The Tulsa Forum by TulsaNow

St. Louis streets are fat, obese, HUGE! They are literally squeezing the life out of downtown. When 900,000 people were driving their 1954 Fords to and from work in the CBD each day I understand the pressure to provide capacity. Today? It's simply ridiculous. Much the same way that WalMart parking lots are purposely built to accommodate Black Friday crowds, our downtown streets are built and maintained to cater to suburban drivers on Cardinals game days.

Urban planner Jeff Speck is currently consulting on improving the pedestrian experience in Oklahoma City might as well be talking about St. Louis: "To be walkable, a street needs to be safe, comfortable and interesting,” Speck reported to OKC. "You guys lose it at safe.” "Then you look at the traffic counts, and only a few carrying 10,000 a day. And 10,000 cars a day is easily handled by a two-lane road.”

We could turn all of our four-lane one ways into two-lane boulevards with protected bike lanes

I like the one way streets.  It is way easier to get around.  I agree with the bike lines.  Just add them to the one way streets we have.

Since we already have the giant streets, I think we should slant all the parking like they have on main street in the Brady district.

I like the one way streets.  It is way easier to get around.  I agree with the bike lines.  Just add them to the one way streets we have.

Makes about as much sense as having one way sidewalks... nope cant walk down that street this direction, have to go around.   

If you want to increase bicycle mode share in the downtown area consider the following:  add bike parking as part of the city building codes,

Sure, bike lanes look nice on a drawing along with landscaping and such.  But they don't provide any real safety improvements for cyclists, and may draw the unwary into a false sense of security.

1. The owners of office buildings with freight elevators — that’s about 1,600 buildings — would be required to allow bicycle access if the tenants allow workers to bring bicycles to work. The owners wouldn’t have to provide the space for parking (that’s up to the tenants), just the access.

2. Parking garages with more the 200 space must create a paid spot for bikes for every 10 spaces for cars. In a year, that requirement is reduced to garages or lots with 51 spaces.

 
This getting old stuff sucks.

So far it is better than the alternative.

Most of the cities don't have a tag requirement for bicycles.  The few that do so use it for two reasons.  First, college towns use it to gouge the students.  If you don't have the tag - and most don't - there's a hefty fine that has to be paid to recover your bike.  Other cities call it a theft prevention measure.  Washington DC does this, but it still causes problems for commuters.  If you live outside the city, your bike doesn't need a tag.  So how are police supposed to know where you're from?

Imagine how much better this would be:
(http://img262.imageshack.us/img262/9296/frontavebikelanesfromth.jpg)

Different, yes.  Better?  I don't know.  Certainly at the shown traffic level there is no problem.  I don't know about the capacity at peak traffic.  As much as many want to deny it, most cities still need to consider their peak traffic capability.  Cars alone are not the problem.  I have some books showing street grid-lock with (real) trolleys in cities in the early 1900s.

Patrick, How do you like the street lights?

Than this.
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2525/3676809892_a0137a17d6.jpg)


Photo by Robert Blackie

I am not downtown enough to know if this picture is typical of anytime other than a nice Sunday afternoon.

I'm sure it's a weekend. But even if it were the middle of a workday, there'd still be a single digit vehicle count visible.

Even at rush hour you don't have to wait for the green light to walk across the street. The number of cars through a light cycle on most downtown one-ways goes from about four midday to maybe eight at 5:15pm. That tells me our streets are ridiculously oversized.

That tells me our streets are ridiculously oversized.

Or that we have a way to go in re-developing downtown.  Try Memorial south of 91st or 71st around the malls almost anytime except late at night.

And those streets will be great once we build two BOK Towers on every block downtown.

The likelihood of us needing anywhere near the street capacity we have downtown anytime in the next 100 years is about the same as winning the lottery.

...If a tag were a state wide program, I believe it would (at least partly) remove any legitimacy of the gripe of motorists that bicycles want equal access but don't want to pay. ...I'm not so sure bicycles with high pressure tires don't do some damage above that according to their weight.   ... Registering bikes would put them on equal footing with motor vehicles regarding access to the street.  I readily admit there would be no direct benefit to the bicyclist other than the perception of motorists that they are playing fair. But then, what benefit does my car registration give to me other than access to the street?   Perhaps bicycles should also be required to have liability insurance. ... All of these ideas are to take away motorists' perception that bicyclists are freeloaders demanding equal access. 

Give me a minute or two to put on my flak jacket please.

A flak jacket won't be necessary - unless you post something like this on the TW comments section.

I don't post on the TW since I didn't wish to comply with their requirements to post comments.  I don't do Facebook etc either.  Even this forum was a bit of a stretch when I signed up.  Too many database info collectors.

There's this: "I'm not so sure bicycles with high pressure tires don't do some damage above that according to their weight."  Are you calling me fat?  Fully loaded, my bike weighs about 40 pounds and I'm right around 220.  So that's 260 pounds of bike and rider on 28mm tires.  A gravel truck weights maybe 5 tons, or the equivalent of about 40 big cyclists like me or maybe 60 lighter ones.  I'd suspect that even with those numbers, the cyclists would produce far less wear on a roadway.  It's an interesting question, though.  Besides, I'm not fat.  Gravity merely finds me very attractive.

My brother says he puts approximately 110 psi in his road bike tires.  At 260 lbs, your bike would be supported by 2.36 square inches of road surface.  While you won't damage the foundation, you may damage the surface.  Typical car tire pressures are typically less than 44 psi.  A 4000 lb car would be supported by more than 90 square inches.  15 times the weight supported by about 38 times the area.  My only reference to truck tires is from when I was a volunteer fireman. I remember pressures in the range of 75 psi for the 6 wheel pumpers and ladder truck. Big trucks, not just a chief's wagon or dually pickup. Heavy vehicles will obviously stress the overall structure more than even a car.  Hollow ground ice skate blades exert so much pressure they melt the ice for just a little area.  The skaters damage the surface more than the much heavier Zamboni.  For the non-technical folks, would you rather have a 95 lb girl walk on your back in running shoes or heels of spike heels?  Next time you are in a business lobby or someplace where women would typically wear high heels, look at the floor.  The dimples in the floor are not an intentional golf ball design. A granite or similar floor may be less susceptible to the dents. They aren't caused by (low pressure) running shoes.  

I think we're looking at this from polar opposites.  I could be wrong, but I think many people believe there's a superior right to use a roadway when you've paid some money toward its construction and maintenance.  As you've noted, licensing, tags, and even fuel taxes aren't put into a box for roads exclusively.  Even if they were, the money wouldn't cover the expense.  So in large part, our roads are paid for with other revenues like sales taxes, income taxes, and real estate taxes.  If riding a bicycle allowed any of us to evade those taxes, the roads would be clogged with bikes.

So instead of looking at this from the standpoint of "who pays", let's back up a bit and look at the basic premise of public roads.  I think you'd agree that access to our public roads is just that - public.  They are open to all provided we each use them lawfully and we exercise due care toward other road users. 

Several on this forum have posted that the suburbanites using the road of the City of Tulsa are the cause of Tulsa's bad roads and not a source of maintenance. A few have suggested (perhaps tongue in cheek) that the City of Tulsa should erect toll gates at the city limits and force suburbanites to pay for access to Tulsa.  I agree the roads should be public access.


 Before the advent of motor vehicles, there were no licensing and registration schemes other than those used to register horse drawn cabs and buses in some major cities.  Once motor vehicles became common, their potential for damaging lives and property was readily apparent, and that launched the need for registration, insurance, and driver training.  The impetus for all this government regulation came from that potential to do damage.

I will agree with insurance and driver training.  Registration is merely a tax, allowing access to the facility.  It provides no protection to me from someone else. I have a friend who was hit in his car by a low income uninsured driver.  The other car was registered.  My friend had to pay nearly $5000 out of his own pocket to fix his own car.  The other driver was not prosecuted in any manner.  Not arrested, no liens, no paycheck garnishment.  There was no money to be had by prosecution so it was not done.  There was no jail time even though the other driver had clearly violated the state's mandatory insurance law.

Unlike motor vehicles, pedestrians, equestrians, and cyclists do not present that same potential for damage.  If they did, they could expect that some form of regulation would be necessary.  While there are injuries, deaths, and property damage that arise from the presence of pedestrians, bicycles, and horse drawn vehicles, their numbers are so low as to be negligible.  (I'm speaking of pedestrians inflicting damages to other people and property, not receiving damage from vehicles.) 

Pedestrians, equestrians and cyclists may not win in a contest with a pickup but they can cause damage by forcing motorized traffic to take evasive action.  If I see a cyclist run a stop sign in front of me, I hope I will do my best to avoid the cyclist, even if it means hitting another motorized vehicle (except maybe a motorcycle).  Hopefully the cyclist doesn't get hit but two or more other vehicles get clobbered.  What are the odds?  I don't know.  I do know the kid across the street (many years ago) got killed when he ran a stop sign at 101st and Mingo, at the time a 2 way stop.  I don't blame the motorist.  I'm just glad my sister, also on a bicycle traveling with the kid across the street, was a few seconds slower.  The kid lost big time but the car owner or his insurance payed to fix the car. Bicycle registration wouldn't have prevented the accident but bicycle driver licensing may have.

This part of the country was largely developed along with motorized vehicles.  There are a lot of roads along the eastern seaboard states with names ending in "Pike".  That is short for Turnpike, ie toll road.  These were often from the horse and carriage days.  If you wanted to go from Philadelphia to West Chester PA and the weather had been wet, you took West Chester Pike.  I have read that the road was "paved" with wood boards.  Still better than sinking in the mud.  Eventually public taxes bought the "Pike" and it became a "free" road.  

My point of view is that the public roads belong to all of us, to use freely provided we do so within the law.  The idea that there is a superior right to use that public way when one has paid various taxes and fees is a fallacy, one that cyclists should avoid. 

The airspace above us is pubic and belongs to everyone but I pay a registration fee to the state for my airplane.   The lakes in this state are public but don't try to operate a boat on them without paying a registration fee.  The roads are public (mostly) and cars, trucks, motorcycles, motor scooters pay to register.  What is so special about a bicycle that should make it exempt?  Access to public facilities sometimes involves a fee. It is not a matter of paying for the construction or maintenance.  I am not proposing a per mile fee.  A fuel tax like the one paid by motorists is obviously not applicable.  Pedestrians are not allowed to walk in traffic lanes.  They are allowed to cross in designated areas.  I don't know what the rules for horses are.  In Pennsylvania, the Amish are required to carry an electric lamp on the back of their buggies so they don't get run over by motorists at night.  In the early 20th Century, street car companies were required to pay franchise fees and maintain the section of road they occupied even when they were on an otherwise public road.  Some national parks charge a fee to enter.  My point of view is that paying certain fees and meeting certain requirements does give a group superior rights to use a public  facility over a group that demands equal access/rights and does not pay a fee for that access.  

We will probably have to agree to disagree on this one.

To answer the original poster, here is a traffic count:

http://www.cityoftulsa.org/media/2896/revised2007-counts_2.pdf

- - -

And downtown streets are NEVER busy that I have seen.  I've worked downtown at many different locations, travel downtown frequently to file things, and go downtown for entertainment.  Congestion isn't a real concern.

As long as we have this grotesquely oversized streets, we're basically saying all that matters downtown are car operators and we have no interest in creating a friendly environment for anyone not driving an automobile.

I don't know about that. NYC has some pretty big streets (they have to be!), yet I feel perfectly comfortable as a pedestrian.

The one-way streets downtown were created to serve only one purpose: getting downtown businessmen in and out of downtown as quickly as possible. 

Suburbanites hate one way streets.

Not sure how this fits in, but worse than the wide/one way streets is the lack of life on the street level.  95% of the space is taken up by a blank wall on an office tower or an empty lot.  In cities that seem "alive" there are many more storefronts, murals, or gathering areas spread about.  In downtown Tulsa you just walk between destinations with very little between them.  Ground floor retail, bars, small office fronts . . . things like that.  It's what makes Brookside feel alive when you walk down the street.  Stick a huge blank wall or several empty lots on Brookside and see how it feels.   >:(

I have to agree, blank walls and parking garages are not very entertaining.  I want to live where I do but a visit to the city is occasionally fun.  What "you guys" envision  would be a nice place even for suburbanites to visit.  I'll need a trolley to get there since by then all the excess parking for cars should be gone. 

I'll mention it again,  do a Google Street View of Girard Ave in Philly and imagine what it was when it was new. Street Car (real trolley) running down the center of the street for lots of miles.  Route 15 is currently running remanufactured PCC (Late 1930s to late 1940s build) trolleys after nearly 10 years of bustitution by SEPTA.  There are a few other trolley lines but they are running some modern (1980s) trolleys that I think are aesthetically challenged. The old ones would look good in Tulsa.  One of the local trolley fans said that SEPTA would still rather do buses.  Maybe we could get some cool trolleys with all new running gear but great looks.

Real trolleys? Or those silly rubber wheeled knock-offs? I say silly because they are in reality just another bus with a different skin. No wonder transit authorities prefer standard busses with their better reliability and maintenance properties.

A real electric trolley would be an attraction on its own and, if its route was well designed, much more efficient than a diesel powered, blunt nosed, noise maker that many cities have embraced.

Here is a link to a bunch of pictures of Philly's reconstructed PCC trolleys that they call PCC II.  If you compare them to the PCC trolleys that San Francisco uses, the bump on the roof now runs almost full length to house the airconditioning that was not on the original build. The trucks and motors are all new as are the controls.  As I understand it, they basically reused the body shells for the appearance and replaced the rest.

http://world.nycsubway.org/us/phila/septapcc2.html

That is exactly the sort of thing I'd like to see in Tulsa for the closer in parts of town. Areas farther out should be served by park and ride off-street rail. (Perhaps with some trolleys to feed the stops eventually)

A large part of the impediment is just getting people to realize that the government is subsidizing their transportation choice regardless of what mode they are using. Car, bicycle, pedestrian, bus, trolley, light rail, heavy rail, whatever. It's all subsidized. Until that happens, all we'll get is a bunch of noise about socialism.

That is exactly the sort of thing I'd like to see in Tulsa for the closer in parts of town. Areas farther out should be served by park and ride off-street rail. (Perhaps with some trolleys to feed the stops eventually)

A large part of the impediment is just getting people to realize that the government is subsidizing their transportation choice regardless of what mode they are using. Car, bicycle, pedestrian, bus, trolley, light rail, heavy rail, whatever. It's all subsidized. Until that happens, all we'll get is a bunch of noise about socialism.