Heritage Hills and Mesta Park residents seek to discourage neighborhood traffic (http://www.okctalk.com/content.php?r=382-Heritage-Hills-and-Mesta-Park-residents-seek-to-discourage-neighborhood-traffic)

The Oklahoma City Traffic and Transportation Commission will consider an application to add 19 new 4-way stops in the historic neighborhoods north of NW 13th, South of NW 23rd, west of Broadway and east of Classen.


http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/hhstop1b.jpg


Generally known as Heritage Hills and Mesta Park, an affluent resident commissioned local engineering firm Johnson & Associates to submit the application with petitions of support from many residents.

Not shown on the two graphics are 3 more intersections that were requested through individual applications: N Shartel at NW 15th, N Hudson at NW 18th, and N Harvey at NW 18th.

Bill Carey, Jr., who owns one of the largest homes in the area on NW 16th, originally had engineer Tim Johnson file the applications on his behalf then later asked for continuances so the necessary petition signatures could be gathered.

Johnson states in his letter to the commission that the primary goal of its Traffic Calming Study was to deter area pass-through traffic.

In response to the applications, the City of Oklahoma City performed detailed analysis on each intersection, measuring traffic volume, speeds and frequency of accidents.

In all 19 cases, the intersections fail to meet the city's minimum standards to warrant the new stops. However, the traffic commission is not bound by these findings and can either approve or deny each or all of the requests.


http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/hhstop2.jpg


For 6 of the intersections, the minimum number of petition signatures were not obtained. And 3 had been previously considered by not approved.

The applications represent more evidence of growing tensions in the area regarding the redevelopment of Midtown to the south and Uptown to the north. Local residents had previously opposed development in both areas, often citing increased traffic and street parking.

The traffic commission will consider the requests April 17th at 1:30PM in City Council Chambers. The meeting is open to the public.

I certainly can understand why they feel this way, but stop signs won't deter much traffic for very long. In Portland when the highways get clogged (every afternoon) the next is the arterials which soon get clogged. And then the neighborhoods get the traffic, stop signs or not. Stopping every 350 feet is better than being stopped and moving 15 feet at a time. All they will be doing is increasing noise during rush hour from people having to constantly stop and accelerate again.

I'm sure their bigger worry is the speed people reach in between stop signs. A lot of people use Walker and other streets to cut through but drive like they're still on Classen, Broadway, etc. I'm not sure if the answer is more stop signs, but there are a lot of families out around that time and I imagine they are worried about the safety of their children. At the same time they are in one of the closest neighborhoods to downtown, so the thought of completely eliminating or deterring a majority of through traffic is pretty unrealistic.

I'm sure their bigger worry is the speed people reach in between stop signs. A lot of people use Walker and other streets to cut through but drive like they're still on Classen, Broadway, etc. I'm not sure if the answer is more stop signs, but there are a lot of families out around that time and I imagine they are worried about the safety of their children. At the same time they are in one of the closest neighborhoods to downtown, so the thought of completely eliminating or deterring a majority of through traffic is pretty unrealistic.

I agree. I think this probably has more to do with the fact that speed limits seem to be pretty much disregarded these days. Not that the stop signs won't be disregarded to a degree as well but they'll at least work to calm the speeds. I'm sure the people speeding through there won't have any issues with jack rabbiting the stop signs.

I will continue to travel through those neighborhoods because I love looking at those homes.... Stop signs are just going to give me more time to enjoy the view.

Agree about still cutting through but having more time to ogle...

Once again, idiots in charge of our streets don't have a clue. MUTCD specifically says stop signs shall not be used for speed control.

https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/htm/2009/part2/part2b.htm#section2B04 (05 YIELD or STOP signs should not be used for speed control.)

https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/htm/2009/part2/part2b.htm#section2B07

As has been said, it's going to do is piss drivers off and they're going to speed from one to the next, not coming to a complete stop at any of them. I did the same thing at the absurdly placed stop signs in our old neighborhood of Seminole Point. And our idiot drivers that can't handle stop signs (2, 3, or 4, doesn't matter) will make this a complete clusterf*ck with all the nice drivers waving everybody else on even when they don't have right-of-way.

Once again, idiots in charge of our streets don't have a clue. MUTCD specifically says stop signs shall not be used for speed control.



Actually it says "should not" but as I've already argued in another thread this morning... that's semantics...... If it were up to me I would look at using some sort of physical impediment to speeding like speed humps.... Let them tear up the suspension on their vehicles if they still want to speed through the neighborhood.

I like what was done on N. Western near 50th. It forces you to slow down without barriers. It's natural.

I like what was done on N. Western near 50th. It forces you to slow down without barriers. It's natural.

Agreed. Same thing that's on 36th a few blocks west of Classen. Although the street dept. needs to keep them painted with reflective paint, they're not easy to see at night with all the tire scuff marks on them. :)

The application clearly states the primary goal is to get people to stop using these streets.

The application clearly states the primary goal is to get people to stop using these streets.

Stop signs shouldn't be used for that purpose either.

They should just make them cul-de-sacs, then, because people will go where they want if there's any connection at all, stop signs or not, speed bumps or not, just gate the whole damn neighborhood... Not sure of the neighborhood, maybe it's still Mesta Park, but going south down Broadway from 22nd to 17th, on the west side, every street is right-turn only (turning south) from that street to Broadway, you cannot turn onto them from Broadway. That kind of thing (full or semi cul-de-sac) is pretty much the only way they can truly cut down on the amount of traffic.

It's nothing more than trying to keep people from driving on their streets.

The City studies showed there were no real issues with speeding, accidents or even traffic volume.

I really hope the Traffic Commission doesn't cave on this issue.

I don't mind putting out extra stop signs, but each street should be pretty equal so that if drivers do decide to drive through MP (which they will and isn't really a problem), there will not be a path of least resistance. If all roads are equalized traffic will be dispersed evenly rather than trough only a few key streets.

It's a tough issue. This is an open, urban, neighborhood so people should of course be free to drive the streets. No question.

However, as a resident, I experience on a daily basis the automobile traffic that speeds, and/or that fails to yield at yield signs or many times doesn't even slow down at a stop sign. Riding my bike route each day, especially on weekdays, is treacherous. Just about every day I have at least one near-miss. Drivers on their way to work toward downtown on Hudson, Walker and Shartel in particular really do plow through those streets at high rates of speed.

Maybe the phraseology used for the purpose behind the proposal would've sounded better as "Residents seek to discourage speeding and lawbreaking neighborhood traffic." At each meeting I've been to where the traffic plan has been discussed, the focus has always been on deterring *accidents*, not deterring *people*, from our neighborhood.

That map looks a lot like Norman around the University of Oklahoma. :)

Every single neighborhood wants traffic to slow down, come to a complete stop at signs, etc.

I'm sure it's felt more strongly in these expensive neighborhoods that are located in the city core.

But the City studies show these are not significant issues and thus don't warrant any of these proposed signs.

And at the end of the day, these neighborhoods should be treated exactly like Jefferson Park and others in similar situations.

Through traffic is part and parcel of living in these area.

It's a tough issue. This is an open, urban, neighborhood so people should of course be free to drive the streets. No question.

However, as a resident, I experience on a daily basis the automobile traffic that speeds, and/or that fails to yield at yield signs or many times doesn't even slow down at a stop sign. Riding my bike route each day, especially on weekdays, is treacherous. Just about every day I have at least one near-miss. Drivers on their way to work toward downtown on Hudson, Walker and Shartel in particular really do plow through those streets at high rates of speed.

Maybe the phraseology used for the purpose behind the proposal would've sounded better as "Residents seek to discourage speeding and lawbreaking neighborhood traffic." At each meeting I've been to where the traffic plan has been discussed, the focus has always been on deterring *accidents*, not deterring *people*, from our neighborhood.

Agree totally on the last point. And they should look at options that will discourage accidents and speeding, not just throw up stop signs 'cos they're cheap and path of least resistance for them.

I hear you on your points in your 2nd paragraph, we live at 35th/Venice and people blow through the 4-way stop there super-damn-fast on an hourly basis. I've wanted to contact OKCPD and tell them they should have a motorcycle cop stationed there, and ask for a 5% finders fee for all the tickets they'd write...

In the end, I don't really care that much about it 'cos we're never in that area and we don't live there, but it's just a shame they keep going down the wrong path and can't figure out the right way to do it (like they can't figure out the right way to fix a lot of other traffic problems).

My wife gets mad at me when I old man and sit near the stop sign in my neighborhood with a sign that says "FULL STOP KIDS AT PLAY". She says I'm not allowed to do it anymore.

Stop signs are the wrong approach here. Bulb-outs at the intersections would do more to narrow the streets and slow traffic than a swath of new stop signs will.

Maybe the solution then isn't more stop signs but bump outs at the intersections or other physical changes to the environment. Cars will slow if the street is designed to force them to do so!

I'm cool with removing the few long stretches that don't have stop signs and also changing the yield signs to stop signs because of the misuse. BUT, if we do that? Then we also need to remove the "exit only" street modifications at Broadway that keep folks from turning into the hood.

Are bump outs and bulb outs the same thing? Is there also a name for when the median is designed to narrow and slow traffic (or is that the same thing?)

Are bump outs and bulb outs the same thing?
Both are known as curb extensions, but I think a bump-out is used more commonly for a curb extension that's in between streets, and a bulb-out is the curb extension at corners.


Is there also a name for when the median is designed to narrow and slow traffic (or is that the same thing?)
Chicane, maybe?

Speed humps would be more effective, I think.

Ironically, I drove north on Walker through Heritage Hills yesterday afternoon and I treat that street like any regular street--by obeying the speed limit. It's unfortunate that other people can't do the same. Oh well, it won't deter me from enjoying the beauty of that historic neighborhood.

Every single neighborhood wants traffic to slow down, come to a complete stop at signs, etc.

I'm sure it's felt more strongly in these expensive neighborhoods that are located in the city core.

But the City studies show these are not significant issues and thus don't warrant any of these proposed signs.

And at the end of the day, these neighborhoods should be treated exactly like Jefferson Park and others in similar situations.

Through traffic is part and parcel of living in these area.

I think this is what people in this thread are missing. I drive through and used to run through these neighborhoods often, and speeding wasn't really an issue. I really think this is about the owners not wanting anyone driving through these neighborhoods, regardless of how fast they drive.

I think this is what people in this thread are missing. I drive through and used to run through these neighborhoods often, and speeding wasn't really an issue. I really think this is about the owners not wanting anyone driving through these neighborhoods, regardless of how fast they drive.

Ding ding, we have a winner.

From the application found here: https://agenda.okc.gov/sirepub/mtgviewer.aspx?meetid=4110&doctype=AGENDA

http://www.okctalk.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=13756&d=1492187513

It is clear the desire is to reduce traffic as a whole in the neighborhood.

As I stated in the article.

Read the letter from Johnson & Associates, which Carey hired to try and push this through.

^Right, it just felt like some other posters were trying to sweep this under the rug as normal and say that this wasn't really the objective when it is clearly stated that it is in that letter.

Couldn't have made it more clear in the article.

Sometimes I think people don't read things very well.


Also, keep in mind that Carey is the heir to the Carey Lumber fortune and lives in a huge house and no doubt paid this engineering firm out of his pocket to do this big study in an attempt to get what he wants from the City. This does not happen in other neighborhoods, mainly because no one is going to pay that type of money.

Only after he had Johnson do this did he go back and seek the petition signatures, as they are required by the City.


It's very clear what is going on here and if this somehow passes, it will say a lot about how people of means are treated by the government vs. the common man.

Sometimes I think people don't read things very well.

100% agree

I read this yesterday and purposely took Harvey from Midtown to Uptown last night instead of Broadway, Lincoln, or 235 like I might have otherwise done. :tongue:

...
It's very clear what is going on here and if this somehow passes, it will say a lot about how people of means are treated by the government vs. the common man.

Not to bring politics into this and not intended to create any new discussion, but we already know the answer to that, it's been the way the entire USA has been for a few decades now... Rich white folks (men, especially) get all they want, screw everybody else.

100% agree

Some of us don't read things very well at 4:20am

Maybe the solution then isn't more stop signs but bump outs at the intersections or other physical changes to the environment. Cars will slow if the street is designed to force them to do so!

This. Especially on 13th. I think if they tackle speeding on 13th and Classen, the way that traffic is mostly pretty calm (and slow) on 23rd, it will set the pace for how drivers go through HH and MP.

That said I am 100% for a neighborhood being very involved in traffic planning within its own confines. This is great IMO. If this helps HH residents let go of what happens in 4th floor sex shops across 13th, I'm all for it. Urban co-existence is all about compromising and giving both sides as much of what they want as possible.

As long as they don't close a SINGLE street, they can put a 4-way at every single intersection if they so fancy. They'll only drive themselves insane lol.

. . . will still have to drive on "their" streets on my way to St Luke's!! Too bad, so sad!! :Smiley122

If this passes we should do drive-bys.

Wait...not THOSE kind of drive-bys. drive-bys like sit-in drive-bys. Protest drive-bys.

Maybe drive-throughs is a more appropriate term.

So do people who drive through believe they are more entitled to the streets than the people who live on them?

I don't see class undertones at all here. We have a lot of low-income areas of Columbus just completely overran with pass-through commuters, bumper to bumper going 45 on streets signed for 35 that should be 30. I think it's totally reasonable for residents to demand traffic calming of their own streets.

Besides Walker, which is the street that connects best from downtown to 23rd, has already had stops at every block for years. Even though you don't have to stop once going through Midtown or Paseo/J Park (until 30th).

Most good urban neighborhoods in Chicago have four-way stops at every corner, except for major thoroughfares like Fullerton or Halsted (compare to Western).

Except it doesn't seem like speeding is an issue here. Just "other people" using "their" streets.

Public streets belong equally to everyone.

And OKC's traffic and density is nothing like Chicago.


OKC has specific methods to test traffic, speed and accidents and all 38 of these proposed stop signs fail those standards.

So do people who drive through believe they are more entitled to the streets than the people who live on them?

I don't see class undertones at all here. We have a lot of low-income areas of Columbus just completely overran with pass-through commuters, bumper to bumper going 45 on streets signed for 35 that should be 30. I think it's totally reasonable for residents to demand traffic calming of their own streets.

Besides Walker, which is the street that connects best from downtown to 23rd, has already had stops at every block for years. Even though you don't have to stop once going through Midtown or Paseo/J Park (until 30th).

Most good urban neighborhoods in Chicago have four-way stops at every corner, except for major thoroughfares like Fullerton or Halsted (compare to Western).

Thank you for saying what you said about the class undertones, Spartan. I was starting to feel kind of creepy about the direction this conversation has taken. My first thought was to post something along the lines of, "Hello, my name is Terri and I'm a nice person. Please don't stereotype me or make sweeping generalizations about me because I happen to live in a certain neighborhood."

Anyway, if anyone is interested in the viewpoint of someone who's actually here and actually goes to neighborhood meetings where this has been discussed in detail, I'll tell you the way I was made to understand the traffic plan. It isn't nearly as sinister as some would make it seem. There are major arterial streets in OKC—Robinson, Western, and Classen—feeding into downtown which are probably better-suited to commuters coming and going who do not wish to take the highway. They have higher speed limits and/or more/wider lanes and not as many traffic signals or stop signs. Encouraging use of those streets by commuters might help keep pedestrians safer in the neighborhood. So the plan adds stop signs with the hopes that it'll slow people down and/or get them to use Robinson and/or Western/Classen. That's the way it was explained to us at these meetings.

Whether or not the proposed plan will work if implemented, I cannot say. I will say that we had a similar situation in my previous neighborhood, Linwood Place, years ago. We lived on 19th Street on a corner with no stop sign. Cars had two or three blocks where they could pick up a good deal of speed before they had to stop. It was scary because Linwood is also a pedestrian-oriented neighborhood. Residents wanted to encourage the use of 16th and 23rd rather than 19th for people just wanting to get from point A to point B, so we began the process of petitioning for a stop sign.

Just like HH/Mesta, the traffic counts didn't add up to the right amount to automatically call for a stop sign and we were turned down. However, after developing a rapport with Mr. Chai, we were able to convince him to recommend placement of a sign nevertheless. And we got one. So the city will make exceptions, even when the traffic counts aren't at the benchmark level. If HH/Mesta gets the stop signs without the traffic, they definitely won't be the first. And nobody had any kind of power or influence in our group. We just worked very hard and were able to make the city see our point of view. In the end, I don't know if there were actually fewer cars using 19th, but I know the stop sign helped. Full disclosure—I also saw a bunch of people run that lovely stop sign! :)

As I've said before, I have no dog in this particular fight. I'm not affiliated with the committee/people working on the traffic proposal. We've only lived here a little over a year, and the traffic proposal has been ongoing for at least two years. We already have a stop sign on our corner anyway. We live across the street from a church (of which we have become members because they're such good neighbors and good people) on a very busy intersection with tons of cars passing through and parking in front of our house and along the side of it just about every day. We chose our house knowing full well that the area was a sea of activity. Cars and people (whether they be neighbors or non-neighbors) don't bother us at all.

This is purely anecdotal, but the folks we hang out with here in the 'hood all are super-excited about the development in Midtown, and never ever express any desire to exclude those not living here. Everybody we know takes full advantage of all the new restaurants, shops and hotels that are springing up within walking distance. With respect to the traffic plan, what I hear them saying is simply that they hope pedestrians (not just residents, mind you) can have a good, safe experience while walking, jogging, cycling, and the like.

So that's my $.02. I sure hope we can get back to a little more civil tone and discuss the merits of the plan rather than making character judgments about people.

^

Terri, a very rich man paid an engineering firm a lot of money to do a study to try and influence the City on all of this.

The public / petition part came later as it was required before they would consider what he wanted / proposed.


This isn't a simple matter of a bunch of nice neighbors getting together to crusade for a stop sign or two. Especially when the letter submitted with this specifically says the goal is discourage and divert people from driving these streets through 38 (!!) new stops.

And, not coincidentally, exactly zero of those stops meet *any* of the minimum standards set forth by the City as an objective way to deal with every neighborhood that wants do exactly what is trying to be accomplished here.
.

I tend to side with Spartan and turnpup on this.

I drive through these areas quite a bit getting to my wife's office, and I see people speeding all the time through there. I know that's not what the stated goal was, but in my small bit of data gathered it is a problem.

Pete, I can't speak to anything you may know about Mr. Carey. I don't know his personal motives. What I do know is that he's donated a huge amount of his time to the project on behalf of the neighborhood association (and, like it or not, it's what the governing board has decided to try). I have no idea whether or not he's donated funds as well, but that would certainly be within his rights to contribute financially to the neighborhood.

Work on the proposal has been ongoing for at least a couple of years, to no fruition. I would suspect (and again, I'm just speculating here) that the committee finally decided to get some outside help with it *because* they haven't been able to get the city to implement it. For all these comments about white/male/rich/powerful people having so much influence, I have to ask--if that's the case, then why has it been two years and the proposal HASN'T gotten any traction?

The tone of the thread had become really negative and mean-spirited things were being imputed to ALL residents, which I do not believe is fair. I also do not believe it is fair to single out and demonize Bill Carey. As I said before, we can debate the merits of this proposal all day long and that's a good thing. Civil, healthy, debate. What's *not* a good thing, and a slippery slope, is to personally attack and stereotype people based on nothing more than speculation.

I used to live on the corner of NW 21st and Robinson. Speeders were a huge problem down Robinson. I always thought that Robinson should get a stop sign or two. Broadway makes more sense as a main route into downtown that doesn't snake through a neighborhood.

However, stop signs won't deter people going through the neighborhood but hopefully would slow them down. I office off Walker and Sheridan. If I am going to eat at Thai house, drake, or in paseo.....I am going straight up Walker regardless of stop signs as makes no sense to go over to Classen or over to Broadway. I don't see anything wrong with slowing down the traffic in neighborhoods. If we want people to live in the urban areas...we have to make it a safe place for them to raise their kids. That is a major reason we no longer live at 21/Robinson.

If this helps HH residents let go of what happens in 4th floor sex shops across 13th, I'm all for it.


What 4th floor sex shops are there on 13th? Asking for a friend;)

Speeding is always a problem. Again, you address that through changing the driving environment. You must make a driver feel *unsafe* driving above 25 MPH.

As to arguing against what Pete is saying, he's mostly just stating facts, not even making an argument. The only argument I see being made by Pete is against, a rich man basically throwing money around to get his way on public streets. That is what is happening. It's not conjecture, it's not debate. It's fact. Are we okay with that or not?

What actually needs to happen is that we need to promote Walker as a bisecting thoroughfare. Walker should be built to be safely traveled at 30/35 MPH and then build out the other streets to 20/25MPH.

Why not put in some roundabouts and speed bumps? Why stop signs? It seems like bumps and roundabouts would better deter people.

In addition to hiring Johnson & Associates, the group also paid attorney David Box to represent their interests at yesterday's traffic commission meeting.

All items for the 38 new stop signs passed.

In addition to hiring Johnson & Associates, the group also paid attorney David Box to represent their interests at yesterday's traffic commission meeting.

All items for the 38 new stop signs passed.

All passed? Well the backers of this should know that this will have zero effect on me, I will continue to used walker and shartel to go through HH/MP as I usually do.

I don't necessarily blame the residents of the neighborhood from wanting less traffic, slower traffic, and less noise. The fact is, they do not own the streets. So compromise should have been sought by the city.

The city really needs to weigh the needs of many, not the needs of the few, especially when it comes to streets the entire city owns.

The unintended consequence is overall noise will increase while air quality decreases from more pollution because instead of cars coasting through with minimal changes to engine speed, people will constantly be accelerating (at high starting RPM) and braking at every stop sign. At rush hour, the frustration of traffic combined with "get-home-itis" may actually cause people to drive even more aggressively thus creating more noise and chances for conflicts and accidents.

I think the city could have reached compromise in the middle. Drivers need alternate routes, neighborhoods need safe streets. Compromise: add some stop signs, but not an overbearing amount. Best solution at a higher cost, but likely safer, would be to change the street layout to naturally calm traffic.

A necessary change for the near area would be to raise the speed limit on Broadway from north of automobile alley to the curves at it approaches 23rd to a reasonable speed and cut out the speed traps. There is an embarrassingly low amount of volume on that stretch and it is built to handle so much more it seems. That could take some stress off the near neighborhood infrastructure. No?

A necessary change for the near area would be to raise the speed limit on Broadway from north of automobile alley to the curves at it approaches 23rd to a reasonable speed and cut out the speed traps. There is an embarrassingly low amount of volume on that stretch and it is built to handle so much more it seems. That could take some stress off the near neighborhood infrastructure. No?

Agree. Plus, the police frequently use that stretch of Broadway as a (for lack of a better term) speed trap, which perhaps discourages people from using it as well. We drive it on a daily basis, and you're correct that there's not much volume on it. Sure seems like it'd be a good alternative if the speed were increased slightly.

A necessary change for the near area would be to raise the speed limit on Broadway from north of automobile alley to the curves at it approaches 23rd to a reasonable speed and cut out the speed traps. There is an embarrassingly low amount of volume on that stretch and it is built to handle so much more it seems. That could take some stress off the near neighborhood infrastructure. No?


Agree. Plus, the police frequently use that stretch of Broadway as a (for lack of a better term) speed trap, which perhaps discourages people from using it as well. We drive it on a daily basis, and you're correct that there's not much volume on it. Sure seems like it'd be a good alternative if the speed were increased slightly.

I think you guys are saying the same thing. However I'll note that the speed limit on Broadway is already higher than Walker. Also, I don't know the history, but I wouldn't be surprised if, based on road design, the speed limit wasn't higher at some point and lowered due to complaints. Any long time HH-East residents around to chime in? Has it "always" been 30mph?

Here's the question that comes out of this, if there was not traffic-count evidence for putting in 38 new stop signs, does that mean every neighborhood is now entitled to 38 new stop signs to deter traffic in their neighbrohoods? Is that the precedent that has been set?

Probably depends, like much of any kind of politics, on how much your city council rep likes you.

Probably depends, like much of any kind of politics, on how much your city council rep likes you.

And how much money you have to hire folks that will push it through for you.

And how much money you have to hire folks that will push it through for you.

...and whether you have 3000 cars a day coming down your street.

...and whether you have 3000 cars a day coming down your street.
Where's the traffic data to support this?