The city has only had two meetings on the Liberty Street proposal. The first one was simply gathering input. Yesterday's was the first meeting where options were presented. A number of attendees were very upset that a smaller option (one traffic lane in each direction) was not presented. So I'd say that there's a good chance that an option like that will appear at the next session. It is critical that everyone here send their feedback to the city when they put these options online.

 

The city also said that in the first meeting, everyone was asking for increased pedestrian safety. In yesterday's meeting, people were asking much more about narrowing the ROW and reducing the traffic volume. So the city will hopefully consider those factors more before the next meeting.

 

Another thing to consider is that funding has only been identified for studying this corridor. No funding has yet been identified for actual construction. So that might be another battle in a few months, to get money from the city to actually execute the vision.

here's what is needed, IMO:

 

1 10' lane in each direction w/ an 11' center median/turn lanes as needed at intersections.

7' Parking lane on both sides

10' sidewalk/tree berm/utility area on each side.

Curb bump outs at intersections

 

That's 65' of total ROW. Return the remaining to redevelopable land (not sure how much this is) on the southside. Lower the speed limit to 25/30 MPH and sign the roads for "Bikes may take full lane".

 

Edit to add: Bumpouts

 

That is my perfect solution. And between intersections adding a landscaped median would be nice. All of these things combined would slow traffic enough and make bicyclists feel safe without needing a dedicated bike lane. The bumpouts would be very important IMO.

 

The DOTE projects website is here: http://www.cincinnati-oh.gov/dote/dote-projects/

 

The link to provide feedback for the Liberty Street project is supposed to be here, but it doesn't work. I tweeted at City of Cincy that the site was down: cincinnati-oh.gov/dote/dote-projects/liberty-street-improvement-study/

 

I recommend everyone makes comments requesting a study of exactly what Rob suggested. If enough people request it, they may actually study it. We'll see. I talked pretty extensively with them last night after the presentation to push this idea, so if enough people also ask for it in public comment they may open up to the idea.

 

I should've specified landscaped medians, which is what I intended. If you REALLY want to calm traffic and make it more bike friendly, do the crosswalks in a different material or slightly raise them. This would really negate the need for bike lanes and allow greater potential for redevelop to the south and better connect OTR across Liberty.

All of these things combined would slow traffic enough and make bicyclists feel safe without needing a dedicated bike lane.

 

All it would do is make already fearless cyclists more comfortable.  So maybe you get your mode share up from 1% to 2% (woo hoo, a 100% increase!).  When people still bike on the sidewalk next to painted bike lanes, it shows that your solution is mostly ineffective.  Calming residential side streets is important for cycling and also for pedestrians as the "last mile" connection to and from destinations, but once you need to go more than a few blocks, "just ride with traffic" doesn't cut it, no matter how slow that traffic may be going.  Thinking otherwise is delusional. 

 

The below photo will never happen, but it's what our policies are suggesting.  Here's a good comparison between what actually works and what many say should work.  https://departmentfortransport.wordpress.com/2015/01/28/more-dutch-cycling-scenes-in-a-british-context/

 

 

That reluctance is exactly what to expect when the administration's focus is on traffic throughput.  In a neighborhood like this, parking is arguably more important than throughput, and safety is definitely more important.  Focusing on unimpeded traffic flow is antithetical to those and pretty much all other goals. 

 

And I think it's implausible that anyone could actually believe they are focusing on throughput (event the DOTE). Anyone who travels on Liberty by car, in its current configuration, has to feel purposely slowed down and it's not by the lane configuration (obviously), its by streetlight timing. If they actually wanted this to be a freeway, they could probably do a lot better. So I can't understand the logic in their reluctance to reduce lanes, if their design goals for traffic are the status quo. This real estate is just an underutilized resource, plain and simple.

Yeah the traffic on Liberty is absolutely artificially inflated by the dumb light timing. The lights turn green in the reverse order of the movement of people. It's illogical. You get a green light just as the light ahead is turning yellow.

 

Many people seem to think this makes for a safer pedestrian environment but a road where following the speed limit is rewarded with properly timed lights is actually one of the safest ways to ensure traffic is moving in a manner which avoids conflict with pedestrians. We should strive for this with only 3 lanes of moving traffic as proposed above.

The city claims that all the lights are timed for traffic flow on the north/south streets, which unintentionally results in the horrible traffic light timing on Liberty.

That's BS too. The lights on the north/south streets not only have no discernible pattern, but are also horrible.

 

This city needs better traffic engineers.

^ They probably feel that any reduction in capacity/speed is unacceptable because of the poor functioning of the signals and such.  Signal timing is a super difficult nut to crack though.  It really only works on one-way streets with no major intersections.  On two-way streets you can only optimize for one direction at a time, and as stated above Liberty has fairly equal volumes in both directions throughout much of the day.  Turn arrows and other restricted movements can really throw a wrench into that as well.  Plus there might be conflicting timings on Vine and Race and possibly other streets, but I'm not sure about that.  I do know though that most signals in the city are connected such that the controllers are running off a synchronized clock.  That at least means that different intersections are all operating relative to one another and not wandering by seconds or minutes each day.  Failure of such a system in one of the DC suburbs a few years ago caused evening rush hour gridlock, even though there were no green waves or obvious synchronizations going on. 

Traffic would probably be drastically improved in OTR if most traffic lights were removed and replaced with stop signs.

The best traffic engineers are really good "systems thinkers" but the average ones don't have that capability. It's not taught in undergraduate school, and I doubt if many of the so called "traffic engineers" have much formal training in the subject beyond a "transportation engineering" class that talked mostly about roadway materials, cut and fill on highway interchanges, and a little about traffic calming effects of lane width. I mean, a real traffic engineering class that considers urban traffic issues and multiple transportation modes probably is a real rarity in most schools of civil engineering. It's such a shortcoming.

 

So look to the leadership at the DOTE and what sort of background they have (I don't know that person). If they don't have a focus on systems level traffic management solutions, then the rest of the organization can't be counted on to push innovation, they'll need to be drug into it by public outcry.

 

They said that average traffic speed was under the posted speed limit. I believe this, because I almost never make it through consecutive lights. If the lights were timed to allow people to get through every light on Liberty with the current configuration, people would be going 50mph down the street. They currently have to stop every 100 feet, which works to the pedestrians advantage. With traffic calming measures mentioned above, I think you could coordinate the signals to give Liberty priority and people wouldn't be going too fast. Maybe coordinate all of the lights except Vine to still force people to slow down half way through the street.

Traffic would probably be drastically improved in OTR if most traffic lights were removed and replaced with stop signs.

 

Possibly. I think the real unfortunate answer is that there's nobody that knows. And the engineers have absolutely no appetite for experimentation. As was suggested above, you can actually do experiments with some traffic solutions. I can't say it's never done, but I've never witnessed it. For example Travis you could easily check out your "probably" above just by setting all the lights to flashing red status and measuring traffic throughputs for a few days.

 

And while we're talking about this, it's true that traffic signal timing is difficult, but it's also true that driverless cars are difficult. Sensors and adaptation are a general solution to lots of hard problems (like driving a car without a driver!), but as we see time and again, our most critical infrastructure systems have zero sensing and adaptation. So the lights are connected to a common clock - if that's the sort of effort level we stop at, then most every problem that was ever hard and unsolvable, would still be hard and unsolvable.

They said that average traffic speed was under the posted speed limit. I believe this, because I almost never make it through consecutive lights. If the lights were timed to allow people to get through every light on Liberty with the current configuration, people would be going 50mph down the street. They currently have to stop every 100 feet, which works to the pedestrians advantage. With traffic calming measures mentioned above, I think you could coordinate the signals to give Liberty priority and people wouldn't be going too fast. Maybe coordinate all of the lights except Vine to still force people to slow down half way through the street.

 

Yeah - The 'checkpoints' for non-coordination should be at Vine and/or Main, Central Parkway, and maybe Linn St.

http://www.mikeontraffic.com/numbers-every-traffic-engineer-should-know/

 

What's the daily capacity of a road?  (Round numbers based on Level of Service D/E thresholds in HCM 2010)

 

    2 lane local street:  1,000 vehicles per day based on livability

    2 lane (w/ left turn lanes):  16,000 vehicles per day

    4 lane (w/ left turn lanes):  31,000 vehicles per day

    6 lane (w/ left turn lanes):  44,000 vehicles per day

    4 lane freeway:  72,000 vehicles per day

    6 lane freeway:  108,000 vehicles per day

    8 lane freeway:  145,000 vehicles per day

 

Ideal capacity of one lane is 1,900 vehicles per hour  --- however to get actual capacity, reduction factors are applied based on actual lane configuration  (width etc)

Does anyone feel that two lanes with a shared turn lane couldn't handle 1000 vehicles/hour? I understand that we all want a real diet on Liberty Street, but is there any reason Liberty couldn't be reduced to this?

You could test the 5-to-3 conversion pretty easily just by using cones and a few "lane closed" signs at intersections.  It doesn't need to be blocked off so much that nobody can access the parking bays, just enough that the outside lane can't be driven on for any length.  That's easier than a temporary re-striping, just treat it like a construction zone. 

^^ Exactly my suggestion! Get some cones and see what happens.

This was posted 30 minutes ago on the event page for the meeting last night:

 

The webpage with handouts and feedback form will be up later today, and the link will be shared here when it is live. An additional option is being added based on your comments last night. Feedback will be collected until December 16, 2015. Thank you!

 

It looks like they will consider the two lanes and a turn lane suggestion (they were vague in the description of the additional option being added, but that's what most people wanted).

Please go to the link and leave constructive feedback. I would suggest everyone comments in support of the 3 lane option and testing the idea by restricting lanes with cones as people have said here. If they actually test it and it turns out to work, they may be open to the idea.

 

You can see a PDF of each option at the link.

 

I said I would prefer the bike lanes be removed from the 3 lane proposal and added to the development on the south side of Liberty. If Liberty is reduced to 3 lanes, medians are installed, and bumpouts are created at intersections, I honestly think this will be a comfortable street to bike on. It should slow down traffic, make bicyclists easier to see, and promote more pedestrians. With of these things if you still aren't comfortable riding a bike on Liberty, we aren't going to convert you to biking. This would be turned into a city street with slowish traffic. I have completely different feeling about Central Parkway which is too wide and has too many turns to feel safe without a separated bike lane. This is a doable proposal. And the benefit of an extra 10-20 feet of development + bump outs for pedestrians would greatly outweigh the positives of a bike lane on Liberty IMO.

 

But definitely everyone leave feedback and support the 3 lane option and ask for it to be tested temporarily with lane closures between Elm and Sycamore regardless of how you feel about the bike lanes. This is a far superior option to anything else presented.

 

http://www.cincinnati-oh.gov/dote/dote-projects/liberty-street-safety-improvement-study/

Notice that they put "drastically reduces capacity" on both the pros and cons of the new Option #3.

Notice that they put "drastically reduces capacity" on both the pros and cons of the new Option #3.

 

I do appreciate that. It is a pro and a con. As long as demand doesn't drastically outpace capacity it would be all pro, though.

I realize no one here made those PDFs, but can anyone surmise as to why the 4-lane option allows 30 feet for development (with 60' of ROW for road+sidewalk), whereas the 3-lane+bikes option has "does not allow for development" in the cons column and says it adds 8 feet for development (with 66' of ROW for road+sidewalk)? My math tells me 16 feet disappeared into thin air.

 

If a Dutch-style grade-separated bike lane were used (like jjakucyk posted on the previous page at 1:40 pm yesterday), the buffer space could be skipped and a good 18-20 feet should be made available for development.

The outside lanes on the 4-lane option are used for parking except 7am-7pm on week days. The 3 lane option has two parking lanes on the side permanently. So the 3 lane option has 5 lanes of pavement, but only 3 are driving lanes and two are parking lanes. With bump outs at intersections I think that would be good.

Here's what I'd like to see: http://streetmix.net/taestell/5/liberty-street-3b

 

My fallback would be option #5 which is a similar concept except has parking instead of bike lanes. Overall those two options are about the same width.

Man, that PDF showing the 4-lane option with 30' of development is really appealing. It would totally change the feel of the neighborhood down that corridor.

Here's what I'd like to see: http://streetmix.net/taestell/5/liberty-street-3b

 

My fallback would be option #5 which is a similar concept except has parking instead of bike lanes. Overall those two options are about the same width.

 

Travis looks like your option has no parking at all? Bold move, sir.

 

The outside lanes on the 4-lane option are used for parking except 7am-7pm on week days. The 3 lane option has two parking lanes on the side permanently. So the 3 lane option has 5 lanes of pavement, but only 3 are driving lanes and two are parking lanes. With bump outs at intersections I think that would be good.

 

Ah, lol. I thought I must be missing something. It was the dual-use parking lanes on the 4-lane option. :-)

I like both the Estell Alternative and the 3 lane alternative with bike lanes. Perhaps they can add pedestrian islands for the side streets (like Pleasant) in the center turn lane as well?

 

My only gripe about removing on-street parking is that it would incentivize developers to build larger than necessary parking garages as part of infill development on the street.

Cincinnati keeps on hitting home runs, with Fountain Square, Washington Park and the streetcar, in the face of naysayers who mock and try to derail these projects. This is truly the next home run to hit. If we can accomplish this road diet, it will be an almost textbook case of good urbanism prevailing that will be shared in the national media. The positive benefits to the neighborhood WILL happen, and the street itself that develops could be yet another attraction for people to visit when they come to OTR. We can't let this project get compromised or diluted.

 

That being said, I am in favor of the 3 travel lane option (a travel lane in each direction and a turn lane.) The city's 3 option with bike lanes is decent but I would like to add pedestrian bump outs in the parking lane at intersections. I actually like UrbanCincy's proposal the best, with the two way cycle track on one side of the street because it would allow more space to be returned to development than an 8' bike lane on both sides of the street. I think I would also support this option without a bike lane, in order for sidewalks, bump outs and developable area to be larger to "narrow the gap." I do see the benefit of a bike lane going all the way across OTR (like some kind of bike-highway) but I also sympathize with the "vehicular cycling" folks who say that bikes belong in the street and can themselves help calm traffic. (Especially since vehicles on a slimmed down Liberty would be traveling at slower speeds.  But maybe I am biased since I am comfortable biking in the road though.)

 

Regardless it's encouraging that there's a $400k budget available (from the casino improvement money) for serious planning to occur. This project really should be the next thing we all "go to the mat" for and get ready to overcome some resistance to execute the vision.

 

 

We went six months back in 1999 without a westbound Fort Washington Way.  Yet somehow this minor cross-street is critical. 

We went six months back in 1999 without a westbound Fort Washington Way.  Yet somehow this minor cross-street is critical.

 

It's critical for the long term success of OTR in my opinion. Connecting the Northern and Southern Liberties division, and hopefully spurring more development in the North, and making it a more attractive, walk-able urban destination.

 

I honestly feel like the long term success of OTR is a essentially a catalyst for the long term success for Cincinnati's urban core in general.

I'm going with the four lanes and 30' of development. Some people will demand removal of the bike lanes because of 'how bad the traffic is now' and that might set back in street bike lanes for a while. If you've already sold the land, you won't be able to re-widen. Also selling the land could finance the currently unfunded project.

I also voted for the four-lane concept. I've traveled the road at rush hour plenty of times (granted, I'm coming inbound), and as it's been pointed out, a lot of the traffic has to do with poor signal timing. The light from the 471 offramp to Liberty/Reading lasts approximately ten seconds, and then you invariably get stuck at Vine, Race, and Elm. Same problem on the other side when trying to turn left from Central: the signals are old and weird and it's just poorly timed.

 

Also, I hate trying to turn left from Main or Sycamore southbound onto Liberty eastbound. There's no turn signals and the width of the road is such that I'm always worried about making that turn and someone barreling up Main and not paying attention. A narrower road would help combat that.

Here's what I just submitted to feedback form:

 

I feel strongly that Liberty should be narrowed with the explicit goal of slowing traffic. 1) It will increase the size of the developable parcels on the south side. 2) It will make those parcels more attractive if the traffic is slowed along Liberty. This can best be served by a variation of the 3-lane design (1 lane in each direction + 1 turning lane). The extra space outside of those 3 lanes should be allocated for on-street parking with curb bump outs at each corner. I don't feel the 16 feet of allocation to bike lanes is necessary or prudent. I would rather see those 16 feet be allocated to the southern parcels, creating a total of 24' of new developable space.

 

In order for those vacant parcels to be attractive for re-development, Liberty needs to be welcoming and inviting to pedestrians. The on-street parking provides a crucial buffer between the moving cars and sidewalk. Onstreet parking should be available at all hours. Curb bump outs at each corner will shorten the pedestrian crossing distance, encouraging the crucial north-south pedestrian traffic that will encourage development in the norther portion of OTR.

 

If Liberty Street continues to have 5 lanes of traffic, it will continue to feel unwelcoming to businesses and residents, as a chasm that divides OTR in two. The parcels on the southern side will remain vacant because businesses do not want to front a busy thoroughfare.

 

The traffic flow along Liberty does NOT follow the standard rush hour pattern. Rather, it is a steady stream throughout the day. The goal of this project should be to slow those vehicles down so that businesses and residents can thrive on Liberty. As part of the city street grid, a narrowed Liberty might shift some traffic to other adjacent streets. That is ok! Drivers can adjust their patterns based on traffic, which varies throughout the day. At time McMicken might be fastest. Other time Liberty might be faster. Or perhaps Central Parkway. Traffic will respond dynamically to the conditions on the street.

 

This project has the potential, if properly implemented, to garner national attention for smart design, increasing development potential and improving the livability of the city. 

One problem with the four lane concept is that there are no turn lanes. The lack of turn lanes means that normal travel lanes will come to a halt for a vehicle turning left. It might be unexpected to drivers behind the turning car and a rear-end could happen. I would prefer just three lanes with a center turn lane. (And permanent bumpout parking on both sides)

I'm not buying that. At all. How is someone turning on their turn signal and stopping at a light "unexpected?" If you're going 25 mph and the person in front of you comes to a stop, so do you. It's literally no different than in any other situation where someone has to turn off of a road.

 

But beyond that, I don't like the four lane configuration because of the lack of parking. The new setup needs permanent parking to allow for curb bumpouts and less actual travel lanes. The 3 lane + parking option is definitely still ideal in my mind. It would make Liberty similar in size to the rest of OTR's main streets (only slightly wider for the turn lane) instead of this gigantic mess that is slightly better but not really worth the effort. Which is what they've presented to us so far.

The APA People's Choice Best Street Award was just given to a 4 lane (2x7' parking, and a 10' lane in each direction) street in Norfolk, VA (Colley Ave). There are turn lanes near a couple intersections (which could be done on Liberty by constricting the ROW until those major intersections) Living near that, I can attest to how difficult traffic can be during rush periods and Friday and Saturday evenings, and yet it still won this award. We have to decide if we're redesigning Liberty for people or for cars. The narrower the footprint, the greater the opportunity for redevelopment to occur along the southern side. This could (and most likely would) lead to a much more vibrant corridor than any other alternative.

 

And for reference Colley Ave has no bike lanes, just sharrows. However, this route is frequented by bicyclists a lot as a major N/S corridor.

I do understand the resistance to 4-lane situations because left turning traffic causes a lot of weaving of vehicles, plus at an intersection if there's people waiting to turn left going in both directions, then they partially block the view of the outer lanes which is what causes crashes.  The thing is, there's SO MANY streets like that in the city anyway, or that become that way when rush-hour parking is restricted (Hamilton, Glenway, Warsaw, River, Kellogg, Paddock, outer Reading, Vine, Harrison, Observatory, Linwood, and others) that there's really no excuse.  On a long run with few turning movements then a 4-lane configuration would have more capacity than 3-lane, but that's a pretty rare beast limited mostly to the industrial riverside roads like Kellogg and River.  On Liberty, which is really more of a distributor than an arterial street, those turn lanes are much more critical, especially with so many intersections. 

I'm not buying that. At all. How is someone turning on their turn signal and stopping at a light "unexpected?"

 

These accidents happen all the time. I'm sure the number one cause of an accident is someone stopping in a travel lane and getting rear ended. Whether that is on a highway with sudden stoppage or a city street where someone turns left.

 

People are bad at driving. The general population fails to use turn signals, is texting someone when the car in front of them slows down, or generally spacing out and assuming the car in front of them won't be stopping and realizes too late.

Its been proven, in certain situations and ADT's, that a 3 lane road (2 thru with one center turn lane) is MUCH safer than a 4 lane w/o turn lanes without a reduction in capacity

I've literally watched two people both turn into the center turn lane on Liberty and hit one another from opposite directions. I have trouble believing that general (2 plus a turn lane is safer than 4 without turn lanes) statement can be applied to every situation. Where was that measured? Rural roads? Roads with 50 mph speed limit? Without information from examples where it's an urban road with stop lights ever 250' and heavier traffic and a max average speed of barely 20 mph I think the situation is different. It would need to be studied on Liberty directly or in a very similar situation elsewhere.

"But will road diets reduce roadway capacity and increase traffic? The Federal Highway Administration has determined that road diets do not cause congestion on roads that carry fewer than 20,000 cars daily. Adding center-turn lanes actually increases capacity, because traffic is not stopped for vehicles waiting to make left turns."

 

From: http://www.westerncity.com/Western-City/February-2015/Road-Diets-Make-Streets-Leaner-Safer-and-More-Efficient/

Here's what I'd like to see: http://streetmix.net/taestell/5/liberty-street-3b

 

My fallback would be option #5 which is a similar concept except has parking instead of bike lanes. Overall those two options are about the same width.

 

That's a cool website. This would be me preferred layout: http://streetmix.net/-/297489

 

Concerning a center turn lane, my suggestion would be to make it dedicated, not shared, and replace it with a short landscape buffer between intersections. Turning left onto side streets like Moore, Republic, and Pleasant should be made impossible (that's where I've also seen a head on collision jmicha described - a car merging to turn left onto Republic, and a car merging to turn left onto Vine).

FHWA guide to road diets for reference:

http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/road_diets/info_guide/rdig.pdf

Here's what I'd like to see: http://streetmix.net/taestell/5/liberty-street-3b

 

My fallback would be option #5 which is a similar concept except has parking instead of bike lanes. Overall those two options are about the same width.

 

That's a cool website. This would be me preferred layout: http://streetmix.net/-/297489

 

Concerning a center turn lane, my suggestion would be to make it dedicated, not shared, and replace it with a short landscape buffer between intersections. Turning left onto side streets like Moore, Republic, and Pleasant should be made impossible (that's where I've also seen a head on collision jmicha described - a car merging to turn left onto Republic, and a car merging to turn left onto Vine).

 

My exact idea/opinion. Put medians between intersections and only allow left turns at major intersections. By shared turn lane I simply mean that both left turns use the same 10ish feet of asphalt. Moore Street and the like would need to be right turn only.

Here's what I'd like to see done to Liberty. 2 views of the same plan:

 

Between major intersections: http://streetmix.net/rob_jaques/3/liberty-midblock

At Major Intersections: http://streetmix.net/rob_jaques/1/liberty-intersections

^ Interesting idea, but I think you'd lose a lot of space by transitioning between those two at every intersection.

^ Interesting idea, but I think you'd lose a lot of space by transitioning between those two at every intersection.

 

MAJOR intersection. Not every street is major. I'd say just Vine, Main, Central Parkway, and Linn for sure. For the other intersections, perhaps use stop signs instead of signals? We need to design this for people as opposed to cars. (I know... it's an uphill battle.

Throwing this out there:

 

I'm kinda surprised that no one has brought up how mass transit will factor into whatever new ROW is proposed. At the meeting, it was stated that Liberty is lightly used by Metro, which leads me to think that it isn't a concern. However, what if one of the option were a dedicated bus lane starting at Liberty and Reading, and ran east until Walnut before turning south? If the ROW were shrunk a little as well to allow more housing, then that could be a good metro route through the middle of Over the Rhine -- both north/south and east/west, as well as the middle of downtown.

 

Additionally, if the streetcar is to make it to uptown, and John Schneider[/member]'s tunnel is given serious thought, then the rails will have to somehow get from walnut to main, and Liberty seems like the logical option. If we narrow the street too much now, won't that impede the ability to dedicate some ROW to the light rail?

I've literally watched two people both turn into the center turn lane on Liberty and hit one another from opposite directions. I have trouble believing that general (2 plus a turn lane is safer than 4 without turn lanes) statement can be applied to every situation. Where was that measured? Rural roads? Roads with 50 mph speed limit? Without information from examples where it's an urban road with stop lights ever 250' and heavier traffic and a max average speed of barely 20 mph I think the situation is different. It would need to be studied on Liberty directly or in a very similar situation elsewhere.

Sorry, I meant in the terms of a road diet --- so more of the municipal side of things with lower speeds. An added benefit, too, is for pedestrian safety. Combined with raised curved refuge islands, mid block pedestrian crossings can be accommodated with the three-lane scheme