Friends for a Better Boulevard

[Urban Pioneer]

I have to disagree with the streetcar clipping one corner of the Park qualifies as "direct access". That would be better achieved by running the length of the upper Park and swinging through Union Station and then back up (as depicted in an the early proposed "route" that I re-posted above).

The early route in during the campaign was not a promise. It was simply a concept drawing. Again, here is the reason that I gave on the streetcar thread as to why we are considering access from the NE corner of the park sufficient.

And, aren't people supposed to walk anyways to, from, and in a park? I mean, we think that they will walk three blocks generally speaking from the streetcar line in any direction anyways. That gets them pretty much anywhere in the "upper park" and to Union Station. Not sure why you continue to think we need to go all over it.

#2763
"Larry, to be quite honest regarding the Park and Union Station,I doubt that we have the money to go further down there. Plus, on our primary line we are trying to get as many people as quickly from the future Intermodal Hub into the CBD without going too far out of our way. The assumption is that connecting to Santa-Fe Station will be helping distribute future commuters coming in from Edmond, Norman, Midwest City. We are serving C2S while still not taking people too far out of their way on to their jobs. I realize that is looking out into the future, but because this is a permanent system, we are thinking that way.

Besides, in the future the entire distance of the new MAPS 3 Park will be presumably served by the future extension of the streetcar system to the river or Capitol Hill."

[Larry OKC]

Because it is logical, even Betts and I were in agreement on that point (she may have changed her mind since then), and I respectfully disagree that clipping the edge is "sufficient".

[Urban Pioneer]

I think it is logical to think that people will walk from the corner to where they want to go. It is not logical to go all the way to the south for future commuters trying to get quickly to their jobs in the CBD. Yes, we will continue to disagree on this.

[ljbab728]

They are going to do everything possible to not have to consider the traffic circle idea.

Good. As I've mentioned numerous times before, a traffic circle may look nice but that's about it. Standard intersections - good. Traffic circles - bad.

[Tier2City]

Why?

[Dubya61]

Good. As I've mentioned numerous times before, a traffic circle may look nice but that's about it. Standard intersections - good. Traffic circles - bad.

An entity in or around Detroit conducted a study and concluded that, while not a universal band-aid in all situations, traffic circles are often quite preferable to standard intersections. Certainly that does not mean that we want Bubba or Joe Bob to come in and do their best, but rather to work to see if this is one of those situations that would be better served by a traffic circle and work to design the right one.

[Spartan]

An entity in or around Detroit conducted a study and concluded that, while not a universal band-aid in all situations, traffic circles are often quite preferable to standard intersections. Certainly that does not mean that we want Bubba or Joe Bob to come in and do their best, but rather to work to see if this is one of those situations that would be better served by a traffic circle and work to design the right one.

Exactly. There are a number of cases in which a traffic circle is not the best option, personally, I think there are two factors: First, we do need more around OKC just to get drivers more familiar with the concept to increase the safety of each location, but beyond a general overview of each one helping the concept of traffic circles in Central Oklahoma (Norman has several, also) - a nuanced perspective reveals that they are most functional when the streets entering the circle are fairly equal in terms of traffic volume and thus the distribution evens out. This will most certainly be the case where you have so many busy streets converging like Classen, Western, Exchange, Reno, and the Boulevard at once on the edge of downtown. This is THE most perfect place for us to have a grand central traffic circle, to do what has worked so well on 10th but on a grander scale. And then to sit back and watch the fruits of investment pick up around such an impressive physical feature. We could literally scrap C2S (we should) and replace it with this new traffic circle plan and get better development out of it, probably.

Aside from the two on 10th, there is the Stiles traffic circle by the DOC and PHF, Western Avenue has one possibly two funded (at Grand for sure), Norman has one on E. Main Street by Griffin Memorial that is new, a few behind the Ed Noble Pkwy (arguably one of the more tasteful sprawl corridors), and Edmond may have a few as well. I think people are going to have to accept that traffic circles are working (accidents have decreased drastically at 10th and Walker) and adding significant real estate value around them because they are decorative and project a strong sense of place. For instance, I just grabbed dinner at Irma's tonight and was amazed at the people on Cafe do Brazil's deck enjoying the view and the crowd that Kaiser's had on its patio tonight, enjoying drinks right on the traffic circle.

10th and Walker would not be as impressive without the traffic circle. This is a matter of learning from what we have done right and applying it to new situations (ie., what we did not do with the Civic Center Park after we got the Myriad redesign so right). We are getting very adept at getting one thing right, and then preventing success from becoming precedent on similar projects and then screwing up the next one in a huge way.

[SouthwestAviator]

Here is a link to the Federal Highway Administration's view on the efficacy and safety of Roundabouts compared to signalized intersections: http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/intersect...pects/long.pdf

[CuatrodeMayo]

...and Edmond may have a few as well.

They don't. Roundabouts are waaaay too progressive for Edmond.

[ljbab728]

I've had this discussion about traffic circles or roundabouts in several other threads and no one has changed my mind. I've done my own research as both a driver and pedestrian in numerous traffic circles in Europe where they've been around forever. There are some rural roundabouts that aren't terrible but if you're a pedestrian, especially in most urban traffic circles in Europe, it can be a life altering experience to traverse them. I've not seen any that I felt were safer or more efficient than a standard intersection would be. They look nice and lend themselves to landscaping, statues, and fountains. That's about all they're good for.

[CuatrodeMayo]

Anecdotal evidence wins the thread. I'd rather keep the discussion to the topic at hand (ideas for a better boulevard).

[ljbab728]

I agree and my opinion is that plans for a better boulevard should not include a traffic circle and was presenting my reasoning. If that takes the thread off topic I greatly apologize.

[OKCisOK4me]

Even Baghdad has traffic circles...

[Spartan]

Here's my idea - what if a streetcar "Phase 1c" can be integrated into this fantasy traffic circle?



Obviously I swapped the City Arts Center and Convention Center, which I think tremendously benefits both projects. I added a streetcar line going west through Film Row, as most of us wanted originally to begin with. I designated SW 3rd a historic district. And I gave OKC Blvd a name and I think it should be decided whether we want either this boulevard or Reno to be the arterial street heading west past the traffic circle.

CC benefits: Generic convention centers are a dead concept, these are failing everywhere - the new trend is CCs targeted toward a specific industry that a city is primed for, such as Medical Marts, and specifically combining a "medical mart" or "aerospace mart" (or whatever we decide we want to focus on) with a generic convention center. Moving the CC to 10th and Broadway gives it streetcar access, highway access, a backside to go cheap on, a frontside to put emphasis on, room for a CC hotel or even a hotel row, and a location anchoring the MDB that could be a potential economic development asset for downtown.

City Arts Center benefits: I'm envisioning two triangular buildings somewhat reminiscent to the boathouses in design, juxtaposed each anchoring important intersections such as the boulevard and Robinson, with an expansive green lawn running in between connecting the Myriad and Central parks. The green lawn could even be done on the cheap as the views would be incredible and this could be the location of our "grand lawn," with a walking trail connecting the two arts buildings. This also moves the City Arts Center into the Arts District.

I also think that this strip of land to the west and southwest is more important for us to focus on than we realize. First of all, there could be some cool synergy created between the Arts District, the Central Park, the massive traffic circle, and Film Row - exactly the way in which we probably want to brand our downtown and city. Beyond that, I think some existing projects like the new OCPD and the new downtown elementary suddenly make a lot more sense if there is more focus on this area. Also, I like the way there is a full I-40 exit at Western that feeds directly into the traffic circle. I also think more than we realize, this traffic circle will be bounded by impressive buildings and even more so as it develops around it - but already existing are great brick buildings along SW3rd, the Farmer's Market, and the Fred Jones factory.

And what better way to have a boulevard than to actually put things along it, incorporate it into our city's grand proposals, have the streetcar running along it, and have it span longer than 5 blocks.

[catch22]

Nick, why aren't you employed by the city of OKC? Fantastic proposal.

[Spartan]

Thanks! In retrospect, I also think nothing would spur action on the quiet zone more than moving the CC up that way.

[ljbab728]

You probably won't be surprised that I like all of it except the traffic circle. LOL

[Urban Pioneer]

Nick, I think that you have identified on your map a great and appropriate reason for a broad public discussion about the western boulevard design, the Farmer's Market building. It is woefully disconnected from many of the other great things going on downtown.

[1972ford]

I've looked into the traffic circle idea a little more and I do like it as long as the circle/circles are wide enough we also need to put as much of this crosstown as possible on the ground that was the failure of the original 40 and will be the failure of the crosstown if it does proceed as stated. I still think that there should be pedestrian underpasses along the way at the very least at robinson and walker to allow people from conventions and games to safely cross in mass without disturbing the high traffic flow that occurs at the same time.

And Nick I like that streetcar proposal especially since in a latter streetcar funding we could extend it up and down classen and western linking more jobs, residences, enterainment, to downtown. would be sweet if they moved the bus that runs alng that line to an unserved part of OKC once the streetcar is in place.

I also think that the street car should go up Walker instead of Robinson to serv a larger area in the beginning It would help with getting more development on the west side of downtown too.

[betts]

I would really, really like to see a pedestrian underpass at Robinson, if nowhere else. It seems like a simple solution to what will likely be a high-pedestrian traffic corridor. I'm surprised that ODOT hasn't thought of that.

[Spartan]

Nick, I think that you have identified on your map a great and appropriate reason for a broad public discussion about the western boulevard design, the Farmer's Market building. It is woefully disconnected from many of the other great things going on downtown.

Thanks Jeff, my family goes way back with the Farmer's Public Market, and I always admired the building.. it is an important link between downtown and the south side. It's also one of downtown's most beautiful buildings.

I would really, really like to see a pedestrian underpass at Robinson, if nowhere else. It seems like a simple solution to what will likely be a high-pedestrian traffic corridor. I'm surprised that ODOT hasn't thought of that.

A pedestrian underpass? That sounds like giving up on the boulevard being pedestrian-friendly which I thought was the whole point of this in the first place. Right now the traffic counts on this boulevard are 0.

Here are tram roundabouts in Brussels:



You could do double or single track, but I don't see the point of double track in a traffic circle. More common in Europe though is to just slice the traffic circle, and perhaps this is where the streetcar could turn and go up Classen. This is in Marseille.

[Larry OKC]

If we returned the old crosstown to the historic, established street grid would there even be a need for a traffic circle (would that get rid of the multiple streets meeting at one point)? I have made my opinions known about traffic circles and HATE them, will avoid them if at all possible. We used to have them and they were taken out due to "safety concerns" but are being returned due to "advancements in technology" making them "safer". Again I ask how does technology do anything about safety with a traffic circle??? In any event, this seems like like the best and possibly cheapest solution (granted there would be the wasted construction cost and deconstruction cost of the half completed connections ODOT has already built) to this mess and would make for a "Better Boulevard"

[Spartan]

Larry, how would you spur development and sense of place where the Crosstown used to be? That is the question - I don't understand why anybody thinks this is about a road.

[Buffalo Bill]

Of course it's not about a road, it's about you, Nick.

[soonerguru]

I'm sorry, but Cornett's statement was crap. It will not "concentrate" development. There will be no development. This is a cluster----. Attending DeadCenter with my family, we were visually trying to understand what moron would want the "highway boulevard" to be elevated as far east as Lee Blvd. This will stunt the growth of the western side of Downtown. This makes no sense.

I have an idea: since none of our city leadership has a clue how to create / synergize urban development, why don't we bring in some people who do, and listen to them?

This is a joke that this is being passed off as anything tangentially related to urban development. There will be gas stations, bums and fast food joints.

Those pretty renderings are fiction and Cornett, Couch, ODOT, and everyone else at City Hall who make decisions and ignore all input know it and they're trying to pass off this garbage as some kind of plan. It's an outrage.