.  If someone had mentioned that we had commissioned a plan The Go Plan" that we were supposed to follow, and that what was being presented to us was different from that, it might have caused my radar to light up and ask a few questions. 

[Weatherdemon]

It reminds me of living in Houston in the early 90s.  Westheimer between 610 westbound to Gessner.  Every 200 feet a signal.  And this was on a (mainly) eight lane (yes, eight) arterial.

Or Owasso.
It takes as much time to get to Skiatook's football stadium as Owasso's from German Corner.
Owasso is aiming for 4-5 stoplights on each 4 lane road on and between 76th-96th and Garnet -145th.
Some are on sensors but half of those don't work.
The rest are timed so you sit for 2-3 minutes with no cross-traffic in front of you during off peak hours.

Driving by the HS on 129th is fun at night as your headlights while on 129th will set off the E/W street sensor so you get to stop there all the time to wait for phantom cars pulling out of the parking lots:(

[Bamboo World]

Team Soundpony posted the following on their Facebook page yesterday:

The sidewalks, identified as six feet wide, are actually ten feet wide on most blocks.  That's assuming the curbs remain where they are now, and accounting for the two one-foot-wide strips along each curb, as shown in the diagram.  Team Soundpony and any other supporters should be ready to answer questions about the true width of the sidewalks, various marked lanes, and the one-foot-wide strips along the curbs.  Are those strips for trees as shown in the diagram?  If so, that's not wide enough.  The new street trees have been planted in a special engineered soil, developed at Cornell University, I think.  The planting strips are about four feet wide.

What happens to the six-foot-wide north-bound bike lane and the four-foot-wide buffer to the west of it at the southeast and northeast corners of 3rd and 4th, at the southeast corner of 1st, and at the northeast corner of 2nd?  At those six locations, there are existing curbs and rough pavers which conflict with Team Soundpony's diagram.  Those curbs and rough pavers are about ten years old, or newer.  Does Team Soundpony expect the City to remove those relatively new curbs and re-work the design the of the street so a bike lane and a buffer can be installed?  If so, who will be expected to pay to remove pavement that has been in place for less than a decade?

Update:  Thanks to a photo posted by PonderInc on different topic:  Here's another radical thought: Protected bike lanes on every main road -- There's a "solution" to the "problem" of the relatively new curb extensions I mentioned on Feb 16, 2016...

Here are a few photos, so cyclists can dream of other places to live...

This type of offset could be used to avoid the existing curb extensions on the east side of Boulder at 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th Streets.

[carltonplace]

Boulder Ave is huge, it has four lanes of traffic and two lanes of parking. 

Why not cut it down to two lanes with a middle turn lane and a bike lane (heck, even a bus lane if you put all of the parking on one side).

[cannon_fodder]

My objection is not to "sharrow" or bike share lanes, my objection is that yet again we invested time, energy, and resources into appearing like we were studying an issue. We then reached a conclusion and decided to implement what we declared to be best practices. Then when it came time to actually do it, we go the lazy way and do what we always do.

Small area plans. PlanITulsa. Bike lanes. Whatever...

Maybe we can just eliminate the planning department, stop having studies done, and fly by the seat of out pants. Would probably save money to get to the same place. Plus, if I'm wholly ignorant of what we declare "best practices" to be, maybe I will stop caring when the bait and switch comes along.

[TeeDub]

If you don't do studies then who will employ your cousins?   Also, without performing a study, then your true intentions of ignoring the problems of the minority will be obvious.

I mean really, there has to be at least 50-100 bike riders that would have been furious (as opposed to the thousands of motorists who are indifferent.)

[TulsaGoldenHurriCAN]

I heard of another development by the GKF going in the Brady District between Boulder & Cheyenne, south of Easton. Something about converting the old factories to a mixed use development or maybe building new. Has anyone else heard of this?

[heironymouspasparagus]

Just like how gun control laws in certain states have been so useful at curbing gun violence with those specific types of weapons. 

Yep.

Like outlawing 'assault weapons' for crimes committed using pistols.  Or knives.

[davideinstein]

I wish that meeting wasn't at 1:30pm.