They may be included in the streetscape.
WHICH I would really like to know why that hasn't begun yet...
They may be included in the streetscape.
WHICH I would really like to know why that hasn't begun yet...
I have not been following this closely. Will you please fill me in on the streetscape?
That streetscape plan was approved in 2009 and extends from 63rd to 36th:
http://www.okc.gov/AgendaPub/cache/2...2071446106.PDF
Broken link
This one will work:
http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/westernavenue.pdf
Wow, all that for only $5.6 million?
I love the roundabout at Grand, I think that will work very well, especially with Balliet's anchoring the traffic circle on the west.
some the of work around Grand will be moved up and increase in scope as a result of the deal between chk/local neighbors/ and councilmen shadid's request to improve traffic in that area
i'm sure that a traffic circle will look nice... but with the volume of traffic in that area, i'm a bit concerned whether or not this will work well. -M
It would work great, as long as Larry does indeed avoid it at all costs. : )i'm a bit concerned whether or not this will work well.
The only maneuvers that it actually effects considerably are left turns from E-bound Grand onto Western and left turns from W-bound Grand onto Western, due to the high angle of that turn, you'd have to actually go around the traffic circle. All other maneuvers, due to the low angle or just going straight, won't actually be as effected as you might think by putting in the roundabout.
Nonetheless I think it will cause drivers to slow down and greatly enhance sense of place.
Ha. I think our traffic managers must use the same logic with our stop lights.
I think I just hate stopping when there is no good reason to be stopped. Circles help keep you moving right along and our lights seem to stop you arbitrarily for an arbitrary amount of time. But you are right, if people can't figure them out, it may not be a wise thing to do in this situation. We can probably get away with replacing four way stops with them, but you get more than three cars in a circle and it begins to blow people's minds here.
and therein lies my concern... western handles more than a little traffic. on top of that, the plans seem to indicate that this roundabout would have an inner and outer loop... i'd think such a layout has a possibility of being pretty confusing to okc motorists. -MOriginally Posted by bdp
I think you guys are passing by the chicken and egg scenario without realizing. With more traffic circles in OKC, in more prominent locations, I think it's safe to say that OKC motorists will gain more familiarity with the concept. Right now it's just a novelty one encounters driving along NW 10th..
To be honest, it would make a little more sense to have the traffic circle south of 50th where the road is 1-lane, but this location probably works too due to the angle of the intersection.
But isnt it amazing that OKC had traffic circles (or whatever you want to call them) years ago and then for SAFETY REASONS removed them...now somehow they are magically safer and returning...
We were talking about pedestrian railings and defining space in some other thread and how it makes things safer, yet there is a city somewhere over in Europe that has taken the opposite approach and removed curbs, raised sidewalks and all sorts of barriers and they claim that it has made things much safer because no one knows what they are doing anymore so everyone takes it very cautiously. No matter if they are waling or driving etc.
So traffic engineers from the 60s and 70s are now the experts on urban design?
There is a big difference between the old Classen Circle and the new round-a-bouts.
The latter are pretty darn efficient and easy to navigate; they are being installed all over L.A. and work quite well. And of course, are a mainstay in many parts of Europe.
The former was HUGE and confusing (see aerial below):
Which makes a interesting point. Both a circle and a traffic light are only as safe as the drivers that use them. Blaming the accidents and incidents on the configuration and not the drivers doesn't make a whole lot of sense. They removed circles for safety reasons and, guess what, accidents still happen. So now they say circles are safer and put it in a few, but, guess what, accidents will still happen and people will still want to blame the circle instead of the users. One is probably not inherently safer than the other. If everyone followed the rules, both systems would have equally successful safety records.
What's funny is that your example seems to show that if people don't understand or know the rules, they seem to take responsibility for their safety by being more cautious instead of just trusting the rules to make them safe.
In the 1940s the Barnes Dance was considered the best way for pedestrians to cross the street at an intersection. I don't know that any city uses it any longer.
(The "Barnes Dance" occured when stop lights turn red in all directions, allowing pedestrians to cross the intersection in any direction including diagonally. Credited to traffic engineer Henry Barnes.)
by the way the "circle" is called a roundabout.
Traffic circle is the technical term. I usually bounce back and forth between the two terms. Roundabout just always strikes me as something that Americans would say after spending a week in London.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks