None that I can share right now - I haven't seen the newer ones floating around anywhere else yet. It looks nice though, more brick and has more of a loft style look. It looks a lot like this project in Dallas:
https://www.noveldeepellum.com/galleryFrankly I've never seen a single example of where congestion drives people away. If that was the case Austin (especially areas like SoCo, Rainey Street, 6th, etc.) NYC, DC, LA, etc. would be vast wastelands by now. Every successful commercial corridor has congestion, it's just the reality of it. When a commercial area has no traffic congestion, it's usually a very bad sign. I'm also not sure why anyone would use 11th street to get out of downtown to avoid I-244, there is zero congestion on 244 out of downtown or on the streets downtown to get to 244 via Cincinnati or Detroit. Maybe you are seeing the effects of people leaving Hillcrest and other businesses?
I think congested traffic does drive people away, at least those which don't like spending their lives sitting in traffic. My wife and I have a real aversion to hitting places when we know traffic or parking is going to be a nightmare. However we do have friends who really seem to enjoy going to the most congested places in town or wait in line at restaurants for an hour or so for a table so I guess to each their own.
Now, I agree the road diets completed need to be upgraded eventually. Something as simple as planter boxes that help separate the bike lanes and make them safer could be easy fixes but would likely have to be done by the businesses along the corridor themselves at the moment. The city doesn't have a lot of money to play with right now for upgrading the bike lanes to full separation yet. It will likely have to wait for the next bond issue for them to set aside money to make some of these road diets more permanent and safer. What they've done so far is still 100x better than having it stay as a 4 lane road that was unnecessary for the amount of traffic 11th and others handle. We can't design cities around the fact that someone might have to wait 1 or 2 cycles of a light at a particular intersection during rush hour. That's what we've done before and that's one of the reasons why many of these urban corridors died, we made it too easy for people to blow right past businesses which in turn creates an unpleasant environment for people. The unnecessary fear of 'congestion' and building roads in the urban core to 'fix' that problems ends up resulting in businesses moving to the suburbs anyways because when you design the urban core to make it easy to escape everyone eventually will and has. Adding turn lanes at specific intersections might be needed at some point but in general they are a complete waste of space outside of being on signaled intersections. That space would be better used for on street parking or expanded sidewalks.
And I agree - highways are what killed Route 66 and a good chunk of America in the first place. I just think the city could have made the road diet on 11th street safer and more effective by doing sidewalk - lane - turning lane - lane - curb - bike lane - sidewalk instead of just shoehorning in two very unsafe bike lanes. Would that have really cost that much more money? Maybe a simple letter to business and house owners along 11th street asking what they need out of the street instead of just throwing something out there that seems like it was done without any thought. As a side note, one long turning lane down 11th would be useful for the multiple ambulances that fly down the road every day at a high rate of speed (and the cops too who regularly push 70-80).
The problem with speed limit reductions is people don't pay attention to them and they drive as fast as the road allows them to feel safe - Cherry Street tried that too and failed a long time ago. Narrower roads make people drive slower, bigger lanes make people think it's a freeway - Cherry Street really started to change when they added more parking and narrowed the lanes just with paint years ago and that was when traffic began to slow down and it became less dangerous. Then finally years and years later it moved along to the recent improvements which are more permeant. Brookside is another good example, traffic moves much slower between 33rd to 35th than between 41st and 36th - has nothing to do with anything other than the width of the lanes - they shrink dramatically and people don't feel like they can drive 40 mph anymore and that's a good thing for that particular area.
I agree - I just think it can't hurt to knock the speed limit down 5mph and add more speed limit signs on 11th since there are very few (but we did gain 5000 bike lane signs!). You don't need to get everyone to follow the speed limit when it's only a two lane road - just one car really and everyone behind them can just stew.
Just keep in mind that the road diets being done are mostly in a temporary format, most of the planning documents state for various improvements to be made but it's better to start doing it then just leave it however it was, and then work to make incremental improvements with better barriers, landscaping, etc. down the line as funding is available. Portland and NYC started much of their bike infrastructure the same way Tulsa is doing now, with just some paint. They are decades ahead of us and now in general when they expand biking infrastructure it's usually not just paint it's full on separated lanes, etc. and they have gone back and improved corridors that were temporary to begin with to improve them. Someday Tulsa will get there (hopefully) but everyone has to start somewhere. It is much easier to make a 'temporary' solution like repainting the street permanent than it is to take say the old format and go from it directly into permanent (this is well documented in planning circles too and why the city is taking this route - it creates far less NIMBY issues). This does actually allow the planning department to observe too what works and what might not before you invest the money into full upgrades to the corridors.
Sure but do you think they needed to start all the way at the same square one that cities like Portland and New York have figured out doesn't work and just kills bicyclists? I think a semi-permanent separation like Jersey barriers would work fine - not permanent, probably already on-hand and cheap to buy if not. And it would only need to be on one side since there is no need for bike lanes on both sides of the road until bike traffic increases enough to need that. I'm also worried the city isn't going to revisit this, which is their usual MO. Heck - in some areas the new paint lines are already fading out since they were done on decomposing asphalt and on the drainage slope of the road.