The Tulsa Forum by TulsaNow

Councilor Gomez is getting ready to announce the Cherry Street Parking Plan.

There was a rumor about building a parking garage near Cherry Street, is this the Cherry Street Parking Plan?

Did Councilor Gomez create the plan?

A second level parking deck over the big lot in front of Jason's Deli and Chimi's would be a nice improvement and maybe spur redevelopment of the A&W/Long John Silvers.  That site has too much potential with its view of downtown to be a fast food drive-thru.  I still think that would be a perfect location for a Marshall brewpub/restaurant with a rooftop patio.

I hope it is a free parking garage.  Make the businesses cover the cost.

I hate that A&W/Long John Silvers and the McDonalds.  I agree, tear them down.

I could be wrong, but I believe current Oklahoma law would require the beer to be low point, which I don't know if Marshall's is willing to do.

Man, every day I have another reason to want ABLE to go away.

You're funny.  And who will pay the businesses to cover the cost?

Fine then..

Make all the businesses I don't go to cover the cost.

+1

The other alternative is to charge for parking or have the city pay for it or both.  I won't go anywhere in Tulsa if I have to pay for parking.

That McDonalds I bet makes more money than all the businesses around the area combined. I get my coffee there every morning, and it is substantially better than Starbucks. Maybe if they open a second Shades of Brown there and lower their prices for a giant coffee to about $1.50.

Why not just set up a Marshall's pub instead of a brewpub, but call it a Brewpub on the sign? That location is only like a mile and a half away from the brewery.

Close your mind much?

I don't know what Gomez has in mind, but here's what I suggested a month or so ago (http://"http://www.urbantulsa.com/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid%3A26927"):

I've heard a rumor that there is going to be redesign of Cherry St. to include angled parking and permanent reduction of the travel lanes to two.  If so, I say meter every one of those on-street parking spaces and charge market rates from lunch time until after dinner (these are premium spaces after all).  The revenue can be pumped back into the maintenance of Cherry St. 

I like the Business Improvement District idea.  Why not use the revenue to build (or partner with Tulsa Parking Authority) a parking structure behind the Colonial Building, in front of Jason's Deli, in place of the car wash and the empty lot behind it, or beside Christ the King and eliminate the parking requirement on Cherry St.  No parking requirement will allow the business/property owner alot more flexibility (value) with their property (zoning would still keep bars 300 ft. from each other) to build up or maximize their current buildings.

Parking in a new structure should cost something, even if just a dollar into an automated gate.  If it's built on Cherry St. it should include small storefronts.  The storefronts can help pay for the structure. 

Pay parking is much like pay toilets.

You'll just go behind a dumpster or did you mean the bums will use them as campers?

Pay parking is a good way to pay for the service (property is not free) and allocate a limited resource (in urban neighborhoods, it should be a limited resource). 

 Instead of spending the money on building a parking garage in this area, or Brookside or some other areas,,, would rather see some good mass transit options.

If there were more T-Town Trolleys running so that they came by every, say, 20 minutes or so through; Downtown, Brookside and Cherry Street, eventually the Pearl, Blue Dome, Baseball Stadium, etc. I think we could start shifting peoples habits to thinking about using the "trolleys" and mass transit more.  We can already see how the T-Town Trolley is starting to be used more and more in downtown.

As all of these areas grow and infill there will be more to see and do and thus people will spend longer in each area and perhaps go to several areas in a day or evening. A few strategically placed, city parking garages might be worth considerering, but they dont have to be directly IN or on, say Cherry Street, just as long as they are along the trolley routes between these areas. (some shared parking arrangements will work perfectly fine as well, the church parking lots, OSU Tulsa, TCC Metro, etc.)

Higher frequency of the Trolleys on a regular basis will also give them higher visibility and reassurance that people will not have to wait long, upping the convenience factor.  

We can already see the beginnings of our core slowly transitioning into a more dense and urban model in which mass transit can, and should, play a healthy role.  I dont think we need to add any more parking at this time, just use what we have more wisely in conjunction with mass transit. (another option instead of the "trolley" could be a specially painted and designated set of busses, ones that are easily identifiable to the average person and visitors as being just for the routes in and around these downtown areas. Perhaps black with some gold deco lettering and detailing. 8) would also love to see the Tulsa Trolleys made uniquely Tulsa by being painted black with gold deco lettering and such, creating a unique brand and look for Tulsa and its downtown/mid-town.) 

I was referring to pay toilets in bus and airport terminals in the 1950s and 60s.  I think they were pretty much gone after that.  Urinals were usually free but if you needed to sit, it cost a dime.  There was often one stall that was free but you needed to be pretty desperate to use it.  If businesses didn't use the space for customer rest rooms, they could use it for more retail area. Restaurants could put in a few more tables.  Restrooms don't make money.  Maybe you should pay extra to use the toilet.  Why should I subsidize your needs if I don't need to go.  Note that I do not advocate pay toilets.  I am using them as an example of a non-revenue service that is part of the cost of doing business for many businesses.  In a city with minimal Public Transit, I consider parking to be part of the cost of doing business.  I also think Tulsa has way too much surface area devoted to parking.  Parking garages with "free" parking for customers with a validation from a local business are a possibility. 

Parking is almost never free.  Parking at the malls is reflected in the price of things purchased there.  It's large scale shared parking.

Parking or Transit.  If Tulsa had more transit, it would need less parking.  Perhaps remote parking would work.  For downtown, I think Transit is the answer.  A 20 minute wait is probably a bit long for transit to be convenient during the busy hours.  10  to 15 minutes is tolerable.  I have seen studies that report most people will willingly walk about 1/4 mile to transit.  If you need a schedule during the busy part of the day to use public transit, it needs to run more often.  The real trolley where I was a kid ran about every 10 min during rush hour, 5 min on some route segments. It ran about a 15 minute headway in the off hours during the day.  Later at night it ran on about 1/2 hr headway.  Unless you really cut your time thin, if you missed the trolley the next one would still get you there on time.

Artist:
I agree with a distinctive paint job for the vehicles you mention.  I will suggest a color other than black for Tulsa summers.  It adds to the air-conditioning load.  Gold trim on black does look good though. I remember the John Player (cigarette sponsor) Lotus Formula 1 cars of the 70's.

How bout a soft metallic, medium Grey paint job, Chrome trim, and Black deco lettering.  Distinctive and sexy. 8)   Or a Champaign Silver paint job, Chrome trim and Gold deco lettering. Tres chic.

As my eyes get older, I think I would prefer the contrast of the black lettering.

Pigeon Hole Parking lots..... http://blog.modernmechanix.com/2008/02/11/pigeonhole-parking-lot/

ACCOMMODATING CARS
How parking stacks up in city
http://www.thestar.com/article/229806

Thread jacking this to be BACK on topic...I am copying/pasting from a word file that has notes on the proposal (so some of the formatting sucks, apologies).  I live in Swan Lake Neighborhood and often walk to Cherry St for dining/entertainment, so I am thrilled about this plan to make the area more focused on pedestrians and less on vehicles.  Others have thoughts?  Also, I will try to post some of the "renderings":

Cherry Street Parking Improvement
Angled Parking Project
July 2009


Advantages to changing to angled parking:

1.   Significant increase of on-street parking. 
a.   Estimated new parking spaces to be 150 from the current 43 metered spaces from Utica to Peoria.

2.   Retailers and businesses will enjoy tremendous increase in the number of cars parked in front of their buildings.
a.   This increase in parking spaces will directly increase the number of pedestrians walking, shopping, and dining on Cherry Street.

3.   The angled parking model has proven very successful in places like Utica Square, The Plaza in Kansas City, and Old Town Scottsdale in Arizona.  It was recently brought back to the Brady District in downtown Tulsa with great acceptance.

4.   To accommodate angled parking on the entire north side of Cherry Street and some parallel parking on the south side of Cherry Street, the center line of 15th Street must be moved towards the South creating a true two-lane roadway on 15th Street.
a.   This change to the center line will only allow for one eastbound lane and one westbound lane eliminating the patches of 3 and 4 lane sections that are currently present on Cherry Street.
b.   The creation of only two drivable lanes will result in a traffic calming environment with decreased vehicular speeds.  It also lends itself to a more inviting, walkable entertainment and dining district.
c.   Maximum MPH will still be 25 MPH but due to the new required observance of cars backing out onto 15th Street, the actual average MPH could be reduced to approximately 15-20MPH.

5.   Current funding and timing challenges could delay implementation of project. 
a.   New plan is obviously not in the budget.
b.   Desired future improvements may include:  new landscaping and streetscaping of the corners of each half block (benches, gaslamps, trees);  aesthetic and functional crosswalks that are appealing to the pedestrian and vehicular eye must be designed and approved by Public Works.  Ultimately, thermoplastic striping would be desired as a long term striping preference.  However, it is suggested that traditional painted striping be applied now to commence the angled parking project and thermoplastic striping be applied once funds are available. 

Sorry, I can't seem to make it happen for the renderings.  The notes are pretty self explanatory.  I think it is great to reduce traffic lanes in lieu of more parking on the street.  No idea if the street parking will be "free", but I would hope so.  I assume they will be metered though since it says "150 from the current 43 metered spaces".  I think meters are ridiculous.

Speaking of parking meters...Has anyone seen the "tourism" billboard for Oklahoma on the Indian Nation Turnpike (headed NB just south of I-40/Henryetta). 

It says (more/less) with a solid blue background and big letters:

"OKLAHOMA
__________________________
Home of the First Parking Meter"

Seriously, not to thread jack myself, but I almost threw up in my mouth when I read this.  You've got to be kidding me.

/Adam Sandler "Who are the ad wizards that came up with that one???"

Trying to upload this time (vs link to image online)

I think angled parking for Cherry Street is a brilliant idea!  I also think many of the streets downtown would benefit from angled parking, since in many instances there are way more lanes than necessary. 

Somewhere between "way too many lanes" and "it's too crowded" is a balance.  I won't pretend to know where it is.  The only reason I drive on Main St in Jenks to go home form work is because the wait to get on the Creek is only overwhelmed by the drive south of the Creek on Memorial at the time I go home from work. I have no interest in the stores there.  Other times I use the turnpike and supposedly pay my way. The cash toll from Memorial to Peoria/Elm just went from $.55 to $.70 for about a 4 mile trip.  It used to cost $.30 to cross the river on the Creek compared to exiting at Riverside. I haven't seen the Memorial to Riverside cash toll yet. When merchants get their way and calm traffic to a crawl, by-passes result.  Oops!

Parking meters kind of guarantee a turnover for local merchants.  They also discourage some customers.  Unless you have a really unique store, be prepared to have parking meters chase your customers to the mall. It's not 1940 anymore.

These issues are all part of trying to change a city developed with the automobile to a city like those developed with no transit or mass transit.  Good Luck to us.

Just trying to present an alternate point of view.

I'd agree if so many drivers didn't have their head up their donkey.

First off, I like the parking plan.  I've always wished Brookside and Cherry St. could offer a more relaxed neighborhood business district feel like Gaylord & Pearl in Denver.  Part of the difference is traffic.  This slows traffic & reduces noise (and of course provide more parking).  Obviously this is not practical for Brookside but I think it's great for 15th.  

Second, I haven't seen the billboard but that is pretty hilarious.  Reminds me of the Anthony Clark stand up routine from the early 90's.... He says "Who the hell came up with the slogan "Oklahoma is OK!"?"   He suggests that the runner up slogans probably included   "Oklahoma. Trees are made of wood."   and   "Oklahoma, Oklahoma. There I said it twice.".  

Much of the downtown street parking, outside of the few blocks at the heart of downtown, is lightly used.

A much better use for some of our excess street capacity would be protected bike lanes, or at least some type of bus/bike lane. Taking away an entire lane on every downtown one-way would have almost no effect, given the lack of traffic at any point other than the 15 minutes after a BOK show.
(http://img12.imageshack.us/img12/9492/lbbikepaths.jpg)

Totally agree with you Red Arrow (about by-passes occuring and the suckiness of parking meters), I "by-pass" Brookside via Utica unless I am going somewhere specific on Brookside.  So, I agree that by-passes occur, but really it is a net gain for business because it "culls" out the folks that are going to just drive by anyway (and not stop).

Further, those who never come to Cherry St because "there's no parking" will no longer have that lame "excuse" of no parking (which I think is only a TRUE problem a few hours of the week at best, but I digress). Whether the spaces are free or metered is the next point of contention, and I am sure that will be the next lame excuse..."I'm not putting a quarter in a meter to go there!"

I do HOPE it does send people using 15th as a "commuter" route a different way (i.e. frontage road on either side of BA would be my first recommendation).  My fear, however, is 21st becomes that path, and 21st is already a "drag race" between Utica and Peoria for those with head up said donkey. 

Side note: I have asked a City Engineer (during a Swan Lake neighborhood meeting) if we could put a pedestrian crossing at 21st/St. Louis with a blinking yellow light to "alert" motorists that *gasp* people like to cross there on foot to go to/from Swan Lake and Woodward Park (this is a VERY popular place for neighborhood folks to cross that are out for a walk).  He promptly replied "We would not consider that as it would give the pedestrian a false sense of security". 

What a typically stupid response from a traffic engineer (I think I know which one you spoke to, just based on this response). Does this mean that school zones give our children a false sense of security? Do curbs and sidewalks give pedestrians a false sense of security? Do green lights and crossing lights give pedestrians and motorists a false sense of security (I would have been mowed over at 5th and Boston yesterday by a pickup that ignored the red light if I hadn't "looked both ways before I crossed)?

No, everyone knows to be aware of their surroundings before they leap into oncoming traffic. I guess this "engineer" thinks that if you are on foot you must be stupid or foolish and unable to ascertain when it is safe to cross.

Back on topic, I think Eric has a workable plan here. It isn't too expensive to implement and it relieves a lot of parking and speeding concerns. Should they be metered? I don't think they need to be unless all of the money collected were redistributed for on street improvements, but I can't imagine that collections would amount to very much.

But we give pedestrians a false sense of security by lighting expressways as if they were city streets --
which encourages some to treat expressways as if they were crossing Brookside...

It's hard to visualize improper street lighting as actually contributing to deaths instead of the other way around, but then most people dont understand streetlighitng is more for pedestrians than automobiles.   

Or we could increase pedestrian crossings when we split the city and neighborhoods apart, and make the roadway itself less pedestrian permeable.

Example: HWY 51 has no place for a pedestrian to circumvent the highway between Cincinatti and Peoria, Peoria and St Louis, Utica and Lewis, Lewis to 15th and beyond 21st potential places to "walk around" the highway decrease.

Example 2: I see people crossing 75 all of the time (in daylight) between 36th and 46th St N, because there are neighborhoods on both sides and they don't want to walk a mile out of their way, so they take their lives in their hands.

Example 3: I44 from Sheridan to Harvard, people get hit here all of the time trying to take a short cut rather then walk up to the nearest underpass and back.

One would think that except that merchants typically want all the traffic they can get, hoping to get a small portion as casual customers.  This is evidenced by small towns resisting a by-pass.  Then they set trap type speed limits for the safety of their citizens.  If my goal is to get from A to B with town X in the middle, I will probably not buy anything in X regardless of traffic options.  If I want to visit town X, I will.  I think there must be more drivers than me that think that way.

One attraction to places like Cherry St and Brookside is that they do have businesses that don't exist in many or any other places.  To get customer traffic, they need to be customer friendly.  At present, that includes automobiles.  FWIW,  I think the parking at Tulsa Hills (71st and US75) is very automobile unfriendly.  It's difficult to find your way into and out of the parking areas.  I guess they were attempting to keep the parking lot speeds down.  Either that or some artsie type designer had more clout than the traffic engineers.  Pretty (for a parking lot) but non-functional.  They have kept my speed down to near zero.  I don't like to go there.  The Super WalMart at 81st and Lewis is equally terrible.  I have avoided that store at almost all costs.  Big parking lots alone are not enough to draw a crowd.

I wish Cherry St and other places like it success.  That is what makes going to a city more desirable than a trip to the mall. The "Cherry Streets" need to combine the aesthetic and practical and not totally fall prey to the anti-automobile zealots.

Typical Public Works bureaucratic tool.

Perhaps I am the odd person out here, but whenever I go down Brookside or Cherry Street, I like to drive slower than a lot of people. Going down those streets is kind of a "little enjoyment" and I dont mind taking a bit more time to do so, and get frustrated when some wingnut in a hurry comes charging down on me at 20 or 25mph lol. Sloooow down and enjoy. I think it a bit odd that someone would want to rush through like that. Even when I am going somewhere in which the most direct route wouldnt take me down either of those streets, I will go out of my way to take the "scenic route" down those streets. If someone is in such a hurry and not having any urge what so ever to enjoy the street and see whats around them,,, I dont think they would be your likely "happen to see it and stop" customer to any of the places there. They obviously just want to get to point B, and in a hurry. So no loss if they start to avoid the street during those times. On the whole, I doubt it would be that many people who would avoid the street. As mid-town, and even these streets, infill and becomes even more dense and attractive, it will draw more and more people to them.

This has got me thinking. Contrary to many a stereotype, it seems to me that the "urban dweller, slow down enjoy the view, narrow the streets, widen the sidewalk, sit and have a latte at a sidewalk cafe" lifestyle can be seen as more slow paced and relaxed than the "try to rush here rush there all over gods good earth on widened roads and highways to the megastores, suburban dweller". Or perhaps its that for those with a suburbanite mindset, all roads are things solely meant to get you as quickly as possible from one place to another so you can then relax or visit at home. But for those with an urbanite mindset, many streets and sidewalks, like these in particular, are seen as part of ones home and community, where you live, work, walk, relax and visit. Not something you rush through in a hurry and ignore.     

Artist,
I guess you and I will have to disagree somewhat, again.  In a world of Type A and Type B personalities, I expect you are Type C.  Really relaxed. (I consider myself a B+ or A-.) I don't consider 20 to 25 MPH barreling down on someone on a through road, even with shopping.  Most school zones are that speed limit.  You are cussing the wingnuts but they are cussing the dipsticks that don't drive faster than a walk.  In fact, why not park and walk?  You could see what you want without being a distracted driver.  Even a few MPH causes a lot of $ damage to cars anymore.  Unless I have an interest in something on Cherry St or Brookside, I do use another street.  There's not really much I'm interested in seeing there on a regular basis.  I'm not necessarily in a hurry, just a bit impatient with driving window shoppers. "Hurry" is a relative term anyway.  If those streets in-fill with interesting places, they will become a destination.  If they are filled with just another (insert business of your choice), they will be patronized by locals but probably not too many visitors.  But.. That goes along with your urban village nodes and that's fine.

Sitting down at a sidewalk cafe or sitting on your porch at home (applicable to urban, suburban, and rural homes) sipping beverage of your choice is nice and likely relaxing.  I admit to avoiding 71st between Memorial and Garnett as much a possible.  I need to go there about a half-dozen times a year to get nicer stuff than I can get at WalMart.  I understand your mindset that the streets, sidewalks etc are part of what you consider your home.  I am not of that mind set. My visions of urban dwelling are mostly going through South Philly taking dad to the Int'l Airport for a business trip in the 50s and early 60s.  Most of those places were torn down as part of "Urban Renewal" in the 60s.  They did not look like an appealing place to live. Take a trip up Germantown Ave in Philly using street view on Google.  A lot of it is dismal and unappealing to me until you get to the Germantown part of NW Philly where the money is.  That is, of course, nice.  Downtowns used to have specialty shops of all kinds.  That made going downtown (or up depending on the city) worthwhile and fun.  A lot of that is gone now.  I think some of that being gone is because it was just too inconvenient to go and the rewards weren't worth the hassle.

Red, I've been real impressed with your defense of the suburban lifestyle and attempting to logically deal with its attendant problems. Life over in this part of town is, however, quite different. Artist makes a point I can relate to since I drive Cherry Street to work and back each day, even though I could just easily drive up 14th and back on 13th just as quickly without as much traffic. But that would be boring. One side is a freeway landscape and the other side is rental homes backyards. I travel along Peoria through Brookside as much as I do Riverside just because its more interesting usually. Riverside is filled with hot dogs and downtowners heading home quickly.

No, I enjoy watching my hoods to see who is doing what, who has opened something or closed something. I even like watching other people drink beer and schmooze on open patios while I slow down to allow their friends to risk their well being to cross without benefit of stop signs, lights or crosswalks. Brookside has the best looking women to lurk at. Cherry street patrons are having more fun.

When I visited near downtown KC I felt more threatened. When I visit downtown Minneapolis I get that neighborhood feeling again and I know many others who feel the same way Mr. Artist feels.

I understand that some folks like the urban lifestyle.  I think some have over romanticized it but that's OK too.  Some of us are just interested in other things.  The only things I resent are the implication that suburbanites are the scum of the planet and responsible for all the ills of society.  (An exaggeration) I just try to present an alternate view.  I do occasionally visit Brookside and Cherry St, often just to see what folks here are talking about.  Occasionally I actually stop in somewhere and buy something.  There are some nice opportunities there.  I am however, the type to take the Turner Turnpike rather than Historic Rt 66.  One of the things I find fun is to fly over old RR routes and see where they went and whether there is anything left.  It's interesting to see the towns they went through or around.  I am also the type to pass a slow driver (if it's safe and legal) because I find them to be annoying and arrogant (for wasting my time) realizing that any time I save will be lost at the next traffic light.

Here ya go Red Arrow   ;)

http://www.cnn.com/2008/LIVING/worklife/06/06/balance.slow.movement/

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slow_Movement

Btw, I was being facetious with my 20-25mph comment. A little facetious anyway.  :P

There are at least 2 kinds of trips.  One where the journey is the goal.  Another where the destination is the goal. If the journey is the goal then fine, stay off the interstates, take the Cherry Streets and Brooksides.  There is nothing wrong with that.  It's generally not my choice but occasionally it is.  I did drive slowly through Regal Plaza just to see what's there.  Unfortunately not much interested me.  I remember the family vacations when I was a teen going to visit my grandparents in FL from our place near Philly, PA.  The goal was to spend time at my Grandparents' place.  Interstate 95 wasn't done except in a few places.  US 301 and 17 went through a lot of small towns that were just a nuisance.  We did have a few favorite stops to buy dinner supplies to stop at favorite roadside parks for dinner and to stretch our legs.  Dad, mom, 3 kids and 2 dogs were lucky to go 500 miles in a day.  We did a lot better than the Grizwalds (Family Vacation).  When I came home on leave from the Navy in the 70s, the drive from Va Beach, VA was one long day and one easy day until the speed limit was lowered to 55.  Then it was two long days.  I enjoy driving fast.  55 mph puts me to sleep.  I really enjoyed driving on the Autobahn in Germany.  You had to pay attention.  Lane discipline by (almost all) the drivers was good.  Unfortunately we cannot do the Autobahn thing here because no one can build a smooth road surface and most American drivers got their driver's licence off of a cereal box. Although no matter how fast you were going, there was always someone faster, most of the drivers gravitated between 80 to 100 mph (converted from km/hr of course).  It's just too expensive to drive really fast all the time.

Stop and smell the roses if you want.  I will too if I want to. Just don't condemn me if I have a different goal than you for a trip.