Street design

[TheArtist]

So I read today that Tulsa is racing to suck up even more land to our North and then I read this on the TW FB:

Nothing wrong there...

Really?  Why, and where exactly?

[Townsend]

Really?  Why, and where exactly?

Gilcrease expressway because state law changes will make it harder to do so in the future.

I'll post a link tomorrow when not using my phone.

[Hoss]

Gilcrease expressway because state law changes will make it harder to do so in the future.

I'll post a link tomorrow when not using my phone.

So in other words, much of the SE part of Osage County?  Or are they just going to buy the parcels that would include the Expressway ROW?

[Townsend]

So in other words, much of the SE part of Osage County?  Or are they just going to buy the parcels that would include the Expressway ROW?

Fenceline per article

[Hoss]

Fenceline per article

While you do that tomorrow, I was doing a search and found a pretty fascinating document I'm still reading of all places, on the Tulsa City Council website that details the history of annexation in Tulsa.  It kind of makes clear why the city and the outlying suburbs don't necessarily get along...

http://www.tulsacouncil.org/media/79331/Annexation%20History.pdf

Note:  You'll need a PDF reader (Adobe or equivalent) to read this.

[dbacks fan]

While you do that tomorrow, I was doing a search and found a pretty fascinating document I'm still reading of all places, on the Tulsa City Council website that details the history of annexation in Tulsa.  It kind of makes clear why the city and the outlying suburbs don't necessarily get along...

http://www.tulsacouncil.org/media/79331/Annexation%20History.pdf

Note:  You'll need a PDF reader (Adobe or equivalent) to read this.

Thanks Hoss, that explains a lot of things. When Gilcrease Hills was being developed in the early 70's my parents thought about moving there but dad was not thrilled about driving from there to McDonnell/Douglas since we lived near 25th and Memorial, and he liked the shorter drive to and from work. At one time I had a map of Tulsa back about the same time and it showed the proposed highway plans on it including the Creek Turnpike from either Hwy 75 or the Turner, along the path that it is now to Hwy 169. This document also explains quite a bit of why Tulsa expanded the way that it did, since downtown proper is based in a corner and with the annexation problems really had no where else to go.

[Hoss]

Thanks Hoss, that explains a lot of things. When Gilcrease Hills was being developed in the early 70's my parents thought about moving there but dad was not thrilled about driving from there to McDonnell/Douglas since we lived near 25th and Memorial, and he liked the shorter drive to and from work. At one time I had a map of Tulsa back about the same time and it showed the proposed highway plans on it including the Creek Turnpike from either Hwy 75 or the Turner, along the path that it is now to Hwy 169. This document also explains quite a bit of why Tulsa expanded the way that it did, since downtown proper is based in a corner and with the annexation problems really had no where else to go.

And evidently the 1966 'super annexation' was all due to Sand Springs annexation west all the way to the Dam.  And then hiding the fact that they did it.  Tulsa then decided it would be proper to demarcates its 'interests' with the use of annexation and fenceline grabs (since marking fenceline doesn't mean you have to provide services).  It certainly explains a lot.

[brhino42]

What is the problem we're trying to fix?  Arterials are meant to conduct traffic between and around neighborhoods.  Beautification, while important, shouldn't be the primary reason for changing street design.  Tulsa has the lowest commute time of virtually any of the largest 100 cities in the U.S.  While we don't need MORE speed, we also don't need MORE cars cutting through neighborhoods, and there's no advantage to cutting speeds on arterials.  We could try enforcing the existing speed limits if we think dragsters are creating unsafe conditions--do Tulsa police enforce speed limits any more?  But the overall message is that our road design is working.

As for sidewalks, I worry that the beautification crowd will think better sidewalks mean something like the disaster that HUD installed on North Peoria.  Wider sidewalks along non-store-front arterials are WASTED MONEY.  North Peoria looks like a multi-use trail, but it defies the major safety standards for a multi-use trail:  1) DO NOT INSTALL PARALLEL SIDEPATHS OR SIDEWALK STYLE PATHS ADJACENT TO THE ROADWAY; 2) DO NOT INSTALL PATHS WITH HIGH INCIDENCE OF TURNING TRAFFIC (i.e., driveways and side-streets); 3) DO NOT INSTALL PATHS in urban areas.  In order to give these the appearance of safety, the design had to include stop signs for the sidepath EVERY block, a huge expense.  A 4' sidewalk is fine for pedestrian traffic.  Cyclists need to keep to the roadway and should not be treated as pedestrians.  Pedestrian speed is 2 mph, but cyclists on WIDE sidepaths travel 12 to 20 mph, which is ridiculously unsafe, and they often fail to yield at side-streets and driveways.  Encouraging more of this traffic on sidepaths is contrary to safety and common sense.

I am downright alarmed by some of your suggestions:  planting trees between the curb and the sidewalk destroys the sight-line, which will result in more people nosing out into traffic without being able to see.  There will be more accidents, esp. w/ respect to pedestrian crossings and bicyclists who foolishly ride on the sidewalks (an all too common occurrence on Brookside).  Trees should be planted--but back from the roadway on the OTHER side of the sidewalk.  This road diet you're proposing looks like a disaster in the making, which is why traffic engineers, not urban planners, should remain in charge of street design.  It's like the difference between an architect and an interior decorator.

[SXSW]

I am downright alarmed by some of your suggestions:  planting trees between the curb and the sidewalk destroys the sight-line, which will result in more people nosing out into traffic without being able to see.  There will be more accidents, esp. w/ respect to pedestrian crossings and bicyclists who foolishly ride on the sidewalks (an all too common occurrence on Brookside).  Trees should be planted--but back from the roadway on the OTHER side of the sidewalk.  This road diet you're proposing looks like a disaster in the making, which is why traffic engineers, not urban planners, should remain in charge of street design.  It's like the difference between an architect and an interior decorator.

It depends on the area.  Urban areas like downtown, Brookside, Cherry Street, etc. with sidewalk restaurants/retail need trees planted adjacent to the roads to shield the heavily used sidewalks from the sun and create a more pleasant environment for walking.  You also don't have as much pulling/backing out of traffic in these areas as most parking is behind the buildings, along the street, or in a garage.  In neighborhoods it also makes sense...look at Tulsa's beautiful older neighborhoods and you will see a tree-lined median between the road and sidewalk.  Traffic is low on most neighborhood streets making this work.  I agree 71st between Memorial and Mingo probably doesn't need trees planted next to the road (but they should be planted on the other side of the sidewalk).  Cincinnati, Detroit, etc. through downtown does need them.

[Red Arrow]

Trees between the street and sidewalk will result in broken sidewalks.  We had trees there in the neighborhood where I was a kid.  The roots would lift and crack the sidewalks and curbs.  Recent Google Streetview pictures show they are all gone now.  The uneven sidewalks did make skateboarding more fun.

[nathanm]

Trees between the street and sidewalk will result in broken sidewalks.  We had trees there in the neighborhood where I was a kid.  The roots would lift and crack the sidewalks and curbs.  Recent Google Streetview pictures show they are all gone now.  The uneven sidewalks did make skateboarding more fun.

As usual, the real problem is deferred maintenance. If you choose slow growing species and keep them trimmed regularly, they won't grow enough of a root system to cause problems, but if you let the top half grow too much, the bottom half grows to meet the demand.

[patric]

So how does this ANSI model stack up?