Street design

[OurTulsa]

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?

[Red Arrow]

The streets could certainly look nicer.  

I think that calming the speed along the arterials would invite more traffic through the neighborhoods.

[OurTulsa]

quote:Originally posted by Red Arrow

The streets could certainly look nicer.  

I think that calming the speed along the arterials would invite more traffic through the neighborhoods.

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.  

[YoungTulsan]

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.

[Red Arrow]

quote:Originally posted by OurTulsa

quote:Originally posted by Red Arrow

The streets could certainly look nicer.  

I think that calming the speed along the arterials would invite more traffic through the neighborhoods.

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.  

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.

[YoungTulsan]

quote:Originally posted by Red Arrow
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.

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.

[MichaelBates]

quote:Originally posted by YoungTulsan

quote:Originally posted by Red Arrow
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.

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.

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).

[sgrizzle]

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.

[Red Arrow]

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.

[Red Arrow]

quote:Originally posted by YoungTulsan


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.

The problem is that many people don't want to live on a through street.  That is probably what led to strip mall zoning. 25 MPH on arterial streets is probably not realistic. 35 to 40 is what will be driven. Through streets distributing to neighborhoods can be 25.  I think the Brookside and Cherry St areas are an exception in that regard due to the businesses.

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.

Many of those "4-laners" are just barely so. Many drivers are leary about driving next to someone. I've found this to be true on 21st, west of Utica (on my trips to my Dr.).  They may actually be more comfortable as 3-laners and speeds will remain at 35 or so, regardless of the speed limit.

Dead ends, barriers against traffic flow, need to be solved.

Some of them have been requested by local residents to stop traffic flow.  I am thinking of areas near the Best Buy on I-44 near Sheridan. I think the residents near 101st & Memorial have already asked for traffic restrictions from the Target parking lot. Your "solution" may not be universally loved.

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.

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.

[carltonplace]

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.

[Red Arrow]

quote:Originally posted by carltonplace

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.

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.

[OurTulsa]

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.

[carltonplace]

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.

[dsjeffries]

quote:Originally posted by OurTulsa

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.

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

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