The Tulsa Forum by TulsaNow

Start with 11th and Peoria to coincide with the BRT.

Then slowly work your way to every main road in Tulsa. 21st, 31st...71st! On roads like Peoria abd 11th you add a turning lane in the middle with one lane for each direction. The traffic will flow just as smooth but a tad slower which would be safer to begin with. The rest of the road would be for protected bike lanes. You could even use eminent domain to expand the road for more advanced protected bike lanes.

How rad would that make Tulsa?

Using eminent domain does not make a town "rad"

No. Just no. Tulsa already has bike lanes. Perhaps you never noticed them because they were never maintained. The remains can be seen along Archer and Mohawk Blvd. Just splash some paint on the road, take the all-important grant and CMAQ monies tied to bicycling "facilities", and go your merry way. What? There's no funding for maintenance? Too bad, so sad. Let 'em rot.

Of course, there's another way, one that is known to work and doesn't require special facilities. LAB teaches it, as well as CyclingSavvy, and some self-instruction. The Tulsa Hub can teach you too. The big difference is these programs will maker you a better, safer rider rather than a superstitious believer in the power of Magick Paint.

Sure, go ahead, once you figure out how the bicyclist are going to pay for the ~$200k/mile to build your protected lanes. How about this, state can require license for the bike and the rider, (requires initial testing, and annual renewal for both) and a surcharge tax on tires and tubes to pay for it. Also, new traffic laws requiring safety gear and lighting to be used at all time, also you have to abide by traffic laws and regualtions and fines for violations similar to cars, and since you will be on public roads, you must carry liability insurance in case you are at fault for an accident. That should help pay for some of it.

Radically Stupid.....!!

http://usa.streetsblog.org/2015/09/02/protected-bike-lanes-7-times-more-effective-than-painted-ones-survey-says/ (http://usa.streetsblog.org/2015/09/02/protected-bike-lanes-7-times-more-effective-than-painted-ones-survey-says/)

http://grist.org/cities/2010-09-27-why-an-additional-road-tax-for-bicyclists-would-be-unfair/ (http://grist.org/cities/2010-09-27-why-an-additional-road-tax-for-bicyclists-would-be-unfair/)

Please note that this isn't an actual increase in safety. It's a survey about whether people FEEL safe. Those are two very different things.

Other problems: how do you remove snow without removing the bollards? How do you run a street sweeper in these narrow lanes? How does a cyclist make a left turn?

Bike lanes - of all sorts - are an attempted solution to overcome "fear from the rear" the very real fear many have of being hit from behind. Statistically, these comprise about 8 % of cycling fatalities, and about half of those involve an unlit cyclist riding at night. The majority of fatalities, if I recall right as 60%, involve turning movements at intersections. Bike lanes do nothing to mitigate these crashes. In fact, they make turning movement more complicated for all users.

If we're going to spend public money on infrastructure that provides real benefits rather than illusory ones, we need traffic signals that reliably detect cyclists. We need smooth, clean road surfaces free of cracks and road furniture than can cause falls. Simple falls are responsible for 85% of injuries. We need driver education and bicyclist education.

I'm with you on maintaining infrastructure.

Here is how the intersections should look:
http://www.peopleforbikes.org/blog/entry/americas-first-protected-intersection-is-open-in-davis-and-working-like-a-c (http://www.peopleforbikes.org/blog/entry/americas-first-protected-intersection-is-open-in-davis-and-working-like-a-c)

Its the damn shortcuts that drivers and bicyclists employ that drive me nuts.

Todays drivers haven't used a turn signal since their drivers test since that is their default cell phone hand. They can't parallel park, they can't back up without cameras and speed limits to them are mere suggestions. I spend most of my day driving a commercial vehicle and am stunned at the stupidity. Once a week I have a driver whip around my vehicle, blind to whats happening in an intersection, in order to run a red light!

Bicyclists are blind to safety as well. They are abusive on pedestrian/bike paths, rude to drivers who frankly, never saw them. Egotistical enough to think the road laws are anything close to reality and just as likely to run lights, turn without warning and ride the sidewalks when the street is too congested.

I say this with much frustration at how little we seem to be able to impact these groups. On the way to work last Friday at 5:45 am, I slowed down on a sidestreet that I use to get to Southwest Blvd because it is a low visibility intersection and people run the light. Just as I approached the intersection I noticed something to my right and instinctively braked. From behind a bush came a bike at full speed, on the sidewalk, on the wrong side of the street who ran the red light because he couldn't see to his left where I was arriving. He had flashing red lights on the bike but no other safety equipment like helmets, headlight.

I love my bike. I gave my bike away.

I'll reiterate this and then I'm done.. "Bike lanes...make turning movement more complicated for all users...spend public money on infrastructure that provides real benefits rather than illusory ones."

I recommend you read some LABreform pages.

I have a semi-protected bike lane right in front of my house. We use it all of the time and it doesn't connect to anything except going from Yale to Memorial. Guess what parts of 4th we ride our bikes the most?

I gave you the link to the intersection problems. It's time for our city and this forum to progress on the issue.

Bike lanes help everyone, not just cyclists. For every cyclist commuting to work, there is one less car on the road. For every cyclist out on a Saturday, there is less likelihood that person will be taking up medical resources when you have your heart attack.

I ride my bike on Tulsa streets all the time. 90% of my street riding is on "share the road" bike routes.  36th street. Pittsburgh. 3rd street. I have few, if any, problems on these streets. I generally try to stay just outside the curb (too much crap on the curb) and occupy the full lane when there isn't room for a car to safely pass or when the intersection demands it (right lane turn only). Like a motorcycle rider, I assume no one sees me, everyone wants to cut me off, and that if I screw up - I'm the one that dies and the Humvee needs a new bumper. Do you think we wear those bright-donkey-colors to be cool? NO! They're "don't squish me" colors. 75% of cars are very respectful, 15% at least treat me like any other vehicle, 5% are stupid or blind, and at most 5% are hostile (at most).

Now, I admit to rolling stop signs (just like every car and motorcycle, including police officers, do). I admit to running red lights when they aren't going to turn for me (as allowed by law, and the alternative is to stop cross traffic with the pedestrian button which would piss you off too).  And yes, I've hopped onto sidewalks (either because the road isn't safe to ride on or because sitting in a line of traffic further hinders the line of traffic [I can't get going as fast as you can when you are waived through eventually]). So if those things cause you to hate me, you must be a really hateful person.

Clearly the bike trails are awesome too and most of my miles are probably on trails, but I have to get to the bike trails and sometimes I am actually going somewhere. The share the road lanes are a luxury largely confined to midtown and the river trails. The further away you get, the less useful they are. Try to find a safe way to bike to Woodland Hills Mall, or any of the office buildings near I44 and 169, or Memorial and 111th.

We do pretty well as a City. But I think there is low hanging fruit. Google has great maps showing Bike Trails and "bike friendly roads." I'm guessing a clever planner could find a few more bike friendly roads to help connect things.

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Tulsa,+OK/@36.1154635,-95.9717851,13z/data=!4m2!3m1!1s0x87b692b8ddd12e8f:0xe76910c81bd96af7!5m1!1e3

After that, David's idea of a protected lanes might make sense on a more limited scale.  Particularly around south Tulsa, where the roads are being redone, there is plenty of room, there are no share the road bike lanes, drivers get pissed if it has to slow for school children, and many affluent people cycle. Connecting those areas, and those people (who are more likely to have shower facilities at work!) to the trails and other bike share areas would free up parking at River Trails and maybe take a few cars off the road at rush hour.  If nothing else, it makes Tulsa a more inviting city.

All that said --- just like motorcycles, inattentive driving by other drivers is the leading cause of death for cyclists. Any number of common idiot driver maneuvers that often cause crashes, can be fatal when the receiving end is a motorcycle or bike. Protected bike lanes are great, but from a practical standpoint cannot be put everywhere and won't stop every disaster. I'd love to see some limited use as a start, and we can see what works best in Tulsa.

-----

If you're interested, as a driver please:

1) give us 3 feet when you pass. Not only is it the law, but it is the distance you must give us to safely pass.  If I can reach out and touch (or key) your car, you're too close. Trust me, I want to let you pass... as soon as I can, I will.

2) Please don't ride my wheel. I know you're there and you aren't helping me go any faster. I will get over as soon as I can.

3) Don't run red lights.

4) Don't pull out in front of me like I don't exist. Slamming on my breaks often leads to a crash. Plus, I worked really hard to build up that speed!

5) Please look twice. Motorcycles, cyclists, etc. are there. You have to look to see them!

6) Yes, yes. We all see you are a big tough guy with a brand new truck fully capable of squishing a cyclist. Thank you for being a courteous driver and not a jerk.

And cyclists:

1) Yes, you have the right to occupy the full lane and go as slow as you want. So does grandma. I hate you both when I'm trying to get to work.  If you can safely get out of the way, please do; it's just being courteous to others. If you can't get over right now, I understand and am happy to wait a safe distance back until you can.

2) Don't run red lights. At stop signs, you are required to stop just like everyone else. And yes, in the real world I realize that often means "yield" to the point where you can immateriality stop if you have to (which is still illegal for both cars and bikes), but at least do the same thing you would do in your car.  Its confusing for cars when they don't know if you're going to blow through or not. So following the same rules makes it easy.

3) Some roads aren't good roads for bikes. Avoid them. Again, yes, you have the right to troll down Memorial at 5:15 pumping away at 20mph. But it isn't safe for you or other driver's and it leads to rage. I get that sometimes you have to, but try not to.

4) Please pick one: 1) I am a child and want to ride my bike on the sidewalk and be treated like a pedestrian, 2) I am an adult and want to ride my bike on the street and be treated like traffic.  Now that you have picked one, please think really hard before deviating from whatever it is you picked. If you are taking up a lane and then at the red light swerve between cars, over the curb, through the parking lot, and "around" the light. . .  not only does it piss people off, but no one knows how to treat you visa vis the rules of the road.  I'm practical, I'm not saying you can't "ever" bend the rules... but think about it before making it a habit. Just sit and wait with traffic. It will be OK if your heart rate drops out of your prime zone.

5) Yes, yes. We all see your new Dura Ace full carbon gear and note your awesome calves. You are a spectacular peacock. Thank you for being a courteous cyclist and not a jerk.

That's good Cannon. Education, patience, logic and courtesy go a long way. Meanwhile, reality is that professionals in all areas know these things. Most people are not that smart. They are just passing through, trying to stay relevant, cool, alive and free. For some odd reason they are still able to get drivers licenses and buy bicycles. Go figure.

May I add to Cannon’s notion of inattentive drivers:  Insensitive drivers.

Once people are in their steel, plastic, and aluminum cage, they cease to see other drivers, only vehicles.  They forget that’s someone else’s husband, wife, daughter, son, brother, sister, etc. behind the wheel or riding on those other vehicles on the road.  There seems to be little concern for the human life that is either riding in or powering that vehicle.

Yet one more reason I seldom ride my motorcycles and my road riding on a bicycle is very limited these days.

Sorry for the language, but too on point to ignore...

(http://s3.amazonaws.com/theoatmeal-img/comics/minor_differences/pedestrians.jpg)

(http://s3.amazonaws.com/theoatmeal-img/comics/minor_differences/motorists.jpg)

If you haven't spent hours here: (http://www.theoatmeal.com)

www.theoatmeal.com

You should,

That might be the funniest thing I've seen all year!

Attempting to memorize

The funny thing about Tulsa is that our "radical thoughts" are actually completely mundane, ordinary thoughts that have already been implemented in cities around the country and throughout the world.  I guess we're just slow.

For those of you concerned about snow, well, bike lanes work in Chicago, Minneapolis, Milwaukee, NYC, Boston... Gosh, you're right.  There's NO WAY Tulsa could handle that! 

Just like we have street sweepers and snowplows for sidewalks downtown, other cities have street sweepers and snowplows that run down the bike lanes every now and then.  If it's not a protected bike lane (with a physical barrier between the cycle lane and the cars) a simple street sweeper does the trick.

Related to the finances.  Yes, protected bike lanes cost money, but not compared to a simple rehab of any city street.  Instead of millions, it's more like $30k per mile for the flex posts on both sides of the road (used instead of curbs to remind drivers where they belong), and if you factor in the milling and re-striping the entire road, protected bike lanes run about $120 k / mile.  If you add the bike lane at the same time you're rehabbing the streets, the cost is nominal.  Compare that to any road rehab or expansion project on the Improve Our Tulsa website. How much did they say it would cost to widen a couple miles of Mingo for cars?  $40 million? More? 

Yeah, we can't afford bike lanes.

Another fun fact: drivers only pay for about half of the cost to build and maintain roads (gas taxes, vehicle taxes, etc). This means that to fully pay for the roads for cars, we need 54% of road users to be cyclists...people who could pay for the roads without destroying them.  Essentially, for every driver, you need another non-driver to subsidize the cost of the streets. 

In Tulsa, where our streets are maintained and widened using sales taxes, I am quite certain that I have more than paid my share for that little sliver of asphalt that I need... which would last 20 times longer if people didn't crush it with SUVs every day.

Blah, blah, blah.  This is one of those threads where nobody's going to listen to the arguments of the other side.  We've all heard them before.

But just remember that Tulsa is falling behind every day.  Quality of life matters.  Just sayin'.

Here are a few photos, so cyclists can dream of other places to live...

(http://www.accidentalurbanist.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/image8-1024x768.jpeg)

(http://www.accidentalurbanist.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/image5-1024x768.jpeg)

(http://www.accidentalurbanist.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/image27-e1460326333381-1024x757.jpeg)

(http://www.accidentalurbanist.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Summer2014-033-1024x683.jpg)

(http://www.accidentalurbanist.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/image2-e1456169489426-1024x742.jpg)

This picture just makes me think how nice it would be to walk the streets without the sun beating down on me because there are no trees. And to boot in this picture they not only have sidewalk trees, but trees in the middle of the street creating an entire shade canopy. How nice would that be?

I was just in DC for Spring Break with the family, and we stayed about three miles from the Capitol and all the museums and monuments.   We stayed in a VRBO listing that was in a really neat row-house neighborhood, and there were bike rental stations and bike lanes all the way to the Capital area.  Everyday we saw people renting those bikes and using them for the commute back and forth, and larger numbers riding their own bikes on the bike lanes.   We used the bike rental stations on two separate days, and with bike lanes on the vast majority of streets and the stations being fairly convenient (and with a nice iPhone app that tells you where they are, how many bikes are available, etc...) it was a great experience.  A lot better than using Uber, which we did some also.   I will say though, that it was during that week that I finally understood and appreciated the how much easier it is with dedicated bike lanes.  I personally bike a lot, and so am fairly comfortable on the same road with cars.  But the wife and kids are not.  On streets with dedicated lanes, it was great.  On the two or three times we had to ride on streets without dedicated lanes it was a much more stressful environment.   To me there is no argument, if we had dedicated lanes we would see a significant up-tick in bike usage by the general populace.  It's just a lot less stressful, and so more people would do it.

Minneapolis is a fine example. Bike lanes. Rail service. Express buses on the highways (the stop is ON the highway, you walk down stairs from the street overpasses and the bus pulls into a protected shoulder).

Bike lanes:

(https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/mplsbike/pages/2551/attachments/original/1428429918/Two-way%2520with%2520bollards.jpg?1428429918)
Look at these greedy cyclists. All using public infrastructure like they own it! That little girl pays NO taxes!

(https://www.derozap.com/assets/57/Protected%20Bike%20Lanes.jpg)
Stupid commuters, not clogging streets and parking lots.

(http://images.publicradio.org/content/2009/11/13/20091113_first-avenue_33.JPG)
Bike lanes to the inside of cars can be safer, but have to be adjusted at intersections well before the intersection!

(http://www.bikexprt.com/bikepol/facil/lanes/images/DSCF0015busbike.jpg)

(http://apps.startribune.com/blogs/user_images/Harlow_1399312245_wcms1p-122601.jpg)

and compared to some places in Europe, Minneapolis is well behind the times.

If you're building something you want people to use, it needs to offer comfort and a sense of security. Thus, protected bike lanes and tree lined streets matter if you want people to do anything but drive. (Urban design matters, too, but that's another topic...)

Here's a great quote from Jeff Speck, author of "Walkable Cities"

"...the automobile that was once an instrument of freedom has become a gas-belching, time-wasting and life-threatening prosthetic device that...most Americans, in fact, need, just to live."

This is true only because, for years, we've been building cities and  streets for cars instead of people. But just because we've been wrong for years doesn't mean we can't change course.

I'm all about this but I'd fear the trump supporting redneck in the old white ford pickup with the baseball bat who blames bike riders for his inability to get somewhere faster.

You just described several hill-jacks who live in the area NW of Sand Springs.  A couple of years ago, they were throwing tacks in the road on Wednesday night when the big social ride is that goes out by Pogue Airport.  One of my friends got knocked over by a redneck in a white Ford a couple of years ago.  Knowing him though, it’s entirely possible he may have worked especially hard to piss off the driver. 

MC and I have since quit doing that ride, it’s just a matter of time before someone gets killed up there and no one saw anything.

PonderInc - Spot on.

Some of them have money.  It might be a new Ford pickup.
 
 ;D

If you want to experience a protected bike lane, go check out 11th street between Delaware and Peoria.  This is part of the TyPros Street Cred event, and they have created a demo project using construction cones to block off the outer lanes. It will be in place until late Saturday (4/30), I think.  It's amazing to get to bike on an arterial street and not feel your life is in danger.  I found myself noticing buildings I'd never seen before... because I was on a bike I was going slowly, and it was safe enough to look around.

The last time I tried to bike a few blocks on 11th, I was terrified.  Cars whipped past me going at least 45, and they didn't give me any room.  Today, the entire length of the route felt great...except by QT, where cars were flying in and out and had crushed all the cones.  (This is the only area where cones had been completely flattened.)  Good thing QT is by the hospital...

QUESTION:

Are bike lanes really necessary on smaller capacity streets. I ask because the traffic on these streets is often so low that I see cyclists mixing in with auto traffic and it doesn't seem to cause a problem. The street below isn't a main street but it is a neighborhood street that is used quit a bit that would seem logical for bike users as it heads directly to the center of the city. Would a protected lane be necessary. Or on the street below that. It looks the same, however this street connects eventually to the east side of town and it also goes by two schools (the high school and a middle school). The traffic speed is dramatically higher. Riding a bike on this street would not be something I would care to do that often. What do the road diet guides suggest for these types of streets?

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Bartlesville,+OK/@36.7436439,-95.9790267,3a,75y,19.95h,92.22t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sUOXT2gL6q5KQ_CFQLe4BNQ!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo2.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DUOXT2gL6q5KQ_CFQLe4BNQ%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dsearch.TACTILE.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D392%26h%3D106%26yaw%3D191.10358%26pitch%3D0!7i13312!8i6656!4m2!3m1!1s0x87b7124f36c7bdf1:0xdef002e0d528a136!6m1!1e1 (https://www.google.com/maps/place/Bartlesville,+OK/@36.7436439,-95.9790267,3a,75y,19.95h,92.22t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sUOXT2gL6q5KQ_CFQLe4BNQ!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo2.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DUOXT2gL6q5KQ_CFQLe4BNQ%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dsearch.TACTILE.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D392%26h%3D106%26yaw%3D191.10358%26pitch%3D0!7i13312!8i6656!4m2!3m1!1s0x87b7124f36c7bdf1:0xdef002e0d528a136!6m1!1e1)

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Bartlesville,+OK/@36.7390697,-95.9751383,3a,75y,4.98h,90.35t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1scFHH6TYBNWGDsHwBs2UgYw!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo1.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DcFHH6TYBNWGDsHwBs2UgYw%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dsearch.TACTILE.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D392%26h%3D106%26yaw%3D355.9743%26pitch%3D0!7i13312!8i6656!4m2!3m1!1s0x87b7124f36c7bdf1:0xdef002e0d528a136!6m1!1e1 (https://www.google.com/maps/place/Bartlesville,+OK/@36.7390697,-95.9751383,3a,75y,4.98h,90.35t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1scFHH6TYBNWGDsHwBs2UgYw!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo1.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DcFHH6TYBNWGDsHwBs2UgYw%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dsearch.TACTILE.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D392%26h%3D106%26yaw%3D355.9743%26pitch%3D0!7i13312!8i6656!4m2!3m1!1s0x87b7124f36c7bdf1:0xdef002e0d528a136!6m1!1e1)

Here's the question: what type of infrastructure would allow you to feel safe cycling with your 8-year-old?  

Your examples look like perfect places for bike lanes because they connect neighborhoods, schools and downtown.

If traffic is moving fairly slowly (like 25 MPH), a painted bike lane might be all it takes to make cyclists feel safe (you can always paint an extra "buffer" line to give some extra elbow room between bikes and cars).

If cars are moving faster than that, cyclists would appreciate a "buffered" or "protected" bike lane (aka "cycle track").  The cheapest way to do this is with the flexible posts that create a visual, vertical separation in addition to the painted stripes.  Of course, a distracted driver could still plow through it, but it would decrease the chances of that.  Also, a series of "wheel stops" (like what you see in parking lots where they want to limit how far a car can pull forward in a parking space) is anther fairly affordable way to create physical separation between bikes and cars.

Either way, a "road diet" could be achieved by narrowing the auto lanes to no more than 11' b/c people instinctively slow down on narrower lanes.  Also, filling in with street trees between the sidewalk and the street is important.  Looks like there are lots of street trees, but also lots of places where they are missing.  Be sure to plant species that will grow large enough to create a "canopy" over the street.  This helps define the street, provides shade to everyone, and creates a sense of enclosure that will slow drivers. (People drive faster when they perceive a wide open horizon...this says "highway" to drivers).

For specifics, check out the NACTO guide.  http://nacto.org/publication/urban-bikeway-design-guide/ (http://nacto.org/publication/urban-bikeway-design-guide/)

For many years, cities have been referring to the AASHTO "Green Book" for design guidelines.  This is sad because city streets are not the same as highways.    NACTO takes a different approach, understanding that urban streets and highways are two different things.  Make sure Bartlesville is using NACTO, not AASHTO guidelines for designing city streets for people.

Only main roads and heavy residential roads need bike lanes.

This is certainly the case for the first example (and for all downtown streets), however the second one is much higher speed believe it or not. I believe the posted speed is 30 however there is no on street parking so it is rarely observed. I see cars zipping through this corridor at 40 mph plus and often. I'm ok just not designating it a bike lane (even though I think there may be a sign here and there indicating as much, but no street markings), and making the primary north south another calmer street. However it would be nice to figure out ways to calm this street down some. I assume the parking was eliminated due to fire/bussing issues, but I can't say that for a fact. It is no wider than any of the other neighborhood streets, however all other streets yield to this one. So it is taken advantage of. Of course I guess I prefer it compared to what they did to 7th Street (Adams Blvd). They turned a little city street into a four lane state highway. And didn't remove any homes around it. At least they made the lanes super narrow so people really don't speed excessively (although that was probably out of necessity more than planning on reducing speeds).

That would probably work fine. Assuming there isn't a stop sign every other block, it appears those streets don't. But if there are too many stop signs on the route, you find the tendency to ignore them grows (most cars are only hitting the stop signs until they get to a arterial street and then get out of there. If you route bikes into a stop sign forest it is basically forcing them to sprint, stop, sprint stop, and most will get frustrated and stop using the route or dangerously ignore them).

In Tulsa, 3rd is a "Bike Route" or "Share the Road" path, from Pittsburgh until you hit the Blue Dome district. About three miles. It is a 4 lane commercial street that is under utilized and sees heavy bus traffic. I've ridden it dozens of times without any incident, frequently taking up the entire right lane in side by side with someone.

https://www.google.com/maps/@36.1562893,-95.9444787,3a,75y,274.85h,64.75t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sSQk5-vtIpyUSGfA5iBraHg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1

https://www.google.com/maps/@36.1567041,-95.9749278,3a,75y,265.52h,87.71t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s_915ZRxdK_Cl-ePaZZ52Jw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1

https://www.google.com/maps/@36.1566233,-95.961827,3a,75y,294.21h,65.68t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s2W-08YIGVZoQdddKdsQmqA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1

Before hitting 3rd (it actually starts off as 4th then merges over, but...) you are on Pittsburgh, a residential street that goes past the fairgrounds and under a highway (again, it jobs off a block and then back, but...). I've ridden that dozens of times with no incident. Before that you have 36th Street. A rather busy 2 lane road with limited traffic controls and most places requiring cars to carefully pass. I've ridden that hundreds of times and had few issues. (using 3rd, pittsburgh, and 36th I can make a nice loop through downtown, usually with a stretch down the Katy Trail to Sand Springs)

Google has a great "bike route" map where you can plainly see the loop I'm talking about.
 (https://www.google.com/maps/@36.1303328,-95.9852581,13.5z/data=!5m1!1e3)

I try to be a courteous cyclist. I stop at stop signs to the same extent as most motorists (which is to say a rolling stop but where I could stop at a moment if I need to and yield the right away to other motorists). I don't alternate between "bike" and "car" mode to gain advantages. I try to get over to let cars pass when safe, and when not safe I will pull over if traffic gets backed up for very long.

And in my ~2000 miles of cycling on Tulsa streets, I've notice mostly the same issues I do as when I'm in the car. People not looking ("look to the left you idiot, look, look look... thank you!"). People pulling out and making you hit your brakes. People running red lights after a 3 count.

It is rare for people to disregard me because I'm on a bike. Even in my SUV I drive like everyone wants to kill me. BUT... .on my bike, they certainly would. So I'm happy to assume the idiot not looking at me isn't going to and just go ahead and slow down as needed. Then scream at them if they do pull out or give them a look of disgust if they look just at the last second.  ;)

Excellent photos, PonderInc.  This one shows an offset in a bike lane.  Since there are existing curb extensions on the east side of Boulder at 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th Streets, offsets in the proposed cycle track could be used at those locations.

See my February 16, 2016 reply on "Downtown Development Overview."

http://www.tulsanow.org/forum/index.php?topic=21006.480

To wit:



(http://kotv.images.worldnow.com/images/23859293_BG2.jpg)  



City settles lawsuit for $350K after police patrol-car wreck with motorcycle

The city of Tulsa has settled a lawsuit for $350,000 with victims of a wreck that occurred when a Tulsa Police officer pulled into traffic and collided head-on with a motorcycle in 2013.
The case was settled in February and is up for City Council approval next week.

Scott and Bobbie Keeter, both 48, were riding a motorcycle north on Delaware Avenue near 116th Place on Nov. 2, 2013, when Officer Tyrone Jenkins, responding to an emergency call, crossed their path, according to the lawsuit.
Michelle McGrew, senior assistant city attorney, said Jenkins had turned into the sun and didn’t see the Keeters.

Jenkins is no longer with the department.

“This is a clear liability case,” McGrew said. “They were thrown from the motorcycle and suffered horrible injuries.”

McGrew said each has permanent, partial disabilities and is not able to work.

Medical costs to date have exceeded $500,000 for the Keeters — not accounting for future lost wages, McGrew said.

The settlement will pay out $175,000 to each, which is the statutory limit, McGrew said.

You are truly an idiot....

Whenever Tulsa talks about how we can't have protected bike lanes downtown, because we need all those lanes for traffic...

Here's downtown Chicago.  I'm pretty sure they have more traffic than we do.
(http://www.accidentalurbanist.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/P1000676-e1462904178264-1024x722.jpg)

They have a mix of bike lanes, some one-way and others two-way.  In general the lanes are buffered with stripes and posts.

(http://www.accidentalurbanist.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/P1000696-e1462904019707-1024x718.jpg)

And here's how the BRT users cross the bike lane:
(http://www.accidentalurbanist.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/P1000689-1024x683.jpg)

Thanks again for the excellent photos, PonderInc.


Those two are looking west on Washington, between Dearborn and Clark.

I haven't been to Chicago recently, so I checked Google Maps to see the changes on this street.  Until 2014, there were five moving traffic lanes on this block of Washington: three for vehicles heading east and two for left turns onto Dearborn.  According to Google Maps, the curbs are about 49 feet apart on this block.  Many streets in downtown Tulsa are 56 feet wide, curb to curb, in an 80 foot wide right of way.


That's around the corner on Dearborn, looking south between Madison and Monroe.

For a comparison, look at the October 2011 Google Maps Street View (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.8813952,-87.6294,3a,75y,167.38h,88.11t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sPNtWMTCOD1eO3VmA7k8KVg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656).  Notice the curbside parking where the bike lane is now.  Also, there are many more bike racks now (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.8814132,-87.6294004,3a,75y,167.38h,88.11t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sxIiS0uza1Y3znxUDRYIxZQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) than there were then.

The curbs on this block of Dearborn are about 49 feet apart.  Compare Chicago's Dearborn Street shown in PonderInc's photo (four lanes of one-way vehicular traffic, a buffer strip, and a dedicated two-way bike lane in a 49-foot roadway) to Tulsa's Second Street near Frisco Avenue (https://www.google.com/maps/@36.1520349,-95.9983049,3a,75y,61.47h,79.3t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sJMwEBBvUQNa3BR4TX7a6EQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) (two lanes of one-way vehicular traffic, plus curbside parking on the south side of the street in a 46-foot roadway) or Tulsa's Eighth Street between Cheyenne and Boulder (https://www.google.com/maps/@36.1478051,-95.9908517,3a,75y,54.17h,88.2t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sYETGc-sVrhWVkN8poHIx_A!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) (four lanes of one-way vehicular traffic in a 46-foot wide roadway).

Downtown Tulsa doesn't have the volume of traffic to warrant the number of moving vehicular lanes on most streets, and the wide lanes (about 15 to 23 feet wide on Second Street near Frisco and about 11 to 12 feet, average, on Eighth Street) encourage speeding.  Lanes nine or ten feet wide would be adequate, and safer.  

Most roads downtown have 2 or even 3 times more lanes than they need. A road with one lane in each direction can handle 10k cars a day. There are two roads downtown that handle more cars than that - the exit onto 7th and the entrance to the BA on Cinci. Even then, those choke points fan out within a few blocks.

https://www.cityoftulsa.org/media/431784/2014%20Traffic%20Counts%20Downtown.pdf

There  is no reason we need 4 lanes on Boulder and 4 lanes on 2nd. In fact, traffic engineering reports seem to indicate we don't really need 4 lanes to handle the traffic covered by BOTH roads (combined < 10k cars per day). So we have 8 lanes of traffic doing the work of 2. That story repeats itself on most of our downtown streets.

Saying we don't have room isn't part of the debate. Are they needed/worth the investment on every street? That's worth discussion.

Any idea why there was such a large variation between 2013 and 2014 on 11th Street below the East Leg?  Traffic circle at 10th/11th/Elgin?  Nearby closures/construction?  Special events when the counts were recorded?

Also, it would be useful if the City would indicate the proper street directions on their traffic count map.  Only the one-ways need be shown, or maybe a few two-ways where they transition to/from one-ways.

Cheyenne and Boulder are not one-way streets between 1st and Archer, as indicated on the map.  3rd is not one-way west of Denver, as indicated on the map.  Main is not one-way south of 6th, as indicated on the map.

After looking at the City's map, and after reading the notes (which are disclaimers), I'm wondering how much time and money the City spent to create the map, and why.  What's the purpose of the map?  Why indicate one-way streets which don't exist?  Why show traffic counts that can't be guaranteed (at least to some degree, by citing the raw data and recording methodology)?

I suspect 2nd Street was originally laid out four lanes one way eastbound was due to it being the connector to the NE corner of the IDL for people getting out of downtown at peak times, just like Cincinnati for the SE corner.  Remember, when the IDL was conceived and executed, Tulsa was doing auto-centric development because there was such high demand for suburbs.

Obviously, the city has figured out 2nd street isn’t carrying that high of volume since they’ve choked it down with on-street parking and back in parking around Elgin.

Developers went where consumer demand was and the city went right along with it.

Yes, 1st and 2nd acted as a pair of one-way streets with on/off ramps at the west and east legs of the IDL.  With the closure of 2nd between Frisco and Denver for the BOK Center, its one-way east-bound traffic flow was broken.  Considering the number of lanes on 1st and 2nd, neither carries very much traffic, really.  See "The One-Way Epidemic" on pages 177-181 in Jeff Speck's Walkable City for a criticism of one-way streets in American cities.


The IDL was conceived by the 1940s.  Tulsa had a much denser urban core at the time, with many people living downtown and in the surrounding neighborhoods nearby.  Voters rejected the concept of an expressway system and IDL because the proposed new highways through the city were seen as too destructive to the existing urban fabric.

There was a lag of several decades between the concept of the IDL and its actual construction.  Tulsa has been stuck in an auto-centric, anti-pedestrian mindset for about 90 years -- long before the IDL was conceived, and even now, about 35 years after its completion.

In my opinion, they're not needed or worth the investment on every street downtown.  Part of the recent discussion has been about the proposed cycle track on Boulder.  What happened to the idea of a fixed rail transit system on Boulder through the downtown?  Would there be any conflict between a cycle track and light rail on Boulder?  If so, could the cycle track go on Cheyenne instead of Boulder?

If a cycle track is built on Boulder, will it wiggle and offset at intersections with curb extensions, or will the curb extensions (which aren't very old) be removed or modified to accommodate the cycle track?

To me, what appears to be missing is an overall inter-modal traffic concept for downtown Tulsa.  I know plans can be changed and that they do change over time, but most of the recent downtown street projects seem disjointed to me.  What's the idea, other than plunking down acorn lights, illegal curb ramps, faux brick crosswalks, and multi-space parking meters?

What's sad is that any time you talk about adding a bike lane or converting one-way streets to two-way, the engineers require expensive traffic studies.  The studies, of course, show that you would lose your A+ "level of service" (ie: cars flow unimpeded everywhere, but no other criteria counts).  Then, they take those results to the DCC or whatever, and people who obviously care about their GPA say "well, we don't want to make a C on that test!"  Even though it's a stupid test that you SHOULD fail, if you care about the experience of pedestrians, cyclists, transit users, and economic development.

If you are building a highway, then yes, the speed and efficiency of traffic flow is important.  If you're building a neighborhood that is a destination, your goals will be different and incompatible with those of a highway.

The other thing that cracks me up is that whenever we have road construction downtown, we close off two lanes of traffic...and it's FINE!  Nobody does an expensive study to make sure that it's OK to close those lanes, we just do it.  And life goes on.  Maybe people don't drive 35 on the downtown street.  Maybe they only drive 25.  Gosh, that sounds ideal!  So let's have dedicated transit and bike lanes.  Our goal as a city should not be that of a toilet, where we want to be able to flush out completely and fast.  Our goal should be to make it convenient and safe to walk, bike and use transit, which will not only make downtown more pleasant, it will enable us to utilize vast tracts of land currently wasted on surface parking lots that are somewhat full for a few hours each day.

PS, thanks Bamboo, for the comparisons in Chicago!

Of course the speed limit is already 20 downtown...

Where in downtown Tulsa is the speed limit 20?

If you want to catch all the green lights on a one-way street, the speed limit is about 22 mph... Otherwise, you're going to have to brake.

A good op-ed piece from Jason Gay via the WSJ:

http://www.wsj.com/articles/america-the-cyclist-is-not-your-enemy-1463073268

Top 10 bike cities in the U.S.

http://www.active.com/cycling/articles/the-best-bike-cities-in-the-u-s

How interesting that, aside from Long Beach, CA and Washington, DC, all of those cities have harsher climates than we do.  (Well, at least if you're talking about snow, cold, or rain.)  For the most part, Tulsa has a great cycling climate except for June and July which are unbearably hot and humid.  Most of the winter it's pretty nice, and spring and fall are ideal.

One obstacle we need to address is the number of large employers that don't have showers/changing rooms/lockers.  In the summertime, if you have to bike more than a couple miles, you'll be sweaty, and need to change at work. I've changed in a lot of bathrooms over the years, but it's not ideal. 

If you're lucky enough to work downtown, you can get by with a membership at the YMCA, but it's a lot more convenient to change at your destination.  I would like to see downtown employers find ways to share their fitness centers / showers / lockers with other employers who don't have facilities on site.  Often, this appears to be a problem with the leasing companies that manage commercial buildings, and restrict access.

If anyone works in commercial property management, it would be interesting to hear what obstacles stand in the way of providing this service.  I'm sure it's a legal/liability issue (isn't everything?) but could there be a way around it?  Is it really just a lack of imagination and priorities?  It sure seems like some kind of "membership" could be arranged to grant access to the various fitness centers in buildings around downtown.

When Lee's opened at 2nd & Frankfort, the owner shared with me that he had hopes for being able to provide public shower, changing, and bike storage facilities.  That ran afoul of health regs apparently.  I don't recall the entire conversation now, but he essetially would have to jump through some of the same hoops as operating a fitness center.  I'm assuming with public bath or shower facilities, there's certain sanitation guidelines which must be followed. 

We have an apartment at my office so showering is no issue when I commute.  It's not accessible to all employees so there are no health issues to deal with.  Unfortunately, I don't get to commute very often these days as I've needed my car more in my daily routine.