Lindsey Street

[ou48A]

Curbs, bike lanes, wide sidewalks on both sides of the street, decorative crosswalks, and replace the stop lights with roundabouts. If they do something between Elm and Jenkins I recommend bike lanes, decorative raised crosswalks, and a couple of HAWK systems.

The problem with sidewalks and bike paths in the right-of-way in question is that there isn't enough room without removing of many of the old trees that grow in or very near the right-of-way.

New bike paths and new side walks on both sides of the street would seriously encroach on several existing homes. It would drastically change how things look by very seriously damaging the tree canopy that some want the preserve.

Since this is a very important part of the gateway into OU doing this right is very important.
Purchasing more right-of-way on the north side lets you do this the right way and in a way that will look far better than it does now. More right-of-way also lets you better sever the public.

By buying only on the north it lets you preserve both the canopy and charm of the homes on the south side street and it would not encroach those homes. The trees can be replanted on the north side, new wide side walks can be built on both sides of the street along with room for a bike path. But all this requires more right-of-way and if you are going to buy more right-of-way your easily going to have enough room to build 4 lanes of traffic to better serve the community.

I would love to see a boulevard like street lined with crape myrtles, trees that have colorful fall and spring foliage and other appropriate vegetation...Heck, an extension of Legacy trail might even be possible But no real improvement that amounts to anything more than a band aid is really feasible without additional right-of-way. Even the roundabouts would need more room.

[Just the facts]

Sometimes trees have to come down for the greater good.

[ou48A]

Sometimes trees have to come down for the greater good.

I agree and I believe this is one such case.
In time it could be made to look like a walk / bike / drive by botanical garden & arboretum.
That's doing this right IMHO but it takes room. This is an investment in our long term futuer.

[venture]

The problem with sidewalks and bike paths in the right-of-way in question is that there isn't enough room without removing of many of the old trees that grow in or very near the right-of-way.

Depending on where the trees are, chances are you'll be able to save most of them. It isn't like we need to go through with right-of-way area and just chop everything down and start over. That would be fiscally irresponsible if we don't use what is available.

New bike paths and new side walks on both sides of the street would seriously encroach on several existing homes. It would drastically change how things look by very seriously damaging the tree canopy that some want the preserve.

Which is going to make any right of way acquisition very difficult to get through.

Since this is a very important part of the gateway into OU doing this right is very important.
Purchasing more right-of-way on the north side lets you do this the right way and in a way that will look far better than it does now. More right-of-way also lets you better sever the public.

And we are back to picking on the north side of the street. There might be a way to balance acquisition on both sides of the street by realigning Lindsey a bit.

By buying only on the north it lets you preserve both the canopy and charm of the homes on the south side street and it would not encroach those homes. The trees can be replanted on the north side, new wide side walks can be built on both sides of the street along with room for a bike path. But all this requires more right-of-way and if you are going to buy more right-of-way your easily going to have enough room to build 4 lanes of traffic to better serve the community.

Exactly how much does it cost to replant a 30' or taller tree? Those are OLD trees and not something that can be replaced with a little twig that will take decades to even get close to the same size. Also it is time to back off the 4-lane road idea. It is very unlikely it'll happen and would be pointless since OU won't add another lane trough their portion. There is no need for 4-lanes and it is an assinine idea to even suggest it for there. With roundabouts replacing traffic lights you'll be able to serve a much higher volume of traffic...up until you reach campus and cross walk lights start backing it up.

I would love to see a boulevard like street lined with crape myrtles, trees that have colorful fall and spring foliage and other appropriate vegetation...Heck, an extension of Legacy trail might even be possible But no real improvement that amounts to anything more than a band aid is really feasible without additional right-of-way. Even the roundabouts would need more room.

Additional right-of-way is a given...it just comes down to how much. With your "tear down the north" plan you are looking at roughly $3.5 million in property acquisition costs to buy up all the properties (except for the one at Lindsey & Elm on the NW corner). The same amount it would cost, roughly, to make Lindsey traffic light free with roundabouts...in an area that would be much better served by them.

If we utilized as much existing footprint as possible, as well as added bike lanes and average sidewalks (there really just isn't the room for 10' sidewalks in places of that stretch)...that will reduce the impacted properties significantly.

[kevinpate]

There is space along part of the north side, notably between Berry and Pickard. But it starts getting tight after that, on both sides. I'm inclined to think that the buy up the north side of the street folks would be less thrilled with the mantra if they owned, as one example, the lovely two story home at Flood/Lindsey (though that sad fence hides quite a bit of it.)

[venture]

Ther eis space along part of the north side, noteably between Berry and Pickard. But it starts getting tight after that, on both sides. I'm inclined to think that the buy up the north side of the street folks would be less thrilled with the mantra if they owned, as one example, the lovely two story home at Flood/Lindsey (though that sad fence hides quite a bit of it.)

I could imagine the roar from people asking why properties on the southside aren't subject to the same acquisition possibilities. I'm looking at 1012 W Lindsey, the house with the brick/concrete walls all the way to the street. They have roughly 60 feet from the edge of the street to the house. I see no reason why the city can't take 20' of it for a sidewalk and bike lane.

[LocoAko]

I posted this in the Going Dutch thread but I think this is exactly what Lindsey street should go with.

I was floored with the number of bikes around OU. Every single bike rack was full! (That means you need a lot more bike racks as well).

If there was a lane separated bike route all along Lindsey, you'd see significant ridership on Lindsey.




On edit:

In fact, if you did that, I think you'd have a new problem on your hands...you'd have an actual bike road where more people eventually start using it for biking than for driving. There are just far, far too many cyclists down around the school for me not to think that would happen. I think Norman has a really cool opportunity on their hands.

Something like that Dutch street would be AWESOME on Lindsey. Oh man. (Or anywhere in Norman, really).

[Geographer]

I was just down on Lindsey today and on the campus. Man, those streetlights need to go. The primary cause of the congestion was the existence of the streetlights, it was really clear.

THANK YOU SID. Now you know what I've been preaching on this whole time haha.

You know I was on campus all day..thanks for letting me know you were on campus..........

[kevinpate]

Lot more bikes these days between campus and all about downtown.
I tend to not drive W or E Lindsey much anymore so can't say if the bike folks travel it much. But I'm through DT quite a bit and it is very noticeable compared to even a year back, and mega noticeable when I think back 5 years or more.

[venture]

Lot more bikes these days between campus and all about downtown.
I tend to not drive W or E Lindsey much anymore so can't say if the bike folks travel it much. But I'm through DT quite a bit and it is very noticeable compared to even a year back, and mega noticeable when I think back 5 years or more.

Yeah I was downtown today as well and noticed quite a bit. Normally don't see much on E Lindsey, but with the apartments/condos going up down on 12th...I could see where bike traffic might pick up. Should be plenty of right-of-way to put in bike lanes from campus down to 12th SE. I would also think that Lindsey & Classen would be a good target for a large roundabout. Another area that needs it bad is Classen and 12th, but I'm not sure if that would work with it being a US route.

Working back to the west...Lindsey/George could easily be done with a roundabout before development fills in there. It sucks since it is all new construction, but it would get rid of another light and be relatively easy. Lindsey/Jenkins is going to be a tight fit but should be doable as a single lane roundabout.

Lindsey/Asp has enough room for a single lane roundabout with all the extra space to the south. Then Van Vleet Oval, if it is every going to be reopened or not (I want to say its gone for good) would be another candidate for a roundabout but room gets tight.

[venture]

A couple stories in the Transcript today...

Late proposals to change Lindsey Street plans complicate issue » Headlines » The Norman Transcript

Main points from the first one...

Norman Developers Council and slow growth advocates are in agreement on a single lane (each way) boulevard with roundabouts, bike lakes, walkability, and an overall layout favorable for mixed-use/high density developments.

As we know, Boren favors this solution as well. He recommends that traffic to OU needs to be encouraged onto Highway 9 instead. It is noted that Highway 9 already hits capacity at peak hours (my personal comment in a bit).

City contractor, Freese and Nichol, will have a report to the city Monday on traffic capacity for Lindsey.

City Public Works Director Shawn O'Leary has concerns about the design. He also mentioned that they are looking at ADDING an additional traffic light at Murphy, but said a roundabout could work there too.

Another story gave some inside to the politics of it: Surviving Lindsey Street alliances » Headlines » The Norman Transcript

Open Records request had an email from Councilman Castleberry to Jungman on the issue. It sounds like Jungman, Holman, Heiple, and Williams are on board with the roundabout design. Castleberry may abstain from voting because he owns the property at the NE corner of Lindsey and Berry. There is also an additional council member that I know of that isn't listed there, so it would seem they have the votes to do Burden's design.

Some other thoughts...

- Highway 9 needs to get upgraded. It is the perfect solution to offer faster access to East Norman and Campus. How do you do this? Well the first part is to have 24th SW go under Highway 9 with a new interchange there, removing a traffic light. That whole ramp with 35 is being redone eventually anyway, so it makes sense to modify Highway 9 as well. Build an underpass for Chautauqua, Jenkins, and 12th SE. That wouldn't get rid of all of the lights, but it would reduce them at the major intersections. It also removes the main one that causes delays - 24th SW.

- It appears many on council want the Burden's solution.

- Businesses along Lindsey, and developers as well, support Burden's solution as it will raise the prospects of more growth along Lindsey and higher property values.

[BoulderSooner]

Single lane each way is a terrible idea

[BG918]

Then Van Vleet Oval, if it is every going to be reopened or not (I want to say its gone for good) would be another candidate for a roundabout but room gets tight.

Van Vleet will be entirely pedestrian so no need for a roundabout there. However you do have a TON of pedestrian traffic (students) that will cross at this location, as well as the other side of the oval. I assume they will keep the lights here for that purpose?

[venture]

Single lane each way is a terrible idea

Please expand on why.

[venture]

Van Vleet will be entirely pedestrian so no need for a roundabout there. However you do have a TON of pedestrian traffic (students) that will cross at this location, as well as the other side of the oval. I assume they will keep the lights here for that purpose?

Okay that is what I was thinking would happen. The lights would likely stay for that reason, so we probably should look at a new system to allow pedestrians to move across safely and still help traffic move through with less delays.

[BG918]

- Highway 9 needs to get upgraded. It is the perfect solution to offer faster access to East Norman and Campus. How do you do this? Well the first part is to have 24th SW go under Highway 9 with a new interchange there, removing a traffic light. That whole ramp with 35 is being redone eventually anyway, so it makes sense to modify Highway 9 as well. Build an underpass for Chautauqua, Jenkins, and 12th SE. That wouldn't get rid of all of the lights, but it would reduce them at the major intersections. It also removes the main one that causes delays - 24th SW.

Hwy 9 definitely needs to be upgraded, even more so with this alternate Lindsey plan. I think you would have to have underpasses and limited access entrances/exits at 24th, Imhoff, Chautauqua and Jenkins. McGee would be an underpass with no entrances/exits. As part of this project widen the highway to 6 lanes. This would be the easiest way for most to access the university, as well as people commuting from the south and east sides of Norman to I-35. As the research campus grows into a larger employment center it will be even more critical.

Lindsey would still be used to access the campus but would be a slower route. Main to University is another option.

[ou48A]

Single lane each way is a terrible idea

Yes it is! .....And there are good reasons why a single lane in each direct is a terrible idea.

The HY-9 problem forces more traffic onto Lindsey. MR. O'Leary correctly said that “if we don't build capacity into the current Lindsey Street, traffic will go someplace else and those places may not be ready for it.”

O' Leary is completely right but increasingly as Norman and OU grow the traffic will choose old narrow residential streets. This creates a maintenance, safety and noise issues on those street. This really isn't fair to the thousand of people who live in these neighborhoods when there is a perfectly good solution for Lindsey with 2 lanes running in each direction which would impact far fewer people.

Clearly, its pretty easy to see that responsible officials who deal with these types of issues with regularity also think one lane in each direction is a terrible idea

[ou48A]

Hwy 9 definitely needs to be upgraded, even more so with this alternate Lindsey plan. I think you would have to have underpasses and limited access entrances/exits at 24th, Imhoff, Chautauqua and Jenkins. McGee would be an underpass with no entrances/exits. As part of this project widen the highway to 6 lanes. This would be the easiest way for most to access the university, as well as people commuting from the south and east sides of Norman to I-35. As the research campus grows into a larger employment center it will be even more critical.

Lindsey would still be used to access the campus but would be a slower route. Main to University is another option.

This^ sounds good and all but there are no reasonable plans for HY- 9 on the horizon anytime soon.

The article says that HY-9 is already reaching capacity at peak hours... but we also know that Lindsey is said to be the most contested street in the state. Clearly both projects are needed..

But seriously, do reasonable people really expect the public to wait another decade to 2 before the HY-9 problem is addressed. We can make our traffic problem better quicker and in a far more responsibly way by adding 2 lanes in each direction on Lindsey.

But on HY-9, whenever it's approved I would propose that the state build an extension of HY-9 from I-35 to the SW part of Norman and have it hook up with SW 60th / Western street. This would be a very short section of new state highway and in an area that is basically uninhabited. It would let Western Street act very much like Sooner Road but on the west side of Norman. It would help folks drive around I-35 accidents and provide a good amount of relive for large event traffic.

[venture]

Yes it is! .....And there are good reasons why a single lane in each direct is a terrible idea.

The HY-9 problem forces more traffic onto Lindsey. MR. O'Leary correctly said that “if we don't build capacity into the current Lindsey Street, traffic will go someplace else and those places may not be ready for it.”

O' Leary is completely right but increasingly as Norman and OU grow the traffic will choose old narrow residential streets. This creates a maintenance, safety and noise issues on those street. This really isn't fair to the thousand of people who live in these neighborhoods when there is a perfectly good solution for Lindsey with 2 lanes running in each direction which would impact far fewer people.

Clearly, its pretty easy to see that responsible officials who deal with these types of issues with regularity also think one lane in each direction is a terrible idea

Pretty simple question for you. Have you watched the video linked, in its entirety, showing Burden's presentation?

[venture]

But seriously, do reasonable people really expect the public to wait another decade to 2 before the HY-9 problem is addressed. We can make our traffic problem better quicker and in a far more responsibly way by adding 2 lanes in each direction on Lindsey.

I'm not completely on board with a 1 lane each way solution for Lindsey at this moment, but 2-lanes each way need to be coupled with roundabouts otherwise we are just going to have 4 lanes of backed up traffic waiting for lights to change. End result - more congestion and no solution. Especially if they are thinking about actually ADDING ANOTHER light at Murphy.

[ou48A]

Pretty simple question for you. Have you watched the video linked, in its entirety, showing Burden's presentation?

Yes...... and I don't think that guy understood the dynamics of the entire Norman traffic problems well enough.

Much of what was said sounded good and we can do a lot of that. But 2 lanes in each direction already needed, but our futuer growth will make that fact even more true. It becomes even more true with the higher density living that's desired near OU.

Even if we don't do roundabout now, we can still go back and add them later and that’s OK with me as long as they are 2 lanes in each direction.

[Just the facts]

Here is a video I shot of one of the new roundabouts here in Jax on San Marco Boulevard at Landon Ave. This street used to be 4 lanes with traffic lights. It was reduced to 2 lanes and the lights taken and replaced with 2 roundabouts. It is now one of prettiest streets in Jax and property values along the street have skyrocketed - even as the rest of the real-estate market in Florida went in the crapper. As you can see in the video, we still have some driving challenged people here but thanks to the slow speeds through the roundabout they can't do too much harm.

[venture]

Yes...... and I don't think that guy understood the dynamics of the entire Norman traffic problems well enough.

Norman's problems aren't really that unique, outside of the 6 days a year thing.

Much of what was said sounded good and we can do a lot of that. But 2 lanes in each direction already needed, but our futuer growth will make that fact even more true. It becomes even more true with the higher density living that's desired near OU.

Even if we don't do roundabout now, we can still go back and add them later and that’s OK with me as long as they are 2 lanes in each direction.

So you would want to spend the money now on an inferior solution instead of spending a little more now and getting it done, only to go back in a few years and probably spend more to put the roundabouts in?

I think you missed that part where they took streets with over 20,000 cars a day that were congested, put roundabouts in, and resolved many congestion issues while raising property values and walkability. Two lanes in each direction are needed with a standard, congestion prone solution that the city engineers are hung up on. We really need to just do it right the first time and just get the roundabouts in with two lanes each way through at least McGee. Of course it'll go down to 2 lanes at Berry, but the bulk of traffic will be spun off by then.

[Plutonic Panda]

Here is a video I shot of one of the new roundabouts here in Jax on San Marco Boulevard at Landon Ave. This street used to be 4 lanes with traffic lights. It was reduced to 2 lanes and the lights taken and replaced with 2 roundabouts. It is now one of prettiest streets in Jax and property values along the street have skyrocketed - even as the rest of the real-estate market in Florida went in the crapper. As you can see in the video, we still have some driving challenged people here but thanks to the slow speeds through the roundabout they can't do too much harm.

Can buses fit in that? I didn't watch the entire video. . . just the first 2 minutes. Now, I can see that working daily, but please explain to me who has the right of way and how on earth would that move heavy traffic that comes during rush hour and game nights???? It seems that would be nightmare and even worse if it was narrowed to one lane each way.

BTW, thats your account, I subscribed to ya, just so you know. Liked your videos on the Black and Red lines for OKC rail. That would be awesome to see that.

[venture]

Can buses fit in that? I didn't watch the entire video. . . just the first 2 minutes. Now, I can see that working daily, but please explain to me who has the right of way and how on earth would that move heavy traffic that comes during rush hour and game nights???? It seems that would be nightmare and even worse if it was narrowed to one lane each way.

BTW, thats your account, I subscribed to ya, just so you know. Liked your videos on the Black and Red lines for OKC rail. That would be awesome to see that.

Every roundabout I've seen has been navigable by buses with no issue. Right of away is like any other roundabout...if you are in the circle already you have right of way. Entering traffic must yield. I'm not sure if there is a roundabout in Edmond for you to see, but we already have one on East Main before you get to 12th East.

The big question now is do we stay with 1 lane or do we pay a little extra now and go with 2 lane roundabouts. There is NOTHING we can do right now to not have major backups on game night. Planning to prevent that is just going to be a waste of money and not possible. The trick with roundabouts is that traffic keeps moving. Yes you yield to traffic in the circle already but you aren't having to wait for the the light to turn green before you go. Traffic does get slowed down some, which helps with accident reduction, but your wait time typically isn't going to be anywhere near what it would be at a light.

Here is a good video of a roundabout during rush hour. This is at 18 1/2 Mile and Van Dyke Ave & Highway in Sterling Heights in Metro Detroit. This is in the northern burbs which are your more populated areas and sections that are doing much better than the City of Detroit to the South. There is a major shipping company at this interchange and also a lot of neighborhoods. This is a bit interchange. It is a bit of a unique design because it also incorporates on/off ramps for the Van Dyke Highway as well. The roundabout is a bit larger since this is actually a 3-lane roundabout.

Overview: https://www.google.com/maps/preview#...3.1!17b1&fid=7