Short answer: Portland has got it wrong. Expectations here aren't high at all. My own, which are very basic, might be a little higher: identify real problems, quantify them, analyze the data, determine WHY it's a problem, choose the best intervention for the situation, and implement according to the best design standards available. If you introduce a design that makes things worse instead of better, all that effort is wasted. If doing something makes it worse, at least do nothing. Or do something else. Bicycling and motoring education would eliminate 90% of these complaints about bicycling friendliness. Roadway repair and traffic lights would address most of the rest. Few problems require a facilities construction approach.
Let's try this from a different angle. Look VERY closely at your pictures. Those 3' bike lanes are not at all AASHTO compliant. A traffic lane that turns into a pedestrian-style crosswalk/blue box (problem). And what about right-turning cars?--those are YIELD signs on the right (problem). Door zone bike lanes (serious problem)on both sides of the street. BL's that swerve from curb-side to doorzone/parking. The Laird incident in Cambridge brought this issue to the forefront. Where BL's are put in, on-street parking should be removed. You found lots of pictures, and they make a vivid case against bike lanes.
But why? 80% of car-bike collisions happen at intersections. Why? Bike lanes increase car-bike conflict at intersections. Treating bicyclists as pedestrians or creating segregated space adjacent to the roadway (that crosses those intersections) defies the logic of the traffic system and causes more accidents.
Let me be clear. I don't want bike lanes anywhere in Tulsa. I hear it often enough: Portland, Portland, Portland. Tulsa must have Portland envy. True, Portland has lots of cyclists. But how did it get them? Bike lanes were built AFTER the surge of cyclists in the 70's, not before. And Portland has an abysmal accident rate for cyclists. As in at least as many fatalities in just one city as we have for our entire state in any given year--sometimes twice as many, and four times more injury collisions--that's Portland compared with Oklahoma, not Tulsa. Poor planning and lack of education is largely to blame. Approximately one in ten accidents in Portland is of the right-hook variety caused by cyclists riding too far to the right (as in a bike lane). If you think Tulsans can't duplicate this behavior, I guarantee we can out-do Portland even there. Where, you might ask?
Delaware, Delaware, Delaware. If that's as good as it gets, we REALLY don't need Bike Lanes. And yes, the recommended practice is to remove the stripe 100' before the intersection. All of the lines on Delaware would need to be sanded off to comply with this standard.
Width on Delaware?
A typical car is 7' wide (mirrors?), up to 8'6" (thanks, SUV drivers), and leaves a shy zone of two feet on its left (which is now a median with a gutter on Delaware). That's 10' 6". The bike lane is built on top of 20" of GUTTER, almost two feet. A cyclist is 2' wide. State law requires 3' passing clearance. Most experienced cyclists know to leave at least 3' on their right in case of trouble (emerging cars, debris, grates, margin of error). Ooops. If you've been doing the math (17'2"), then we ran out of space several feet ago.
So, without a trace of IDIOCY in either the driver or the cyclist, Delaware has been reduced from a road with plenty of width for cyclists (the entire right-hand lane) to one that squeezes cyclists into the undesirable real estate of the gutter on the right while requiring the motorist to do likewise on the left. Or impels motorists to break the minimum distance law. And increases the likelihood of the right hook. Oops.
Other, more logical proposals were given to the City before construction, but before the public input process, SOMEONE had already made up his mind.
If we don't plan to do it right, let's NOT DO IT. And so far, Tulsa is CONFUSED about bicycling.
Riding a bike is very simple. Educate the cyclist. Educate the motorist. Same Rights, Same Rules, Same Road.
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
First, the lanes are plenty wide to allow 3' of clearance. The entire road is 12' wide in either direction. A typical car is 6' wide. If there isn't enough room to pass it's because the biker and/or the motorist is an idiot.
And 100' between intersections with no paint? There would essentially be no paint on that entire stretch of road. Note the pictures below (Portland) have lane markings like a normal road.
Seems like expectations are getting a bit high. Bikes simply are not going to get a 6' wide lane in each direction to themselves and then alter all road markings to accommodate. That simply isn't going to happen.
If you want bike lanes Delaware is about as good as you will ever get. If you Google "Portland Bikelane" you get hundreds of pictures of ~3' wide bike lanes immediately next to traffic. Much like Delaware. Either Portland is doing it wrong, or expectations in Tulsa are a little higher than there:
