Solution to One-Way Streets at IDL Exits

[LandArchPoke]

I like the idea of keeping some of the one ways, reducing them down to two, maybe three lanes, widening the sidewalks and putting in real bike lanes.  

Bingo!

Cincinnati and Detroit could easily stay one ways. If you have any common sense and look at a map these are not difficult to figure out. 1st and 2nd street I could see staying one way as well along with 7th and 8th because of the way they are integrated with the highways. Any of the other streets besides these need to be 2 ways.

They just need to be slimmed down a bunch. I would say it probably only needs the capacity of two lanes (3 would be pushing it), have parallel parking on one side and diagonal parking on the other side with a bike lane included. Install a streetscape on both sides of the street and you've instantly increased on street parking and made the streets more pedestrian friendly while not compromising the capacity issues of the grid and spending tons of money on reworking the intersections around the highways. I would rather see that money spent on trees, better lighting, bike racks, benches, and expanding our bike lanes downtown.

[rdj]

I miss the one ways.  I really couldn't be bothered that some tourist from 91st and yale is scared by the one ways and potential for seeing a "negro".  They should have left the one ways the way they were and left Bartlett Square /Rant

Really?  Wow.  Drunk in the afternoon?

I'm fine with them either way.

[rdj]

I like the idea of keeping some of the one ways, reducing them down to two, maybe three lanes, widening the sidewalks and putting in real bike lanes.  

I agree with this.  Cincy & Detroit are visually daunting to a pedestrian.  It doesn't help that many motorists think it's the highway and drive damn fast.

[dsjeffries]

1st and 2nd street I could see staying one way as well along with 7th and 8th because of the way they are integrated with the highways.

Shouldn't this be the other way around? Shouldn't we make our streets the priority and not the highways? We've been provided with an interstate noose around downtown that segregates it from the rest of the community, and we should make it as easy to get into our downtown as possible, and make it easy to navigate once you're there. One-way streets do not contribute to either.

Keeping those six streets (Cincinnati, Detroit, 1st, 2nd, 7th, 8th) as one-ways leaves us with an un-even, "waffled" downtown street grid that's unpredictable for motorists and unfriendly toward pedestrians.

[LandArchPoke]

Shouldn't this be the other way around? Shouldn't we make our streets the priority and not the highways? We've been provided with an interstate noose around downtown that segregates it from the rest of the community, and we should make it as easy to get into our downtown as possible, and make it easy to navigate once you're there. One-way streets do not contribute to either.

Keeping those six streets (Cincinnati, Detroit, 1st, 2nd, 7th, 8th) as one-ways leaves us with an un-even, "waffled" downtown street grid that's unpredictable for motorists and unfriendly toward pedestrians.

I guess my question would be, would you rather have the ability to widen sidewalks, increase on street parking, and have a bike lane and keep the streets one way. OR would you rather have everything two ways just to make navigation of downtown easier.

You want to make it easier for the people that come downtown from the suburbs to get downtown and out of it while not being able to "get lost" and to slow traffic down. Well you can do the exact same thing by keeping streets one way and just taking the money you'd be spending on conversion of these streets into making the pedestrian experience better. Your point you are making about two way streets has nothing to do with anything besides a motorist point of view.

Here's an example of what I'm talking about:



On the top part you have an expanded side walk (blackish grey area) with parallel parking moved out slightly (orange area), bordered by a bike lane (red area) 2 lanes of traffic north bound on Detroit (inbetween the two blue lines) and then diagonal parking (other larger orange area) with an expanded sidewalk on the other side.

To me keeping the streets one way and focusing on a road DIET and making the pedestrian more at ease is more important. Would you rather Cross Detroit as a 2 lane one way street with a bike lane or would you rather cross it as a 4 lane two direction street with center turning area?

To me once you start turning these one way streets (that basically turn into highway on and off ramps) you're going to be causing as many problems in confusion with people that aren't familiar with downtown. Example, What happens if we turned Detroit into two ways.... A unsuspecting suburbanite has spotted a homeless man on a way to a concert and in fear of her life (slight exaggeration haha  ) has decided to book it out of downtown. She gets 13th Street were Detroit starts and can't figure out how to get onto the highway. So she decides to drive one and proceeds to enter the Broken Arrow Expressway going the wrong direction.

No matter what we do, with the way our highway system is in downtown it will be IMPOSSIBLE to do it in a idiot proof way. When you look at a map and analyze it.. Cincinnati, Detroit, 7th, 8th, 1st and 2nd all make sense in a way to be one way streets. Lets just work on making them more friendly and not so expressway like.

[nathanm]

You know what would actually make out-of-towners more comfortable downtown? Traffic signals where they expect them to be. They're waaay too easy to miss for folks who aren't used to them being where they are.

[dsjeffries]

I guess my question would be, would you rather have the ability to widen sidewalks, increase on street parking, and have a bike lane and keep the streets one way. OR would you rather have everything two ways just to make navigation of downtown easier.

You want to make it easier for the people that come downtown from the suburbs to get downtown and out of it while not being able to "get lost" and to slow traffic down. Well you can do the exact same thing by keeping streets one way and just taking the money you'd be spending on conversion of these streets into making the pedestrian experience better. Your point you are making about two way streets has nothing to do with anything besides a motorist point of view.

Right now, most of our downtown streets are four lanes in one direction with two lanes of parking. The concept of turning a one-way into a two-way doesn't have to mean all the streets remain 4 lanes. We could easy convert them to two-way streets with one lane in each direction, or doing three lanes (one turning lane). There are still opportunities to narrow the streets, and to include wider curb cuts. These ideas are not mutually exclusive, and would benefit both drivers and pedestrians.

The suburbanite concert-goer scenario is both something that already happens because of our one-way streets, and something that could be prevented with a more predictable street pattern and better markings/signage.

[jacobi]

Really?  Wow.  Drunk in the afternoon?

YOU DONT KNOW ME!!!    Not drunk, I just find the rush to accomodate thos who are going to hate downtown anyway pointless.  The one way streets took some work to navagate but that was sort of the litmus test for whether or not you "knew" downtown.

[rdj]

YOU DONT KNOW ME!!!    Not drunk, I just find the rush to accomodate thos who are going to hate downtown anyway pointless.  The one way streets took some work to navagate but that was sort of the litmus test for whether or not you "knew" downtown.

Understand, but we want people that don't "know" downtown to discover the great things we love about the area.  Does that mean a suburbification of downtown?  No, but making the streets easier and more comfortable to navigate for autos, pedestrians, bicycles, mass transit, etc all play into having a vibrant downtown.  That most likely means turning one-way streets into two-way and shrinking wide one-way streets into more narrow/manageable streets.

You come across in this post in a way that only those in the clique can enjoy downtown.  That added to your comment about "negros" in the earlier post are quite unsettling.  Isn't any good downtown and urban area about inclusion and diversity?

[TheTed]

Narrowing the roads is long, long overdue, like 50 years.

Narrowing streets will make them safer for drivers, too. How many accidents and near misses are caused by people doing things they shouldn't be doing in the lane they're in (going straight in a turn-only, seeing their destination and cutting across three lanes of same-direction traffic to turn, etc.)?

And yes, the one-ways are awful for pedestrians. At six lanes wide, you can start crossing when there are no cars coming only to have a car bearing down on you at 40mph before you're all the way across.

[nathanm]

And yes, the one-ways are awful for pedestrians. At six lanes wide, you can start crossing when there are no cars coming only to have a car bearing down on you at 40mph before you're all the way across.

Don't jaywalk and it's not a problem. It's not like the legal crossing points are far away as they often are in other parts of town.

[dsjeffries]

Don't jaywalk and it's not a problem. It's not like the legal crossing points are far away as they often are in other parts of town.

Actually, as someone else who walks a lot, it is a problem, even at crosswalks. And as I understand it, in Oklahoma, jaywalking is defined as crossing a street more than 150 feet from a crosswalk. Since downtown blocks are 300 feet long, jaywalking is impossible downtown (except for on super-blocks).

Not all intersections have traffic signals or stop signs, so when people barrel past at very high speeds on a 6-lane road, it's very, very dangerous for pedestrians.

Edit: Here's the Tulsa City Ordinance regarding pedestrians crossing streets:
Section 1102. - Crossing street.
Every pedestrian shall cross the street within the crosswalk or at an intersection, whether or not such intersection is controlled by traffic-control signals; provided, however, that this provision shall not apply to residential neighborhoods, except where a major street passes through such neighborhoods or traffic-control devices are provided. A pedestrian crossing a street in a residential area shall take the shortest possible route to the opposite side of the street and at a right angle to the side of the street.
(Ord. No. 13227)

[dsjeffries]

Here are two possible ways to deal with the Cincinnati-Detroit merge north of Standpipe Hill, and 7th & 8th Streets near Home Depot.

[jacobi]

That added to your comment about "negros" in the earlier post are quite unsettling.

Unsettling? howso? because I illustrate the racist attitudes of suburbanites.  That's in quotes because I have heard people list that as a reason to not go downtown right next to one way streets.

[LandArchPoke]

Right now, most of our downtown streets are four lanes in one direction with two lanes of parking. The concept of turning a one-way into a two-way doesn't have to mean all the streets remain 4 lanes. We could easy convert them to two-way streets with one lane in each direction, or doing three lanes (one turning lane). There are still opportunities to narrow the streets, and to include wider curb cuts. These ideas are not mutually exclusive, and would benefit both drivers and pedestrians.

The suburbanite concert-goer scenario is both something that already happens because of our one-way streets, and something that could be prevented with a more predictable street pattern and better markings/signage.

I'm sorry but I just don't get your opinion on changing the streets I've mentioned into two way traffic and how it would make the street grid any easier for people not knowledgeable on downtown to understand. Doesn't mean you are wrong, to me it makes more sense to keep them one way.



The blue streets I highlighted are the ones I think should stay one way, and just be put on a diet with more on street parking, wider sidewalks, and bike lanes.

The others (red streets) should be turned into two lanes. These streets are through streets and for a matter of traffic flow outside the core it is important that they don't just all of a sudden change into a one way.

If we converted all streets to two ways, I noted on the map with the explanation mark where there would have to be a major intersection reworking and signage added to help people understand what is going on and why certain lanes end.

And tell me how on the Cincinnati-Detroit merge you propose, that it is less confusing to a driver than the way it already is? To me it looks pretty intimidating and your spending a ton of money adding signals to an area that doesn't need them. I would rather spend that $250,000 (just an estimate) on new signals and the other few million dollars to rework each one of those intersections and put it towards other things.

Also you kind of avoided the fact that if we kept the streets I'm pointing out as one way we would have added sidewalk capacity (room for outdoor seating at bars or restaurants), bike lanes, and more on street parking. With your version we would have no room for a wider sidewalks, no room for bike lanes, and no added street parking. To me I would rather keep the one way street that aren't vital through street corridors to the rest of the town, and just shrink the scale. I'm guessing though you are in favor of making it possibly more easy to navigate for a motorist than to have room for bikes, pedestrians, and more parking? You can't turn these streets into a 3 lane (center turn lane) they need to be at least 2 lanes each direction because they are the ways in and out of downtown and you can't just take away that capacity without cause problems.