The Tulsa Forum by TulsaNow

http://www.newson6.com/story/34727125/final-touches-being-put-on-downtown-tulsa-bike-lanes

Better than nothing..??

These bike lanes are actually a big deal for Tulsa, because they represent our first-ever protected bike lanes.  A protected bike lane means that there is a physical barrier between the bike lane and the auto traffic.  In this case, the streets have been striped so that the parallel parking for cars is between the bikes and the street traffic.  If this were done in the heart of downtown (as recommended by Jeff Speck's walkability study) there would actually be plenty of cars to form the barrier.  In the current location it looks pretty weird b/c nobody ever parks up there on Detroit and MLK.

Still, this is a very affordable way to get protected bike lanes b/c it's done with paint and the normal needs of parked cars.  It will take a while for people to get used to parallel parking without using the curb to determine when they've gone far enough.  ("OK, you're on the sidewalk, now go forward and straighten it out!") (Watching suburbanites park downtown drives me crazy.)

But the cost of building curbs or installing concrete barriers to create protected bike lanes makes them too expensive for Tulsa right now.  This is a great solution that is used all over the world, so I'm excited to see this prototype.

Based on Jeff Speck's event last week, it's my understanding that the plan is to continue the bike lanes further down the streets. So yeah, I think it will be great for the lanes

Interesting that the banes are inside the parking lanes by the curb, which is fine, then angle NW and cross out over the right turn lane that cars use to get on the highway.

That doesn't seem to be the safest choice to make there.

Yea...
They need to change color schemes besides just have the green for bike lane crossing at a terrible location.

Every day this week and three times last week as I was leaving work on Detroit I saw people driving down the parking lane or all the way over in the bike line.
People coming up to 244 to turn right onto the highway have no clue pancakes is going on.

I sure as hell wouldn't use those green bike areas under the bridge to cross traffic and feel safe as a biker

My wife and I went out and road all the new bike lanes last week, road them again yesterday.  Not because they are currently very practical, but to see how well they worked and to see what drivers reactions were.  Also worth noting that I'm in that area on foot at least 3 times a week in addition to biking through a couple times a week.

I liked them.  I liked them a lot and would struggle to come up with something better.

Generally, drivers have quickly figured out the bike lanes and parking areas.  Like any paint change (see back in angled parking, one way streets, or any re stripping ever) , some will be slower to adapt than others.  So there have been a few "oops" moments, but no more than the number of people I see accidentally turning the wrong way down a one way.  And, luckily, given the way the lanes are done, the bikers are to the curb anyway. Even if there were no parked cars it would still be as safe as no bike-lane should someone choose to drive on the parking spaces.

I thought the way the lanes crossed under the freeway and the turn lanes was weird also.  But it worked well.  At some points the bikes have to cross right turning traffic - unless we are adding cycling overpasses there isn't a way to avoid it.  The lanes cut over to the left and allow right turning traffic to pull to the curb a few car lengths before the actual turn.  By doing so, cars that are waiting to turn right shouldn't see a cyclist come up behind them as they turn and both know ahead of time that the traffic crosses paths.  It  seemed to work well.

I like the green.  It stands out.  White means lanes you can cross.  Yellow is for lines you shouldn't cross. Blue is for handicap.  Red is a fire lane.  Green is something different.

We also road the new bike lane on 3rd several times.  Its also great, except it is less than a mile long.  The entire length of 3rd from TU to downtown is a "share the road" and I've never seen it busy enough to justify 4 lanes of traffic and have seen no issues with the current 3 lane layout.  I've also haven't had many issues riding it as a share the road, but that isn't most cyclists preference (I've never seen parents with kids on a share the road.  Its almost always spandex jockeys).  I hope they continue to expand that bike lane.


LINK THEM UP!

I hope they start linking all these up to something meaningful.  Currently there is a bike lane from 11th almost to 3rd on Delware (past TU), then a few miles of no bike lane on 3rd, followed by almost a mile of bike lane, then no bike lane to downtown as you continue past the Midland valley trail at 444 (IDL eastern loop), no bike lane as you follow the share the road north on Greenwood...

To the north there is a half-butted bike lane along Greenwood to OSU Tulsa (a 3rd foot curb lane with no space for separation from traffic) to Pine and the Osage Trail (great trail by, unfortunately, I have recently heard of incidents of cyclists having issues).

If you turn west on Archer there is no bike lane until you hit a half-butt lane at Denver (> 3 foot curb lane no space for separation) which ends before you get ot the Katy Trail.

The new bike lanes don't hook up with any other bike trails or even share the road lanes and don't lead anywhere.  You can basically go from Brady and Detroit, to John Hope Franklin (OSU Road), then into OSU's campus, or west to Boston, and to KOTV (stops on the other side of the street from "no riding bikes in our park" Guthrie Green).

I snapped a few photos to give a basic idea to anyone who hasn't seen them.  Clearly could be improved on the photography department.  :D

(http://i.imgur.com/qtoqz70l.jpg)

(http://i.imgur.com/MbCRq7xl.jpg)

(http://i.imgur.com/wQifJVIl.jpg)

(http://i.imgur.com/3mN8GYPl.jpg)

(http://i.imgur.com/dKwE2mWl.jpg)

Love the ideas!  Great to see at least some good thought and action starting on this topic.  Now, if we just had enough education system left to start educating people from early age, there might be hope for the state in a generation or two!!

Seeing the Jeff Speck study, there are definitely going to be more bike lanes in the future. I think the city was already working on those lanes anyway, which would explain why they chose that part of downtown to kick off the bike lanes (instead of say 3, 6 or boston presumably)

I would like to see the entire lanes painted green someday, especially when they are linked together better.  Some kind of permanent barrier would also be nice to have in the future, and for now just those plastic stick-thingy's (technical term) would be good to keep cars out of the bike lane in areas where there aren't as many parked cars.  This is what we should aspire to have along Detroit and Cincinnati through downtown:
(http://www.bikesgv.org/uploads/1/0/3/4/10345694/1772239.jpg)

My dream bike lane scenario for downtown would be to somehow link up these protected lanes along Detroit/Cincinnati with the Midland Valley Trail via the Cincinnati flyover.  It looks like there is almost enough of a shoulder to have a protected bike lane on that flyover that could easily connect up with both the trail and the downtown bike lanes.  How awesome would that be to have that direct connection to the MV Trail and Gathering Place from downtown?

The bike lane being at least bordered in green would be nice.

And, it doesn't seem the test rides haven't been done without the cones, after a Driller games, or from 4-6PM.

I'm not arguing against the lanes, they just don't seem obvious or easy to understand for someone who doesn't ride a bicycle.
Learning the paint is one thing for regular workers downtown but what about the thousands of visitors? Hell, someone is driving the wrong way on 1st street every day.

Seems like an IT solution designed for IT folks to be rolled out to the general public.
Yea, the IT dept gets it but the rest of the company is pancakes and not using it right or at all.

Is there any problem with the green paint being slippery when wet, compared to unpainted pavement?

Actually, both times I have ridden them was between 4 and 6 and most recently with the cones gone. Most of those photos are between 4:30 and 5:30 on a Tuesday.  The other time we road them was between 5:30 and 6:30 on a Wednesday.   Then again, those are commuter times, so people drive the same route every day and after a few weeks of paint crews and cones, they probably have a good idea of what's going on.

I have not ridden them during a first Friday or drillers game, but I did park in one of the spaces for each.  Also this Sunday for the Guthrie Green World Music Festival (or whatever it is called).  I saw some hesitant drivers, but everyone figured it out.  Hesitant drivers are actually safer drivers anyway.  The beauty of the system is that as things get busy, the bike lane is more protected by the parking.  And even if when there is an utterly clueless soul, the biker lane is still safer than it would be with the bike lane outside the parked cars (it is still protected from most people and from opening doors).

I certainly understand how it could be confusing for drivers.  But if you have seen it before, if there is a single car parked in the spaces, or a driver slows down enough to look at the markings and signs - it is easily figured out.  Other than spending loads of money putting in curb lanes and landscaping, I'm not sure how it could be significantly improved.  That could just be my lack of creativity, and I'd be happy to hear suggestions!



Almost any paint is more slippery than unpainted pavement.   Dry paint is somewhat of a hazard when cornering, road markings with water in a corner is certainly a hazard. Here are two of the world best cyclists being tossed to the ground from a wet road line just last year:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j7bacvGYnpo

A lot of paint isn't good for things on two wheels, there's probably some special grippy paint that sheds water... for a price.  Also, my guess is too much green paint actually detracts from its effectiveness, white paint is more visible, and painting the entire surface costs more money and requires more maintenance.

I think the big thing that will need to be emphasized is that the lanes still adhere to traffic flow. There's a lot of online comments about the dangers of the intersection, but even with their own lane, cyclists still should be expected to stop at the intersection where 244 offramp is.

I thought I remember seeing something about the City looking at bike street signal crossings at some point, but can't find word of it anywhere

Cyclists should always be expected to follow traffic signals. If there is a red light, they stop. If the light is green, they go.  Or is the suggestion that cyclists should be require to stop at a green light too?

I mean it as a sort of education for drivers. It should ease some of the fear that a constant flow of cyclists will be going through lanes, when in actuality they'll adhere to traffic flow as well.

My issue isn't the intersection but where the bike lane comes out from behind(east) the parking lane and crosses the R turn lane.
I can't find a picture of that crossover anywhere.

I don't ride so if you all feel safe then cool.

I wouldn't like my kids riding under 244 with that config though.

Makes sense.  But at some point the bikes and the right turning vehicles will cross.  All this is supposed to do is make it so that crossing takes place before the intersection, I think the idea is to eliminate as much conflict as possible at the intersection, since there is a lot going on there already, as well as allow right turning cars (and bikes) to sit off to the side and be passed if they have to wait to turn.

As a cyclist, the jog away from the curb told me "hey, you better look behind you and make sure no one is going to squish you since you are crossing a traffic lane."  You are definitely going from a more protected to a less protected area.   For younger kids it would certainly be an area of concern - perhaps they would have to resort to the pedestrian mode to cross at a signal at that point? I just can't think of a way to avoid it bikes and cars crossing at some point, so making it very clear doesn't bother me.  And I do think its better than the old solution of "just mix the traffic together and restart the bike lane on the other side of the intersection."

None the less bike lanes or not, the bottom line is bikes and cars don't mix. We need more trails that are free of motorized vehicles and street crossings. They are spending $24 Million dollars for a new Trail bridge across the river when the old one is fine, why not use that money for expanding our trail system instead?

Because the voters in the city of Tulsa voted for the bridge? Just a thought.

Careful.... trying to think/interact logically with cabbage ain't gonna work for ya...!

Bikes and cars actually mix fine as long as traffic is less than 25mph.  I regularly rode as a bike commuter in heavy Boston and Chicago traffic and never really felt unsafe.  That is very different than riding in light traffic on Peoria, much less my one attempt on 71st street, where my life felt in imminent danger of a horrible end.  Same when I lived in Austin - Texas drivers looked like they would take great satisfaction in running over bikers.

If by "just fine" you mean "structurally deficient," then the engineers agree with you:

http://www.tulsaworld.com/homepagelatest/idea-phase-for-pedestrian-bridge-closes-committee-combing-through-residents/article_aa3c7fdc-d499-506c-b32c-a48f9a24f3dc.html

If you have a more recent engineering  study, I agree.  Share it with the city so we can save $20mil.

Interesting article related to this post about bike lanes and improving infrastructure for Tulsa:

https://www.tulsaworld.com/news/meet-the-tulsa-artist-and-activist-getting-young-adults-excited/article_cf0b859c-1bba-5be9-b1a8-9f6fbc664817.html (https://www.tulsaworld.com/news/meet-the-tulsa-artist-and-activist-getting-young-adults-excited/article_cf0b859c-1bba-5be9-b1a8-9f6fbc664817.html)

Looks like the City has added quite a few bike lanes downtown with the newest street work. Not sure of the specific streets off the top of my head, but pretty sweet.

I think they're pretty much following the GO Plan as is.

https://incog.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=bc8b7363bf814d87b69196b6dd5ee373

Yes they just put new thermoplastic striping on the crumbling asphalt of Elgin Ave. to take it to two lanes with buffered cycle lanes and new street parking.

Cost about $100,000 and looks like trash. Like painting an old house without replacing the rotted wood.

Hadn't seen that before, thanks!

Not sure where best to post this, but this thread seems active and about as good a spot as any.

Interesting to see the mayor working on this. I like that he created a task force and website about this. Scooters are one thing, but he's smartly getting ahead of what is almost certain to be the future of cars: Driverless vehicles.

To skeptics: it's already legal to have driverless vehicles in multiple states and there are ride share apps that already offer that service and the first trans-continental delivery by a self-driving Semi-truck was recently completed. Elon Musk estimates the industry needs about 6 billion driving miles cumulatively for AI to be developed enough for approval (They currently have 2 billion just by themselves and expect the industry to meet the minimum sometime in the next 2-3 years).

Glad the mayor is acknowledging things are about to change. Besides infrastructure, traffic and car ownership, this will affect a significant number of jobs, along with the way cities are built. They would be wise to work with the state to get the appropriate laws ready ahead of time for this and to aim to enhance and encourage smooth transition rather than try to stifle it.


https://www.tulsaworld.com/news/local/tulsa-wants-to-get-ahead-of-curve-of-next-transportation/article_19dddf99-e5ae-54e6-951d-275e0403079a.html (https://www.tulsaworld.com/news/local/tulsa-wants-to-get-ahead-of-curve-of-next-transportation/article_19dddf99-e5ae-54e6-951d-275e0403079a.html)

As a cyclist, I can say with pretty good certainty that bike lanes are little more than a "feel good" proposition.  Looking at the layout on our most recent trip to Tulsa, there are too many ways to get clobbered by a motorist using the lanes, especially at intersections in downtown.  Cyclists are much safer taking a lane of traffic, especially with cross streets every block like in downtown Tulsa.  Unfortunately, I know many cyclists from back in Tulsa who are not much more traffic aware on their bike than they are in their car and a very well honed sense of your surroundings is necessary using bike lanes like the ones used in downtown.  That is partially due to potential turn conflicts through bike lanes and lanes which are between a parking lane and the curb for passengers exiting vehicles to have a collision with a cyclist who is not paying attention.

We've been designing a lot of campuses around the country, and they are all trying to figure out what the next 5 years will even bring. This is a great concept, but it really just harks back to that the city needs to have at least one person that is keeping their pulse on trends. Scooters didn't start in Tulsa. We all knew that they were coming, just that the city didn't have a method to respond to them in the time it took them to go from LA to Tulsa. The "next thing" is going to be the same. Whether that is drone delivery, driverless cars, or some new segway, the city needs to be thinking about how it can be nimble and prevent those things from coming in and causing the bad type of mayhem.

I would say that I would like to hear how the city wants to be at the front of that, but I don't see us doing that. So lets go for at least learning from others.

As for the bike lanes, I think it is an important step. Providing space for bikes/scooters/etc lets them know that the city is starting to think of them. At the end of the day, the safest bike places tend to be areas where bikes are common. So that should be a big part of the goal.

If we are satisfied that "a start is a start" then mission accomplished.  Getting inexperienced cyclists over a false sense of security is imperative.  I do appreciate your comment about safest places for bikes are where they are common.  If motorists are used to the idea they will see more cyclists in the downtown or near downtown areas with them on the road, perhaps they will become more aware.

Still there's a need to better educate motorists on sharing the road and the rights of slower moving vehicles.  Far too many motorists still view cyclists with disdain as a slow moving object making them 30 seconds late for their next appointment instead of a fellow human making way with their own vehicle.

I think the newly created bike lanes along both directions of 11th Street between Mingo and Memorial is a good example of bad design.  Previously, this stretch of 11th was three lanes each way, and mainly the right most lane was used for off-laning to a right turn (I live up the street from Eastwood Baptist Church on 91st and see this first hand).  Construction has been constant in this area for the last two years and can be annoying but obviously understand the need.  I am happy, however, about the city putting up a traffic light at the intersection of 11th and 89th East Ave.  That intersection is usually pretty docile, except for when children are being dropped off and picked up at Lindbergh Elementary and then people lose their minds.  When the traffic is docile, the light along 11th Street usually stays green, only until cross traffic on 89th is detected will it change.  The lights appear to change to cyclic during the heavy times (8 to 9am, 2:30 to 3:30 pm).  So the bike lanes always make me double check that when I'm turning north on 91st, I'm not turning into some poor cyclist who is not paying attention.

It would benefit us if the city looked at what works or doesn't work in other places like NYC, Seattle, Portland, etc. It would also benefit if genuinely experienced cyclists had real input into design considerations.

https://www.cityoftulsa.org/media/12210/1117.pdf

So this is bike lanes going on 11th from all the way from Lewis to 129th and on Pine from Gilcrease to Memorial. As well as Main St from Haskell North to Pine. I'm not sure why they started at Haskell and didn't start further south.

I wasn't able to find the books on this, so I'm not sure when this will get done. BUT I can't imagine this going into 2021, and could see it getting done by the end of summer. Really just depends on when they are able to get started.

This is two really large E-W streets getting huge sections of bike infrastructure that will be able to get people on bikes ALMOST downtown.

They have already installed a bike lane on Boulder from Archer (where it ties into an exiting bike lane) north to Haskell Street where it ties into Main Street and then it runs north to Haskell Pl.  I imagine they are just continuing it from Haskell Pl north to Pine. 

Ahh, that makes sense. I was curious how they were going to take it down main. Didn't even think of the new Boulder bike lanes going north past the railroad tracks.

You mean instead of well-intentioned egg-heads at INCOG who are infrequent cyclists?  Sorry, I don't mean to be offensive as I know a few INCOG types who contribute here every now and then.  Urban bike lanes just never seem like they were thought out by people with a real fear of being run over by a two ton opponent on the road.

I can be offensive for you if you like...!   

If they contribute here, why don't they contribute where it would do some real good - at the INCOG events, where something real could be done to protect and encourage bicycling?   

Or conversely, if the contributions here are as trivial as what happens at INCOG, why do they bother?

As an owner of a building on 11th, lemme say right now that knocking 11th down to 2 lanes is a terrible idea no matter the benefits of adding bike lanes. The amount of traffic on 11th is crazy already especially people going to or leaving downtown for work. Even worse, many of the businesses receive freight shipments in the street (the used car lots here often have giant car haulers blocking a lane while they unload cars) and that isn't going to stop since for many places there are no other options. We're lucky enough to have a parking lot behind our building for receiving but most buildings on 11th aren't set up like this. And, what I've already seen is people using the bike lane as a turning lane, or when someone is turning into a business or side street from the inside lane now, going into the bike lane to go around the car. I imagine if the three people (not being sarcastic) who ride bikes on 11th want to tempt death they'll give the bike lanes a go but otherwise I'm sure they'll stay on the sidewalks.

I think the bike lanes have been a huge benefit to 11th and that comes from someone who has lived and driven on 11th everyday for several years, it's a much less stressful driving experience now. And I've noticed an increase in cyclists which is awesome.

Bikes were always allowed to ride on the streets, I dunno why they need a special lane now, I can see it in some parts of the city near a school  but why on busy streets like 11th street? It takes away a lane for traffic for hardy any bike use.

I never seen anyone using the bike lanes on 11th street east of Yale. They leave only one lane for traffic each direction.

It's a reminder to cars that they are not the only ones allowed to be on the streets.   And too many act like Trumpflakes when they see a bike on the road....just want to go by too fast and too close, sometimes even trying to "blow" them off the road.   Trying to scare the biker or even hurt them.