Quote

WHAT WE FUND
We focus most grant funds on infrastructure projects such as:

- Bike paths, lanes, trails, and bridges

- Off-road trails that can be used to connect neighborhoods

- Infrastructure to slow traffic in neighborhoods creating safe, walkable and bikable neighborhoods

- End-of-trip facilities such as bike racks, bike parking, bike repair stations and bike storage

 

 

Quote

WHAT WE DO NOT FUND

- Feasibility studies, master plans, policy documents, or litigation

- Radar speed signs

- Parking lots for motorized vehicles

- Any designs not adhering to NACTO street design guidelines

- Projects outside of the Greater Cincinnati area

 

^I love the blunt simplicity of their guidelines for what they do - and don't - fund. 

It would be great to see local governments commit to spending a certain % of their transportation budgets on active transportation projects, rather than relying on grants from nonprofits to fund them.

Quote

Mayor Cranley, 3CDC announce 'streateries' plan to boost outdoor dining in OTR, Downtown

 

Mayor John Cranley and Cincinnati Center City Development Corporation (3CDC) want to make permanent some of the temporary measures the city took last spring to foster more outdoor dining options during the first months of the COVID-19 pandemic.

 

The $2 million plan -- intended to "support local restaurants and increase outdoor dining options when warmer weather arrives in the spring" -- will establish "streateries" at various locations throughout the two neighborhoods where restaurants could benefit from expanded patio seating. The spaces will consist of constructing concrete curb bump-outs, expanding sidewalks and repurposing on-street parking spaces into elevated parklets.

 

Not a lot of details yet, but I hope this means that Vine Street will get the proper streetscape it deserves.

These ideas would have been fought with passion from some of the same local businesses now demanding them just 9 months ago.

 

It's great to see, but I'm worried when this subsides we'll see the same push back we used to see when you proposed to repurpose any on-street parking

The fact that whole sections of streets are closed off to cars is great and surprising to see, but it seems like it's been successful especially on 15th in OTR and Broadway in Pendelton. I would love to add extending the sidewalk on Walnut between 7th and Gano in front of those bars and restaurants because for one of the busiest pedestrian blocks in town it has very narrow sidewalks with patios. Otherwise this is good news, a few years ago Dusty was fighting the streetcar transformer on Court street because it removed like 4 parking spots so the turnaround on this issue is amazing. 

40 minutes ago, ryanlammi said:

It's great to see, but I'm worried when this subsides we'll see the same push back we used to see when you proposed to repurpose any on-street parking

 

That's why I'm hoping that the city commits to pouring some concrete and making some of these changes permanent. If we do a quick-and-dirty parklet type of solution, I think those will get ripped out when things go back to normal. It's hard to tell from the announcement today which they intend to do.

 

I see no reason why West 15th Street couldn't be shrunk down to 1 lane between Vine Street and Parvis Alley, similar to what the city did to Telford at Ludlow, with expanded sidewalks on both sides. This would give both Sacred Beast and Pep & Dolores additional outdoor dining space at the expense of maybe 6 parking permit spaces. I would prefer these kind of changes that slow automobile traffic but don't reduce connectivity, as opposed to complete closing down the street and making it ped-only for that block.

 

 

^Fairfax Avenue was resurfaced earlier this year as part of the annual street rehab program.

Too bad this idea didn't go anywhere...

 

 

A planner from the DC office of Skidmore, Owings & Merrill sent an email Friday night asking for feedback about a Visual Preference Survey for the Central Parkway Streetscape project. The presentation is a 160 slide Google Doc that contains examples around the world for inspiration. They have 4 designs that they are considering, with concept B having 2 versions. Feedback can be submitted here. Apparently they want responses by tonight, at midnight.

 

 

 

 

I'm leaning towards A after first assuming D would be best, but I'm not sure. It feels like the other 2 are too compromised and less useful.

The original survey, the Aspirations Survey is found here. They are still accepting feedback for it as well.
Should this be its own thread since it will be a large project that will take years to complete?

B and C reduce road width but do literally nothing to create space that's useful. This isn't a super active street in terms of pedestrians, so the goal should be to create an asset that can create pedestrian concentration. That's option A. Create a park that draws people in. D would be fine if there were numerous uses that could spill onto the large sidewalk but there aren't. Nor does it look like there will be at any point soon.

C and D are worst of both worlds. They should be thrown out. But alas, I'm pretty sure we'll end up with one of them as a "compromise" by people who realize that compromising creates a scenario in which nobody wins.

4 minutes ago, jmicha said:

D would be fine if there were numerous uses that could spill onto the large sidewalk but there aren't. Nor does it look like there will be at any point soon.

 

I was thinking that concept D could help draw in redevelopment faster but that feels like it would be inevitable regardless of design chosen.

I would say definitely max median.  

1 hour ago, thomasbw said:

I would say definitely max median.  

I think I agree, but I'm less certain. Out of curiosity, why do you feel that's definitely the best option?

 

29 minutes ago, jwulsin said:

I think I agree, but I'm less certain. Out of curiosity, why do you feel that's definitely the best option?

 

 

IMO, B and C are just basically fluffed up versions of what we already have. They'll be better than the current design, but not radically so. D is just a normal street with wide sidewalks. And they will seem pretty desolate most of the time. There's just not even daily pedestrian traffic currently to fill them up. A provides tons of new greenspace and would be a signature street for the city. I can imagine it being something people talk about after they visit Cincinnati. "Remember that cool street with the park down the middle?"

I think D could make sense if the wide 'sidewalks' weren't all hardscape, much like the champs elysees example they give, but as others have pointed out there aren't that many spots for restaurants/bars along that stretch to make use of large outdoor patios with existing office buildings, parking garages, mechanic shops, Music Hall and other uses that are likely to stick around long term which means for stretches you would just have huge sidewalks or green spaces with little to no programing or use. 

 

I also like A the most, and if the wide median was done correctly it could become a new host for street festivals like a larger version of 6th street in Mainstrasse. 

30 minutes ago, DEPACincy said:

"Remember that cool street with the park down the middle?"

If done correctly, people would think of it as a park/public space first and foremost. Like a bigger, better version of 6th street in Mainstrasse.

I would prefer we either do Max Median or No Median. Create a real identity with this street, and then capitalize on the change. Currently the median does almost nothing, and there's no sidewalk activation.

 

I can't decide which one I think would be better. The street has a history of a large median, so I could see that being an asset to build on. But if that median isn't fully utilized, the sidewalks would provide the maximum benefit. I think with the stadium and Music Hall occupying such a large portion of the streets, the max median does make sense. North of Liberty, I would probably prioritize larger sidewalks when they decide to update that portion.

No one is going to hang out in a skinny plot of land that's situated between a mini highway.  Get rid of the median and make the sidewalks bigger.  As places develop on both sides the sidewalks could be used for outdoor seating. Plus there would be more room for everyone to walk on FCC gamedays.  

10 minutes ago, Cincy513 said:

No one is going to hang out in a skinny plot of land that's situated between a mini highway.  Get rid of the median and make the sidewalks bigger.  As places develop on both sides the sidewalks could be used for outdoor seating. Plus there would be more room for everyone to walk on FCC gamedays.  

Erm, this would be wider than Piatt Park. The road shown in Scheme A is hardly a "mini highway" and is no wider than a one lane road with street parking in each direction. Again for local reference, the roads on either side of Piatt Park are about 20-22 feet wide (although one lane is parking instead of two travel lanes).

 

Option A is incredibly similar in scale to Piatt Park only with an extra 10-15' of width to work with. We have a direct local example of how this can be done successfully and create a special street and linear park.

Edited March 11, 20214 yr by jmicha

Just to put it in perspective, this stretch of Central Parkway has about as much traffic as Hamilton Ave. which has one travel lane in each direction and on street parking at all times.

Does this impact the subway's ventilation at all? I know this administration could care less about what's under Central Parkway but most of these choices could make it harder to use the tunnels in the future.

25 minutes ago, jmicha said:

Erm, this would be wider than Piatt Park. The road shown in Scheme A is hardly a "mini highway" and is no wider than a one lane road with street parking in each direction. Again for local reference, the roads on either side of Piatt Park are about 20-22 feet wide (although one lane is parking instead of two travel lanes).

 

Option A is incredibly similar in scale to Piatt Park only with an extra 10-15' of width to work with. We have a direct local example of how this can be done successfully and create a special street and linear park.

I used to live right in Piatt Park for 4 years.  Central isn't anywhere close to what those roads are like.  Piatt is extremely built out on both sides in the middle of downtowns grid.  There are lights every block that prevent people from speeding.  When you come to it from the east on 8th St you actually have to make a turn to get into it, it's not a straight line.  Just another thing that prevents people from speeding.  Central is treated like a highway because there's nothing there.  The stretches of road between the few lights are much longer then downtowns grid.  People regularly fly through there, especially when they time the lights.  Even if you made the width of the street smaller it's not going to change the long stretches of road without lights.  People will still drive too fast there. 

 

Not to mention Piatt Park really isn't that nice.  It's mostly used by homeless people or annoying groups of guys that openly sell drugs and harass people walking by.  It looks good when people get their wedding pictures taken and they make all the bums move, but it's not a very nice place.  Especially at night it's not super safe.  The fact that it's located right by the library, another not particularly safe or welcoming place downtown, also doesn't help.  Despite the fact that there are hundreds of apartments right there in the park it still isn't a very nice place.  I honestly avoided walking through it for 4 years.  If I wanted to go enjoy some outdoors time not once did I go to Piatt, I went to an actual park like Washington or Smale.  This would just turn into another version of Piatt except in an even worse and more isolated area.  

 

This might be comparable to Piatt Park in size, but it's not at all comparable in how the roads work and where it's located downtown.  And Piatt Park isn't particularly nice, so I'm not sure why we'd want to try to replicate it. 

28 minutes ago, Cincy513 said:

And Piatt Park isn't particularly nice, so I'm not sure why we'd want to try to replicate it.

As someone who doesn't live downtown, I absolutely loved Piatt Park the first time I stumbled across it.  Yes there's homeless, but it's a nice shady/green oasis in the concrete jungle, there's a reason they want to be there.  There's plenty of main drags with higher speed limits that have large medians in the middle in European cities, it completely beautifies the street. I don't see why we couldn't replicate that here.  It makes what would be an ugly car sewer look nice.

Edited March 11, 20214 yr by 10albersa

31 minutes ago, Cincy513 said:

I used to live right in Piatt Park for 4 years.  Central isn't anywhere close to what those roads are like.  Piatt is extremely built out on both sides in the middle of downtowns grid.  There are lights every block that prevent people from speeding.  When you come to it from the east on 8th St you actually have to make a turn to get into it, it's not a straight line.  Just another thing that prevents people from speeding.  Central is treated like a highway because there's nothing there.  The stretches of road between the few lights are much longer then downtowns grid.  People regularly fly through there, especially when they time the lights.  Even if you made the width of the street smaller it's not going to change the long stretches of road without lights.  People will still drive too fast there. 

 

Not to mention Piatt Park really isn't that nice.  It's mostly used by homeless people or annoying groups of guys that openly sell drugs and harass people walking by.  It looks good when people get their wedding pictures taken and they make all the bums move, but it's not a very nice place.  Especially at night it's not super safe.  The fact that it's located right by the library, another not particularly safe or welcoming place downtown, also doesn't help.  Despite the fact that there are hundreds of apartments right there in the park it still isn't a very nice place.  I honestly avoided walking through it for 4 years.  If I wanted to go enjoy some outdoors time not once did I go to Piatt, I went to an actual park like Washington or Smale.  This would just turn into another version of Piatt except in an even worse and more isolated area.  

 

This might be comparable to Piatt Park in size, but it's not at all comparable in how the roads work and where it's located downtown.  And Piatt Park isn't particularly nice, so I'm not sure why we'd want to try to replicate it. 

Going to have to agree to disagree. I quite like Piatt Park and think it offers something the places you mentioned don't. The issues you're talking about also aren't at all park design issues.

 

Yes, the roads are different. But that isn't some insurmountable problem. Central Parkway is quite lightly used for a road of its scale. Creating public space that can serve as event space, breakout space for FCC games, connected to events in Washington Park a block away, etc. could be a very useful asset. And when it's not being heavily used during events, it can serve as a more attractive entry into the city than it currently is.

 

Yes, the built environment is different than my example, but you have a chicken and egg situation. Create a nice linear park that has multiple functions and use it as a development tool. This is hardly the first example of creating a median park. There's plenty of precedent for how to do it right and achieve something that's an asset.

Regardless of which design approach they take, I think we're in agreement that it's crucially important to SLOW CARS DOWN. If cars continue to fly through that area at 35+MPH, then nobody will want to hang out there. If properly designed, I think we could get cars to slow down with the "max median" design, especially if they make one of the lanes parking 24/7. Similarly, I think the "max sidewalk" approach could work if the details are executed well, though I agree it depends a lot on what new development is able to take advantage of the sidewalks. I am genuinely torn, but I think I slightly prefer the "max median" approach. 

 

 

 

 

I just walked down Central at lunch, and between the Bobbie Stern health center parking lot, Music Hall's backside, the Verizon cell tower, Wooden Nickel antiques two buildings, Mozart garage, and the police station there are a lot of buildings that will never utilize a wide sidewalk as long as they exist. So while the new developments adjacent to the stadium, a possible CET/town center garage redevelopment, and the buildings between 15th and Magnolia would be able to utilize wide sidewalks for bars and restaurants I think the wide median is the best path forward given the long term uses along this stretch of Central.

I really hope FCC or some developer can get the Mozart garage and cell tower to eventually move.  What a waste of prime real estate those are.  The CET garage I assume will get torn down and redeveloped in the next couple of years.  The city has been talking about doing that for years, even before FCC showed interest in this area. 

On 3/11/2021 at 12:21 PM, Cincy513 said:

I used to live right in Piatt Park for 4 years.  Central isn't anywhere close to what those roads are like.  Piatt is extremely built out on both sides in the middle of downtowns grid.  There are lights every block that prevent people from speeding.  When you come to it from the east on 8th St you actually have to make a turn to get into it, it's not a straight line.  Just another thing that prevents people from speeding.  Central is treated like a highway because there's nothing there.  The stretches of road between the few lights are much longer then downtowns grid.  People regularly fly through there, especially when they time the lights.  Even if you made the width of the street smaller it's not going to change the long stretches of road without lights.  People will still drive too fast there. 

 

Not to mention Piatt Park really isn't that nice.  It's mostly used by homeless people or annoying groups of guys that openly sell drugs and harass people walking by.  It looks good when people get their wedding pictures taken and they make all the bums move, but it's not a very nice place.  Especially at night it's not super safe.  The fact that it's located right by the library, another not particularly safe or welcoming place downtown, also doesn't help.  Despite the fact that there are hundreds of apartments right there in the park it still isn't a very nice place.  I honestly avoided walking through it for 4 years.  If I wanted to go enjoy some outdoors time not once did I go to Piatt, I went to an actual park like Washington or Smale.  This would just turn into another version of Piatt except in an even worse and more isolated area.  

 

This might be comparable to Piatt Park in size, but it's not at all comparable in how the roads work and where it's located downtown.  And Piatt Park isn't particularly nice, so I'm not sure why we'd want to try to replicate it. 

 

I also lived right on Piatt Park and your experience and mine couldn't be any more different. I LOVED it and still do. I felt like it was this awesome yard that belonged to those of us that lived on Garfield Place. It's such a cool park and many cities would kill to have it. 

 

Also, for a non-local example, Option A for Central Parkway would be very similar to Commonwealth Avenue in Boston which is world-renowned for how cool it is. And it gets used a ton. 

 

I love the vision presented by Option A. I wonder if it would be feasible to have some sort of water feature throughout the median park, as a nod to Central Parkway's history as the canal. I vaguely recall someone in this thread mentioning that there was a proposal to do this in the 90's.

On 10/12/2009 at 3:39 AM, jmecklenborg said:

 

I thought of this a few weeks ago but forgot to post until now.

 

The Race St. subway station cannot be used as-is.  It will need to be completely rebuilt in order to lower the platforms for use with today's low-floor light rail vehicles. 

 

Therefore there are two options for a canal and subway scenario:

 

#1, build a new subway route one block further south from the Plum St. turn, then east under Court St. to Walnut or Main. This would allow the canal to be extended all the way to the Plum St. turn and allow complete freedom in the design of the canal. The downside is that it would force any new subway route from the Broadway Commons area to snake into downtown instead of meeting the existing subway and turning south under Walnut. 

 

#2, rebuild the subway on the southern third of Central Parkway from the Plum St. turn to Walnut St., between the new canal and the basements of existing buildings along the Parkway. This would be a tighter design that would prevent construction of a station along this stretch.  No matter -- I've always thought a station under Walnut between 9th and Court St. made more sense than the Race St. station anyway.         

 

I found the thread I was thinking of. Lots of fun ideas. The quote above analyzes how the "canal" could impact the subway. 

 

 

On 3/12/2021 at 1:09 PM, ucgrady said:

I just walked down Central at lunch, and between the Bobbie Stern health center parking lot, Music Hall's backside, the Verizon cell tower, Wooden Nickel antiques two buildings, Mozart garage, and the police station there are a lot of buildings that will never utilize a wide sidewalk as long as they exist. So while the new developments adjacent to the stadium, a possible CET/town center garage redevelopment, and the buildings between 15th and Magnolia would be able to utilize wide sidewalks for bars and restaurants I think the wide median is the best path forward given the long term uses along this stretch of Central.

New bar going in at 1430 Central Parkway: https://instagram.com/thepitchcincy?igshid=f2w3reqde9vv

The federal ARP funds that are going to the city have an initial proposal out from the City Manager: https://www.cincinnati-oh.gov/noncms/cmgr/memo/index.cfm?action=public.viewpdf&name=41982.pdf

 

The following are listed under the proposed capital projects: 

• Central Pkwy Streetscape Charles/Liberty Streetscape/Improvements ($2,000,000)
• Glenway Avenue Improvements ($1,250,000)
• Rapid Run/Dunham Improvements ($1,250,000)
• OASIS Trail ($3,000,000)
• W. 8th Safety Improvement (Lower Price Hill) ($600,000)
• State Avenue Streetscape/Pedestrian Safety ($2,000,000)
• Central Parkway Phase 1 Bike Facility Upgrade ($1,700,000)
• CBD Vine Street, 8th Street and 9th Street 2 Way Conversion Phase 1 ($3,127,000)
• CBD-OTR ROW Improvements ($500,000)
• Walnut Hills - E. McMillan Streetscape ($675,000)
• Clifton Shared Path ($2,000,000)
• ROW & Pedestrian Safety Improvements Outdoor Dining Urban Core ($2,000,000)

The following are listed as "Street Rehab", but I'm not sure what that distinction means and why the other streets listed above aren't considered "street rehab":

• Ridge Rd Improvements - Marburg to Beredith ($3,000,000)
• Gilbert Av Improvements - Elsinore to Woodburn ($2,000,000)
• Paxton Ave Rehab - Including realignment of Isabella intersection ($2,200,000)
• River Rd Improvements - Fairbanks to Anderson Ferry ($5,000,000)

Lots of exciting projects here. Personally I'm most excited to see that the City is prioritizing the 2-way conversion of Vine, 8th and 9th Streets in the CBD. I hadn't heard any rumors of that previously, and I think it could have a great impact on downtown. 

11 hours ago, jwulsin said:

The following are listed as "Street Rehab", but I'm not sure what that distinction means and why the other streets listed above aren't considered "street rehab":

• Ridge Rd Improvements - Marburg to Beredith ($3,000,000)
• Gilbert Av Improvements - Elsinore to Woodburn ($2,000,000)
• Paxton Ave Rehab - Including realignment of Isabella intersection ($2,200,000)
• River Rd Improvements - Fairbanks to Anderson Ferry ($5,000,000)

Lots of exciting projects here. Personally I'm most excited to see that the City is prioritizing the 2-way conversion of Vine, 8th and 9th Streets in the CBD. I hadn't heard any rumors of that previously, and I think it could have a great impact on downtown. 

The Street Rehabilitation Program is the City's resurfacing program. Repairs of major base damage will occur first, then top layer will be stripped, and then a new layer of asphalt will be paved on top. Concrete sections will replaced as needed which may or may not include curbs, curb cuts, and ramps. These 4 streets were already listed for 2022 and 2023 so all that's really happening is funding is shifting to the ARP funds from the overall capital budget. The only thing that's not usually included in the program is the realignment of Isabella, though the City had previously asked ODOT for help in redesigning that intersection.

 

The 2-way conversions were a complete surprise. Glad that they are finally moving forward with them.

11 hours ago, jwulsin said:

The federal ARP funds that are going to the city have an initial proposal out from the City Manager: https://www.cincinnati-oh.gov/noncms/cmgr/memo/index.cfm?action=public.viewpdf&name=41982.pdf

 

The following are listed under the proposed capital projects: 

• Central Pkwy Streetscape Charles/Liberty Streetscape/Improvements ($2,000,000)
• Glenway Avenue Improvements ($1,250,000)
• Rapid Run/Dunham Improvements ($1,250,000)
• OASIS Trail ($3,000,000)
• W. 8th Safety Improvement (Lower Price Hill) ($600,000)
• State Avenue Streetscape/Pedestrian Safety ($2,000,000)
• Central Parkway Phase 1 Bike Facility Upgrade ($1,700,000)
• CBD Vine Street, 8th Street and 9th Street 2 Way Conversion Phase 1 ($3,127,000)
• CBD-OTR ROW Improvements ($500,000)
• Walnut Hills - E. McMillan Streetscape ($675,000)
• Clifton Shared Path ($2,000,000)
• ROW & Pedestrian Safety Improvements Outdoor Dining Urban Core ($2,000,000)

The following are listed as "Street Rehab", but I'm not sure what that distinction means and why the other streets listed above aren't considered "street rehab":

• Ridge Rd Improvements - Marburg to Beredith ($3,000,000)
• Gilbert Av Improvements - Elsinore to Woodburn ($2,000,000)
• Paxton Ave Rehab - Including realignment of Isabella intersection ($2,200,000)
• River Rd Improvements - Fairbanks to Anderson Ferry ($5,000,000)

Lots of exciting projects here. Personally I'm most excited to see that the City is prioritizing the 2-way conversion of Vine, 8th and 9th Streets in the CBD. I hadn't heard any rumors of that previously, and I think it could have a great impact on downtown. 

 

This is good money going at good projects. You need this to make a difference. I am in Walnut Hills everyday for work. E. McMillan and Gilbert really need this update. I am excited how this will help out the neighborhood. I feel E. McMillan and Gilbert need to redo that intersection and make it much more pedestrian friendly to connect to the two sides. I hope they do that. There isn't a lot of traffic so pedestrians should be put first, and in the near future lots more residents in this area!

Looks like good projects. Always overlooked though are the public staircases, a number of which are in complete disrepair. Those are assets that the city could capitalize on and use to reconnect neighborhoods, in conjunction with the (much-needed) streetscape improvements.

 

1 hour ago, Dev said:

 

 

I wonder what the other factors are. If anything, I think eliminating a lane of parked cars and replacing it with a bike lane that is mostly open, visually, would encourage more speeding. I know whenever I drive down a street with on-street parking I tend to proceed with caution should someone suddenly swing a door open or pull out of a space. I drive like a geriatric anyway, though, so maybe I'm not the best anecdote.

 

Perhaps the amount of speeding recently has more to do with no cars being parked on that portion of street due to COVID, which makes the right hand lane seem like a giant ~20 foot wide race track?

11 minutes ago, Ram23 said:

Perhaps the amount of speeding recently has more to do with no cars being parked on that portion of street due to COVID, which makes the right hand lane seem like a giant ~20 foot wide race track?

 

I think this is it. Even pre-Covid this parking lane wasn't utilized a ton, unless there was a big event at UC. So it always seemed like you just had an extra wide lane. We have a lot of streets like this around the city.

I know a lot of people weren't happy with the Liberty St diet, and of course it could have been better, but I think it feels significantly safer now then it did before.  People seem to drive slower on it due to the bump outs and larger medians.  Crossing the street I feel a lot safer then before.  Just seems more neighborhoody to drive on now whereas before it felt like a mini highway.  As the empty lots on Liberty get filled in and more people are walking around there I think it will get even better. 

coincidentally, I almost got hit crossing Liberty last night. Had the walk sign, started crossing, and a car turning left off of Main nearly hit me. Didn't slow down at all. I ended up wacking their car with my umbrella as they passed a few inches in front of me. Not really a condemnation of the road diet. Just an anecdote.

 

I will say that I hate much of the south side of Liberty. The sidewalk is really cluttered between meters, fire hydrants, light poles, street signs, and trees. You can barely walk side by side with another person because of the trees taking up so much of the sidewalk.

 

Agreed, it looks like  two parallel 3' sidewalks but because of the obstacles it's actually less effective than one 6' wide sidewalk. I get how they ended up at this design to keep the existing street trees, but it's not ideal. 

 

ETA: My favorite part of the Liberty street rework is the added median and crosswalk at Pleasant street. It makes crossing much easier, and the median allows jay walking so you can cross each direction of traffic when there's an opening instead of having to wait for one big opening to cross. 

Edited May 5, 20214 yr by ucgrady

It's like a '90s streetscape design where you're tempted to walk on the narrow brick part next to the curb but really shouldn't.

From the Pleasant Ridge Community Council's Traffic Committee, Pleasant Streets:

Quote

From the PRCC meeting tonight: Here's the plan for improving Langdon Farm. Work will begin in 2021:

• One lane in each direction with parking on one side

• Bike lane in each direction

• Flexible posts (see image below) to delineate the parking lane at start and end of each block

• Quick curb (see image below) at intersections to prevent cars driving in the bike lane

• Upgraded curve warning signs east of Fairway Dr. and new speed limit signs

 

PDF drawing can be found at their Facebook page. This is probably the cheapest, easiest way to do a road diet. No concrete or asphalt will be required, and they didn't even bother extending the Qwick Kurb installations to create bump-outs for the existing crosswalks.

 

It's not the full-scale reconfiguration I had hoped for, but I'm still glad to see that some calming measures are being put in place at the intersection of Vine and McMicken. 

• SB Vine reduced from 3 to 2 lanes
• EB McMicken reduced from 2 to 1 lanes
• WB Findlay reduced from 3 to 2 lanes

After this project is complete, I hope DOTE looks at adding curb extensions (or other traffic calming measures) to the other corners of this intersection, especially the triangle where the slip lane from NB Vine turn onto EB McMicken.

 

 

21 hours ago, jwulsin said:

It's not the full-scale reconfiguration I had hoped for, but I'm still glad to see that some calming measures are being put in place at the intersection of Vine and McMicken.

How did the City send this out? Just to the Community Councils?

1 hour ago, Dev said:

How did the City send this out? Just to the Community Councils?

I saw the construction work being done, and so I emailed a bunch of people at the City until I got an answer. Nothing had been communicated to the Community Council previously. 

Wow, of course. What was I thinking???

The City Administration's biennial budget finally includes funding for the City's traffic calming budget at $400,000 for FY 22 but does not include any funding for FY23. This is likely in result to a motion submitted by Councilmember Steve Goodin. It had not been funded since FY18.