Heritage Hills and Mesta Park residents seek to discourage neighborhood traffic

[Canoe]

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.

[shawnw]

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.

[Edge]

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.

[KayneMo]

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.

[turnpup]

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.

[Edge]

NewsOK: City Council Appeal

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

[Pete]

NewsOK: City Council Appeal

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.

[d-usa]

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.

[Pete]

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.

[Pete]

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

[Plutonic Panda]

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?

[riflesforwatie]

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.

[Plutonic Panda]

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.

[cinnamonjock]

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.

[riflesforwatie]

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.

[onthestrip]

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.

[Pete]

^

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.

[Pete]

Here is the article I wrote on A Better Classen:

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

[riflesforwatie]

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!

[Plutonic Panda]

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.

[Plutonic Panda]

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.

[Ross MacLochness]

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.

[Plutonic Panda]

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.

[d-usa]

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?

[Plutonic Panda]

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.