Cincinnati: Complete Streets, Road Diets, and Traffic Calming

[jjakucyk]

I'm curious what sort of striping they plan to do on Observatory (the article isn't entirely clear) since it's a much narrower road than Erie.  People may be all up in arms about it, but there's really nothing wrong with the new lane configuration.  What IS bad is how it transitions to the old configuration at Hyde Park Square, and how the turns to Madison are misaligned.  If they'd just fix those thing then there really wouldn't be any problem. 

[atlas]

Apparently, Hyde Parkers are not digging their complete streets. Do you think this is symptomatic of the lack of an awareness campaign, or because of a cultural trait?

 

It's knee jerk reactions to change.  they'll get used to it and love it in the long run. 

[Civvik]

Wealthy and traditionally powerful communities like HP that answer to a larger city government are often indignant and can quickly move with a lot of neighborhood solidarity on an issue.

 

A nice way of saying they're know-it-alls and are used to getting what they want.

 

That doesn't let the city off the hook for bad communication though. You should have neighborhood buy-in.

[Civvik]

It's a good idea to start just east of I-71. There's no way they can convert McMillan and Taft to two-way west of 71 before the entire interchange is re-worked and/or the mythical MLK interchange is built. Those streets are overworked from 7-9 am and 3-6 pm, respectively, as is. The Kroger/uptown commons project and a re-worked Vine St. intersection should probably also come first...

 

Well, one of the bigger issues with one-way pairs is that they dominate the whole circulation pattern of the neighborhood. There will be trade-offs, hopefully not zero-sum. But, one thing you do gain outright is route flexibility, not limited to the converted streets but to all turns and approaches hooking up to them.

[natininja]

Wealthy and traditionally powerful communities like HP that answer to a larger city government are often indignant and can quickly move with a lot of neighborhood solidarity on an issue.

 

A nice way of saying they're know-it-alls and are used to getting what they want.

 

That doesn't let the city off the hook for bad communication though. You should have neighborhood buy-in.

 

I just hope their quick reaction does not doom the road diet/bike lanes. I don't hang out in Hyde Park a lot, but it seems to me like a community that would benefit from this. Too bad this was done in a way that makes them mad, cuz I think the community there is pretty progressive and would have been on board if they were engaged in a dialogue beforehand.

[Columbusite]

A complete street doesn't need a bike lane if done properly; motorized traffic speeds are lowered closer to cycling speeds and if there's another lane it's perfect for motorists to pass. It's no wonder they're upset when businesses are going to lose parking for a gutter lane to keep cyclists out of traffic. Over here the same threat happened in a low-income neighborhood with a business district that is just starting to come back. I don't understand the insistence in painting these communities as backward and reactionary: I don't want bike lanes either when the existing lanes are fine for cyclist use.

 

You can see that Erie is just fine with a parking lane and two travel lanes in each direction. All that would be needed to enhance the street would be signage and sharrows in the right hand lanes for cyclists and add traffic signals if necessary for more safe pedestrian crossings.

 

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Erie+Ave+Cincinnati&sll=34.051379,-118.476219&sspn=0.024819,0.075703&g=san+vicente+blvd+LA&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Erie+Ave,+Cincinnati,+Hamilton,+Ohio&ll=39.141112,-84.438171&spn=0.011483,0.037851&z=15&layer=c&cbll=39.139779,-84.444096&panoid=VFjm6Z8SY_h3kTh23JCEnQ&cbp=12,102.67,,0,-0.16

[jjakucyk]

Erie is a very lightly traveled street for its size, and really doesn't need two continuous through lanes.  The center left turn lane they added allows the remaining through lane to flow continuously and also gives pedestrians a place to pause while crossing.  The added width in the parking lane allows cyclists to ride there without being in the "door zone" of the parked cars, which was an issue with the old layout.  There are no striped bike lanes, nor should there be. 

[Eigth and State]

 

  In general, I'm not in favor of bike lanes. Ideally, bicycles should be able to travel in a normal traffic lane.

[natininja]

Some people won't ride on many streets without a bike lane. If it gets more people out biking, it's a good thing. Perhaps at some point bike lanes will not be so important, after biking is a bigger part of the culture. It's not that hard or expensive to repaint a street.

 

Separated paths are definitely nice, IMO. They make riding much safer, plus there is much less debris. Of course, they are not so cheap.

[seicer]

I biked around Chicago for the latter part of a night yesterday, and some today, and I encountered everything from sharrows, bike lanes and separate bike paths. It's quite interesting to see how they all interacted, and how frequently they are used. Where bike lanes are not continuous on a street, becoming shared lanes at each intersection; where bike paths end into streets; where sharrows were used on busy streets. A lot of cyclists out, of all different shapes and sizes.

 

I'll probably do a blog post on this soon, but I think it is important that the city cater to all types of cyclists. Sure, me and jjakucyk may not use a bike lane (hell, the only bike lane I use in Cincinnati is the Erie Ave. climbing lane), but there are many more who won't bike on a road without one. There are a lot of interesting discussions behind it, and I think the city stands to benefit from a wide adoption of all types of cyclists.

 

BTW, I haven't been down Erie in a week in Hyde Park. I know that they hadn't applied the thermoplastic striping yet, and the paint was fading fast. When I was last there, it was four-lanes with a center turn lane, with the right lane being a really wide parking bay with room for a shared bike lane. Have they revised this with an actual striped lane?

[Eigth and State]

 

  "It's not that hard or expensive to repaint a street."

 

  If there was an emergency shoulder there already that can be painted for a bike lane, then no, that's not too bad. The emergency shoulder was underutilized space.

 

  If the street was already crowded, with or without parking lanes, then it can be extremely difficult to add bike lanes, because they will displace some other use.

 

  If the street has to be physically widened to add a bike lane, then it is very expensive.

[Columbusite]

Erie is a very lightly traveled street for its size, and really doesn't need two continuous through lanes.  The center left turn lane they added allows the remaining through lane to flow continuously and also gives pedestrians a place to pause while crossing.  The added width in the parking lane allows cyclists to ride there without being in the "door zone" of the parked cars, which was an issue with the old layout.  There are no striped bike lanes, nor should there be. 

 

I don't see how that's an issue with the old layout: I'd control the right lane and motorists would just pass in the left lane safely. I do agree that it shouldn't be striped so that experienced cyclists like myself who know being in front of cars is the safest way to bike can control the lane, while those who want to ride alongside traffic can do so if they want. There should be no government-sponsored coercion of improper cycling practices.

 

 

Some people won't ride on many streets without a bike lane. If it gets more people out biking, it's a good thing. Perhaps at some point bike lanes will not be so important, after biking is a bigger part of the culture. It's not that hard or expensive to repaint a street.

 

Separated paths are definitely nice, IMO. They make riding much safer, plus there is much less debris. Of course, they are not so cheap.

 

I'll probably do a blog post on this soon, but I think it is important that the city cater to all types of cyclists. Sure, me and jjakucyk may not use a bike lane (hell, the only bike lane I use in Cincinnati is the Erie Ave. climbing lane), but there are many more who won't bike on a road without one. There are a lot of interesting discussions behind it, and I think the city stands to benefit from a wide adoption of all types of cyclists.

 

This is a very disheartening attitude I see too often among "progressives" when it comes to cycling. Think about what you're saying: increasing the number of cyclists on our road, even when it includes sanctioning dangerous, improper cycling, takes precedence over the safety of cyclists' lives.

 

I agree that we should have a system that caters to both novices and experts, but some roads are really just for experts. We were novices too at one time. However, I wanted to bike as my primary form of urban transportation and I also wanted to do it in the safest manner possible, which I found is vehicular cycling. So I started out biking correctly on residential side streets (which if signed and marked would make great bike boulevards as is). Encouraging novices to use these streets and bike with experienced cyclists or take a traffic skills course will give them the know-how and confidence to ride properly in traffic on busier streets. If that's something they want to do, that is.

 

Riding on the far-right side of a lane runs counter to safe cycling practices, largely because you're reducing your visibility to motorists who you need to see you. We should cater to novices, but we should not sanction unsafe, improper cycling practices at the same time to make them feel safe on roads that they either are not ready for or don't care to learn how to ride on properly. Doing so is ethically reckless and has resulted in the unnecessary, mostly preventable deaths that have occurred in bike lanes all over the nation. Bike lanes are quantitatively inferior to VC in an urban setting: period. Any decent cycling infrastructure would emphasize proper cycling only and also avoid busier high-speed, two-lane roads, which is the one place where motorists are more likely to act dangerously while getting very impatient since there is no lane in the same direction for easy passing and it puts a cyclist of any skill level in a bad position.

 

So what if some people won't ride on roads without bike lanes present? If they don't want to ride, then they don't want to ride. Vehicular cyclists like myself ride in the city as is because we want to and we want to do so safely. Don't lull others into riding a bike for transportation under false pretenses which endanger their lives, which is unfortunately precisely what Complete Streets currently proposes. Why not encourage them to ride a scooter or buy a microcar where they'd be choosing an alternative to the typical space hogs that most Americans drive? There are alternatives to cars other than bikes and if some people are only going to drive those properly and not bikes properly, then where's the harm in that? Seeing a notable presence of those kind of motorized vehicles boost your city's progressive image just as much.[/i]

[natininja]

I learned urban cycling in a city rife with bike lanes. That might frame my view a bit, but I don't see a problem with them.

[old edale]

Is the plan to eliminate parking on Erie!? Hyde Park already suffers from a lack of parking, and taking parking of Erie would only make this problem that much worse!

[jjakucyk]

No, there's still parking on both sides of Erie, but it sounds like they want to eliminate it on Observatory.  I wrote a letter to the head of the city transportation department over the weekend asking what exactly the plan is for Observatory (and supporting the changes that have already been made) but I haven't gotten a response yet.  Observatory is weird because it's a street that is wide enough for 2 lanes in each direction, and it kind of acts that way anyway since people don't usually park on it, but it's unclear since the lanes aren't always delineated. 

[seicer]

I see this nearly every day. The road, going EB, has a Right Lane Ends signage, but the lane just merely continues as a parking bay although it isn't marked as such. People drive both the real and imaginary lane as if it is designed as such. People rarely park on it as-is. In my opinion, eliminate the parking bay going WB and stripe the road for two-lanes with a parking bay going EB.

[old edale]

I always park on Observatory! My best friend's house is on Observatory and I almost always park on the street.  I don't see what's wrong with this street the way it is. If it's about biking, the road is never that busy, and I see cyclists there all the time.

[seicer]

Observatory? What part? The portion between Madison/Dana and Linwood is always pretty congested, especially during rush hour where it is bumper to bumper. Because of this, the cars tend to "fan" out and create two additional lanes where there are really none (and none is marked). I bike and drive this portion a lot (a really easy way to get across town), and I very seldom see anyone park on the street.

 

IMO, why is the city pursuing center turn lanes on this, in order to calm traffic? I think that just leaving it at two lanes, with 2 bike lanes, and a parking bay, would be sufficient. Residents can still park on the street; there would be two 4 ft. bike lanes, and 2 10 ft. travel lanes.

[old edale]

I'm thinking of Observatory closer to Delta.  The area where Observatory crosses Madison always seemed chaotic, and I still am not sure if it's one or two lanes.  I would agree that this stretch of Observatory needs to be reformed, but the part of it closer to Delta and Ault Park should be left alone, IMO.

[jjakucyk]

I'm sure whatever they plan to do is only for the stretch of the road west of Linwood, or more likely west of Edwards that was just repaved. 

[seicer]

Well, Observatory to Linwood, and Linwood to Mt. Lookout is part of a signed bike route, so the goal is to add a marked bike lane for that distance. It is long overdue, IMO.

 

As for the Dana/Madison/Observatory intersection, it is two-lanes but the intersection could stand to be improved. The Dana EB to Madison NB turn is only ONE lane instead of two, and that needs to be corrected since Dana during rush hour backs up past Interstate 71. And even during the evening, past rush hour, it can back up to Duck Creek. Since the Dana > Madison turn is all of one phase of that light, an extra turn lane is super easy to do.

[jjakucyk]

This isn't exactly complete streets, but it's in the same general category and this seems as good a place to talk about it as any.  These are some shots showing the rebuilding of Spring Grove Avenue between Winton and Mitchell.  First shows a fairly simple move where they removed the fully paved sidewalk between the buildings and the street.  This was a pretty dismal spot with all the old concrete.  This setup should eliminate pretty much all rain runoff from the sidewalk.

 

 

Also, the city appears to have adopted this style of inlet for their drains.  This is more bike-friendly than the slanted grates they had previously. 

 

 

The real meat of the road reconstruction here is the rain gardens between Clifton and Mitchell.  It's basically a landscaped ditch, with inlets to let the runoff from the street pass through the curb into the ditch (note that they're all still blocked off with plywood at the moment).  There doesn't appear to be any drain inside the ditch itself, so I presume that if they fill up, they will simply overflow back to the street, and the water will then go into the few normal drains left on the curb.  I think they went a little overboard on the size and number of these inlets, but we'll see how it works out.  There's also a narrow landscaped median along this stretch of road too.  The only thing that concerns me a little is that they did put sprinklers in all these beds.  It appears to be buried soaker hoses, but still.  I guess you can't really have plants that are both flood tolerant and drought tolerant at the same time. 

 

 

 

[natininja]

Cool. I just wish, with all that trouble, they would have put bike paths separate from the road.

[jjakucyk]

They have built a stretch of bike path from a little east of the Ludlow Viaduct to near Salway Park.  I suppose they're using that as a rationale for not doing anything with Spring Grove itself.  Frankly, I don't think Spring Grove needs any bike lanes or anything.  It's a big enough road with fairly light traffic, so there's more than enough room to just take a lane (or even ride in the parking lane, which is usually empty) and be done with it.  Some sharrow markings would probably be good.  I will say thought that this stretch between Winton and Mitchell is pretty tough, especially with the double-right at Winton, so hopefully when they finally repave it and paint new lines we'll see some improvements in that aspect of it. 

[natininja]

If it's that wide and untraveled, they should have implemented a road diet.

 

Off topic: Is anyone doing anything with that factory building there, between Winton and Clifton?

[jjakucyk]

Well, since there's already a center turn lane for most of it, and street parking, how much of a diet can you really give it?  Just make the lanes all 18' wide?  Being a less heavily trafficked road, and being in an industrial area, my fear is that a striped bike lane would quickly become a collector for gravel and debris.  Good luck getting that cleaned out regularly. 

[natininja]

That's why I said it should be separate from the road. I actually thought this was part of where they were building a network of paths in the valley. I thought they were going on SG by the cemetery down to the Mill Creek. Seemed like an opportunity to advance that. Maybe I don't have an accurate picture of what they are doing.

 

As for the diet...some of the parking could be removed. Why maintain something unnecessary? Then there are all the double turn lanes.

[Quimbob]

I recently posted on the stretch between Winton & Clifton.

http://quimbob.blogspot.com/2010/05/more-bicycle-friendliness-other-day-i.html

Most of Spring Grove is nice & wide but it narrows through that stretch. When construction started I thought they were going to widen the road & narrow the sidewalk. It would have made a lot of sense. Instead they narrowed the sidewalk & left the roadway narrow. I assumed they were going to plant grass, I had not noticed what they had done on the next block north. Would that stretch get more & faster runoff due to the raised train track?

All those buildings between Winton & Clifton are in some kind of use. People frequently park their cars on the sidewalk. Their parking lot is around the corner on Clifton just past the bridge. I am assuming the weak minded motorists will continue to do so & leave big muddy ruts in the non paved area.

The proposed bike path will go between the buildings & Mill Creek. It will most assuredly not be kept clear during the winter.

[Cygnus]

Last September, the city was looking for location recommendations on additional downtown two-wheeler parking. I emailed mine to [email protected] and sent a follow-up earlier this week, but no response. Anything in the rumor mills? I'd really like to see a couple spots south of 5th street...

[UncleRando]

The City installed a new two-wheeler parking location on McMillan Avenue in Clifton Heights when they did the streetscaping work there. It's just a few steps away from the Starbucks.

[Cygnus]

Thanks for the update! No mention of this on their website...

[UncleRando]

This is somewhat off topic, but can a small two-wheeler dealership please open up a store in Over-the-Rhine somewhere?

[thomasbw]

Jake, just read this over at the Atlantic, do you know anything else about this?

 

http://www.theatlanticcities.com/commute/2012/04/invention-jaywalking/1837/

[biker16]

Jake, just read this over at the Atlantic, do you know anything else about this?

 

http://www.theatlanticcities.com/commute/2012/04/invention-jaywalking/1837/

 

great article.

 

the automotive lobby has been very active for decades, aided by the deep pockets of the Auto Industry.

[OTR]

I read about that in a book - maybe it was in Vas You Ever in Zinzinnati?

[Rabbit Hash]

A little OT but can anyone suggest a good/definitive NF book on the transformative effect of the automobile on American culture?

[OTR]

This was one of the suggestions from Russ Roach in his letter to the editor of the Enquirer:

http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20120525/EDIT/305250040/Tough-love-from-recent-visitor (if anyone has access to the archive, i'd love to look at this letter again)

 

 

also, Walnut Hills is going two-way:

http://www.urbancincy.com/2012/07/city-leaders-partner-with-walnut-hills-to-advance-two-way-street-conversions/

 

Can OTR be next?

[Guest jmecklenborg]

The Vine St. 2-way conversion happened pretty much right after the riot, either 2002 or 2003.  Prior to that as soon as you came down the hill you had to choose to head downtown either on Walnut or Race. 

[Ram23]

I think two-way streets make sense in a place like Walnut Hills and the other first ring neighborhoods, but OTR is a bit too urban for it to work, in my opinion.  Vine St. is a mess traffic wise, but it makes sense as a two-way street because it's basically the center of OTR.  If you made every street in OTR two-way, it'd cause gridlock.  Think of all the added left turns, buses stopping traffic, etc.  Plus, you'd undoubtedly lose a lot of on-street parking that will be a vital resource if we ever hope to lose the off-street parking requirements.

[ryanlammi]

I think two-way street conversions in OTR should be done very slowly and picking out the best choices. I think 13th should be converted to a two-way street. That is one of the widest streets in OTR and it bisects Pendleton and runs straight to the Washington Park parking garage. Broadway north of Reading in Pendleton could also be converted to a 2-way street IMO. Perfect candidate for a two-way street. Overall I think OTR is pretty good with their set up though. Vine Street was crucial as it bisected the neighborhood. Walnut Hills' McMillan and WHT should be (and are, as I can tell) the first priority for two-way street conversions. Followed by 13th and Broadway in Pendleton/OTR.

[JYP]

Unfortunately, the layout of the new streetcar tracks on Race & Elm will prohibit 2-way conversion on those streets.

 

The same thing applies to Main and Walnut downtown however I'd definitely like to see Main Street become 2-way north of 12th.

[Guest jmecklenborg]

I doubt that Main or Walnut will become 2-way north of Central Parkway due to long term plans to build light rail tracks on those streets en route to the Mt. Auburn tunnel portal neart Rothenberg School.  I believe the plan was to eliminate Main St. between E. Clifton and Mulberry and the tunnel portal would be built in the hillside on the steep slope between those two streets. 

[GCrites]

I wouldn't be surprised if UC is against this project. Tons of people from the East Side take Columbia Parkway to Taft to get to campus and McMillan to Taft to Columbia to get home. They'll be terrified that enrollment will drop and people will quit working there if there aren't tons of lanes in each direction both ways.

[Guest jmecklenborg]

That problem will be reduced somewhat when the I-71 MLK interchange is built, but really all they need to do is turn right at Wooburn and take MLK.  Still, it's amazing how fickle people can be. 

[jjakucyk]

I can't really see OTR becoming gridlocked by having two-way streets.  The increase in capacity you get from one-way streets in the first place is pretty minimal, like 20% at best.  It's hurt a lot by all the excess circulating that motorists have to do to get where they're going.  It's also dreadfully harmful to street life, which hurts retail, especially retail that loses its visibility from vehicular traffic by being on the wrong corner.  I don't really see a need for any one-way streets in OTR at all, except in some cases where the street is simply too narrow or has other geometrical and intersection issues that would be problematic.  Frankly I don't think any north/south one-way streets are needed in the entire basin.  Most east-west ones could be eliminated too without much difficulty, though 2nd, 3rd, 5th, and 6th are pretty much stuck as-is due to all the highway ramps.  7th and 9th have some issues related to highway ramps too, but they're a bit more manageable. 

[OTR]

All I have to say is it really sucks if you're looking for somewhere to park and your headed south on Vine near 12th and the lot is full and you try to park near Ensemble only to find there are no spaces --- in order to get back in this area you have to circle a couple city blocks - all the way to Elm and Central - just to get back to 12th and Vine. I'd like to see the argument against making 13th, 14th, and 15th two way or Walnut and Main.

 

I can't really see OTR becoming gridlocked by having two-way streets.  The increase in capacity you get from one-way streets in the first place is pretty minimal, like 20% at best.  It's hurt a lot by all the excess circulating that motorists have to do to get where they're going.  It's also dreadfully harmful to street life, which hurts retail, especially retail that loses its visibility from vehicular traffic by being on the wrong corner.  I don't really see a need for any one-way streets in OTR at all, except in some cases where the street is simply too narrow or has other geometrical and intersection issues that would be problematic.  Frankly I don't think any north/south one-way streets are needed in the entire basin.  Most east-west ones could be eliminated too without much difficulty, though 2nd, 3rd, 5th, and 6th are pretty much stuck as-is due to all the highway ramps.  7th and 9th have some issues related to highway ramps too, but they're a bit more manageable. 

 

My thoughts exactly.

 

Unfortunately, the layout of the new streetcar tracks on Race & Elm will prohibit 2-way conversion on those streets.

 

Well, that sucks.

[Eigth and State]

The increase in capacity you get from one-way streets in the first place is pretty minimal, like 20% at best.

 

I have a hard time believing this. The real benefit of one-way streets is that intersections are simplified, eliminating most of the potential for angle collisions.

 

 

[jjakucyk]

It may be hard to believe, but it's the kind of thing that requires looking at the entire system rather than just the performance of a single intersection or block, at which point the benefits are mostly nibbled away.  The amount of extra multi-block circulation that vehicles are required to navigate in a one-way grid is the biggest factor.  Even if intersections themselves are improved by say 50%, much of that benefit is negated when the effective traffic volume of the whole grid is increased by 20-30%.  Also, the benefits of simplified signal phasing and turning movements at intersections is mostly negated by the constant presence of pedestrians.  Driving straight on a two-way grid and a one-way grid are equally easy as there are no pedestrian conflicts.  However on a one-way grid you're guaranteed to have more turning movements either on your arrival or departure trip, so you're getting stuck by pedestrians more often.  Turns on red are mostly forbidden in downtown as well, so you don't get the benefit of making a left turn on red that you might be able to do on a one-way grid.  All these things add up to negate much of the benefit.  Here's a paper that describes a lot of it:  http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/circulars/ec019/Ec019_f2.pdf

[Eigth and State]

^Thanks for that. I will have to look at it again when I have more time. One thing I noticed, though, was that in the example of New Haven, the block sizes appear to be much larger than those in Over-the-Rhine. Also, the title was conversions in downtown areas. I wouldn't call Over-the-Rhine a downtown area.

 

 

[OTR]

I wouldn't call Over-the-Rhine a downtown area.

 

When it comes to street grid and use, I think OTR would be classified as a downtown area - but what do I know?