Where's the traffic data to support this?

I'm reading it from the first item on the Traffic Commission agenda relative to this subject. 3144 vehicles a day.

Who pays for the stop signs and the construction? I missed that

...and whether you have 3000 cars a day coming down your street.

So? The MUTCD has specific criteria that should be met for stop sign placement, and none of these intersections met that criteria or the Traffic Commission's criteria (which is probably the same as the MUTCD's).

C'mon, just call it what it is - some residents that don't want people driving through their neighborhood and used their money and influence on the Traffic Commission to put stop signs (wrongly) in place to try to make that happen.

Who pays for the stop signs and the construction? I missed that

Coincidentally, while looking at the Traffic Commission's website, I believe Stuart Chai said somewhere on it that neighborhoods will never have to pay for signage, so I guess the city does.

Coincidentally, while looking at the Traffic Commission's website, I believe Stuart Chai said somewhere on it that neighborhoods will never have to pay for signage, so I guess the city does.

Unless it's a privately-owned street, and then the residents of the street would. There are a few of those in Sunny Pointe that the city refuses to improve/sign because they are "white sign" streets.

I think you guys are saying the same thing. However I'll note that the speed limit on Broadway is already higher than Walker. Also, I don't know the history, but I wouldn't be surprised if, based on road design, the speed limit wasn't higher at some point and lowered due to complaints. Any long time HH-East residents around to chime in? Has it "always" been 30mph?

There is and was a ton of drunk drivers that end up in the park. People have died and public property has been damaged.

Thanks for the info, so generally a bad idea to increase the speed on Broadway, mostly because of that curve around the fire station...

I've witnessed several cars launch over that curb at the bottom of the hill. It is quite spectacular. The boys at station 5 must Just be used to it because the time I stopped to check on the kids they were already running out with their first responder gear.

Thanks for the info, so generally a bad idea to increase the speed on Broadway, mostly because of that curve around the fire station...

And for the folks who live on either side of broadway. The speed is already high enough and is a very dangerous street to walk across. (I do it frequently) I don't think any residential street should be considered an arterial road. It's just simply unsafe. The highway is right there you can get on downtown or at 23rd. There is no need for broadway or rob to be speedways when actual people live on those streets.

Are you suggesting people drive to the interstate instead of travel from midtown to uptown (and vice versa) rather than use an street that was designed to be used as a thouroghfair? EVERY section of the grid has thouroughfairs. Drexel, villa, youngs, Indiana, McKinley, Shartel, walker, and Robinson. These are all residential steeets...yet they are designed to move more traffic by design from their inception. wait a minute...don't people live on penn avenue too?!! We have to do something about this people. It's nots safe. Pennsylvania must be lowered to 25 and stop signs installed every block. We should address NW 30th and 36th while we're at it. Won't someone please think of the children??

I'm not complaining about a 30mph on broadway but it is insane to think that any non residential traffic flowing through this 1mile block is simply an assault on their privicy and property and the cars should just go around using broadway and Classen.

As an update, the decisions of the Traffic Commission are final unless a citizen -- any citizen -- appeals.

If there is an appeal, then the whole matter goes to the City Council for debate and vote.


My understanding is that these decisions will be appealed and therefore there will be more discussion at City Council.

Are you suggesting people drive to the interstate instead of travel from midtown to uptown (and vice versa) rather than use an street that was designed to be used as a thouroghfair? EVERY section of the grid has thouroughfairs. Drexel, villa, youngs, Indiana, McKinley, Shartel, walker, and Robinson. These are all residential steeets...yet they are designed to move more traffic by design from their inception. wait a minute...don't people live on penn avenue too?!! We have to do something about this people. It's nots safe. Pennsylvania must be lowered to 25 and stop signs installed every block. We should address NW 30th and 36th while we're at it. Won't someone please think of the children??



nah I'm saying let all streets be pretty much equal, including those that were designed as thoroughfares. (unless they are used primarily as thoroughfares and not streets for living, shopping, etc.) I have no problem with cars travelling down any residential street, but don't favor one over the other. I think traffic would naturally disperse throughout the grid creating a safer environment on all streets for both walking and driving. This set up would likely not hinder the time it takes to drive from point a to point b either since flow wouldn't be limited by stoplights and congestion. (keep in mind I only advocate this for streets, not roads. Roads should be disigned solely for autos: wide streets, limited access, etc.)

Adding a stop sign at every intersection isn't the answer, but neither is a high speed limit wide stroad that runs down the middle of a neighborhood. If I were king I'd make physical changes to the residential streets to calm traffic naturally and remove all stop signs. Ideally, traffic would be forced to drive slow allowing pedestrians and cars to be able to share the street safely and allowing cars to flow without stopping entirely.


The residents definitely should have more say than a commuter on how these streets are designed since they are the ones actually living there 24/7 and not just using them to pass through. As more people begin using the core for living rather than as a destination for work or play, we are going to see more conflict between people who use the streets for living and people who use the streets as roads for commuting.

nah I'm saying let all streets be pretty much equal, including those that were designed as thoroughfares. (unless they are used primarily as thoroughfares and not streets for living, shopping, etc.) I have no problem with cars travelling down any residential street, but don't favor one over the other. I think traffic would naturally disperse throughout the grid creating a safer environment on all streets for both walking and driving. This set up would likely not hinder the time it takes to drive from point a to point b either since flow wouldn't be limited by stoplights and congestion. (keep in mind I only advocate this for streets, not roads. Roads should be disigned solely for autos: wide streets, limited access, etc.)

Adding a stop sign at every intersection isn't the answer, but neither is a high speed limit wide stroad that runs down the middle of a neighborhood. If I were king I'd make physical changes to the residential streets to calm traffic naturally and remove all stop signs. Ideally, traffic would be forced to drive slow allowing pedestrians and cars to be able to share the street safely and allowing cars to flow without stopping entirely.


The residents definitely should have more say than a commuter on how these streets are designed since they are the ones actually living there 24/7 and not just using them to pass through. As more people begin using the core for living rather than as a destination for work or play, we are going to see more conflict between people who use the streets for living and people who use the streets as roads for commuting.

This is extremely rational. But keep in mind that using the streets for commuting is using the street for living. My native stretch of Dewey or Walker or Hudson, etc in the uptown/paseo/jefferson park stretch of the road that someone is going to use to drive up/down to get to their home in crown heights AFTER passing through HH. But I understand that importance to the success of the districts and neighborhoods to let the roads flow with autos and cyclists and peds all alike.

I understand your sentiment on the residents having more say than the commuter. But they are not traffic engineers. The streets were NOT designed to flow traffic 1 mile in opposite directions around the established grid to avoid houses. And just because some folks hired an engineering firm to draw graphics and conduct a study doesn't make it right. As the data clearly supports these signs don't meet the standard guidelines.

My feeling is that the only part of Broadway between 13th and 23rd that is actually designed for 30 mph is the curve at the fire station. The rest of it might be signed for 30 mph, but it's designed for 50 mph. This is why the police use it as a "speed trap" and why it's so dangerous for pedestrians. I agree with parts of what (I think) both Ross and Uptowner are saying: design the road so that people actually take it at 30 mph. Those that still feel the need to drive faster can take I-235. The street grid still has an Auto Alley-Uptown thoroughfare (at 30 mph, as opposed to the 25 mph streets like Harvey, Hudson, etc.) and pedestrians would be safer crossing the redesigned road.

^

Exactly right.

That stretch is wide open with almost zero cross traffic and no stop lights or signs. It's very hard not to edge up over 40, as going anywhere near 30 seems completely wrong for that stretch.

The curve comes at the very end and could be addressed in other ways.

My feeling is that the only part of Broadway between 13th and 23rd that is actually designed for 30 mph is the curve at the fire station. The rest of it might be signed for 30 mph, but it's designed for 50 mph. This is why the police use it as a "speed trap" and why it's so dangerous for pedestrians. I agree with parts of what (I think) both Ross and Uptowner are saying: design the road so that people actually take it at 30 mph. Those that still feel the need to drive faster can take I-235. The street grid still has an Auto Alley-Uptown thoroughfare (at 30 mph, as opposed to the 25 mph streets like Harvey, Hudson, etc.) and pedestrians would be safer crossing the redesigned road.

There used to be a stop light at NW 16th and Broadway. I think we should reinstall it as it would provide a better connection to the NE side, provide a place to cross Broadway, remove a speed trap, and save lives at the park.

If you were going to put a light in, I'd suggest an intersection before the curve so you can't build up speed in time for it to be dangerous.

Anyway, if anyone is interested in the viewpoint of someone who's actually here and actually goes to neighborhood meetings where this has been discussed in detail, I'll tell you the way I was made to understand the traffic plan. It isn't nearly as sinister as some would make it seem. There are major arterial streets in OKC—Robinson, Western, and Classen—feeding into downtown which are probably better-suited to commuters coming and going who do not wish to take the highway. They have higher speed limits and/or more/wider lanes and not as many traffic signals or stop signs. Encouraging use of those streets by commuters might help keep pedestrians safer in the neighborhood. So the plan adds stop signs with the hopes that it'll slow people down and/or get them to use Robinson and/or Western/Classen. That's the way it was explained to us at these meetings.

Why are four new North/South stop signs being proposed for four-lane, divided "major arterial" Robinson Avenue if the goal is to get commuters to use Robinson more? Furthermore, why is a Northbound stop sign being proposed for 15th/Robinson when Robinson is one-way Southbound only from 16th to 13th?

If the reference to Robinson is a mistake and intended to be a reference to Broadway, the discussion should include a lot more information and consideration about the cluster that the greater Robinson/Broadway/Santa Fe section of 23rd St. is during any time of increased traffic, but particularly the "rush hour" timeframe. This area becomes an absolute nightmare at "rush hour" due to a combination of:
a) stoplights at all three of those intersections within 1/4 mile of each other along a major East/West artery (23rd);
b) the dead-end nature of Northbound Broadway and Southbound Santa Fe into on-ramps and off-ramps for I-235;
c) the presence of OKC Fire Station No. 5 in the middle of Broadway between 20th & 22nd (both in terms of the limiting physical available length for the left turn lane on Northbound Broadway onto Westbound 23rd & the occasional departures of emergency vehicles into the middle of this entire jam-packed area); and
d) the types of high-traffic/short-stay businesses at these intersections (fast-food, liquor store & convenience/gas stations) that see increased traffic during the "rush-hour" timeframe.

Because of the downhill nature of Northbound Broadway between 13th & 19th, I've found it necessary to ride the brakes to stay under the 30mph speed limit and out of the crosshairs of the frequently present (and often unmarked) police cruiser between 18th & 20th.

Why are four new North/South stop signs being proposed for four-lane, divided "major arterial" Robinson Avenue if the goal is to get commuters to use Robinson more? Furthermore, why is a Northbound stop sign being proposed for 15th/Robinson when Robinson is one-way Southbound only from 16th to 13th?

If the reference to Robinson is a mistake and intended to be a reference to Broadway, the discussion should include a lot more information and consideration about the cluster that the greater Robinson/Broadway/Santa Fe section of 23rd St. is during any time of increased traffic, but particularly the "rush hour" timeframe. This area becomes an absolute nightmare at "rush hour" due to a combination of:
a) stoplights at all three of those intersections within 1/4 mile of each other along a major East/West artery (23rd);
b) the dead-end nature of Northbound Broadway and Southbound Santa Fe into on-ramps and off-ramps for I-235;
c) the presence of OKC Fire Station No. 5 in the middle of Broadway between 20th & 22nd (both in terms of the limiting physical available length for the left turn lane on Northbound Broadway onto Westbound 23rd & the occasional departures of emergency vehicles into the middle of this entire jam-packed area); and
d) the types of high-traffic/short-stay businesses at these intersections (fast-food, liquor store & convenience/gas stations) that see increased traffic during the "rush-hour" timeframe.

I believe that part of Robinson is proposed to be converted to a two-way.

I believe that part of Robinson is proposed to be converted to a two-way.

That is my understanding as well. As for the stop signs, I believe it's because of the jagged nature of that intersection (15th doglegs there somewhat) and the parking along 15th in front of the Aberdeen that obscures drivers from seeing through the intersection. But don't quote me.

NewsOK: City Council Appeal (http://newsok.com/oklahoma-city-council-set-to-hear-appeal-on-stop-signs/article/5550312)

Is this going to be at the upcoming 8:30a.m., Tuesday, May 30th City Council meeting? The linked article doesn't say.

NewsOK: City Council Appeal (http://newsok.com/oklahoma-city-council-set-to-hear-appeal-on-stop-signs/article/5550312)

Is this going to be at the upcoming 8:30a.m., Tuesday, May 30th City Council meeting? The linked article doesn't say.

I don't think it's been set yet for some reason.

Unrelated specifically to this area, but is there a way to see if the city is doing a traffic study in a particular area to see if a stop sign is needed?

There is a 3 way intersection near my house that has gotten more traffic and has a yield sign for the main road into the neighborhood where it enters the other main through road in the neighborhood. I noticed that they were doing traffic counts today and they had the strips set up in all three directions going into the intersection. I would guess they are studying to see if it needs a stop sign, but I'm just guessing there.

Unrelated specifically to this area, but is there a way to see if the city is doing a traffic study in a particular area to see if a stop sign is needed?

There is a 3 way intersection near my house that has gotten more traffic and has a yield sign for the main road into the neighborhood where it enters the other main through road in the neighborhood. I noticed that they were doing traffic counts today and they had the strips set up in all three directions going into the intersection. I would guess they are studying to see if it needs a stop sign, but I'm just guessing there.

It seems the City only does a study when neighbors request it.

The appeal of the stop signs is on the agenda for Tuesday's (May 30th) City Council meeting.

There are several things they should do instead of adding four way stops.

Increase the speed limits on Classen to 40. Add roundabouts or traffic circles in the neighborhoods where they wanted four way stops. Narrow the lanes slightly but widen the roads by a foot or two and add protected bike lanes. Add more landscaping(drought tolerant) in between the sidewalk and the street. Synchronize lights on Classen so you can hit them all green or one red provided you go the speed limit.

Some of those things can be done on the cheap. I'm against raising the speed limits on Broadway because I think that road should be narrowed by about 10 feet on each side and made more walkable. It's getting very tired that the city has imagination other than to do the easiest thing they can which is just add a sh!t ton of stop signs.

That could actually make it more dangerous with regulars running the signs and new comers not understanding the situation or possible conflict with cyclists. Complete lack of sophistication from the city's part, but what else is new?

Increase the speed limits on Classen to 40.

You should try crossing Classen on foot at 18th, 16th, 13th, 10th... with the current speed limit some time.

I have. I negotiate it just fine. I've also ridden bikes along it with no problem.

Some improvement has to be made. 35 MPH is too low and there needs to be at least one North to south arterial in the vicinity to move traffic at a decent pace. As I said, lowered speed limits on Broadway coupled with a reconstruction project would be a benifit as well. Increase sidewalks and add more pedestrian features along Classen and people will be fine.

This to encourage people to use Classen as opposed to neighborhood streets.

I drive on Classen south of 23rd nearly every day and I find that 35 MPH is plenty adequate. Living in the area, I find that people take the neighborhood streets because they would rather barely yield at a few stop signs than take their chances with the traffic lights. As a bike rider I find this frustrating and scary at times. Also, I can't think of many pedestrian streets that are 40+ MPH and are actually pleasant to be on and trying to cross Classen while on a bike is not fun.

I have. I negotiate it just fine. I've also ridden bikes along it with no problem.

Congratulations. I was nearly hit by a car two different times (at NW 16th) in the last four days, both when I had the right-of-way. The road is dangerous enough. 40 mph is absolutely unnecessary.

Congratulations. I was nearly hit by a car two different times (at NW 16th) in the last four days, both when I had the right-of-way. The road is dangerous enough. 40 mph is absolutely unnecessary.

Crossing Classen at 16th has to be one of the most dangerous crossings. Needs some serious pedistrian crossing help.

^

Yes, that was a primary focus of the A Better Classen movement spearheaded by Jon Dodson & Co.

Dobdson lives in Gatewood and cited the near impossibility of getting his young family across that street.

Of course, now the Pivot Project guys are building on that complex on the NW corner of Classen and 16th.

Here is the article I wrote on A Better Classen:

http://www.okctalk.com/showthread.php?t=41894

Karl Torp (News9) tweeted that the council approved the stop signs this morning.

I was initially strongly opposed to the additional signs but I've done some walking through the area over the last couple weeks and I've come to better understand some of the residents' concerns. I still have problems with the idea that traffic through neighborhoods should be discouraged - the point of the grid is to distribute and disburse traffic. But I have also witnessed (and experienced) some close calls with drivers going too fast through these two neighborhoods. Hopefully the stop signs don't negatively impact Midtown-Uptown flow in a significant way, and hopefully pedestrians in HH/MP stay safe!

Congratulations. I was nearly hit by a car two different times (at NW 16th) in the last four days, both when I had the right-of-way. The road is dangerous enough. 40 mph is absolutely unnecessary.
Yet many other cities can do it just fine. So do nothing and keep the speed limits low. You can have fun pretending the area is safer because of that as it won't be anything more than a false sense of security. You act like 40 MPH is high which it isn't.

Dallas has tons of steets which are 40-50 MPH and they work just fine.

It's more physiological to draw people off of the neighborhoods, but people are already doing 40-45. It just allows those who travel at reasonable speeds to so with ease without fear of being pulled over in a city with cops looking to focus on speeders. Synchronize the lights, raise the speed limit to 40, and do everything else I suggested such as lowering the speed limit on Broadway and add traffic circles in the neighborhoods and that will likely cut down on through traffic in the neighborhoods or at least cut down on those who intend to blow through the neighborhood.

If you were nearly hit by a car, lower speed limits won't so anything to change that. If you believe it will, that could prove even more dangerous. I navigate my street everyday solely by foot and bike which again most cars travel 55+ and I have no issues. Almost was hit one time by someone running a light and that has nothing to do with speed limits.

I drive on Classen south of 23rd nearly every day and I find that 35 MPH is plenty adequate. Living in the area, I find that people take the neighborhood streets because they would rather barely yield at a few stop signs than take their chances with the traffic lights. As a bike rider I find this frustrating and scary at times. Also, I can't think of many pedestrian streets that are 40+ MPH and are actually pleasant to be on and trying to cross Classen while on a bike is not fun.I can't think of many streets that people actually drive 35 on. If the speed limit is 35 they are likely doing 40 or so and that won't go up just because the speed limit goes up.

Yet many other cities can do it just fine. So do nothing and keep the speed limits low. You can have fun pretending the area is safer because of that as it won't be anything more than a false sense of security. You act like 40 MPH is high which it isn't.

Dallas has tons of steets which are 40-50 MPH and they work just fine.

It's more physiological to draw people off of the neighborhoods, but people are already doing 40-45. It just allows those who travel at reasonable speeds to so with ease without fear of being pulled over in a city with cops looking to focus on speeders. Synchronize the lights, raise the speed limit to 40, and do everything else I suggested such as lowering the speed limit on Broadway and add traffic circles in the neighborhoods and that will likely cut down on through traffic in the neighborhoods or at least cut down on those who intend to blow through the neighborhood.

If you were nearly hit by a car, lower speed limits won't so anything to change that. If you believe it will, that could prove even more dangerous. I navigate my street everyday solely by foot and bike which again most cars travel 55+ and I have no issues. Almost was hit one time by someone running a light and that has nothing to do with speed limits.

Starting to wonder if yer a troll...

Lower speeds actually does make a huge difference when it comes to pedestrian safety.

However, does changing a speed limit sign necessarily make speeds lower? NO. you are correct on this point.

Speeds can be reduced by reducing the number of lanes or using traffic calming devices such as roundabouts. In fact, if you can implement roundabouts correctly, traffic must slow down yet can flow without stopping This would create a safer environment for walkers and can get traffic through in the same amount of time (or less!) than you would if you just raised speeds. This is because even though you may have the opportunity to drive faster at peak speeds, you still have to stop at every light and wait on traffic. Roundabouts let you keep flowing despite going much much slower. Depending on the street, the net time you spend on the slower street can actually be less than that of the faster street.

Classen is rarely busy enough for it to need the number of lanes it has currently and even if it was, is it worth lowering the quality of life for those who use the street locally so that people who live far NW can get home faster? what about the people who live or work right on that street who might not appreciate 40+ mph traffic out their door? What about the folks who can't afford a car or can't drive that rely on crossing that street every day to make ends meat? There is a dude who literally has to cross in a motorized scooter every day... I have seen him almost get hit on several occasions. Is speed worth it if we're risking lives?

On your note about arterials... I think it's false to presume that in cities arterials are an absolute necessity. Sure, it's annoying to drive the grid several miles due to stop and go, but arterials tend to get clogged at rush hour bc all work traffic gets funneled on to them rather than evenly dispersed throughout the grid. Arterials are built for a max capacity of cars but that max capacity is usually only reached twice a day. The rest of the time, those roads are wasted and dangerous space.

Also, just because dallas or other cities has something doesn't mean we need them too! While they may "work", are they safe? Do they provide the maximum benefit to people who live in the vicinity? For the whole city? As I always say, it's good that OKC is "behind" other cities so that we can learn from other places like dallas. We must ask ourselves: Do we wanna be like them? We have the unique opportunity to learn from mistakes and successes and build what we wan't here while we are still young in our growth.

i shouldn't respond to someone who assumes I'm a troll but I will in your case as you seem to like to follow me around. Give me a bit and I'll address your points.

I can't think of many streets that people actually drive 35 on. If the speed limit is 35 they are likely doing 40 or so and that won't go up just because the speed limit goes up.

So people only speed until they hit the arbitrary speed of 40? And if you match the speed limit to 40, they won't go up to 45?

So people only speed until they hit the arbitrary speed of 40? And if you match the speed limit to 40, they won't go up to 45?
No. People drive speed limits they feel comfortable with. It's a proven fact.

I live on Shartel in MP and just park my car in the street to help calm traffic. The folks across the street also park in the street, and it makes a world of difference compared to when there's only one car in the street. I also drive 20mph max through the neighborhood and take my time at stop signs to help deter people from speeding through.

I don't mind traffic (foot, car, bike) down the street at all; I just wish it was calmer. That way I could let my toddler play in the front yard or walk him to the park and be a little more at ease. I hope my neighbors feel the same way. I'd prefer more impactful traffic calming measures like curb bumpouts and better street design than stop signs, but at least the stop signs are way cheaper. Also, Shartel being 30mph is pretty ridiculous IMO.

Either way, it looks like Ian McDermid didn't actually file his original appeal in time, according to Next Door, so he'd have to take the case to district court to appeal.

No. People drive speed limits they feel comfortable with. It's a proven fact.

People also consistently drive 5 over whatever the speed limit is, because they operate under the "it's speeding, but hopefully not enough to get pulled over" mindset. That's what they are comfortable with, not going X but going 5 over X.

People also consistently drive 5 over whatever the speed limit is, because they operate under the "it's speeding, but hopefully not enough to get pulled over" mindset. That's what they are comfortable with, not going X but going 5 over X.

Not true.


A national study that was conducted by the Federal Highway Administration said that there was no change in the speed of the drivers regardless of lowering or increasing the speed limit. The average speed of the drivers remained the same

- https://sites.psu.edu/siowfa15/2015/09/18/is-driving-faster-safer/

I live on Shartel in MP and just park my car in the street to help calm traffic. The folks across the street also park in the street, and it makes a world of difference compared to when there's only one car in the street. I also drive 20mph max through the neighborhood and take my time at stop signs to help deter people from speeding through.

I don't mind traffic (foot, car, bike) down the street at all; I just wish it was calmer. That way I could let my toddler play in the front yard or walk him to the park and be a little more at ease. I hope my neighbors feel the same way. I'd prefer more impactful traffic calming measures like curb bumpouts and better street design than stop signs, but at least the stop signs are way cheaper. Also, Shartel being 30mph is pretty ridiculous IMO.

Either way, it looks like Ian McDermid didn't actually file his original appeal in time, according to Next Door, so he'd have to take the case to district court to appeal.

I can come to an agreement with lowering the speed limit on Shartel to 25MPH. Add traffic circles at major intersections and raise crosswalks on neighborhood cross streets to create a sense of more pedestrian activity. I don't see any issue with that.

If anything, I'd rather have more traffic diffuse throughout the MP/HH neighborhoods instead of funneling them to Broadway/Classen. Then those two streets can be calmed down more to help connect the surrounding neighborhoods.

Lower speeds actually does make a huge difference when it comes to pedestrian safety.

Never once did I say otherwise even though statistics are showing pedestrian fatalities have been increasing while there has been recent push over the last several years. Lowered speed limits, "complete streets," and more focus on pedestrians yet fatalities are still going up. Of course, correlation doesn't equal causation, but the same is said for lowered speed limits and I even pointed that out in my post which you seemed to overlook that part.


Speeds can be reduced by reducing the number of lanes or using traffic calming devices such as roundabouts. In fact, if you can implement roundabouts correctly, traffic must slow down yet can flow without stopping This would create a safer environment for walkers and can get traffic through in the same amount of time (or less!) than you would if you just raised speeds. This is because even though you may have the opportunity to drive faster at peak speeds, you still have to stop at every light and wait on traffic. Roundabouts let you keep flowing despite going much much slower. Depending on the street, the net time you spend on the slower street can actually be less than that of the faster street.Of course speeds can be reduced by narrowing streets. Speeds could be reduced by adding speed bumbs every 30 ft. That doesn't mean it's the right solution. As we discussed in our other little suburban debate, you have to give cars priorities in some areas.

I completely support roundabouts at some areas along Classen which is an exception for me because I am against roundabouts in the majority of cases. Though lets not kid ourselves, roundabouts are not necessarily the safest solutions for pedestrians or bicyclists. There are mixed results with different studies that lay claim that roundabouts can actually be a less safe alternative for pedestrians and cyclists than 4 way stops or lights. Of course, the safest thing of them all would be pedestrian bridges to separate modes of transit by grade. You see this design in several areas in Netherlands and Finland.


Classen is rarely busy enough for it to need the number of lanes it has currently and even if it was, is it worth lowering the quality of life for those who use the street locally so that people who live far NW can get home faster? what about the people who live or work right on that street who might not appreciate 40+ mph traffic out their door? What about the folks who can't afford a car or can't drive that rely on crossing that street every day to make ends meat? There is a dude who literally has to cross in a motorized scooter every day... I have seen him almost get hit on several occasions. Is speed worth it if we're risking lives?That is very shortsighted. OKC is growing and narrowing Classen, the only north to south arterial in the immediate area will not bode well for the current and future drivers that will use this street. If it is narrowed, it will need to be widened again in the future. Might as well keep it as. There are plenty of six lane streets that are way more pedestrian friendly than the 4 lane ones around OKC. It's about design. Not the number of lanes. Another option the city could pursue is having parallel parking on the third lane outside of rush hour.

As for the people who can't afford a car, mass transit and better access is the answer. Reducing Classen by a lane would cause more problems than it would solve. The costs outweigh the benefits on that one. There is so much more than can be done and needs to be.

Even though all these things I'm suggesting are getting overlooked and a few posters on this are crossing their arms at an increased speed limit by 5MPH and keeping the current six lane configuration, I also propose these ideas. Have a look.

For Classen:
*Increased bus service/ BRT

*Reconstruction of Classen to allow for a streetcar on each side and a smaller median with better landscaping

*Mid-block crosswalks

*Barnes Dance crosswalks at major intersections

*Protected dutch style bike lanes

As for streets like Shartel I propose these improvements

*Raised crosswalks at major intersections and at every east to west street crossing

*More landscaping along slightly narrower roads with green painted bike lanes

*Traffic circles at every intersection

*more pocket parks and place making features to remind drivers they're in a neighborhood

If I were in control of this I'd even add Broadway into this by narrowing it and reducing the speed limit there turning it into a Grand Boulevard.

Here are some links that describe what I'm referring to if anyone has any questions.

Barnes Dance Crosswalk: https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2012/12/brief-history-barnes-dance/4189/

Traffic circle in neighborhoods: http://www.seattle.gov/transportation/trafficcircles.htm

General guide to crosswalks: http://www.sfbetterstreets.org/find-project-types/pedestrian-safety-and-traffic-calming/crosswalks/

On your note about arterials... I think it's false to presume that in cities arterials are an absolute necessity. Sure, it's annoying to drive the grid several miles due to stop and go, but arterials tend to get clogged at rush hour bc all work traffic gets funneled on to them rather than evenly dispersed throughout the grid. Arterials are built for a max capacity of cars but that max capacity is usually only reached twice a day. The rest of the time, those roads are wasted and dangerous space.
I view arterials as a necessity for good traffic flow throughout the day. It is part of a road system which benefits drivers and that is important as you can obviously have cities with poor walkability but not cities without roads. You aren't going to build roads or freeways wide enough to have free flowing traffic during the pinnacle of rush hour but you can do things that will shorten the rush hour window and keep commuters somewhat satisfied. Of course if you're the type who doesn't care about drivers, then sure, I see your position. I care about drivability as well and that needs to be factored in. Arterial set-ups help with that. Even San Francisco, NYC and Vancouver have arterial roads.


Also, just because dallas or other cities has something doesn't mean we need them too! While they may "work", are they safe? Do they provide the maximum benefit to people who live in the vicinity? For the whole city? As I always say, it's good that OKC is "behind" other cities so that we can learn from other places like dallas. We must ask ourselves: Do we wanna be like them? We have the unique opportunity to learn from mistakes and successes and build what we wan't here while we are still young in our growth.Now I didn't say just because Dallas have them that means OKC has to. My point was OKC needs to look at other cities because it rarely seems to do that. OKC isn't special. No harm in looking at cities like Dallas that are very successful and promoting prosperous economies cities like OKC could only dream of right now.

As for your comment about it's good that OKC is behind other cities, I just don't even know what to say to that without saying something rude so I'll just leave it at I simply disagree.

Do I want OKC to be like Dallas, a city which has some of fastest growth rates in the US, tops list after list for job growth, education growth, tech growth, corporate relocations and so on and so on? Absolutely, yes I do.

If anything, I'd rather have more traffic diffuse throughout the MP/HH neighborhoods instead of funneling them to Broadway/Classen. Then those two streets can be calmed down more to help connect the surrounding neighborhoods.

I don't see what your first statement has to do with the last as the last one can easily and arguably be better achieved without the first one happening so I'll disagree with you and leave it at that.

Do I want OKC to be like Dallas, a city which has some of fastest growth rates in the US, tops list after list for job growth, education growth, tech growth, corporate relocations and so on and so on? Absolutely, yes I do.

Pedestrian-wise, downtown Dallas and the surrounding is an awful urban planning example to follow. Compared to cities like Fort Worth, Denver, Austin and many others, it has a miserable pedestrian experience at best.

If anything, I'd rather have more traffic diffuse throughout the MP/HH neighborhoods instead of funneling them to Broadway/Classen. Then those two streets can be calmed down more to help connect the surrounding neighborhoods.

I think this could be helped by removing the one-way stubs where 18th to 22nd connect to Broadway (someone else suggested this up-thread). Not as much you can do to improve the connectivity to Classen since there are some houses built up on that side.

As for the question of pedestrian safety on Classen - the problem is a combination of the speed, the roadway width, and the intersection geometry. Western/Classen/16th/13th is "weird" and way too wide to be safe for pedestrians (or cyclists). I would bet traffic counts north of 23rd support six lanes, but I would doubt they do south of 23rd. I'd also bet that the 85% rule or whatever they use to set speed limits would support speeds less than 35 mph from 10th to 18th. When I drive that segment most people seem to take it at or below the current speed limit.

We're drifting a bit off-topic here, but I wanted to point out that the term "walkable" is a bit of a misnomer. Too often "walkability" is confused with "accessibility." The litmus test for walkability is not whether or not an able-bodied young man in his twenties CAN cross a street easily enough. It's not even whether people of all ages and physical abilities can cross it easily, though that is certainly a much better barometer.

"Walkability" also includes a DESIRABILTY or "walk appeal" aspect; that is, do you WANT to walk here? Is it comfortable? Visually stimulating? Does it pull you down the sidewalk? Or is walking here instead a just a chore required to get you to a destination?

There are many factors involved in creating a walkable environment, and whether or not an able youngster can sprint across a street and avoid being hit by a car is pretty much the lowest rung on the ladder.

True. Eastbound Memorial Road between May and Penn has a sidewalk now, and even extended it to the road for the bus stop. So it's easy to walk from May to Penn, but there is still nothing really there to make me want to walk there unless I had to walk.

When we lived in Deep Deuce, we walked to Bricktown/Downtown/Automobile Alley far less than we would've liked. It wasn't very comfortable navigating a stroller across the neighborhood thresholds. For Bricktown, we either had to carry it down stairs or walk on the street across the train tracks on Russell M. Perry. For Downtown, it was braving the crossing at Gaylord. For Automobile Alley, it was the intersection of Gaylord and 4th. Relatively minor and focused improvements would make a world of difference for walkability.

Now, I doubt we'll ever walk to the Plaza District because Classen is such an imposing barrier. Uptown, Midtown, and even the Paseo are all more attractive destinations (even though there is still definite room for improvement for walkability to those as well).

When we lived in Deep Deuce, we walked to Bricktown/Downtown/Automobile Alley far less than we would've liked. It wasn't very comfortable navigating a stroller across the neighborhood thresholds. For Bricktown, we either had to carry it down stairs or walk on the street across the train tracks on Russell M. Perry. For Downtown, it was braving the crossing at Gaylord. For Automobile Alley, it was the intersection of Gaylord and 4th. Relatively minor and focused improvements would make a world of difference for walkability.

Now, I doubt we'll ever walk to the Plaza District because Classen is such an imposing barrier. Uptown, Midtown, and even the Paseo are all more attractive destinations (even though there is still definite room for improvement for walkability to those as well).
Re: walking to Uptown, Midtown; what would be great is more cars, am I right?

The city has started installing the new stop signs. Heads-up to those of you who regularly drive through the area to be alert to the changes.

Yep, noticed that last week, caught me off guard and I thought "I don't normally stop here". Shartel & 15th if I remember.

No problem with stop signs. The neighborhoods are beautiful to drive through. A slow drive down Walker Ave means more time to enjoy the surroundings. As for residents wanting "their" streets to themselves. Bahhhhhhh.......

It will be interesting to see how often the stops get ran by cars, and which ones, now seeing as its pretty much indiscriminate as to where or why the stops are, and their frequency on the N-Sbound lanes. The consensus from traffic professionals is that too many stops causes pedestrian hazards from peds that assume cars will stop and cars that have decided not to stop and are looking out for cops and other cars, not peds. #MAGA