It appears that just north of the Reno / EKG intersection on the west side of the street...

Surely they are going to build sidewalk close to the new trees and pavers all the way along?

Don't call me Shirley, but it sure doesn't look that way.

14712

I suspect they did this for ADA compliance due to the driveways, but you know people (on foot) are going to go the natural way. Seems like they could have still put sidewalks along the red line and put up signage, kind of like it is on Harvey in spots where there is ADA compliant and non-ADA compliant sidewalk next to each other with signage indicating which is which...

It appears that just north of the Reno / EKG intersection on the west side of the street...

Surely they are going to build sidewalk close to the new trees and pavers all the way along?

Don't call me Shirley, but it sure doesn't look that way.

I kind of doubt it, but sure hope so.

I was assuming that there was sidewalk yet to be built along that red line, but it remains to be seen I suppose.

Are the actual plans for this available anywhere? Surely so since it is a public project.

I think Shawn is right but 99% of the people walking will not cut over to the present walkway, they will just continue along EKG.

Would it be that difficult just to add a bit more sidewalk there and have 2 options?

I asked them on Twitter. We'll see what they say.

https://twitter.com/shawn_dubs/status/1011292214029406208

I asked them on Twitter. We'll see what they say.

https://twitter.com/shawn_dubs/status/1011292214029406208

response:
https://twitter.com/cityofokc/status/1012708153673375744

^

Thanks.

I wonder who "sc" is who replied on behalf of Public Works?

^

Thanks.

I wonder who "sc" is who replied on behalf of Public Works?

^

Thanks.

I wonder who "sc" is who replied on behalf of Public Works?

Shannon Cox. She's the PIO for PW.

Shannon Cox. She's the PIO for PW.

Oh, right. Thanks.

It is interesting to note that Project 180 has completely abandoned its social media accounts and website. No updates to their Facebook or Twitter accounts since May of 2016 and the website is completely gone.

There has also been no updates or presentations to City Council in a very long time, whereas in the past they periodically gave information about phases, timing and budgets.

It is interesting to note that Project 180 has completely abandoned its social media accounts and website. No updates to their Facebook or Twitter accounts since May of 2016 and the website is completely gone.

There has also been no updates or presentations to City Council in a very long time, whereas in the past they periodically gave information about phases, timing and budgets.

Extremely disappointing. The position of PIO for PW was actually created as the PIO for P180. I actually applied for it when Laura was in charge of the project 10 years ago. I think it was intended to be a temp job.

Extremely disappointing. The position of PIO for PW was actually created as the PIO for P180. I actually applied for it when Laura was in charge of the project 10 years ago. I think it was intended to be a temp job.

Shannon Cox was in charge of communication for P180 (at least she was the one responding to my requests) but she stopped responding a couple of years ago as well. She has an okc.gov email so if she is still working for the city in a broader capacity, my emails should have reached her. Her email address hasn't changed even though her position may have.

I just looked and she did not even return two emails I sent about the intersection re-striping, where Eric Wenger told me personally in 2014 it would be done in short order but as of 2016 most had not been touched; and that is still the case.

She did, however, respond to Lacey Lett of KFOR on a story we were working together about crazy the Oklahoma Ave. work-around due to UHaul.

Extremely disappointing. The position of PIO for PW was actually created as the PIO for P180. I actually applied for it when Laura was in charge of the project 10 years ago. I think it was intended to be a temp job.

Laura was a love her or hate her type of woman. Unfortunately, the (male) engineering establishment didn't like or get her. I thought she was great for the City... When the PIM person that was originally hired for the effort moved out of state, SC came on in PW to assist, but I think she's been pulled to be the PW PIO broadly, not just covering P180.

Would the real David Holt please stand up?

David is very active on social media. I've tried to direct his attention to this thread to no avail. Would at least like his perspective on things. He's seems to be a very reasonable person.

I should try to sit down with him and go over all this in detail.

He doesn't really have any power over the City Manager, Public Works Director or any other city employees. But he could bring some attention to the matter and more or less make the people involved accountable to taxpayers just by bringing this up in a council meeting or elsewhere.

14712

I suspect they did this for ADA compliance due to the driveways, but you know people (on foot) are going to go the natural way. Seems like they could have still put sidewalks along the red line and put up signage, kind of like it is on Harvey in spots where there is ADA compliant and non-ADA compliant sidewalk next to each other with signage indicating which is which...

So it's not in any way a sidewalk, but I did notice that the paved section will extend a couple feet beyond the tree boxes along the red line here. So able-bodied persons would be able to walk along this. Again, not a sidewalk. But at least hopefully it will stop tracks getting worn through the grass here

Took this today:

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/p180063018c.jpg

I have never, from the pics, been able to understand what is going on at the corner.

^^^^^^^^
Two things at work there: the street car needs a fairly wide-radius turn, so the corner had to be reconfigured anyway. But they also needed to add ADA access between the Cox Center sidewalk and the crosswalk probably 4' below, so they had to build a pretty elaborate switchback ramp.

This is the work on Main between EKG and Broadway.

Looks like they are pretty much finished except for the pavers on the NE corner of Main & Broadway... And striping.

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/p180063018d.jpg


http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/p180063018e.jpg

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/p180070818.jpg

Well, at least in another five years or so they'll have to redo all that when the Cox site is redeveloped. Maybe we'll get a sensible sidewalk at that point.

Well, at least in another five years or so they'll have to redo all that when the Cox site is redeveloped. Maybe we'll get a sensible sidewalk at that point.

I believe what is driving the current design is primarily the ramp going to/from the underground parking. They have the same issue on the west side of the Cox Center, that is, vehicles exiting day parkers and post-event traffic en masse. They don't want people walking in front of that ramp due to inherent danger caused by a narrow/non-ADA apron there and large numbers of people driving quickly up the ramp and also stacking on an incline. Then as far as people turning into the ramp, they are coming in at high speed, the curb cut is wide and takes a bit to walk across, and cars will be stacking on EK Gaylord waiting for pedestrians to walk across.

I'm not defending the overall design, but feel like the bulk of the bad decision making really rests with the original designers of the Cox Center (Myriad). The P180 layout is responding to something which has been forced upon it by decisions made in the '60s and '70s. You're right that it will take a redesign of the Cox site to fix it.

I walked this last night. Of course, I walked along the pavers near the street. Looking at it on the ground, it's an ADA nightmare no matter what. The ramp going up to the sidewalk near the building is pretty steep, not sure if it technically meets ADA grade percentages or not, but if so it's tight. Almost would have been better (than getting sued) to bite the bullet, do this all right the first time, since whatever is done could be preserved during the demo of Cox in however many years.

^^^^^^^^
The question is whether or not it could have been done right without elimination of the ramp altogether. I'm not sure one way or the other, but do know this would have of course been deemed unacceptable by their primary parking tenant. Also not sure if it would have been adequate for exiting that parking, just theoretically. Originally there was another ramp exiting onto Sheridan, which was eliminated when the MAPS-funded expansion of the Myriad was done in the late nineties.

Looks like they are pretty much finished here.

Not sure why they just used concrete on the southern part of the median.

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/p180072118b.jpg


http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/p180072118c.jpg


http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/p180072118.jpg

You mean just concrete vs tree wells and grass? My guess would be that it had to do with backing trucks into that overhead on the Cox Center and the potential to overrun the median.

You mean just concrete vs tree wells and grass?

I realize it is narrow but surprising they just paved it rather than putting in some form of landscaping.

Yeah I edited that post, but my guess would be that it had to do with getting trucks and equipment in and out of that overhead. Just guessing though.

Not sure if this is the right thread for this, so if not I apologize for bringing something 2+ years old back to life, but I saw one of our City Councillors post on social media about the old scourge of "beg buttons" (where a pedestrian "walk" signal doesn't appear automatically) in OKC. Later that same day, I was at Reno and Walker, a generally really nice intersection redone as a part of Project 180. But one of the poles, which happened to carry the walk/don't walk sign and the associated "beg button" appeared to have been taken out by a vehicle and temporarily replaced with a traffic cone. Since the intersection is programmed *not* to give a walk signal without a button press, there's no way to (legally) cross the street here, since the button is missing! This seems like one of many good reasons to eliminate beg buttons citywide, but especially at all the Project 180 intersections since those are all connected by good sidewalks/crosswalks, have ADA curb ramps, and have modern traffic signals that support walk signals with countdowns.

It makes sense to get rid of “beg” buttons in areas with high pedestrian activity but not citywide.

It makes sense to get rid of “beg” buttons in areas with high pedestrian activity but not citywide.

Please explain? I enjoyed having the automatic pedestrian lights throughout Barcelona, even in the outlaying neighborhoods where pedestrian activity is quite low throughout the day. Of course the way they set up their crosswalks is quite nice and they don't allow turn on red...

The beg buttons need to go away everywhere. Having them as the standard sets a baseline for pedestrian unfriendliness that discourages the population from walking and helps prevent areas from developing into areas with high pedestrian activity.

The beg buttons need to go away everywhere. Having them as the standard sets a baseline for pedestrian unfriendliness that discourages the population from walking and helps prevent areas from developing into areas with high pedestrian activity.
This. No reason (especially with Covid) to still have to push a button to cross a street. Also, the "pole clutter" that crops up at some intersections because of the beg buttons/light poles/power poles/other poles is ridiculous.

Off topic I guess, but what is the status with project 180? Is it finished yet?

Off topic I guess, but what is the status with project 180? Is it finished yet?

Finished from a run-out-of-money perspective.

They only completed about 60% of what was originally promised.

One big hole is Main Street between Robinson and EK Gaylord. It's right in the heart of the CBD and was on the list but never done. There aren't even markings on the street and it still has those old early-70's globe light fixtures. Even the Century Center side got almost no love.

And they did almost nothing to EKG, which has always been a concrete canyon and pedestrian barrier.

HTTP://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/p180091520a.jpg

Yeah, the cost and time overruns on this project were terrible, and of course, as you have pointed out many times, Pete, there were basically no consequences for it.

Speaking of EKG, even the segment they finished (between Reno and Sheridan) is sort of a mess. I was down there a couple of days ago and all the streetlights are inoperable. That's sort of par for the course for many areas around town, I guess, but disappointing to see on P180 street segments. I think this was pointed out in this thread a long time ago, but the issues with the parking garage and loading dock entrances to the Cox Center also prevented the City from doing a full sidewalk on the west side of EKG between Reno and Sheridan. I saw a group of kids try to ride their Lime scooters northbound on EKG on that west side sidewalk and they got a nasty surprise when they got to the end of the line and hit the loading dock curbs in the dark. (Of course, they shouldn't have been riding on the sidewalks in the first place.) The whole lack of sidewalk on that side is even more bizarre given that we had to install "ghost tracks" for the streetcar there as part of the multi-modal upgrades at the Santa Fe Station.

The rest of EKG/Shields is very dangerous for cyclists and pedestrians and just reinforces the giant railroad viaduct as a barrier between the CBD and Bricktown. The traffic signal at the Boulevard and Shields was out on this same evening (I think the streetlights were, too), so again, no way that anyone on a bicycle or on foot would be able to cross safely there. A couple of final things to note: the south edge of Main between EKG and Broadway (basically the Continental building) is in bad need of the P180 treatment. The weird grade changes and planters (plus the lack of lighting) are sort of out of place. I will say that it's very good that the BancFirst tower provides pedestrian access across the north edge of that street segment, even if you aren't able to go north on Broadway towards Park.

The beg buttons need to go away everywhere. Having them as the standard sets a baseline for pedestrian unfriendliness that discourages the population from walking and helps prevent areas from developing into areas with high pedestrian activity.

Didnt know it was such an inconvenience to push a button. Dont even need to use your hand to do it. And in no way is this discouraging pedestrians, no one is driving instead of walking because of buttons.

Why have automatic crossing signs on intersections that might see 1 pedestrian a day?

Yeah, the cost and time overruns on this project were terrible, and of course, as you have pointed out many times, Pete, there were basically no consequences for it.

This is a hot-button issue for me.

The city kept saying, "Yes it took far longer and cost way more, but now we have a better grip on things" and went on to promise multiple sections would still be done very late in the process but then were never touched.

Every time this issue was raised, they city would have the Oklahoman come running over and they'd feed them some new line which was happily published without challenge or research.


In the end, the city broke promises over and over again and since there was no accountability, I have no confidence it won't happen again.

Didnt know it was such an inconvenience to push a button. Dont even need to use your hand to do it. And in no way is this discouraging pedestrians, no one is driving instead of walking because of buttons.

Why have automatic crossing signs on intersections that might see 1 pedestrian a day?

It's not about the inconvenience, it's about the whole philosophy behind *having* to push a button to get a "walk" signal.

It's not about the inconvenience, it's about the whole philosophy behind *having* to push a button to get a "walk" signal.
Bingo.

Didnt know it was such an inconvenience to push a button. Dont even need to use your hand to do it. And in no way is this discouraging pedestrians, no one is driving instead of walking because of buttons.

Why have automatic crossing signs on intersections that might see 1 pedestrian a day?

a) How do you press a non-existent button when a walk signal has been taken out by a vehicle?
b) Though surface transmission of the novel coronavirus is relatively minor, how does it make sense to ask people to touch publicly-accessible buttons during the middle of the worst public health crisis in a century?
c) Automatic crossing signs on intersections, even those lightly used by pedestrians, will make everyone safer by forcing drivers, both the good and the cell phone-distracted, to get used to the idea of *always checking* intersections for pedestrians before proceeding. This safety issue is getting most salient every year, as research clearly demonstrates that the average vehicle is getting larger, that the average vehicle is getting higher (especially the front grill/hood), that the average vehicle is getting more distracting thanks to touchscreens, etc., and that these factors all conspire to make pedestrians harder to see and to put pedestrians at far higher risk of serious injury or death in the cases where they are actually hit.
d) I'm happy to wait 20-30 seconds extra in my multi-ton air-conditioned box at a few intersections a day. More time for podcasts.

Didnt know it was such an inconvenience to push a button. Dont even need to use your hand to do it. And in no way is this discouraging pedestrians, no one is driving instead of walking because of buttons.

Why have automatic crossing signs on intersections that might see 1 pedestrian a day?

This is the basically argument that the traffic engineer made to me in a city council meeting. In arguing for beg buttons he asked, "is it really too much effort to push a button?" It was so condescending and nonsensical. No, it's not too much effort, it's bad design.

Pedestrians shouldn't have to ask permission to walk anymore than a driver should have to ask permission for a light. Car-centric design has left people oblivious to what equitable multimodal design looks like.

...
Pedestrians shouldn't have to ask permission to walk anymore than a driver should have to ask permission for a light. ...

Can you imagine the hue and cry if people had to open their car window and push a button at seldom-used intersections to make the light change for them?

Can you imagine the hue and cry if people had to open their car window and push a button at seldom-used intersections to make the light change for them?

I can't imagine it -- The looks you get from drivers when you're in a crosswalk and they have to wait 5 seconds longer to turn right on red are bad enough!

This is the basically argument that the traffic engineer made to me in a city council meeting. In arguing for beg buttons he asked, "is it really too much effort to push a button?" It was so condescending and nonsensical. No, it's not too much effort, it's bad design.

Pedestrians shouldn't have to ask permission to walk anymore than a driver should have to ask permission for a light. Car-centric design has left people oblivious to what equitable multimodal design looks like.
But many cars do ask for “permission” to cross a light especially during late hours with sensors. It’s harder to detect pedestrians and it makes no sense to have automated pedestrian signals at 150th and Penn as it takes a pedestrian much longer to clear the intersection than it does a car. Sense there is virtually little to no pedestrian activity during much of the night and few during the day, it would increase wait times for drivers at the intersection for no reason. Downtown? Yes. Majority of OKC? No.

PS, I find the notion of pedestrians “asking for permission” to cross malarkey. They aren’t asking to cross, they are making their presence known so the light will activate. Again, it’s no different than what a car does just different method. If anything the proper terminology would be demanding.

PS, I find the notion of pedestrians “asking for permission” to cross malarkey. They aren’t asking to cross, they are making their presence known so the light will activate. Again, it’s no different than what a car does just different method. If anything the proper terminology would be demanding.

Only an apt analogy if 1) crossing signals automatically sensed pedestrians; and 2) car signals were always red until you pulled up to them.

Poor people who have to walk around town are far more likely to not live downtown than live there. I live in the Penn and 39th area, and I see way more pedestrians than I would have expected in spite of the unfriendly pedestrian infrastructure in the area. Making it more accessible would help everyone, including those who normally have a car available but occasionally don't.

Only an apt analogy if 1) crossing signals automatically sensed pedestrians; and 2) car signals were always red until you pulled up to them.
But like I said, i would be it would be harder or more expansive to detect pedestrians than a car. I don’t understand the need for automatic pedestrian walks in areas of the city that have low pedestrian counts.

I understand the frustration in and around the core though. I’ve been messaging the city about switching to automatic pedestrian signals for awhile now.

Poor people who need to walk around town are far more likely to not live downtown than live there. I live in the Penn and 39th area, and I see way more pedestrians than I would have expected in spite of the unfriendly pedestrian infrastructure in the area. Making it more accessible would help everyone, including those who normally have a car available but occasionally don't.
Right and in areas like this yes the pedestrian signals should be automatic.

Also, doesn’t a button speed things up for pedestrians sometimes? Some of them trigger the stop lights to change to allow for a crossing sign to come on.

Also, doesn’t a button speed things up for pedestrians sometimes? Some of them trigger the stop lights to change to allow for a crossing sign to come on.

Theoretically... if they aren't broken.

Didnt know it was such an inconvenience to push a button. Dont even need to use your hand to do it. And in no way is this discouraging pedestrians, no one is driving instead of walking because of buttons.

Why have automatic crossing signs on intersections that might see 1 pedestrian a day?

In addition to all of the rebuttals to this line of thinking already posted, most of these buttons (when working) are pretty much only accessible with a finger because they are inset around that shield. I'm a small guy and have tried to push them using my elbow and can't get in far enough to get it pressed. Sounds minor, but in the Covid era it crosses my mind every time I have to press it.

Most of the buttons I've seen in Norman are a big round metal plate the size of your palm, that you could easily push in with your elbow if you wanted to. So that could easily change.

What everyone needs to understand about stoplight phases is that timings are calculated through formulas that have to take into account traffic volumes through all four legs of the intersection, all turns, and any pre-timed pedestrian phases, as well as the cycles of any signals within a certain distance from the subject intersection (i.e. if you have a signal that is red immediately adjacent to one that is green, the red signal may back up traffic past the green one and then the whole system fails). Modern signal timings are more complex than just "N-S street goes for 60 seconds, then E-W goes". Different legs of the intersection get more or less time depending on traffic volumes, and different phases for left turns that can be protected (green arrow) or permissive (flashing yellow arrow/green ball) at different places in the cycle. These cycles can also change according to time of day or day of the week, and, as mentioned before, can even change to cycling the signals when a camera detects a vehicle (Norman does this a lot during the overnight hours).

Pedestrian phases can be accommodated in these cycles, but it makes the timings much more complex and the time for the pedestrian phase has to come from somewhere. That is, time that goes to a pedestrian phase has to come from the other phases at an intersection. If you reduce phase time too much that means the intersection will begin to back up, which could affect multiple intersections if they are spaced too closely together. (Think 19th Street in Moore.)

If there are no pedestrians using the intersection, the pedestrian phase can be skipped, meaning that the pedestrian time can be reallocated to someone that is actively present and using the intersection. This, in turn, means more efficient use of the intersection for everyone. Having a button is a good way to signal that there is a bona fide pedestrian waiting to cross. Automatic car detection solutions like cameras don't work as well because pedestrians aren't as predictable in their size and movement as cars are, so the technology is not there yet to be able to automatically cycle the lights when someone is there and skip the cycle when they aren't.

I think the philosophical argument about having to "beg" to cross the street is a little strange, since you may well cross the street, go into a building, and press a button to "beg" for the elevator. It is also not likely to convince traffic engineers, since they make decisions based on data, and not philosophy. You'd be more likely to make a change if you observed the intersection for a while, and went to them with "on Wednesday I counted 364 pedestrians using the intersection between 9am and 5pm". That gives them hard data they can compare against use statistics at other intersections to determine whether the time and money spent conducting a study and redoing the timings is justified or if it's just one guy using the intersection who can't be bothered to push a button.

It should also be noted that this is a policy that should very much be set at the intersection level and not city wide. It may make sense for every intersection in the CBD and Bricktown, or even throughout the core, to automatically cycle, but if you end up implementing it on, say, SW 104th, you're going to end up making a lot of people very angry that the lights are slower and not really encourage any additional pedestrian use out of it.

^^^ great post!

The idea that traffic engineers make decisions based on data and not on their philosophy, their ideology, their training, and their priors is just not true. Were traffic engineers and policy makers just "following the data" when the crime of jaywalking was invented in the 1920s? Did data drive Robert Moses's passion for the (thankfully never built) Lower Manhattan Expressway? How about ODOT's data on the Oklahoma City Boulevard? Or the City's data that told us converting one-way streets back to two-way under Project 180 wasn't going to work? What data explains why, to this day, we have not a single foot of protected bike lane anywhere in OKC? What data informs the belief that shortening my car commute by 30 seconds is worth more than a pedestrian's life?

Pedestrians are not an *imposition* upon drivers or vehicular traffic and the attitude that they are has deadly consequences. I'm 150 lbs soaking wet and I don't stand a chance against a 6,150 lb 2020 GMC Sierra 2500HD™. As you correctly pointed out, pedestrian detection systems don't work reliably, whether installed at an intersection or in a modern car or truck with all the bells and whistles. Quasi-autonomous technologies train drivers that it's okay to pay less attention to the road. If you then make the conscious choice to design the built environment so that drivers are the only concern, they'll quickly forget that pedestrians even exist. Believe me, I experience it on a regular basis!

Streets don't belong to traffic engineers. They don't belong to Public Works. They don't belong to drivers. They belong to the public.

talk about a great post...


(and don't get me started on the mythical 2% traffic growth into infinity "data")

The lower Manhattan expressway should have been built and would have transformed travel removing much of the local traffic that clogs the streets.

If you’re going to make a statement that streets belong to the public, then if the majority of the public drives streets should only prioritize drivers with that logic. The notion that cars are some separate species that cities are built for is ridiculous. Cars are driven by people.

Streets are designed by engineers for a reason. Far too many people(namely new urbanist) just can’t and won’t accept the fact that people want to drive or live a lifestyle that necessitates it. They then attempt to make irrational theories like induced demand as an attempt to stop new lane expansions to accommodate increased traffic.

Drivers don’t just forget pedestrians exists. You’re making many assumptions based on nothing but what you’d like to see happen. Statements like “shortening car commutes are worth a pedestrians life” is a strawman and fallacy. It’s bs.

DOTs should always prioritize car travel with few exceptions. No one here is saying there should automatic pedestrian lights in certain areas. Just not city wide. Why is that so hard to accept?