What's the capacity of a road that's just one lane in each direction without turn lanes like Vine Street? Could a realistic case be made for that to be the model used opposed to something with a turn lane?

 

After playing around with the traffic counts map linked earlier, I see that most of Liberty carries about the same amount of traffic as Ludlow Avenue in Clifton, particularly the business district, where the traffic measurements were taken. Liberty east of Sycamore carries about 2000 more vehicles per day, but I agree with Jake's earlier post that that number may very well drop when the MLK interchange at I-71 is finished, and I'm not too concerned with that portion as the land on the north side isn't really developable anyway. Aside from the theoretical max capacity, a comparison to the reality of Ludlow could help. Parking restrictions at rush hour and a few restrictions on left turns during certain days/hours works well there.

A road like Ludlow would be fantastically scaled to reconnect the neighborhood. Someone needs to get one proving the ability for Liberty west of Sycamore to carry the necessary traffic with that configuration.

My feedback to the city:

 

Liberty Street is not a pleasant place.  Cars in four lanes of traffic weave and exhibit race car behavior as they speed forward only to screech to a halt at the next red light.  Noisy trucks billow out smoke.  It's very uncomfortable for a pedestrian to walk beside.  As a result it is shunned by the joggers, dog walkers, and people going about their everyday business, and the vacuum is filled by loiterers that drink malt liquor starting early in the morning.  The street is also filthy, inundated with litter and trash of every sort.

 

When Liberty Street was widened in the 1950's, many buildings were torn down and Over-the-Rhine was divided into two halves.  This action served automobile pass-through traffic counts and not the residents of the neighborhood.  As a result the street has remained blighted ever since.  Fortunately the cure is obvious: turn the street back into a walkable place that will attract people and economic activity.  As a nearby example, Vine Street through Over the Rhine underwent traffic calming when it was converted into a two way street from a one way street.  It has since won national acclaim and is turning into one of the economic engines of our region, a place where small businesses start before spreading to other neighborhoods, cities, and states.  While the dedicated efforts of 3CDC fuel this success, it could not happen if Vine Street was not an eminently walkable place.  We need to do the same to Liberty Street. 

 

I understand there is concern by the traffic engineers in reducing the capacity of Liberty Street given that 18,000 vehicles a day use it.  I think those concerns are overblown.  First, just as "induced demand" is a real phenomenon where additional cars start using a street when additional lanes are added, "reduced demand" is a real phenomenon as well for streets that undergo capacity reductions.  Secondly, there are plenty of nearby streets that can absorb rerouted traffic from Liberty. Our freely flowing north-south streets can easily direct traffic to Central Parkway for example.  Finally, the street is oversized for the number of cars a day that use it currently.  According to the Urban Street Design Guide, "streets carrying up to 25,000 vehicles per day function effectively with 3 lanes, depending on the traffic volumes of nearby adjacent streets."  (National Association of City Transportation Officials, Urban Street Design Guide,  Island Press, 2013,  pg. 14.)

 

This is why I am for turning Liberty into three lane street (one travel lane in each direction and a center turn lane.) 

 

However, the only way to have this street find its full economic and aesthetic potential is to have new development facing it, especially on the south side of the street.  In my opinion the existing lots on the south side are so small and odd shaped that a normal new development will require at least an extra 20'.  Thus, the three lane option as presented by the city's Department of Transportation and Engineering should remove either the bike lanes or the permanent parking lanes, to regain space for development on the south side of the street. This would potentially return 24' ft. for development (8' per lane plus the 8' already in plan.)   

 

The five lane option as presented by the City would have roughly the same footprint as the three lane street described above, and also allow roughly the same footprint for new development.  Thus, I would consider the five lane option as an acceptable intermediary step in Liberty's eventual conversion into a three lane street. However, I would view such an intermediary step as an unnecessary half-measure and overly cautious of offending drivers' sensibilities.

 

Liberty St. could be the centerpiece of a burgeoning neighborhood, a beautiful boulevard with sidewalk cafes, etc.  Let's work to make this project a nationwide model for what can happen when we build places for people instead of accommodating auto traffic. 

Peak demand on Liberty is at Sycamore in each direction at just under 1,000 vehicles per hour (something like 980ish). Daily demand is about 18,000 in each direction. Peak demand is spread out fairly evenly for 12 hours each week day.

Peak demand on Liberty is at Sycamore in each direction at just under 1,000 vehicles per hour (something like 980ish). Daily demand is about 18,000 in each direction. Peak demand is spread out fairly evenly for 12 hours each week day.

 

Wait 18k in each direction for 36k total? That's not what I understood from the OKI link above

My understanding was each direction. But honestly, that is the least important number to think about. You should never design a street based on daily demand. Hourly demand is the only one that matters.

 

EDIT: unless you're trying to decide if the road should be paved or left gravel. Then I could see daily demand being relevant. But I don't see the relevance in an urban setting.

The OKI numbers are "combined" so that's the total of both directions. 

^ Which means the numbers the city is stating (18,000 per day in each direction) are about 2.5 times the latest OKI numbers of 14-16,000 per day combined (both directions).

 

I agree with peak hourly demand being more important in this context but I still question the city's numbers. I don't remember seeing any traffic counters on Liberty in recent years and I drive it almost daily.

Think of a street you know very well and compare numbers with it.

A huge percentage of this road's traffic is I-471 traffic to and from Christ Hospital.  Close the extension and that traffic will simply divert to Reading/Dorchester. 

Are road traffic counts readily available online somewhere for those of us not super educated on the numbers to compare Liberty to other roads?

A huge percentage of this road's traffic is I-471 traffic to and from Christ Hospital.  Close the extension and that traffic will simply divert to Reading/Dorchester. 

 

Doing so would also eliminate a dangerous situation when turning left from 471 to Central Parkway.  There's no turn arrow, but it feels like the kind of intersection that normally has one because of the number of lanes and because it's a 5 way.  I've seen a number of close calls where someone turned left onto Central from 471, thinking that the oncoming traffic didn't have a green light.  It happens more than you'd think, precisely because Liberty is so overbuilt, so cars don't stack up at the red light heading from Liberty to 471.  People think the oncoming traffic is going to slow at the intersection and it doesn't.

 

Additionally, diverting traffic from Liberty to Central would probably help the properties along the east/west portion of Central, as they would benefit from increased exposure from people that would otherwise shortcut from 471->Liberty->Central on their way north to Clifton or Northside.

^That also brings up the point that Central Parkway is equally overbuilt and rarely crowds and could easily handle any reduction in capacity from Liberty itself. I use Central Parkway every morning to get to Eggleston-Columbia Parkway and other than stopping at red lights there's never any slow down whatsoever. People regularly fly by me able to go 45 even which is a pretty good sign of a road being overbuilt.

Are road traffic counts readily available online somewhere for those of us not super educated on the numbers to compare Liberty to other roads?

 

jjakucyk posted this earlier in the thread and it is what I have been referencing:

 

http://traffic.oki.org

 

 

 

Wow, wait, so Central Parkway and Liberty have the same basic traffic counts?

 

I'm seeing this plan as needing to be two-pronged. Liberty+Central Parkway road diets. Liberty's goal being to shrink the ROW as much as possible to allow for redevelopment of that land and Central Parkway to be as multi-modal as possible with more usable public space, bike lanes, and transit lanes. View them as two parts to the same solution opposed to separate entities that have to be treated as such.

After the last Liberty street meeting ended, I was speaking with some of the people from the city and one of them threw out that they were very close to eliminating a "lane or two" from CP...and then the streetcar came in.

 

I wasn't focused on it at the time, but that comment has come back to me and I'm frankly puzzled by it. The streetcar takes up a single lane for two blocks. It doesn't prevent left turns. What has materially changed regarding the format of CP that now precludes taking away that lane or two?

Yeah I can easily see the lane it occupies being completely blocked off from other traffic with a curb and reducing by a lane on the other side and having a much better street already.

 

Central Parkway needs a lot of help. It's nearly as terrible as Liberty but is less urgent because buildings front both sides and the median creates a moment of respite while crossing. But it's gigantic and needn't be. Especially if it's only carrying as much traffic as Ludlow through the gaslight business district. Which, now that I know that, is going to be my mental desire and I know it won't be met. But all this talk of needing all these lanes is nothing more than BS knowing that the same can be handled by two lanes with no left turn lanes at all.

Yeah I can easily see the lane it occupies being completely blocked off from other traffic with a curb and reducing by a lane on the other side and having a much better street already.

 

Central Parkway needs a lot of help. It's nearly as terrible as Liberty but is less urgent because buildings front both sides and the median creates a moment of respite while crossing. But it's gigantic and needn't be. Especially if it's only carrying as much traffic as Ludlow through the gaslight business district. Which, now that I know that, is going to be my mental desire and I know it won't be met. But all this talk of needing all these lanes is nothing more than BS knowing that the same can be handled by two lanes with no left turn lanes at all.

 

One thing about CP is that after the light turns green there are like ten seconds of vehicles moving through the intersection, then it's empty for the rest of the light cycle

The only time I've seen gridlocked traffic on Central Parkway was the weekend when the casino opened.  I think GPS was telling people from the north to take I-75 to Ezzard Charles...after which thousands of vehicles inched the mile or so to their destination.  Any of them could have gotten off at Findlay/Western, then headed across on Liberty, but none of these people seemed to know that. 

Around 2008, the city added bumpouts for parking on the north side of Liberty at the intersection with Main. The enlarged sidewalks make that corner so much nicer for pedestrians. And creating the triangular bumpout where McMicken and Main split makes that intersection much better for pedestrians as well. Anybody know the history behind that mini-streetscape project? Who funded it? My guess it was somehow in conjunction with the Rothenberg renovation, but I'm not sure.

 

2007 (before): https://www.google.com/maps/@39.1126541,-84.5125116,3a,90y,40.16h,87.62t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sqPcE4MbG-Cx6hBsn78t4hA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

2009 (after): https://www.google.com/maps/@39.1126541,-84.5125116,3a,90y,40.16h,87.62t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sqPcE4MbG-Cx6hBsn78t4hA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

 

 

 

 

That intersection is the perfect example of the benefit of giving street space back to the pedestrian with essentially zero negative consequences. We need to be compiling examples from around the country of how to do this properly and show it works just fine. Hell, if they can shut Broadway down through Times Square with minimal effects then we can shrink Liberty.

But we're not New York!

Around 2008, the city added bumpouts for parking on the north side of Liberty at the intersection with Main. The enlarged sidewalks make that corner so much nicer for pedestrians. And creating the triangular bumpout where McMicken and Main split makes that intersection much better for pedestrians as well. Anybody know the history behind that mini-streetscape project? Who funded it? My guess it was somehow in conjunction with the Rothenberg renovation, but I'm not sure.

 

2007 (before): https://www.google.com/maps/@39.1126541,-84.5125116,3a,90y,40.16h,87.62t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sqPcE4MbG-Cx6hBsn78t4hA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

2009 (after): https://www.google.com/maps/@39.1126541,-84.5125116,3a,90y,40.16h,87.62t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sqPcE4MbG-Cx6hBsn78t4hA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

 

 

It had nothing to do with Rothenberg but with the Main/McMicken reconstruction spurred by Vernon Rader's redevelopments. I forget the exact genesis, but while it was good for some pedestrian aspects other parts were lost opportunities. Notice that the center islands were cut back and do not provide any rest/protection for pedestrians, but cut in a way to ensure the largest possible turning radius for cars turning from Main/McMicken. This goes for the couple of other islands along Liberty put in a few years earlier, but turning lanes were given preference and very few were installed.

The DOTE is holding another open house for the Liberty Street "Safety Improvement Study" on Tuesday, March 1st at the Woodward, 6pm.

 

 

that background is just cruel.

I have a vision in my head of Pleasant Street and Republic street being pedestrian/bike only, with the larger north/south streets holding the traffic, and the alleys behind buildings giving vehicular access to peoples private garages. To this point, I think that any traffic calming measures on Liberty Street should include mid-block cross walks similar to what you see between the Westin and Fountain Square downtown. I am sure 5th street downtown gets nearly as many cars as Liberty, especially during rush hour, so if it works there it would work on Liberty too. This would really help the walking connection between Washington Park and Findlay Market via Pleasant Street; and Findlay Playground to the Streetcaron 12th via Republic. It would also help the overall pedestrian connectivity across Liberty. Mid-block crosswalks could also line up with Moore and Clay and would create more reasons for Liberty Street drivers to slow down and pay attention to their surroundings. Just a thought, but something that I think should be included in the process of re-working Liberty Street.

5th Street is quite different, since it's a 1-way street with no parking. But I agree that the mid-street pedestrian crossings would be nice. (Though I'm not convinced that it's necessary to make Pleasant and Republic entirely car-free, since they already work quite well for pedestrians.)

 

Ironically enough, considering how car-centric it is, old Montgomery has a nice example that Liberty ought to emulate. Near the Montgomery Inn, there is a <a href="https://www.google.com/maps/@39.2275103,-84.3544147,3a,90y,32.51h,81.63t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sbKzS02yxqTsDEkEZK0nUOQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656">crosswalk with lights embedded into the ground</a> that flash when a pedestrian is crossing.

 

Similar to Ludlow, this stretch of Montgomery is 2 lanes each direction with on-street parking allowed whenever possible. I think this configuration provides a nice pedestrian scale, allows for street parking to buffer businesses from traffic, and can still manage significant traffic load. The OKI AADT count for Montgomery is 2013 was 25,000 per day, while Liberty had only ~15,000 (last measured in '06).

 

If 2-lanes in each direction is sufficient for Montgomery Rd, then it should be more than enough for Liberty.

 

 

^I would argue that 2 lanes on Montgomery Road isn't enough, because traffic is usually backed up for miles, but "fixing" it would likely require the demolition of buildings in their downtown, so that's a nonstarter.

 

But I think Liberty is greatly overbuilt and should have travel lanes removed entirely.

We REALLY need to compile examples of the type of road we want (Ludlow and Montgomery Road are great examples) that handle similar or more traffic per day/hour than Liberty and prove that there's absolutely no need for all these lanes.

 

And then we can hand all that information over to the city with a note attaches saying, "and Central Parkway sucks" and get that discussion started.

I think the benefits of those flashing crosswalks are mostly feel-goodery and little else. 

I think the benefits of those flashing crosswalks are mostly feel-goodery and little else.

 

I agree... but combined with the brick texture, it provides a signal to drivers that is better than zebra stripes on asphalt.

I've seen in-pavement flashers work quite well in other areas of he country. Hell of a lot better than an overhead sign with a single flashing light ala East Pete Rose Way at the Midland Building where police officers stop the morning and evening rush hour traffic to allow pedestrians to cross.

You could go with HAWK signals that Louisville, Ky. uses along River Road at the Waterfront Park (animation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HAWK_beacon). When red, drivers are forced to stop. It's far cheaper to implement and maintain than a police officer.

Out front of the Goldman Sachs building in Lower Manhattan is a bike path. When a person is approaching the sidewalk that crosses the bike path lights in hte ground automatically begin flashing signaling that someone is about to cross the cyclists so they have time to stop. It's a nice system. Obviously not exactly the same as a road, but someone pushing a button to begin the flashing will grab people's attention. A sign that flashes 100% of the time is useless because it becomes so regular and a part of the background that people ignore it and its meaning. Something that only happens when a person is actually crossing and grabs people's attention is necessary all over the city, and a mid-block crossing of a new Liberty Street would be a good spot.

I love the Australian signage for mid-block/unsignalised pedestrian crossings. Those feet! Here is a nice example where a raised walk interacts with a cycle track in Sydney's Surry Hills neighbourhood. I think that it is raised is what really slows the drivers down. A blinking light seems like it would be visual litter.

 

 

It would also be cool if intersections along Liberty could be raised too, giving priority to bike/ped. Here is another example of that along the same cycle track. These are also used a lot in Sydney, even along busy thoroughfares ala Liberty.

 

The landscaping not only looks good, it keeps pedestrians from jaywalking across the bike lane.  This is one of the major problems with "protected" bike lanes -- bikes aren't protected from erratic pedestrian movements in and across the lane. 

^^I love the idea of a raised crosswalk.  I've never seen that before but it's so simple and effective!

We REALLY need to compile examples of the type of road we want (Ludlow and Montgomery Road are great examples) that handle similar or more traffic per day/hour than Liberty and prove that there's absolutely no need for all these lanes.

 

And then we can hand all that information over to the city with a note attaches saying, "and Central Parkway sucks" and get that discussion started.

 

Actually, I think the strategy is to make the argument that we don't need both Liberty and Central to be this wide.  Narrowing Liberty won't contribute to any congestion because it's already so overbuilt.  But even if it did, that portion of Central serves basically the same purpose as Liberty and could easily handle the overflow.  And it's accessible from both OTR and the CBD, so if you absolutely had to have one overbuilt road running east/west through that part of town, you'd want it to be Central, not Liberty.  If the Liberty street road diet goes well, you then refocus on giving Central a similar treatment a few years down the road.

We REALLY need to compile examples of the type of road we want (Ludlow and Montgomery Road are great examples) that handle similar or more traffic per day/hour than Liberty and prove that there's absolutely no need for all these lanes.

 

And then we can hand all that information over to the city with a note attaches saying, "and Central Parkway sucks" and get that discussion started.

 

Actually, I think the strategy is to make the argument that we don't need both Liberty and Central to be this wide.  Narrowing Liberty won't contribute to any congestion because it's already so overbuilt.  But even if it did, that portion of Central serves basically the same purpose as Liberty and could easily handle the overflow.  And it's accessible from both OTR and the CBD, so if you absolutely had to have one overbuilt road running east/west through that part of town, you'd want it to be Central, not Liberty.  If the Liberty street road diet goes well, you then refocus on giving Central a similar treatment a few years down the road.

 

I assume you mean Central Parkway, which is different from Central. Confusing, especially since they run parallel to each other for almost 2 miles.

^Yes. I forgot that Central Ave even existed. I was responding to jmicha's comment on Central Parkway, specifically the section between Plum and Reading, which mirrors the same portion of Liberty.

I'm pretty sure jmicha's comment was about how we need to find examples of narrow streets to help make the case to the DOTE, so I don't think you're in disagreement.

 

At the last Open House, the DOTE initially made it seem like the narrowing it significantly wasn't even on the table, because anything that reduced capacity was unthinkable. After hearing from lots of people that narrowing the street was a priority, they said they'd go back and re-evaluate the options.

 

The crosswalks are an important detail (especially at mid-block), but the real goal is narrowing the street.

I'm pretty sure jmicha's comment was about how we need to find examples of narrow streets to help make the case to the DOTE, so I don't think you're in disagreement.

 

Yes.  Jmicha and I are in total agreement.

 

At the last Open House, the DOTE initially made it seem like the narrowing it significantly wasn't even on the table, because anything that reduced capacity was unthinkable. After hearing from lots of people that narrowing the street was a priority, they said they'd go back and re-evaluate the options.

 

This is why I was saying that we need to remind them that we currently have two overbuilt roads serving the same purpose.  There's no reason we can't narrow Liberty because Central Parkway between Plum and Reading serves the same purpose and has more than enough capacity to handle all of the traffic of both streets.

 

A word of caution - planting grass or adding bike lanes is fine, but if you want to make Liberty Street or any other street more narrow and use the excess land for new buildings, you had better check what utilities are there. It can costs $millions to move utilities.

The utilities are under the original ROW. Someone has already confirmed that. We could more or less narrow it back to its original size and not have to worry about that.

Yeah - the utilities don't need to be moved since they're on the north side of the street. But it'd be really nice if we could get them buried at the same time the street gets narrowed.

 

At the last Open House, DOTE said that they didn't expect to have funding to bury the utilities. I was frustrated by how they just seemed to dismiss it outright as a possibility. DOTE said something about needing to get 100% of adjacent property owners to agree to it. Does anybody know the specifics of how to initiative this process? Seems like something OTR Community Council and/or the OTR Chamber could help facilitate. If (this is a big "IF") we could get signatures from all of the property owners along Liberty, would that initiate some process for getting the utilities buried?

Does anyone know if this plan for a road diet of liberty will include the entire length of liberty (from Central Parkway all the way to Reading)?  I ask because I live in Pendleton at the end of 13th St (next to the bell tower).  We own a house and its backside faces liberty.  We have to endure the insane, loud traffic and all that comes with living next to essentially a highway in the middle of the city.  People turn off reading and hit the gas and go 0-60+ miles an hour that whole stretch of road.  Its absurd to have such a road right in the heart of downtown.  I want to see liberty reduced to the size of any other small street downtown.  I could care less about commuters racing in and out of the city everyday to the suburbs.  This road is a joke and is a left over from another era in our history where the city was not seen as important anymore. 

Not only that but it is a huge safety hazard.  My wife occasionally takes the 19 metro to work (at the zoo) and has to cross liberty in the morning to get to it.  Its incredibly dangerous to cross a highway like that, especially in the mornings and evenings when traffic is at peak and the light is not great. 

Not only that, but the corner of our property got cut off to make way for traffic from Frank to Artist Alley when Liberty was widened in the 1950's.  As a result the original carriage house building that was there had to be torn down at that time.  It would be great to get that property back, but that's something I don't have much hope for realistically. 

I don't think the city plans to narrow the part of Liberty between Sycamore and Reading. A large number of commuters use Liberty and Sycamore to get from I-71 or I-471 to Christ Hospital, and the city has demonstrated that they're not willing to "inconvenience" commuters to make life better for residents. However, you might see traffic drop off once the Central Parkway to Sycamore portion is narrowed and some people cutting across town start taking Reading to Central Parkway instead. jmecklenborg[/member] has suggested that the city just eliminate the Sycamore to Reading portion of the street (essentially making Liberty Hill the new Liberty) and forcing Christ Hospital commuters to use Dorchester.

I don't think the city plans to narrow the part of Liberty between Sycamore and Reading. A large number of commuters use Liberty and Sycamore to get from I-71 or I-471 to Christ Hospital, and the city has demonstrated that they're not willing to "inconvenience" commuters to make life better for residents. However, you might see traffic drop off once the Central Parkway to Sycamore portion is narrowed and some people cutting across town start taking Reading to Central Parkway instead. jmecklenborg[/member] has suggested that the city just eliminate the Sycamore to Reading portion of the street (essentially making Liberty Hill the new Liberty) and forcing Christ Hospital commuters to use Dorchester.

Well that's certainly disappointing.  I do hope however that traffic will decrease as you say.  It all depends on how much they restrict traffic between Sycamore and Central Pkwy.  I would LOVE it if they eliminated the Sycamore to Reading portion of Liberty altogether, but there's probably a better chance of hell freezing over:)  I would also love if they blocked off 13th street at Reading and turned 13th into 2 way traffic again.  We get a lot of people who just speed right through our street off reading to get into OTR.  They go 50+ mph down our street.  The motorcycle gangs love it too.  Not very inviting for families with children considering settling down here (which is ultimately what OTR still needs more of). 

I find it amazing how well Northern Kentucky has done with protecting its nice neighborhoods from ridiculous traffic around the area of Newport on the Levee.  That whole neighborhood has dedicated residential only parking and many of the streets are blocked off from allowing people to just cut through.  As a result there are many quiet, pleasant neighborhood streets there.  Why can't Cincinnati get its head on straight?  Pendleton could be so much nicer if they got rid of the drive through traffic and noisy highway (Liberty).  If only I could be supreme dictator of Cincinnati for a day!! (evil laughs)

I think the last thing Pendleton needs is to be further separated from the rest of the city. Most of the streets have been cut off from the rest of the city.

 

I would be supportive of making 13th a 2-way street. That would likely slow traffic some.

I don't think the city plans to narrow the part of Liberty between Sycamore and Reading. A large number of commuters use Liberty and Sycamore to get from I-71 or I-471 to Christ Hospital, and the city has demonstrated that they're not willing to "inconvenience" commuters to make life better for residents. However, you might see traffic drop off once the Central Parkway to Sycamore portion is narrowed and some people cutting across town start taking Reading to Central Parkway instead. jmecklenborg[/member] has suggested that the city just eliminate the Sycamore to Reading portion of the street (essentially making Liberty Hill the new Liberty) and forcing Christ Hospital commuters to use Dorchester.

Well that's certainly disappointing.  I do hope however that traffic will decrease as you say.  It all depends on how much they restrict traffic between Sycamore and Central Pkwy.  I would LOVE it if they eliminated the Sycamore to Reading portion of Liberty altogether, but there's probably a better chance of hell freezing over:)  I would also love if they blocked off 13th street at Reading and turned 13th into 2 way traffic again.  We get a lot of people who just speed right through our street off reading to get into OTR.  They go 50+ mph down our street.  The motorcycle gangs love it too.  Not very inviting for families with children considering settling down here (which is ultimately what OTR still needs more of). 

I find it amazing how well Northern Kentucky has done with protecting its nice neighborhoods from ridiculous traffic around the area of Newport on the Levee.  That whole neighborhood has dedicated residential only parking and many of the streets are blocked off from allowing people to just cut through.  As a result there are many quiet, pleasant neighborhood streets there.  Why can't Cincinnati get its head on straight?  Pendleton could be so much nicer if they got rid of the drive through traffic and noisy highway (Liberty).  If only I could be supreme dictator of Cincinnati for a day!! (evil laughs)

 

Well apparently Pendleton is going to start pushing for an expansion of their residential on-street parking program soon. It will be fascinating to see if Mayor Cranley allows that to happen, since he has twice vetoed a plan to implement residential parking in OTR, saying that the parking spaces are just as much for people visiting the neighborhood as they are for residents. If that's the case, shouldn't the same thing apply to Pendleton, as I'm sure there are people driving to Nation. I will grab the popcorn...

 

To ryanlammi[/member]'s point, I don't think the Liberty Street extension help's Pendleton's connectivity in any way. It speeds people directly from the highways to OTR and Mt. Auburn. If you eliminated that extension, you could reconnect Dandridge and convert 12th and 13th to two-way. That would both increase Pendleton's connectivity and reduce the number of people speeding down 13th.