I am getting tired of this crap. Take those orange caution cones and block off a lane of traffic so people walking have a place to walk!

http://i1178.photobucket.com/albums/x378/KerryinJax/OKC%20Stuff/20151103_121509-1_zpscrcw6r14.jpg (http://s1178.photobucket.com/user/KerryinJax/media/OKC%20Stuff/20151103_121509-1_zpscrcw6r14.jpg.html)

They've done the same at the Tower on 23rd. Weeks on end.

At least it's not permanent like the patios in the Plaza District. I love outdoor seating, etc., but the requirements that the patios be closed off is ridiculous. I think those laws should be looked at when they look at the alcohol regulations within the next year.

And I don't understand how, by contrast, Urban Johnnie gets away with what seems like less blocked off patio (not that I want them disciplined for this).

They've done the same at the Tower on 23rd. Weeks on end.

I walk in that area frequently and have had to run for my life on more than occasion. Given the distance a pedestrian has to walk in the street vs how fast traffic is moving there isn't a lot of room for an error in timing. It's not even the result of a 'cars first' attitude, it is a 'cars only' attitude.

Maybe these guys can be hired.

http://img2-1.timeinc.net/people/i/2015/news/151116/traffic-cones-435.jpg

Honestly you can't blame the developers or contractors here. They are doing what the City tells them. This issue will only be solved when the City makes parallel pedestrian access a requirement anytime a sidewalk is closed.

I was seriously tempted at the Main Street location to just go move the cones myself. If Plu-Pan had been with me I might have done it. Instead I just walked down the middle of the road and made the one car coming slow down and wait.

I was seriously tempted at the Main Street location to just go move the cones myself. If Plu-Pan had been with me I might have done it. Instead I just walked down the middle of the road and made the one car coming slow down and wait.

Seriously? Down the middle of the road where traffic couldn't pass? There is room to walk within the cones, there is room to walk in the first lane allowing the car to go by you and there is a sidewalk free and clear on the other side of the road.

I can understand if 'some' sidewalks are closed when there is no reason for them to be open (no businesses there, no reason to egress there, the entire block being rebuilt, so on). For example, we probably don't mind if any sidewalks on the Hudson frontage of the Stage Center block are fully closed; there's nothing there and there is easily identifyable sidewalk across the street where something exists, and there's no reason for any pedestrian egress on the Stage Center side of Hudson until the building gets built. ... Common Sense, right.

But, it seems so commonplace in OKC that ANY development requires sidewalks to just be closed down willy-nilly with not even any acknowledgement to the pedestrian (no bypass, no detour, no signage indicating how long sidewalk will be down, no parallel access, no sheltered passageway, so on). For example, 499 Sheridan should have sidewalk passageways down Main Street and probably down Sheridan (given the closed sidewalk on the Stage Center side). But nope, not even a sign saying sidewalk closed, nevermind the protected shelter sidewalks that one expects in pedestrian urban areas (with school children right there. .....

This has to change, downtown development should require sidewalk mitigation - it's common sense and actually it mitigates risk of injury/lawsuit for the developer AND city!!!

Seriously? Down the middle of the road where traffic couldn't pass? There is room to walk within the cones, there is room to walk in the first lane allowing the car to go by you and there is a sidewalk free and clear on the other side of the road.

There are four lanes on a road that arguably doesn't even need to be four lanes. It also has a median. So traffic would still be able to pass.

Seriously? Down the middle of the road where traffic couldn't pass? There is room to walk within the cones, there is room to walk in the first lane allowing the car to go by you and there is a sidewalk free and clear on the other side of the road.

If the drivers don't like it they can contact Public Works and ask for pedestrian space to be retained.

If the drivers don't like it they can contact Public Works and ask for pedestrian space to be retained.

Or...you could call yourself instead of inconveniencing/involving other citizens (who have just has much right to a free roadway as you do in a free sidewalk) in your personal crusade. I normally respect your positions even though I may not agree with them but I find it incredulous that you think it is ok to make someone else wait on you as you walk down the middle of their designated space because you didn't want to cross the street and use your designated space (the sidewalk) on the other side, It boils down to you want walkability but only if it doesn't require that you walk the extra steps to cross the street. Thus, because you didn't want to be inconvenienced...you inconvenienced someone else that had was doing nothing wrong. I'm sorry but my momma taught me that is just rude.

Maybe these guys can be hired.

http://img2-1.timeinc.net/people/i/2015/news/151116/traffic-cones-435.jpg

I did not know that OSU had kind that of fraternity.