Wasted Space in Downtown: Old Highway Feeders
It’s been over a year since our last installment of “Wasted Space in Downtown“, and this new update is actually a bit of a unique one. Normally we examine some of the existing holes in our downtown streetscape, but today we’re taking looking ahead at some potential wasted space that could be materializing in the not-too-distant future.
Last week, ODOT announced their finalized plans for the 70/71 Split Fix, which includes turning Mound, Fulton, Parsons, and Lester into busy one-way highway feeder streets. What the plan fails to address is what we’re going to do with our old one-way highway feeder streets that include Third, Fourth, Long, and Spring. They will no longer have the direct purpose of shuttling cars in and out of downtown from the 70/71 offramps, since the offramps are moving. So, the big question here is: are we going to let all of that asphalt go to waste?
I’d like to propose that Downtown should reclaim those streets, and restore them into the vibrant, two-way, pedestrian-friendly, complete streets that they once were.
Third and Fourth currently serve as five-lane expressways through the heart of downtown, shuttling rush hour commuters as quickly as possible back and forth to the spaghetti of ramps located on the south end near German Village. Try to imagine both of these streets with unrestricted metered parking available all day, a decorative median similar to what can be found on Gay Street, and quieter sidewalk patio ambiance at places like Mitchell’s, Au Bon Pain, Latitude 41, Dirty Franks, Little Palace, the Starbucks in the Key Bank Building, or newer streetlevel businesses along the Third Street side of a redeveloped City Center.
Long and Spring are also five-lane expressways running east-west through downtown, hurtling cars back and forth to the I-71 ramps on the east side near CCAD and Columbus State. Try to also imagine both of these streets with reduced speeds through the campus area, wider tree-lined sidewalks, and improved aesthetics for patrons of The James Club, Barrio, Rolls, B1 Bicycles, Cook Shack BBQ, and any other number of new businesses that would love to repopulate the vacant storefronts that currently sit empty along these unpleasant stretches of pavement.
View The Split Fix Feeder Fix in a larger map
Alright. Enough romanticizing. To state it again simply, here’s what needs to be done if Downtown is going to have to sacrifice Mound, Fulton, Lester, and Parsons to ODOT as our new highway feeders:
- Convert Third and Fourth Streets to two way from Nationwide Blvd to the north to Livingston Ave to the south.
- Convert Long and Spring Streets to two way from Neil Ave to the West to Hamilton Ave to the East.
- Lift rush hour parking restrictions for on-street meters so that parking is allowed during rush hour, providing people a place to stop to patronize businesses along these streets during all hours of the day.
- Add medians, planters, dividers, and turn lanes, to visually narrow these streets and keep traffic to slower pedestrian-friendly speeds.
- Complete the streets with bike racks, lane-sharing signage for bikers, benches for pedestrians, sidewalk trash and recycling bins, newspaper stands, and additional waypoint signage.
If the opportunity to reclaim these streets is missed, then all four of these streets will unfortunately be added to the list of “Wasted Spaces in Downtown Columbus”.
This entry was posted
on Wednesday, January 28th, 2009 at 10:30 am and is filed under Development, Features.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS feed.
You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.
Related Tags: Development • downtown • the split • Transit • transportation • two way • wasted space
January 28th, 2009 at 10:45 am
I’ll second everything you wrote and add that there is really no place for “freeways” (one-way speed ramps) cutting through the old heart of the city (including Italian Village and Weinland Park).
January 28th, 2009 at 10:51 am
nice job on this post - I couldn’t agree more with everything you say. ODOT has said in the past that Spring and Long are first in line for caps over I-71. I would love to see that happen - even if it’s just green space. Also, I would really like to see the city follow through on the Broad Street median idea but not stop at I-71–continue all the way down to Nelson.
January 28th, 2009 at 11:20 am
That sounds pretty good Walker. I would like to add another alternative to the list of things to consider. How about contra-flow bus lanes on 3rd/4th or Spring/Long to speed up transit service, especially for the express buses coming off of the freeway? These lanes could potentially be converted to light rail or streetcars later.
January 28th, 2009 at 11:40 am
BTW, I’d throw a “transit” tag on this discussion.
January 28th, 2009 at 11:43 am
I was about to ask about transit. It’s like beating a badly decomposed horse, but the streets mentioned have a huge untapped potential for improving transit. Especially 3rd/Summit and 4th. German Village to the south end of Clintonville. And just off spring is the COTA hub for the express buses.
January 28th, 2009 at 11:48 am
Fountains in the streets and Arches!
January 28th, 2009 at 11:51 am
Sounds like a much better plan! I hate to walk down 4th or 3rd street to cars flying by at speeds of 50 miles an hour! With the medians in place it will for sure slow down traffic.
January 28th, 2009 at 11:59 am
All great ideas! Sounds a lot like the Broad St. median project - what ever happened to that?
http://www.edsallassociates.com/edsall/site2_lge/06URB_PAGE3b.htm
January 28th, 2009 at 12:07 pm
Might as well make Summit/4th two-way all the way to up to Hudson while you’re at it… with the same potential for bike/transit/traffic calming. Fix the eyesore interchange at 3rd and 670 and free up some more wasted space… maybe a “cap” above the loading docks and connecting to the convention center. A Summit-Indianola connector would be nice too but I’m not sure there would be a good way to do it.
January 28th, 2009 at 1:50 pm
Shade, sounds like two-waying summit & fourth northward might already been in the works.
January 28th, 2009 at 3:13 pm
being on the side of keeping 4th and 3rd one way, I’m willing to compromise to this “Convert Third and Fourth Streets to two way from Nationwide Blvd to the north to Livingston Ave to the south. “, but not all the way North.
January 28th, 2009 at 5:47 pm
i’m all for converting the old feeder streets. the idea of walking up 4th from GV and having to cross new feeders fulton and mound is not all that appealing. it would be great to see third and fourth as two way all the way up to campus. it would encourage people to slow down or use the freeway to drive freeway speeds.
January 28th, 2009 at 7:28 pm
i am just personally happy to see “wasted space in downtown” back in rotation. it was one of my first CU addictions. although i like the idea, will 3rd and 4th downtown really no longer be seen as feeders because of the new 70/71 split? they still serve as the on-and-off ramps for 670 and I don’t see ODOT and the city giving those up to 2-way.
January 28th, 2009 at 7:33 pm
You voiced my concern exactly gmcsoccer about the Caps. I’m withholding final judgment for now but seems like my neighborhood and a lot of downtown’s early adopters are being asked to give up a lot for what may not be that great of a gain. Hopefully ODOT’s traffic calming measure will work and pedestrians will use them. It would be very nice to be connected to German Village again.
I think converting Spring and Long is a fantastic idea and very feasible. Should really help the Gay ST corridor. There’s a lot of potential especially near the campuses.
I’m very very skeptical that 3rd and 4th could ever be converted, although I’d selfishly like to see that happen as I’m on Third. :-) And like Walker suggested I’d love to see whatever goes in City Center do something positive for third street pedestrians
one one hand yes less traffic will probably use them now that the won’t be the primary feeders.
but on the other Front and High are going to be two way and already busy, limiting their likely popularity as alternatives. Grant isn’t super commuter friendly either so I don’t think it would be very popular either. While they will take some traffic away I have to wonder how much more they can accomodate/attract. These 20,000+ car commuters/per day are going to have to go somewhere. I doubt downtown workers will be excited about this as I know they like 3rd and 4th as they are now.
3rd and 4th are also US 23 through downtown, so the city will likely have to get ODOT and USDOT involved at some level.
It’s also my understanding that 3rd and 4th have been designated the FEMA disaster escape route for workers near the square (that’s what the consultant the SID hired told one of my neighbors). I don’t know what that necessarily entails in terms of two way usage but I would assume there would be a ton of redtape to deal with.
So while I suppose it’s possible that they could be converted I think it’s likely to be a very involved process to try to make that happen. It certainly isn’t as easy to do as say Long/Spring are from the looks of it.
Hopefully someone from city gov’t or ODOT engineers could give us a better picture of the feasibility of doing so.
It’s been a while since I talked to anyone from ODOT about the project, if I can remember to go to the meeting I’ll be sure to ask them there how possible this is.
January 28th, 2009 at 7:33 pm
Thanks Walker, I didn’t catch that one back in November. I wonder what the outcome was of that meeting and if making both two-way would create problems on Hudson.
January 28th, 2009 at 8:14 pm
Dru: I don’t have the numbers in front of me, but 670 handles considerably less traffic than 70/71, so I’m willing to bet that the traffic actually using those ramps on the north side pales in comparison to those using the ramps on the south side. Still, that’s why I didn’t recommend making 3rd & 4th two-way north of Nationwide Blvd. It would require some major reconfiguration to those ramps to make it two way across the bridges, and I’m trying to keep my suggestion somewhat financially realistic.
January 29th, 2009 at 1:21 pm
Unfortunately, even the best outcome for re-doing the split would pale in comparison to what that money could do for revitalization. This split is just more of the same and is never going to attract growth Downtown. At least exurbs like Delaware county will be very happy so they can continue to have pretty much all new development to themselves and also have easy access to Downtown via highways. It won’t be win-win for me, since even with these highway feeders completely converted to nice two-ways cyclists still won’t have an easy way to get into Downtown from the north and measures would have to be taken to make sure streets leading to the caps of these new two-ways are bike-friendly. And I’m still not buying that Parsons experiencing some traffic is a sufficient reason to tear down part of the only small business corridor in OTE. That’s straight from an ODOT rep’s mouth.
January 29th, 2009 at 3:54 pm
I agree with reclaiming, but not with two-way traffic. Let 3rd, 4th, Long, and Spring move traffic while High and Broad serve as the boulevard backbone for downtown. 3rd, 4th, Long, and Spring can have lanes reclaimed for parking, greenery, and bike traffic, but keeping them one-way will mean they’d be safer, more efficient, and MUCH greener. Idling at stoplights is just about as environmentally damaging as cars can be.
January 29th, 2009 at 6:51 pm
People have enough issues navigating downtown with the current one ways. Adding more without reclaiming the others is going to lend more fuel to the downtown hate.
Gay St. is a living example of the positive that can come from reclamation. Long and Spring on the east end is begging for it and Long is 2 way past CSCC as you get into King-Lincoln.
January 29th, 2009 at 8:42 pm
I’m not sure if converting Long & Spring to two way would really increase levels of idling anyway. Many of the lights are not synchronized on those streets through downtown right now.
February 3rd, 2009 at 7:31 am
I think cleaning up some of downtown’s traffic patterns other than 3rd/4th/Long/Spring would make it less confusing. Having a couple of one-ways going opposite each other isn’t that bad–anyone who’s been to New York City or Barcelona can attest. Some strange one- to two-way conversions like Front St. and Livingston do make it confusing, though.
As for idling, the solution would be to synchronize better, not make them two-way. Overall, having a couple stretches to move local traffic (ie, traffic that’s moving across town, but not far enough to use freeways) would be good. There are still plenty of streets to build up as lovely boulevards–like Broad and High, which should see attention first.
February 3rd, 2009 at 8:44 am
Honestly, I am surprised by how many times I’ve encountered drivers going the wrong way down one way streets downtown. I don’t find it confusing, but I drive downtown on a very regular basis.
February 3rd, 2009 at 6:45 pm
I think once the feeder traffic is off of them you can definitely redevelop and reclaim lanes for bikes and busing. Plus, what I would really love is for 3rd/4th/Front/Spring to be traffic-movers and High and Broad really become grand boulevards with less auto traffic and more pedestrians. Maybe even divided with a gardened median. This might actually be what you have in mind for the future of the one-ways. I’d just prefer that Broad and High be the boulevards since they’re the axes of the city.
February 3rd, 2009 at 7:18 pm
I agree that it would be nice to have Broad & High as grand boulevards as well (especially Broad since it is so wide) but I’d honestly like to see more streetscaping off the main axis since those other roads have been completely stripped off all vitality over the years.
February 4th, 2009 at 8:13 am
Definitely can’t disagree with that. I just like the current traffic efficiency of 3rd/4th — and Spring/Long if they would time the lights better.