RSS
Twitter
Facebook
YouTube
NBC4i.com wrote
Study May Change Downtown Driving
Monday, Nov 17, 2008
By Donna Willis
The city wants to increase safety for pedestrians, bicyclists and residents along 4th and Summit streets. The study focuses on changing 4th and Summit streets from one-way to two-way streets.
The reason for the safety plan is too many motorists are speeding on the two streets, according to Mary Carran Webster with the city’s public service department,. The city will have a mobility study at 5 p.m. tonight at the Grace Baptist Church, 1142 N. 6th St.
Related Stories:
- South Front Street Revamp News & Updates
- Columbus City Council Adopts Complete Streets Resolution
being a resident on the corner of 4th and 4th – i am highly opposed to this. the one-way traffic is much quieter than 2-way. hmmmm….
I rode my bike from Downtown to Cafe Del Mondo along Fourth today. The bridge over 670 is treacherous. No other good way to get to Del Mondo though.
Really? I would think with the desynchronized traffic lights, and potential streetscaping, it would help to slow down traffic and make things quieter overall. Right now it’s fairly easy for cars to zip up and down these streets at 35-45 MPH with very few stops. A conversion to two-way would slow that down drastically, which would probably also cause many drivers to avoid taking these streets for longer distances and re-route traffic flow to other streets or 71.
this could be true. but having traffic going only one direction, then gone is pretty quiet. i just assume that having traffic moving both directions constantly might be a bit louder…i am no traffic engineer though.
as your neighbor, I must oppose your opposition. i do like being able to get to Clintonville in about 25 seconds. however, if we want the IV to become more residential, we need these conversions. it will increase pedestrian and biking safety along these streets and raise property values along 4th and Summit (not sure if you own yet, i recall it was in the mix). if i need to be up north that fast, i can use either 71 or 315. 23 should not be used as a traffic bypass.
as your neighbor, I must oppose your opposition. i do like being able to get to Clintonville in about 25 seconds. however, if we want the IV to become more residential, we need these conversions. it will increase pedestrian and biking safety along these streets and raise property values along 4th and Summit (not sure if you own yet, i recall it was in the mix). if i need to be up north that fast, i can use either 71 or 315. 23 should not be used as a traffic bypass.
i only oppose for the noise reason given. but if i am incorrect and synched lights would make it quieter, then i am in the wrong. i do think you are correct that increased saftey woudl result from the switch.
i agree, with 71 being as close as it is, a quick jog can get me where ever i need, N or S.
+1 quieter and safer. It will certainly raise your property value as I know many folks are interested in that concept.
I would also side with Walker in that this could reduce traffic anyway. Plus those streets are very loud right now.
The title of the article is terribly off, as this conversion plan is intended for Summit and 4th north of 670 and not downtown.
I’ll be at the meeting tonite, I am supposed to represent IV there. Hope to see some folks there.
I think 4 cars going one way is probably about the same volume level as two cars going each way. ;)
But yeah, I’m not a traffic engineer either. Honestly, I hope this study is being conducted by more than just them. Because a traffic engineer’s job is to move as many cars and quickly as possible to where they’re trying to go, which is why Summit & Fourth were converted to two way in the first place. Instead it seems like we’re refocusing our priorities and are willing to sacrifice a few extra seconds of fine-tuned engineered driving time for things like pedestrian safety, neighborhood ambiance, and bikeability.
who knows, if this switch slows the traffic a bit, we could see some shops pop up here and there along 4th… :D
It will certainly raise your property value as I know many folks are interested in that concept.
….
I’ll be at the meeting tonite, I am supposed to represent IV there. Hope to see some folks there.
Even if you are not interested in property value as a capital investment, the non-monetary angle would be that it will also lead to these streets being viewed as more residential, meaning more permanent residents would consider buying them and making them their long-term home, versus seeing them as cheap rental properties. Long-term occupancy is crucial to neighborhood vitality and well being. Some of these properties are Section 8 and will likely remain so, thus it is not all about high-end gentrification. But other houses along these strips would make great residential homes if people felt they were not going to have cars flying by at 50mph all day (and if they faced a bike lane, or perhaps a nice median garden island like those on Neil).
I cannot attend tonight’s meeting, but please voice my support and let me know if there is any follow-up emails, letters, etc… that need to be done.
As much as I love to practice apexing on the 4th street bridge, this would be a great thing for IV and Weinland Park. I can only hope the city follows this up by making Ohio and Champion in OTE back to two way as well.
I was hoping Long & Spring through downtown would be next. ;)
I was hoping Long & Spring through downtown would be next. ;)
Nobody cares about THAT part of the NES.
It will certainly raise your property value as I know many folks are interested in that concept.
….
I’ll be at the meeting tonite, I am supposed to represent IV there. Hope to see some folks there.
Even if you are not interested in property value as a capital investment, the non-monetary angle would be that it will also lead to these streets being viewed as more residential, meaning more permanent residents would consider buying them and making them their long-term home, versus seeing them as cheap rental properties. Long-term occupancy is crucial to neighborhood vitality and well being. Some of these properties are Section 8 and will likely remain so, thus it is not all about high-end gentrification. But other houses along these strips would make great residential homes if people felt they were not going to have cars flying by at 50mph all day (and if they faced a bike lane, or perhaps a nice median garden island like those on Neil).
I cannot attend tonight’s meeting, but please voice my support and let me know if there is any follow-up emails, letters, etc… that need to be done.
Cool, I’ll take some notes. and post them here.
thinking about the bridge reminds me to ask if the bridges will remain one-way in-and-out of town? if so, this could put a lot of traffic on Warren Street and 1st Avenue for people connecting in-and-out. Warren is actually one-way east for the strip between Hamlet and 4th, so that would protect it somewhat, but 1st would probably get a lot of cross-over traffic.
thinking about the bridge reminds me to ask if the bridges will remain one-way in-and-out of town? if so, this could put a lot of traffic on Warren Street and 1st Avenue for people connecting in-and-out. Warren is actually one-way east for the strip between Hamlet and 4th, so that would protect it somewhat, but 1st would probably get a lot of cross-over traffic.
I would hope that part of this plan would get rid of that last half-block of one way on Warren.
The bridge looks like it needs to be rebuilt anyway (I drive fast over it in case it starts to collapse behind me) so maybe it could be retooled for two way. It would be nice to have Fourth be two way all the way down to Long, at least.
One thing no one has really touched upon is that restoring 4th & Summit would also be a boost for businesses along both streets. If motorists are driving by in two directions and at more moderate speeds, they might be more inclined to stop by and do business. That would also make it a more attractive place to bring in new business, as there are several small commercial strips on both streets.
Two-way traffic was discussed several years ago when COTA was looking at 4th & Summit as a possible route for street-running light rail. It’s good to see this idea revived.
If that were to happen it be an unfortunate result. 1st is already tough to navigate because of it’s narrowness with cars parked on both sides of the street most of the time.
Does anyone know how far north and south this is being proposed?
The on/off ramps with the two bridges over 670 make me wonder if they’ll attempt to make it two-way that far south.
The reason for the safety plan is too many motorists are speeding on the two streets, according to Mary Carran Webster with the city’s public service department,.
I wish they said what was meant by that. Do they mean that motorists are speeding in such a way that that accidents have become otherwise uncontrollably high…or that they’re (safely) driving at speeds which people don’t necessarily like.
The first one is a genuine safety issue. The second one is a quality of life issue for the residents who live along those streets.