Originally I thought of Woodburn, but I agree with ProkNo5 that it isn't really necessary in Cincinnati and is better suited for small towns. Also, Woodburn won't be getting a new streetscape for a long time. Their's is beautiful right now. Madison Road in Madisonville's downtown would probably be the best candidate, though.

Madisonville is a GREAT suggestion. They're looking to grow right now too. I'm sure the Community Council would live suggestions like this.

The sweeping curves leads to a loss of parking or sidewalk space, can lead to some sight distance issues and isn't universally accepted.

 

Here is Morehead, Kentucky: http://goo.gl/maps/JPbqd. Some of the bulb-outs have already been removed. This went from two-lanes with parallel parking to a mix of parallel and angled. The problem with this is that there is a lot of wasted space in the curves - there are no sidewalk extensions, few trees and a lot of barren black asphalt. Having all angled parking on one side for a block would be preferable, along with consolidated, structured city-owned parking. Even with the streetscaping (done in the early 1990's), their main street is pretty dead for a college town.

 

Here is Richmond, Indiana: http://goo.gl/maps/5vUT0. They did something similar, but with proper bulb-outs and more extensive landscaping. But they gave up a lot of potential parking to add in the sweeping curves. Their main street is pretty dead.

I'm wary of the curved thing myself, it's like you're trying to take an urban place and overlay a rural road typology on top of it.  I say you're better off making the roadway and driving lanes as narrow as possible, and having buildings and the sidewalk, street furniture, bike lanes, planting strips, cafe spaces, etc. come close to the roadway to physically and visually narrow it.  That slows down traffic just as well if not better than all these curves.  Even the oft-cited preference for on-street parking is risky from a traffic calming perspective, because can you guarantee that the parked cars will always be there?  If not, then for part of the time the implied width of the adjacent lane doubles, allowing it to become a highway until it gets parked in again.   

 

http://urbankchoze.blogspot.com/2014/02/on-street-parking-good-or-bad.html

 

I agree, the curved road thing seems like a very "small town" thing to do. If you want to keep the same ROW but reduce the speed of traffic, put in wider sidewalks, angled parking or bike lanes. Or put in cobblestones to naturally slow the traffic.

 

Or, why not make it one big cobblestone space with no markings and just let people figure it out?

 

Stone pavement has a drawback: lots of road noise.

The City's Department of Transportation and Engineering is organizing an open house on Wednesday, November 18, from 6-8pm at the Woodward Theater to discuss the Liberty Street improvements.

 

 

I'm interested but skeptical. Notice that the term "road diet" is no longer being used...

Bold prediction: bike lanes are off the table and travel lanes will not be reduced.

 

I would rather wait for a new mayor and get it done right.

I'm interested but skeptical. Notice that the term "road diet" is no longer being used...

 

Ha!  Totally.  It must have been changed to the "Liberty Street Safety Improvement Study" to make sure it gets past Cranley's desk.

UrbanCincy has an informative piece on the history of Liberty St before and after its widening in 1955, as well as their own recommendations moving forward. They bring up Jeff Speck, who was recently in Cincinnati and gave a series of recommendations regarding ways to make our streets more friendly for pedestrians. I would also add that UrbanCincy's design is in line with "Plan Cincinnati", a document that seems to have been forgotten at City Hall these days.

 

http://www.urbancincy.com/2015/11/could-narrowing-liberty-street-unlock-development/

Liberty St. played no role in the city's traffic (no streetcar line, etc.) until the extension was built.  If the extension were eliminated (something that is now more practical than ever with the upcoming I-71 MLK interchange) then the street would return to being a sleepy cross street.  There would be no need for a turn lane or a bike lane.  There is no bike traffic on Liberty St. as-is because it doesn't connect places that people go. 

^I pretty frequently see bikes on Liberty, and there would be more if it wasn't such a horrendously designed street that makes you feel like someone is going to kill you in their car.

I like having access to both I-71 and I-75 from the neighborhood. However I don't think Liberty needs to be an arterial between the two highways because no one needs to be using it to get from one highway to the other (and I suspect few people actually do.) Thus OTR should be the origin or destination of most of the traffic on Liberty. As such I hope people will understand slowing the traffic down a little in order to create a better neighborhood.

 

That goes for the West End portion of Liberty too! Tons of pedestrians crossing the street there.

The I-71 access is at Elsinore and Eden Park Dr. via Reading.  Central Parkway leads to that via Reading, as does 13th.  The MLK interchange will be removing almost all of the 471 N and S traffic from Reading Rd. between Liberty and Eden Park Dr. 

Liberty St. played no role in the city's traffic (no streetcar line, etc.) until the extension was built.  If the extension were eliminated (something that is now more practical than ever with the upcoming I-71 MLK interchange) then the street would return to being a sleepy cross street.  There would be no need for a turn lane or a bike lane.  There is no bike traffic on Liberty St. as-is because it doesn't connect places that people go.

 

Are you actually advocating for eliminating the extension? What would be the benefit of doing that? Eliminating it entirely would be expensive, reduce connectivity, and increase congestion on all other streets. What would you do with the right of way after you eliminate the extension?

Liberty St. played no role in the city's traffic (no streetcar line, etc.) until the extension was built.  If the extension were eliminated (something that is now more practical than ever with the upcoming I-71 MLK interchange) then the street would return to being a sleepy cross street.  There would be no need for a turn lane or a bike lane.  There is no bike traffic on Liberty St. as-is because it doesn't connect places that people go.

 

Are you actually advocating for eliminating the extension? What would be the benefit of doing that? Eliminating it entirely would be expensive, reduce connectivity, and increase congestion on all other streets. What would you do with the right of way after you eliminate the extension?

 

Reconnect the north-south streets, for starters. Don't eliminate it completely, perhaps, but just make it one way each way. Make it a park. Put in housing.

I'm all for taking Liberty down to 1 lane of traffic in each direction, increasing the size of the southern parcels to allow for more infill...  but I don't understand why jmecklenborg wants to "eliminate" it entirely. Perhaps I just misunderstood his post.

He's speaking of the extension that was built to connect it to Reading. The original Liberty went straight up the hill and that was that. The street grid of Pendleton was more cohesive since that section of Liberty didn't exist. Removing it would probably be unnecessary but narrowing the driving lanes would be nice.

 

That being said, there's about a 0% chance of the ROW shrinking. The only thing that would occur is wider sidewalks, bike lanes, and the like to make the portion of the ROW dedicated to moving cars less. But a full overhaul that would shrink the ROW and make the southern parcels larger is more or less not a possibility unfortunately. Not without FAR more political willpower than we currently have.

Yeah - I know that the extension is between Broadway and Reading. You can see the original property parcels on CAGIS, and how the extension cut through a huge swath of the grid. I just can't imagine the City restoring that street grid at this point.

 

 

He's speaking of the extension that was built to connect it to Reading. The original Liberty went straight up the hill and that was that. The street grid of Pendleton was more cohesive since that section of Liberty didn't exist. Removing it would probably be unnecessary but narrowing the driving lanes would be nice.

 

That being said, there's about a 0% chance of the ROW shrinking. The only thing that would occur is wider sidewalks, bike lanes, and the like to make the portion of the ROW dedicated to moving cars less. But a full overhaul that would shrink the ROW and make the southern parcels larger is more or less not a possibility unfortunately. Not without FAR more political willpower than we currently have.

 

Well, if the city had any smarts, they would increase the amount of developable land on the south side, and sell the developable land to help finance the road diet...

Oh absolutely. But you know how that would go.

These excessively wide streets are an asset that could be used for creating world-class transit, bike, and pedestrian spaces.  The trick is properly reallocating that space within the right-of-way to achieve those goals, which by necessity will require taking some (or a lot) of space away from cars, whether moving or parked.  I think trying to physically narrow the right-of-way, while possible in some cases, would only serve to make the street just like all the others around it that are of a similar width.  That's not really all that attractive.  We have so many 40-foot streets with 50-60-foot rights-of-way that it's not really a differentiator.

He's speaking of the extension that was built to connect it to Reading. The original Liberty went straight up the hill and that was that. The street grid of Pendleton was more cohesive since that section of Liberty didn't exist. Removing it would probably be unnecessary but narrowing the driving lanes would be nice.

 

That being said, there's about a 0% chance of the ROW shrinking. The only thing that would occur is wider sidewalks, bike lanes, and the like to make the portion of the ROW dedicated to moving cars less. But a full overhaul that would shrink the ROW and make the southern parcels larger is more or less not a possibility unfortunately. Not without FAR more political willpower than we currently have.

 

Well, if the city had any smarts, they would increase the amount of developable land on the south side, and sell the developable land to help finance the road diet...

 

You read my mind.  What came to mind for me was the FWW project.  One of the benefits stated was reclaiming 15 acres (?) for prime redevelopment.  Everybody loved that idea.

He's speaking of the extension that was built to connect it to Reading. The original Liberty went straight up the hill and that was that. The street grid of Pendleton was more cohesive since that section of Liberty didn't exist. Removing it would probably be unnecessary but narrowing the driving lanes would be nice.

 

That being said, there's about a 0% chance of the ROW shrinking. The only thing that would occur is wider sidewalks, bike lanes, and the like to make the portion of the ROW dedicated to moving cars less. But a full overhaul that would shrink the ROW and make the southern parcels larger is more or less not a possibility unfortunately. Not without FAR more political willpower than we currently have.

 

Well, if the city had any smarts, they would increase the amount of developable land on the south side, and sell the developable land to help finance the road diet...

 

You read my mind.  What came to mind for me was the FWW project.  One of the benefits stated was reclaiming 15 acres (?) for prime redevelopment.  Everybody loved that idea.

 

Without expanding any properties or changing ROW, there is already over 4 acres of developable land along Liberty Street in large (for OTR) parcels. Since Liberty is so wide and there is no original streetscape on the south side, the opportunity exists to do higher density (height) infill on those parcels.

Liberty Street is so unnecessarily wide that we can make everyone happy. Eliminate one travel lane in each direction, add a bike boulevard on the north or south side, and you'll still have room for new development on the south side.

 

 

I'd like to see a landscaped median between intersections, a driving lane removed, a bike lane added in each direction, sidewalks expanded, sidewalk bump-outs at intersections, and new lighting/landscaping. This should also provide for restaurants/bars/cafes to have outdoor seating on the (now very large) sidewalks along Liberty. That's how we are going to truly connect north and south of Liberty.

 

Excited for the prospects, but hopefully this isn't a squandered opportunity. If they don't do it mostly right, it shouldn't be done. No sense in tearing up the changes in a couple of years because we are cheap and half-ass it.

Exactly. I hope that this isn't just an attempt to add some landscaping and turn Liberty into another Central Parkway. If narrowing the street in some way is not part of the conversation, we shouldn't be making any changes right now. We should just wait until we have a more progressive administration that's willing to make the real changes that are needed.

Two-way cycletracks (especially one so narrow) is not in any way a "best practice" for cycling infrastructure.  They have some merit on difficult one-way streets, but nowhere else.  You can gain space by shifting the street trees and lighting into the parking lanes (take up one space every so often for a tree and lights, parking kiosks, etc.).  That ensures that the street remains narrowed even if the parking isn't used, and it allows the sidewalk area to be narrower but more functional.  Like so:

 

 

Is it not possible to narrow the street, and use the new open space as potential land for new construction development?

So what was discussed at the meeting?

Options were presented. The options had various configurations of seven lanes (current,) six lanes, five lanes, and four.  Some had bicycle lanes in various configurations. Several of them actually did return land for development, so they went a bit farther than some folks on here thought they would given the current administration. They were still reluctant about options that actually would reduce traffic volume on the street though (currently 18,000 vehicles per day.) The four lane option was not presented as a serious option because it lacked a turn lane which was deemed a safety risk for rear end accidents. One option that the crowd asked for that wasn't presented was two 8' permanent parking lanes, two 10' travel lanes and a 10' turn lane, with bike lanes.

 

I like bike lanes but I am on the fence if they are needed on Liberty? What happens when a bicyclist needs to make a left hand turn- they have to awkwardly get back into traffic. This would happen constantly on Liberty. IMO if the whole street was slowed to around 25 mph that's pretty safe and inviting for bikes.

 

We should direct those people concerned about a lack of left turn lanes to Vancouver. There are almost no left turn lanes anywhere in the city and it works just fine.

One option that the crowd asked for that wasn't presented was two 8' permanent parking lanes, two 10' travel lanes and a 10' turn lane, with bike lanes.

 

That's the same configuration it has now.  Just with slightly narrower lanes to squeeze in bike lanes? 

One option that the crowd asked for that wasn't presented was two 8' permanent parking lanes, two 10' travel lanes and a 10' turn lane, with bike lanes.

 

That's the same configuration it has now.  Just with slightly narrower lanes to squeeze in bike lanes?

 

Sorry for not being clear. The proposal that was asked for would have been to go down to one travel lane in each direction, instead of the current two. All proposals presented maintained two travel lanes in each direction.

I could get behind that configuration. What would that be, a 56' area dedicated to non-sidewalk area? Compared to the 69' now. That would be a noticeable difference. And curb bumpouts would help reduce that even further.

 

Did this configuration give that land back to development or just wider sidewalks?

 

I could also get behind this configuration minus bike lanes. Like stated Liberty isn't really the best option for bikes. All the much smaller side streets make more sense as it is and don't have the concern of heavy traffic. This could reduce the street to only 46' (excluding sidewalks) and could return a hefty 27' chunk to development if that turns out to actually be a realistic option.

The major streets are the ones that need the bike infrastructure because they're so dangerous and unpleasant to ride on.  They're major streets because they provide important links to where people want to go, cyclists included.  You don't see many there now because of the fast moving traffic, poor pavement, and overall hostile conditions, not because of the route itself.  It's the only connection to the northern part of OTR from the east, even though Reading/Elsinore isn't at all pleasant either, but that's the entry point for nearly the whole east side of town.  Diverting to 12th/13th means many stop signs, traffic signals, granite paving, and zig-zagging when you get to Main or near Washington Park.  Centrail Parkway is a big detour, then you're slogging up one of the north/south streets. 

 

It's the same "you don't gauge the demand for a bridge by the number of people swimming across the river" argument.  Build it and they will come; don't build it and they won't.  You can't build a comprehensive and useful transportation network, whether that's streetcar, light rail, subway, highway, pedestrian, or cyclist if you leave out links like this and don't build up a critical mass of lanes to ultimately stitch together. 

Does anyone know what sort of traffic volume a 3 lane road with one travel lane in each direction and a shared turn lane can handle?

 

No one seemed to know the answer to this. I'm looking for a vehicles per hour in each direction, not a daily maximum.

Overall one traffic lane can accommodate up to 2,000 vehicles per hour (about one car every 2 seconds).  That goes for small surface street lanes and major highway lanes, because the faster the vehicles go the more spaced out they have to be.  I don't know exactly how the turn lane figures into that, but the general consensus is that a 3-lane configuration (one lane each way with a turn lane) performs the same as a 4-lane configuration (two lanes each way with no turn lanes).

So basically we'd be fine.

 

I say go for it. Liberty is such a freaking hot mess. It's embarrassing and such an impediment to redevelopment.

The peak travel in any one direction at any intersection on Liberty is just a hair under 1,000 vehicles/hour.

 

They kept saying that the daily average was 18,000 vehicles, but also said that the peak was spread out from 7am-7pm pretty evenly (in other words, it doesn't get the rush hour 7-9 and 4-6). This means that the actual peak demand should be fairly low for the street.

 

I asked them if they had info on the hourly demand of the street and after the presentation they showed me that the peak was something like 965 vehicles/hour at the intersection of Main and Liberty going in a single direction. Both directions had pretty even flows and were in the mid-high 900s.

 

Then I asked them what the capacity of a single travel lane and shared turn lane would be and they couldn't answer my question. It sounds like Liberty could stand to lose 1 lane of traffic in each direction then, right? Unless there is some unforeseen circumstance I am not taking into account.

And do you have a source that would vouch for that 2,000 vehicles limit? I haven't been able to find any good info on the topic.

Here were the options presented last night:

 

#7 - current state / no change (2 traffic lanes in each direction + center turn lane + 2 dedicated parking lanes)

#7A - no change except for adding sidewalk bump-outs at crosswalks and medians mid-block

#7B - maintain 2 traffic lanes in each direction + center turn lane, but add standard bike lanes in both directions and remove on-street parking on one side

#7C -  maintain 2 traffic lanes in each direction + center turn lane, but add buffered bike lanes in both directions and remove on-street parking on both sides

#7D - maintain 2 traffic lanes in each direction + center turn lane, but add shared bike/ped pathway (wider sidewalk) on one side of the street

 

#6 - maintain 2 traffic lanes in each direction + center turn lane, but remove parking on one side of the street to free up 12' for development on the south side

 

#5 - maintain 2 traffic lanes in each direction + center turn lane, but remove parking on both sides of the street to free up 20' for development on the south side

 

#4 - maintain 2 traffic lanes in each direction, removing the center turn lane and parking on both sides of the street to free up 30' for development on the south side

 

 

The option that an audience member asked for was:

 

1 traffic lane in each direction + center turn lane + 2 dedicated parking lanes + bike lanes (would likely still free up ~25' for development on the south side)

 

 

The city staff was reluctant but stated that they could study such an option.

Honestly those options are all s***. What a freaking cop out. Why even bother?

 

This city's lack of innovation or vision is starting to really grow tiring. These aren't road diets. The amount of driving lanes stays the same! BS.

I am all for the proposal of 1 lane in each direction, plus a dedicated turn lane.

 

However, I was at the meeting last night and I got the distinct impression that the city DOTE is heavily biased towards the status quo. They were very cagey about reducing the current traffic flow, and half-hearted about the bike lanes as well. There was no discussion of what effect reducing speed to 25 or 30 mph would have.

 

I also meant to ask about the idea of testing things out with traffic cones and chalk. Seems like that would be a great, cheap way to test the proof of concept of bike lanes and fewer over all lanes.

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's 24' of developable land back to developers and can handle traffic fine. I like it. But it sounds like it's not even really going to be considered.

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. 

 

It's worth noting that Kenwood Road between Cooper and Pfeiffer has a similar traffic count of 18,700, and it's a 3-lane configuration.  Linwood has 14,000-17,000 and in most places has no turn lanes at all. 

 

There's some information here, though most road diet information is on 4-to-3 conversions, not 5-to-3, though it is at least mentioned:  http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/road_diets/info_guide/ch1.cfm

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 think on this deal, people need to make a lot of noise to make this work, presenting facts, etc.  I think some of the issues with Liberty Street is that the traffic lights do not flow well at all.  I wonder if this is done on purpose because of quick stop and go drug deals?

 

Either way, we need to get a top leader on the issue like Derek Baumann, Ryan Messer, the Brewery District, etc. 

 

I think it sounds like the best option is a center turn lane, one travel lane in each direction, parking and bike paths on each side, reduce speed to 25-30 mph, sync up the traffic lights correctly, and open up more of the south side for redevelopment to help finance.  If what you are saying is true that peak is 995 cars per hour, I think one traffic lane would do just fine if they figure out the best way to sync up the lights.