Solution to One-Way Streets at IDL Exits

[Townsend]

Aren't more of the one-ways going to be two-way within the next year or so?

Main is one of them.  I can't remember the others.

[dsjeffries]

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.

That's one possible solution.

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.

I didn't avoid any part of your comments. We don't have the capacity, no matter what event or events are going, to fill the streets we have. The streets become their regular selves when you approach the on-ramps to the highways. Streets don't have to stay 5 lanes or 4 lanes or 3 lanes wide for their entire length. You yourself proposed taking lanes away so I don't understand why you're critical of doing the same with a two-way street.

And the drawings I've posted are there to show that it is indeed possible to convert these "nonconvertible" one-way streets, not to propose a certain number of lanes.

Regarding the "major intersection reworkings", with more two-way streets, there are actually fewer places where lanes suddenly end, and more opportunities for a driver to correct themselves than with our current one-way streets.
The argument of lanes suddenly ending is actually the reverse. Look at the map I posted of 7th & 8th Streets. Do lanes end on 7th Street? Yes, the four lanes of off-ramp traffic are reduced to two by the time it reaches Elgin. But it's limited to the convergence of the off-ramps, and will naturally slow drivers down as they enter downtown. Often, drivers on that particular off-ramp and stretch of 7th get up to 45 miles an hour because it's built like a drag strip, then have to hit their brakes when they see the light turn red. Is the lane reduction in that case a bad thing? I don't think so.

For the entire length of 8th Street, there actually be "new" lanes people could travel, since traffic would be opened to both directions. As a driver approaches 75/51/444, the road widens to its original amount of lanes and people are able to exit downtown as normal. No lanes would end abruptly, there just won't be traffic approaching them from the other direction after Elgin.

I'm not against wider sidewalks at all, and assuming I am because I'm in favor of making our streets bi-directional is ludicrous. Wider sidewalks are part of what can build a community (see Jane Jacobs). The issue of bike lanes is an entirely different argument, though. Cyclists and traffic planners are divided on the issue. Same with angled parking. And it's not the main purpose of this topic.

Fact: Two-way streets slow down traffic.
Fact: Slower traffic is safer for pedestrians.
Fact: Two-way streets increase predictability for motorists. It's what they're used to.
Fact: Our downtown streets are overbuilt for current and even the wildest projections.

We need narrower, slower, more pedestrian-oriented streets in the heart of our downtown. Converting our streets from one-way to two-way would help achieve that. I'm not saying it's the only thing that needs to be done with our streets, but one of many things we need to do.

And Heavy Traffic Way is already two-way, from 7th to 1st. At 1st, you're forced north onto Guthrie because, guess what, lanes end.

[dsjeffries]

Aren't more of the one-ways going to be two-way within the next year or so?

Main is one of them.  I can't remember the others.

Main from 3rd to 6th is two-way, and they're supposed to be extending the two-way conversion from 6th to 10th.

[LandArchPoke]

That's one possible solution.

I didn't avoid any part of your comments. We don't have the capacity, no matter what event or events are going, to fill the streets we have. The streets become their regular selves when you approach the on-ramps to the highways. Streets don't have to stay 5 lanes or 4 lanes or 3 lanes wide for their entire length. You yourself proposed taking lanes away so I don't understand why you're critical of doing the same with a two-way street.

I'm not at all criticizing the fact you want to take lanes away. In fact I agree that we probably only need two lanes for each direction.

That's one possible solution.

We need narrower, slower, more pedestrian-oriented streets in the heart of our downtown. Converting our streets from one-way to two-way would help achieve that. I'm not saying it's the only thing that needs to be done with our streets, but one of many things we need to do.

This is contradictory to what you're actually proposing though. You aren't slimming the streets at all. In fact you would be keeping them the exact same width

Here is how your two lane each direction actually plays out, with the orange areas being parallel parking. No room for bike lanes, no room for more parking, no room for wider sidewalks which you agreed help make a more "lively" city, and you are keeping the pedestrian crossings the same width they are now except inside of only looking one direction for cars you now have cars coming from TWO directions.



My Solution



My solution reduces traffic lanes (slowing traffic to the same yours would), makes the street easier to cross, adds bike lanes, doubles the sidewalk space, and adds parking. This solution would also cost a lot less than yours.

[dsjeffries]

This is contradictory to what you're actually proposing though. You aren't slimming the streets at all. In fact you would be keeping them the exact same width

As I've said before, the purpose of the drawings wasn't to show how many lanes each road would have, but that two-way conversion was possible. Could they be 4 lanes? Sure. Could they be 3 lanes? Sure. Could they be 2 lanes? Sure.

Here's another possibility for the Detroit & Cincinnati convergence.

[LandArchPoke]

As I've said before, the purpose of the drawings wasn't to show how many lanes each road would have, but that two-way conversion was possible. Could they be 4 lanes? Sure. Could they be 3 lanes? Sure. Could they be 2 lanes? Sure.

So you are telling me we could turn Detroit and Cincinnati into 3 or two lane road, and that wouldn't cause any kind of traffic problems? Look at Denver for example and imagine if it was 2-3 lanes instead of 4. While people would survive, it's not a smart idea to turn all our major streets into small capacity roads. Look at places like Austin, Portland, Charlotte... places we want Tulsa to be like. They also ALL have certain streets as one way streets. If we got our downtown population to 10,000, 10 years from now, there is NO way Detroit and Cincinnati could handle that kind of traffic as a 3/2 lane road. Same with 1st and 2nd, 7th and 8th. Right now could they handle it? Yes, but that's short sighted planning. Is there a downtown in the USA (with a metro around a Million or over) that doesn't have a one way street in it?

[Hoss]

I think 1st and 2nd Streets as they are configured now with the way that I-244 dumps onto 1st and 2nd Street converges into an access ramp for both 244 and 75 should stay.  Converting them now would mean more than just painting double yellow lines on both of these streets.  If they wanted to do that, they should have scheduled it (1st Street specifically) for when they were doing that offramp work that completed on there about this time last year.  I'd love to see you reconfigure that mess....

[dsjeffries]

So you are telling me we could turn Detroit and Cincinnati into 3 or two lane road, and that wouldn't cause any kind of traffic problems? Look at Denver for example and imagine if it was 2-3 lanes instead of 4. While people would survive, it's not a smart idea to turn all our major streets into small capacity roads. Look at places like Austin, Portland, Charlotte... places we want Tulsa to be like. They also ALL have certain streets as one way streets. If we got our downtown population to 10,000, 10 years from now, there is NO way Detroit and Cincinnati could handle that kind of traffic as a 3/2 lane road. Same with 1st and 2nd, 7th and 8th. Right now could they handle it? Yes, but that's short sighted planning. Is there a downtown in the USA (with a metro around a Million or over) that doesn't have a one way street in it?

Actually, planning for all the one-way streets we currently have was short-sighted. Look at what that's gotten us. As I said earlier, as the streets approach the on-ramps in either direction, they should get wider. But while they're going through the majority of our downtown, they do not need to be one-way or as wide. It seems like you're advocating some kind of downtown "shortcut". People aren't hopping off the BA at Detroit and traveling through downtown to get north on Detroit. 2 lane roads are not going to cause traffic to come to a screeching halt.

[LandArchPoke]

Actually, planning for all the one-way streets we currently have was short-sighted. Look at what that's gotten us. As I said earlier, as the streets approach the on-ramps in either direction, they should get wider. But while they're going through the majority of our downtown, they do not need to be one-way or as wide. It seems like you're advocating some kind of downtown "shortcut". People aren't hopping off the BA at Detroit and traveling through downtown to get north on Detroit. 2 lane roads are not going to cause traffic to come to a screeching halt.

It will significantly impact traffic during rush hours though if you cut Detroit, Cincinnati, 1st, 2nd, 7th, 8th all to a 2/3 lane road. I've already shown that your 4/5 lane roads don't do anything to narrow the roads (while it would calm the traffic speed).

Imagine 8-10 years from now, and our downtown population and development took off... we now have a population of 10,000 living in the area (similar to Austin and Portland). Think of the traffic in and around those downtown's... now convert all their arterial streets that are one way into a 2/3 lane road. Even a city core like Portland that has great transit would cause a ripple effect of traffic congestion. Now do we want to plan for downtown the way it is now? or do we want to take into account population growth for the next 20-30 years until the core has been infilled?

[Red Arrow]

One way to use some lane space would be to put some steel rails there for a real trolley.  Then mark that space for trolley use only.

[carltonplace]

If only I could find a place to park in this photograph. I can see Waldo, but no parking spaces.

[erfalf]

This is the discussion downtown planners should be having. As you all know I hail from that town up north, so take my opinion however you want. But as an outsider, the biggest problem I have with downtown Tulsa is it's unusually large streets. I mean it's nice to be able to pick from all those lanes, but too many people drive 40-50 mpg. It's not pleasant to walk down the street next to these race tracks either. I think a road diet would do more for downtown Tulsa than any other single thing.

Personally it is my hope to see the first stretch of rail running down Cincinnati or Detroit. Is that even something you all are still desiring, or is it just that you don't think it will happen so you just stop hoping.

[LandArchPoke]

If only I could find a place to park in this photograph. I can see Waldo, but no parking spaces.

I don't know if you are actually confused or just trying to be funny... but if you being serious and don't see what I am talking about. The orange zones are were the parking would be (the bigger one is angled and smaller parallel), red is bike lane, blue lane shows the two lanes of traffic.

Here's a break down:



A is what I purposed
B & C is what dsjeffries purposed

While I don't think any (A, B, of C) would be bad if they were implemented because they are all improvements over what we have now. I would rather see A over C because you would keep traffic capacity were it should be for growth in the future, and you don't have to rework and of the existing intersections where these turn into on an off ramps making it cheaper and faster to implement. I would however pick C over B though if we HAD to convert every street to two way traffic because it narrows the street, expands sidewalks, and allows for bike lanes.

[LandArchPoke]

This is the discussion downtown planners should be having. As you all know I hail from that town up north, so take my opinion however you want. But as an outsider, the biggest problem I have with downtown Tulsa is it's unusually large streets. I mean it's nice to be able to pick from all those lanes, but too many people drive 40-50 mpg. It's not pleasant to walk down the street next to these race tracks either. I think a road diet would do more for downtown Tulsa than any other single thing.

Personally it is my hope to see the first stretch of rail running down Cincinnati or Detroit. Is that even something you all are still desiring, or is it just that you don't think it will happen so you just stop hoping.

With any of the three solutions that's been brought up (see post above) you could easily take out one side of parking and use it as a dedicated streetcar lane. So I would hope that in the future it would be something to implement as well.

[Townsend]

I don't know if you are actually confused or just trying to be funny...

He was kidding.