Comments on: Wasted Space in Downtown: Old Highway Feeders

By: Jefe

Jefe — Wed, 04 Feb 2009 13:25:41 +0000

Actually, here’s an idea: they’re five lanes, right? Keep them one-way; two lanes of traffic on each 3rd and 4th; one lane of street parking any time; reclaim two lanes. In that space, have a lane-and-a-half of gardened pedestrian space with benches, trees, etc., and use the other half-lane for (also one-way) bike traffic.

By: Jefe

Jefe — Wed, 04 Feb 2009 13:13:13 +0000

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.

By: Walker

Walker — Wed, 04 Feb 2009 00:18:43 +0000

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.

My idea isn't to revamp these roads simply for the sake of transit, but also to incur new development.

By: Jefe

Jefe — Tue, 03 Feb 2009 23:45:52 +0000

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.

By: Walker

Walker — Tue, 03 Feb 2009 13:44:35 +0000

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.

Anyway, my original point for two way conversion was not to make things less confusing, although I think inherently most drivers in central ohio are more accustomed to two-way streets. My original point was to redevelop these streets to encourage other forms of transit (bike, bus, pedestrian) and encourage the redevelopment of residential and commercial space in our urban core.

If some car idling increases I think that could be offset by the conversion of some traffic to busing, biking, and walking.

By: Jefe

Jefe — Tue, 03 Feb 2009 12:31:06 +0000

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.

By: Walker

Walker — Fri, 30 Jan 2009 01:42:26 +0000

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.

By: lifeontwowheels

lifeontwowheels — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 23:51:05 +0000

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.

By: Jefe

Jefe — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 20:54:33 +0000

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.

By: Columbusite

Columbusite — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 18:21:51 +0000

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.

By: Walker

Walker — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 01:14:46 +0000

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.

ZHC, the FEMA disaster escape route is something to consider, but I don't think it would be a problem. Generally, when highways are designated as disaster escape routes they turn the entire highway temporarily one-way. As long as third & fourth could be used temporarily one-way in emergencies, I don't think it would be much of a hurdle.

As far as worrying about how the extra traffic will spread to other streets... I really think you're overanalyzing the importance of that. You're really only talking about accommodating those levels during weekday rush hour or special event traffic. Our downtown streets got into this one-way mess to begin with because they were designed with just those few instances in mind, and what we're left with are wide unwelcoming streets that serve little purpose during the other 20+ "non-rush" hours of the day.

Honestly though, I don't see it being a huge detriment to traffic overall. Adding 4 new feeders and subtracting 4 old feeders = status quo. Just a rearrangement of traffic downtown.

But if we can gain 4 somewhat "nice" new feeder streets as well as reclaim 4 great two-way streets, well then I'd call that a win win for everyone, no matter what type of transportation method you prefer or what street you use.

By: Shade

Shade — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 00:33:55 +0000

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.

By: ZHC

ZHC — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 00:33:08 +0000

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.

By: dru

dru — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 00:28:01 +0000

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.

By: gmcsoccer

gmcsoccer — Wed, 28 Jan 2009 22:47:58 +0000

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.