Tulsa could leap toward livability

[OurTulsa]

I was thinking of livability issues in light of PlaniTulsa the other day wondering where Tulsa could get the most bang for its buck (in light of our monumentally tight budget) and I kept coming back to the context sensitive redesigning of our most plentiful of public space - our streets.  They are not only a major utility but also a big contributor to our City's identity and highly influential in how Tulsan's choose to move.  It's unbelievable what a difference a streetscape will make on how a place is experienced.  

For the most part, Tulsa's streets are 'crap'!  They are mere utilities for conveying cars from one traffic light to the next as quickly as possible.  They are not pleasant to walk along, ride a bike down, or really even drive on.  Our public streets typically don't add value to the properties they help shape.  21st/Utica/Yorktown do nothing if not harm the value/experience of Utica Sq.  The edges of Woodward, 21st/Peoria, are the worst parts of the park.  

So many of our streets could be redesigned in a manner that not only improves vehicle traffic 'through-put' but also makes other modes of accessibility possible, in fact enjoyable.  Redesigning our streets can also help deliver identity to specific districts (think Blue Dome with calm traffic, generous/pleasant sidewalks and identifiable street furniture) and re-stitch neighborhoods back together.

I know this forum has touched on this subject before but it's always fun to talk this stuff.  Below, I found an enjoyable recount of efforts in another part of the country (of course) that I think are worth considering here.    

http://la.streetsblog.org/2009/10/02/long-beachs-leap-toward-livability-part-1-of-2/

Long Beach's Leap Toward Livability – Part 1 of 2
by Joe Linton on October 2, 2009

Long Beach is the 36th largest city in the United States and the 6th largest city in California. It is, however, Los Angeles County's second most populous city; at a half-million people it's about 1/8th of the city of L.A.'s four million. It's just this sort of comparison that Long Beach doesn't want to hear.

Long Beach, in looking to differentiate itself from Los Angeles, and even from adjacent Orange County, has embarked upon an ambitious and for-Los-Angeles-County-unprecedented "Livable Community Agenda." Long Beach wants to become known as great place for bicycling and walking. The city, of course, sees this as desirable for the health and well-being of its residents, and as good for the environment... but it's also an economic development strategy. If Long Beach is to attract and retain companies and workers, then it needs to be able to compete. The city has decided that livability will make it competitive.

The Livable Community Agenda has the broad support of Long Beach's City Council and is a top priority for its city manager.

Long Beach has plenty of infrastructure that's already conducive to biking and walking. It has a historic downtown, still relatively intact, despite decades of car-centric redevelopment. It has significant density, especially in its southern beach-proximate formerly-street-car suburbs. It's well-served by transit, including the Metro Blue Line and Long Beach Transit. The city is surrounded on three sides by bike paths: on the beach and the Los Angeles and San Gabriel Rivers.

Long Beach's Transportation Programs Officer Sumire Grant embarked upon a nationwide search for a leader that could spearhead Long Beach's new bike/ped agenda. The city made a really smart move bringing in Charlie Gandy as its mobility coordinator earlier this year. Gandy is a nationally prominent bicycling proponent, who played a huge role in fostering livability in Austin Texas (which helped differentiate that city from Dallas and Houston.)

Charlie Gandy immediately helped the city step up implementation of its 2001 Bicycle Master Plan. In the past 6 months, the city has striped 15 miles of new bike lanes, in some cases removing parking and/or car lanes. It has mostly completed the facilities designated in its worthwhile, but less-than-visionary, master plan.

Then Long Beach really got down to business.

StreetsBlog readers may remember that in June 2009 Long Beach made a big splash with their innovative green-stripe sharrow lanes, based on a design piloted in Salt Lake City. These handsome lanes extend 15 blocks on 2nd Street in the heart of Long Beach's very popular Belmont Shore commercial district. The sharrow lane makes current law explicit: bicycles and cars share the street; bikes take the lane and stay out of the door zone.

It may not be intuitively obvious, but the city's primary goal for these lanes was actually reducing bike-ped conflicts. Belmont Shore is a very popular shopping street, with sidewalks nicely very crowded with pedestrians. Pre-sharrow counts showed that 42% of bicyclists on 2nd Street choose to ride on the sidewalk. The same counts showed 48% of bicyclists riding in the door zone, so another project goal was to get bicyclists to take the lane. Though often favored by newer, less-confident bicyclists, sidewalk riding and door zone riding are actually much more dangerous than riding in the middle of the lane.

The city recently completed post-sharrow counts and the results are very promising! Overall, bicyclist volumes have increased by 29% - the daily average went from 414 to 538. Sidewalk bicycling declined by 17%. Door zone riding declined by 7%. Cyclists taking the lane increased 22% - from 12% to 34%. No bike-ped or bike-car crashes have been reported. Anecdotally, it appears that cars are tending to use the left lane, which is making parallel parking easier and safer, too. The lanes are very comfortable for pairs of cyclists to ride side-by-side.

Merchants and others were initially skeptical, fearing that moving cyclists off the sidewalk would result in car-bike crashes. Some members of the  business association are already asking if the project, a 1-year pilot, can be made permanent. Sharrow lanes have been requested by businesses from other Long Beach commercial areas, including 4th Street, Bixby Knolls, and Downtown.

Though their numbers have decreased, many riders are still on sidewalks or in door zones, so the city plans to launch an educational campaign. The city is also currently designing a project that would extend 2nd Street's livability interventions eastward into the Naples neighborhood. That project tentatively includes removing a car lane, widening sidewalks, and adding an eastbound bike lane and a westbound green sharrow lane.

Yesterday, workers were putting the finishing touches on a smart small traffic calming project at the corner of 1st Street and Linden Avenue in Downtown Long Beach. Both of these are two-lane roads with diagonal parking. The city installed a pair of landscaped curb extensions (also called bulb-outs.) Curb extensions narrow the roadway, creating shorter and safer pedestrian crossings; the narrower roadway psychologically cues drivers to slow down.

With the diagonal parking, curb extensions can free up quite a bit of real estate. Long Beach's project has plenty of landscaping, wider sidewalks and even room for outdoor dining for the adjacent Village Grind coffee shop and Utopia restaurant.

A closer look at the project reveals a series of circular metal objects in the street. It turns out that these are actually retractable bollards, located at both ends of the block. The city can easily raise these bollards up to create a 1-block ciclovia-type space for festivals, farmers markets, and the like.

Cars were taking their turns pretty slowly. Carefree pedestrians and bicyclists were easy to spot. Coffee drinkers were sitting, sipping and watching. It all feels very civilized.

[TheArtist]

  Obviously we cant do every street in the city that way, nor should we want to try.  But there are areas that would indeed benefit from such things.  The Pearl District Plan would be a great place to start.  Your gonna have to redo a lot of the area anyway to put in the flood control that the area needs, and its in an area thats ripe for redevelopment and infill.  Would be great also as a stellar example of what really good streets can be like.

One thing a day like today, feeling well over 100 outside, does is to remind us of the need to pay attention to our local weather.   We need trees along our sidewalks and streets.  Narrower streets and the use of alleyways help with shade too (think of all those narrow streets in the old cities in Italy or the Mid East, wasnt just because they didnt have cars, but helped cool things too)  Awnings, porticos and loggias should also become more of a habit. These little tricks and others can help make being outside more palpable during the hot months, and cold ones, and rainy ones.  This aint California.

Btw, just seeing the title of the thread , "Tulsa leaping toward livability", my first thought was...... "Better Schools"

We lose FAR FAR FAR more people to the suburbs and other cities because of how they perceive our schools than we do because of how they perceive our streets or sidewalks.   

[SXSW]

I agree and constantly bring up this issue on this forum.  Brookside is a great example of a successful streetscape and I want to see this same approach used in our other urban districts.  With the wide sidewalks, retail with huge windows fronting the street, outdoor dining at most of the restaurants, and the new trees which will only grow bigger with time it's a pleasant semi-urban environment.  Cherry Street could use the same treatment, as well as SoBo and along Elgin through Blue Dome.  I have also proposed in another thread paying more attention to 11th which connects TU to downtown, even possibly renaming it University Blvd. to reinforce this connection.  TU is very instrumental in Tulsa's future growth and as they grow they will be even more influential as the university brings in new people and new ideas to the city.  An example of a horrible pedestrian environment near a very walkable campus is on 11th by TU.  Nashville embraces Vanderbilt, Fort Worth embraces TCU, does Tulsa embrace TU?  

About the schools, it is more perception than reality.  Many of the schools in TPS are very good, especially the ones in midtown.  The TW and media could do a better job highlighting these schools' accomplishments than they do as sometimes they outperform the suburban schools.  I'd say it's more of a combination of new cheap housing and perceived better schools than just schools which sends many to the suburbs.  Future and current areas of gentrification like Pearl, Forrest Orchard, and Kendall-Whittier will in many cases offer new housing as they develop.  The streetscaping can go a long ways towards accelerating that development.

Look no further than Oklahoma City to see what a streetscape can do for an area.  Next time you're down there go to NW 16th west of Classen.  There is a small commercial strip there that was abandoned and falling apart 15 years ago, very similar actually to the little strip on 6th east of Peoria or along 11th near Utica.  A city-funded streetscape was put in and now it's one of the coolest, most organic urban districts in the city called the Plaza District.  A similar thing is happening along Sheridan in downtown OKC and will probably yield similar results..

[dsjeffries]

Brookside is a great example of a successful streetscape and I want to see this same approach used in our other urban districts.  With the wide sidewalks, retail with huge windows fronting the street, outdoor dining at most of the restaurants, and the new trees which will only grow bigger with time it's a pleasant semi-urban environment.  

I'm going to have to strongly disagree with you here, SX. While the dozen or so trees that have been planted are a much needed addition to Peoria, calling that a successful streetscape is a huge stretch. Having just spent an entire day on those sidewalks in the 101 degree weather, I can say a few things with certainty:

a) For the most part, the sidewalks are not wide. Not by anyone's standards. There are small sections where certain buildings are set back a little farther from the street that have wider sidewalks than the rest of the area, but for about 75% of the street, the sidewalks are a mere 5-6 feet wide. That makes it difficult to do much of anything or have many people on them. Sidewalk cafes are limited to only a few, rare places. We need much wider sidewalks.

b) Because of the width of the street (four lanes of traffic, plus two lanes of parallel parking) and the lack of greenery and trees (save for the dozen new trees), the sidewalks and street are very, very hot in the summer daylight. There's just nothing to keep the sun from baking every square inch of the place. The heat island effect is quite pronounced in the area. The buildings aren't tall enough to shade the sidewalks, and there are, by and large, very few trees. The center median would be a great place to plant some shade trees. Ginko trees are great for urban areas and I think would help cool the streets. In addition to plantings in the center, we need more trees lining the sidewalks.

c) The City of Tulsa, Brookside Merchants Association and PSO really missed an opportunity to de-clutter the area when they chose to not bury the power lines while road construction was done. I know it's been said many times, but it really does look trashy to have the poles and lines just kind of thrown about everywhere. It's one of the most defining signatures of the city, unfortunately. They're everywhere, including right in the middle of a meager, six-foot-wide sidewalk. And further north on Peoria, near the Garden Center and Tulsa Historical Society, you can see well what we do to accommodate those power poles: Instead of burying the power lines or moving the poles three feet, we literally zig-zag our sidewalks in between them or put a 1' diameter pole right in the middle of it (see bottom of post). It's senseless. In addition to looking bad, we all know the risks of power being knocked out during winter months because of the weight of the ice on the lines. I still don't understand why it's not a requirement that all new or replacement lines must be buried, especially when combined with roadwork. Now is a perfect time to do that, with the 60+ road construction projects going on throughout the city.

Compare these photos:
Brookside



Pearl District, Portland (via flickr: www.flickr.com/koshalek)


d) Peoria is too wide. We don't need four lanes of traffic plus two lanes of parking in the area between 32nd and 36th. Cars go way too fast, the width makes pedestrian crossings difficult and dangerous, and it leaves no room for real sidewalks, landscaping opportunities, or a vibrant street life. If there are any areas of town that could use some traffic calming and real streetscaping, it's Brookside and Cherry Street. Cherry Street is a much better area for pedestrians than Brookside, in part because the road is narrower, but it still leaves a lot to be desired. It is still plagued with tiny sidewalks and little to no trees. There are essentially no barriers between pedestrians and motorists in either district, making walking feel and become dangerous. Slower traffic is safer for everyone.

e) In addition to the road being too wide, the faux-brick paver crosswalks still suck. They're mostly broken and some are rougher than potholes. It may not be any different than most of Tulsa's streets, but even driving 25 mph down Peoria is uncomfortable in any car I've been in. The road is in terrible shape, and the crosswalks are even worse. It's like being on a small boat in choppy water.

Before I even read this thread, I started working on a streetscaping proposal for Brookside (image below) that I think would accomplish the things I've outlined here. It introduces trees, shrubs, grass and other much-needed greenery, reducing the heat island effect; it narrows the street by 33%, taking a lane out of the north- and south-bound traffic and moving parking in closer; it would slow down the traffic; it introduces angled parking on the east side, increasing the amount of on-street parking available; cuts out unnecessary street clutter; and it widens all sidewalks to a usable width. I'd also include bike racks or corrals like those featured on the second part of the article in Streetsblog (http://la.streetsblog.org/2009/10/09/long-beachs-leap-toward-liability-part-2-of-2/). (As a side note, I really wish we could get some interesting, usable bike racks like in that article, instead of whatever is cheapest and most boring).

Anyway, here's what I came up with for one small section of Peoria:


<- N

And here's the current streetscaping on Brookside (except for the trees). This shows just how wide the street is, how narrow the sidewalks are, and how there's nothing green to be found:


Here are some old photos from the Beryl Ford Collection of this area of Brookside in the mid 1950s:
Two lanes of traffic and angled parking on both sides.







Zig-Zag Sidewalks: http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=24th+%26+Peoria+Ave,+Tulsa,+ok&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=32.059939,79.013672&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=S+Peoria+Ave+%26+E+24th+St,+Tulsa,+Oklahoma+74114&ll=36.129321,-95.975629&spn=0.000498,0.001206&t=h&z=20&layer=c&cbll=36.129275,-95.975631&panoid=DJeb3zN8ydImHCE8Wze8cw&cbp=12,47.09,,0,14.61

[Townsend]

Before I even read this thread, I started working on a streetscaping proposal for Brookside (image below) that I think would accomplish the things I've outlined here. It introduces trees, shrubs, grass and other much-needed greenery, reducing the heat island effect; it narrows the street by 33%, taking a lane out of the north- and south-bound traffic and moving parking in closer; it would slow down the traffic; it introduces angled parking on the east side, increasing the amount of on-street parking available; cuts out unnecessary street clutter; and it widens all sidewalks to a usable width. I'd also include bike racks or corrals like those featured on the second part of the article in Streetsblog (http://la.streetsblog.org/2009/10/09/long-beachs-leap-toward-liability-part-2-of-2/). (As a side note, I really wish we could get some interesting, usable bike racks like in that article, instead of whatever is cheapest and most boring).

Anyway, here's what I came up with for one small section of Peoria:


<- N

I agree with you but the amount of brown pantsing this would cause among the loudest, least educated of Tulsans will put the brakes on any design like this.

I know that's negative Nelly speaking but seriously, how hard is it to get brick crosswalks installed correctly on Brookside?

[SXSW]

I agree more trees would be better, and I do wish the power lines had been buried.  However I'm not a fan of angled parking.  Trees, trees, and more trees are what is needed in these areas.  Just look at what all the new trees have done to beautify the landscape around TU's expansion at 11th & Delaware.

[TheArtist]

Good post dsjeffries.  I think SXSW was right in the sense that for Tulsa, Brookside is a good example,,, or at least has some good examples to offer and you can tell they tried to make some positive changes.  However, as you point out, compared to what a really superb street space could be like, its lacking.  Would be interesting to find out what the Brookside people had talked about or may have really wanted but for some reason or another were perhaps thwarted in doing,,, or perhaps just didn't have the expertise or foresight to consider.  I too thought it a travesty that the city didn't plan ahead of time to notify and work with the utilities to go ahead and bury those lines there. They say they bury a certain amount each year, surely they could have coordinated it to do that street while the sidewalks and all were torn up.

[SXSW]

I don't think city/transportation planners were ever going to allow Peoria to bottleneck into 2 lanes between 33rd and 36th.  That is the problem you run into with Brookside as Peoria is such a major street.  I think with the restrictions they had in place i.e. keeping 4 lanes with parallel parking on both sides they did a good job.  That doesn't leave much room for wide sidewalks and more street trees than the ones in the intersection planters.  Once those trees grow it will make a huge difference but there will always be large stretches where there won't be shade unless they put in awnings or trellises.  For future development along that stretch the outdoor seating will just have to be recessed and covered like at Cosmo's, Wolfgang Puck, Blue Moon, etc.  

For our other urban districts like Cherry Street, SoBo and Blue Dome it should be 2 lanes of traffic with parallel parking on both sides with wider sidewalks and street trees every 10-15 ft. instead of just at intersection planters.  I really think angled parking should be avoided if at all possible.

[dsjeffries]

I don't think city/transportation planners were ever going to allow Peoria to bottleneck into 2 lanes between 33rd and 36th.  That is the problem you run into with Brookside as Peoria is such a major street.  I think with the restrictions they had in place i.e. keeping 4 lanes with parallel parking on both sides they did a good job.  That doesn't leave much room for wide sidewalks and more street trees than the ones in the intersection planters.  Once those trees grow it will make a huge difference but there will always be large stretches where there won't be shade unless they put in awnings or trellises.  For future development along that stretch the outdoor seating will just have to be recessed and covered like at Cosmo's, Wolfgang Puck, Blue Moon, etc.  

For our other urban districts like Cherry Street, SoBo and Blue Dome it should be 2 lanes of traffic with parallel parking on both sides with wider sidewalks and street trees every 10-15 ft. instead of just at intersection planters.  I really think angled parking should be avoided if at all possible.

Just because it's a major street doesn't mean it absolutely has to be four lanes. There are many examples of cities who have two-lane streets as main streets, even in downtown areas, and they work just fine:
Portland, Oregon http://maps.google.com/maps?q=portland+or&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Portland,+Multnomah,+Oregon&gl=us&ei=4dwgTKa_H8LfnAfAsInRAg&ved=0CB4Q8gEwAA&ll=45.520846,-122.682465&spn=0.003007,0.008256&t=h&z=18&layer=c&cbll=45.520816,-122.682352&panoid=WUP7zK0_DrU3Or7UZG-Mkg&cbp=12,111.19,,0,1.96

New York http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=new+york,+ny&sll=45.520816,-122.682352&sspn=0.003022,0.008256&gl=us&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=New+York&ll=40.706319,-74.012017&spn=0.006507,0.016512&t=h&z=17&layer=c&cbll=40.706753,-74.012533&panoid=oOzMcho80awuRu2VkU2OlA&cbp=12,207.43,,0,0.96

Boston http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=boston,+ma&sll=40.706753,-74.012533&sspn=0.006336,0.016512&gl=us&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Boston,+Suffolk,+Massachusetts&ll=42.358758,-71.057832&spn=0.006342,0.016512&t=h&z=17&layer=c&cbll=42.358602,-71.05259&panoid=Kx1PGf9n2eZX0IyYrcIkLg&cbp=12,251.97,,0,4.01

San Antonio http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=san+antonio+tx&sll=30.267379,-97.742636&sspn=0.007218,0.016512&gl=us&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=San+Antonio,+Bexar,+Texas&ll=29.423133,-98.491799&spn=0.003271,0.016512&t=k&z=17&layer=c&cbll=29.423132,-98.491802&panoid=6So_a7UlRRBe8aeZ5Fhe_g&cbp=11,153.85,,0,-1.61

St. Louis http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=st+louis+mo&sll=39.058284,-94.593294&sspn=0.006665,0.016512&gl=us&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Saint+Louis,+St.+Louis,+Missouri&ll=38.62848,-90.191488&spn=0.003026,0.016512&t=k&z=17&layer=c&cbll=38.628099,-90.190506&panoid=GllvtRtJCBM2ksUw_AwC4Q&cbp=11,291.07,,0,-2.49

Cities across the country are able to 'make do' with two lane streets, and Tulsa can, too. Part of what makes it successful, though, is a broader point than just streetscaping: availability of alternatives, both in terms of routes and modes of transportation.

Routes: I know that if I absolutely need to get somewhere fast that I shouldn't use 15th street--that street may add a couple of minutes to my trip because it has a lower posted speed limit, is reduced to two lanes, has on-street parking, and pedestrians are afoot. In essence, the street is designed (if only slightly) more for people than cars. Speed is not the object (that's what highways are for). I also know that there are convenient alternatives--I'll take the BA or 21st instead.

Modes: Narrowing streets won't create more congestion. If anything, it will likely cause the traffic to two things:
a) Disperse. Cars will find another, more convenient route
b) Dissipate. People will leave their cars at home and instead, walk, ride a bus, take their bike, or ride together (if a group is going to dinner, for instance).

More people taking alternative routes means less wear-and-tear on heavily-used roads, balancing out use. It also means more people on buses, streetcars or whatever other form on transit we could have. It will slow down the traffic, and make it safer and more inviting for pedestrians and bicyclists.

Tulsa doesn't have a problem with congestion now, and overall, we have a great grid-based network of streets.

Would there be a lot of complaining initially if Peoria were reduced to two lanes? You bet. But people adjust well and I would bet that after a year, more neighborhoods would want the same thing and Brooksiders would think someone was crazy if they wanted to four-lane Peoria.

I'm not saying two-lane streets are right for every part of town, but I think it would be fantastic for Brookside. Maybe we could have two lanes of autos and a bike line.

Why the apprehension about angled parking?

[Ed W]

Modes: Narrowing streets won't create more congestion. If anything, it will likely cause the traffic to two things:
a) Disperse. Cars will find another, more convenient route
b) Dissipate. People will leave their cars at home and instead, walk, ride a bus, take their bike, or ride together (if a group is going to dinner, for instance).



I'm not saying two-lane streets are right for every part of town, but I think it would be fantastic for Brookside. Maybe we could have two lanes of autos and a bike line.

Why the apprehension about angled parking?

PlaniTulsa seems bent on driving bike lanes down our throats.  Given the atrocious state of the city's existing bike lanes, there's little reason to believe they'll do a better job with more lane-miles.

And angled parking, while a darling of the urban redevelopment folks, is anathema to anyone on two wheels.  It increases the chance of someone pulling out without looking, and the developers are well aware of it.  That's why they come up with a new plan to re-route cyclists away from Archer every 2 years when they make another attempt for angled parking there.  We fought it last summer, so we'll have a respite this year.

Angled parking is analogous to those cable devices on highways.  Yes, they surely benefit motorists, but do so at the expense of other road users.  Planning that enhances convenience for one group while degrading safety for others is something to oppose vigorously.

[Red Arrow]

Just because it's a major street doesn't mean it absolutely has to be four lanes. There are many examples of cities who have two-lane streets as main streets, even in downtown areas, and they work just fine:

I noticed that several of the streets were obviously one-way streets.  Several TNF members have protested loudly about one-way streets.

Angle parking isn't only dangerous for bicyclists.  I'm leery of them even passing by in my car, especially if a large pickup or SUV is blocking the vision (and probably the traffic lane) of a smaller vehicle driver downstream.

[OurTulsa]

Quick correction SW - Transportation Engineer not planner. 

I don't think I would advocate reducing Peoria or many of our primary urban arterials down to two lanes otherwise you will have some major backage while waiting on the left turner.  At least provide a third middle lane at intersections.

I also think that another contributor to how well a street is designed is the number of curb cuts permitted along an arterial.  If the number of potential points of ingress/egress are controlled or limited to existing side streets or common/shared drives we've got less need to accommodate so  many breaks in the pedestrian environment and fewer points of conflict for drivers.

I tend to think narrowing the street and activating the edges will naturally slow traffic but not necessarily cause congestion.  It may be over-simplified but I like to use the analogy of pouring water from a bottle.  If you dump the bottle upside down the water rushes to escape backing up each partical waiting its turn to get through the openning however if you reduce the angle of the pour you tend to get the liquid out at least at the same rate if not a little faster.  It's certainly smoother and less erratic experience at the slower rate.  And maybe you should substitute water with sand.  I'm not an engineer and may be simplifying it but I think the same thought could be applied to traffic.

I am of a school of thought that the more obstructions and potential distractions for a driver the slower they will tend to go and going slow doesn't necessarily equate to traffic congestion.

[TheArtist]

  I don't like a lot of angled parking either.  Here and there in certain locations fine, but sometimes it can actually cause too much of a barrier between the street and sidewalk (losing that "see and be seen" quality) and be a traffic problem itself.

As for the schools again... Was at the "Meet the Grantmakers" public discussion at the library yesterday and some of Tulsas problems were rattled off.  One of them again was our poor public school system.  It was stated that only 7% of those who took the ACT  scored well enough to enter college without remediation. And thats just of those who actually managed to take the ACT.  It was however mentioned that Tulsa is at least small enough of a city that you can make progress on our negatives, of which we have many, if you put the effort into it.  One of the unfortunate things is how many company headquarters we have lost which has cut back on where a lot of funding for programs would usually come from.  Those companies help with; youth shelters, after school programs, school supplies, healthcare, daycare, housing, food, crime prevention, all kinds of programs and assistance for the elderly and less fortunate, etc.  Not to mention parks, and things like Arenas, Ballparks, and yes, streetscaping.  When you lose a company headquarter, you lose a lot more than just jobs.  We have so few left now, fortunately there is relief in the fact that we managed to, before the end came lol, form the largest community foundation in the nation, the Tulsa Community Foundation, which has taken up a lot of the slack.  If it werent for them, I think this city would reeeeally be hurting.