(PROJECT) A Gathering Place For Tulsa

[Hoss]

He was afraid of Ebola spreading from the park. Pretty reasonable.

The fire from his cellphone should guard him from that.  Special protection that cellphone has.

[Conan71]

Granted, it’s not much of a hardship to walk two blocks from Veteran’s Park to the Midland Trail, but it simply illustrates how incredibly out of tune this administration is to any sort of sensible development ideas.

[Conan71]

Well, this might explain the sidewalk removal a little better:

The owner of the building that houses Mayor Dewey Bartlett’s oil and gas company was among the people who met with the mayor to ask him to remove a sidewalk from planned improvements to Riverside Drive, according to a person who attended the meeting.

Bartlett later had the sidewalk removed from the city’s plans.

Maple Ridge Neighborhood Association President Steve Welch said he and Ronald Barnes were among those who met with Bartlett this summer to ask that the sidewalk not be built.

County and state records list Barnes as the owner of the building where Bartlett’s business, Keener Oil & Gas Co., maintains offices at 1648 S. Boston Ave.

Barnes, a lawyer, also has offices in the building. The person who answered the phone at Barnes’ office Wednesday afternoon said he was unavailable.
Barnes donated $1,000 to Bartlett’s re-election campaign last year and $1,000 to Bartlett in the 2009 election, according to Tulsa World reports on campaign finance records.

The sidewalk was to have been constructed on the east side of Riverside Drive from the north boundary of A Gathering Place for Tulsa north to 21st Street.

Bartlett said Tuesday that he based his decision on a number of neighborhood concerns, but “I really think the whole thing hinges on safety.”

Bartlett was unavailable for comment Wednesday but issued a statement saying that he considered all of the neighborhood’s concerns but in the end it came down to pedestrian and motorist safety.

“This is simply a matter of public safety. I prefer to err on the conservative side of keeping people out of harm’s way, and that is what the leadership of the homeowners’ association asked my administration to examine,” Bartlett said.

“We all know that the speed factor on Riverside Drive could have a real impact on safety for those who might use the east side of the street.”
Welch said Wednesday that “the issue for us was basically the diminishing values of the lots along Riverside Drive.”

“In our first meeting with him (City Engineer Paul Zachary) and his team, I think we had 50 residents, primarily from Riverside District (inside the Maple Ridge neighborhood), and the Riverside District had an issue with the damage to property values and the amount of parking that would be encouraged on the neighborhood streets,” Welch said.

He added that residents didn’t see the value of a sidewalk on the east side of Riverside Drive since there was no parking to support it.
Pedestrian safety was also cited.

“We thought the sidewalk as it was proposed was dangerous from the standpoint of the pedestrians,” Welch said. “They were going to put up a wall and a fence — but it looked to us to be a death trap.”

Neighborhood residents had been concerned about the proposed road improvements for months, Welch said, because initial plans called for removing several residences.

“We are all for a walkable city,” Welch said. “But when you already have the biggest sidewalk in the whole city on the other side of the street, we think you don’t need to duplicate it on the east side.”

Welch said Zachary and his team were always cooperative and helpful in their discussions with neighborhood residents but that Zachary would not agree to remove the sidewalk.

“He was not going to give up the sidewalk without the direction of the mayor was his opinion,” Welch said.

A meeting with the mayor was then set up. Among those present were Bartlett, Zachary, Welch and Barnes, according to Welch.
Bartlett later informed the Engineering Department of his decision not to build the sidewalk.

Running adjacent to the planned sidewalk are 10 residential properties, as well as condominium complexes and commercial businesses, according to Tulsa County Assessor records. Along that stretch, Barnes owns the residential property with the highest fair-market value, the records indicate.

City Councilor Blake Ewing said Wednesday that he has placed the issue on Thursday’s City Council committee agenda and will wait to form an opinion until after he hears directly from interested parties.

“I don’t really know what happened,” Ewing said. “So we’re going to look forward to finding out. We will continue to meet with neighborhood residents to hear their concerns.”

However, Ewing said, he is concerned about the absence of a sidewalk.

“The reality is people are still going to walk there, and you’re going to have a dirt path — a walking trail,” he said. “Then you’re going to come back to us five years later asking for a sidewalk.”

Jay Williams, who lives in one of the 10 homes adjacent to the planned sidewalk, said he supports Riverside Drive improvements and the Gathering Place but opposes the sidewalk.

“People walk through, and they can see into the house,” Williams said. “Our only complaint was that sidewalk. If they cancel that, we’ll be happy campers.”

Kevin Canfield 918-581-8313

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/local/mayor-s-business-landlord-objected-to-nixed-sidewalk/article_3f4273c5-4782-5092-9430-62bbec022d2d.html

[rebound]

I hate to be in a position of possibly agreeing with Dewey on any issue, but while I'm fairly sure his motives aren't pure and the some of the locals definitely have a (literal) NIMBY  attitude, I'm going to have to come down on the side of not having a sidewalk along the East side of Riverside. 

Even in the renderings it is uncomfortably close to the road, and unless they drastically slow down traffic on Riverside I can see problems occurring.  Anyone coming from the park already has access by going down the West side of Riverside, and/or going East (on the already existing sidewalk) on the North Side of 21st for about a net block and crossing at the existing crosswalk and going down the trail.  And while using the West side of Riverside is definitely longer, going East and using the existing trail is basically a wash with the new proposed sidewalk, and much less dangerous.

Feel free to pummel me with reasons why I am completely wrong. 
 

[Conan71]

I hate to be in a position of possibly agreeing with Dewey on any issue, but while I'm fairly sure his motives aren't pure and the some of the locals definitely have a (literal) NIMBY  attitude, I'm going to have to come down on the side of not having a sidewalk along the East side of Riverside.  

Even in the renderings it is uncomfortably close to the road, and unless they drastically slow down traffic on Riverside I can see problems occurring.  Anyone coming from the park already has access by going down the West side of Riverside, and/or going East (on the already existing sidewalk) on the North Side of 21st for about a net block and crossing at the existing crosswalk and going down the trail.  And while using the West side of Riverside is definitely longer, going East and using the existing trail is basically a wash with the new proposed sidewalk, and much less dangerous.

Feel free to pummel me with reasons why I am completely wrong.  
 

I could agree on their point of it being a safety issue if it weren’t for the fact the bicycle portion of the west bank trail is very close to the road from 21st to the ped bridge, and that co-joins at the alignment of the walk/jog trail at roughly where 27th St would be on the street grid.  At least us cyclists provide some sort of barrier from the cars hitting the walkers

[cynical]

I'm sure there are other reasons you are completely wrong, but three come to mind right away.

1. The sidewalk is located farther from the traffic than almost every other sidewalk in town. The planned sidewalk was reasonably safe and much safer than any alternative.
2. The alternative on the west side of Riverside involves pedestrians having to cross a heavily traveled four-lane plus turn lanes road on which a great many drivers exceed the posted speed limit while texting/reading their mobile devices. My wife witnessed an SUV rear-end a small school bus on Riverside without slowing at all. The driver was looking at her cell phone and didn't notice traffic standing in front of her at the red light. This is a significant safety issue, far exceeding any risk to pedestrians and vehicle posed by a sidewalk located five feet from the roadway.
3. For anyone approaching the park from the east side of Riverside but south of 21st Street, they will have to either backtrack to 21st for the light, jaywalk across Riverside, or blaze their own trail on the east side, sidewalk or no sidewalk. The last option is almost certainly the one that will be most commonly used by those pedestrians and will be supplemented by those coming from farther north who don't want to cross the street. A level concrete sidewalk would be much safer for such pedestrians than a dirt trail. The NIMBY instinct is completely useless in this case.

I hate to be in a position of possibly agreeing with Dewey on any issue, but while I'm fairly sure his motives aren't pure and the some of the locals definitely have a (literal) NIMBY  attitude, I'm going to have to come down on the side of not having a sidewalk along the East side of Riverside. 

Even in the renderings it is uncomfortably close to the road, and unless they drastically slow down traffic on Riverside I can see problems occurring.  Anyone coming from the park already has access by going down the West side of Riverside, and/or going East (on the already existing sidewalk) on the North Side of 21st for about a net block and crossing at the existing crosswalk and going down the trail.  And while using the West side of Riverside is definitely longer, going East and using the existing trail is basically a wash with the new proposed sidewalk, and much less dangerous.

Feel free to pummel me with reasons why I am completely wrong. 
 

[Red Arrow]

I hate to be in a position of possibly agreeing with Dewey on any issue, but while I'm fairly sure his motives aren't pure and the some of the locals definitely have a (literal) NIMBY  attitude, I'm going to have to come down on the side of not having a sidewalk along the East side of Riverside. 

Even in the renderings it is uncomfortably close to the road, and unless they drastically slow down traffic on Riverside I can see problems occurring.  Anyone coming from the park already has access by going down the West side of Riverside, and/or going East (on the already existing sidewalk) on the North Side of 21st for about a net block and crossing at the existing crosswalk and going down the trail.  And while using the West side of Riverside is definitely longer, going East and using the existing trail is basically a wash with the new proposed sidewalk, and much less dangerous.

Feel free to pummel me with reasons why I am completely wrong. 
 

I believe the sidewalks along Memorial on both sides between 101st and 111th are unnecessarily close to the road.  So far there hasn't been any big problem that I know about.

[rdj]

Have the majority of the folks on this board ever agreed with Zachary and the city's streets department on anything?

[heironymouspasparagus]

I believe the sidewalks along Memorial on both sides between 101st and 111th are unnecessarily close to the road.  So far there hasn't been any big problem that I know about.

You got sidewalks out there in the boonies...


You are right - especially on the west side of the street - that is crazy!!  Kinda typical Tulsa thing.... take a really good idea and mush it around until it isn't as good as it could be.

[heironymouspasparagus]

Have the majority of the folks on this board ever agreed with Zachary and the city's streets department on anything?

Maybe the scope of the question should be broadened... have the majority of the folks on this board ever agreed with anyone on anything...?

[rebound]

I'm sure there are other reasons you are completely wrong, but three come to mind right away.

1. The sidewalk is located farther from the traffic than almost every other sidewalk in town. The planned sidewalk was reasonably safe and much safer than any alternative.

2. The alternative on the west side of Riverside involves pedestrians having to cross a heavily traveled four-lane plus turn lanes road on which a great many drivers exceed the posted speed limit while texting/reading their mobile devices. My wife witnessed an SUV rear-end a small school bus on Riverside without slowing at all. The driver was looking at her cell phone and didn't notice traffic standing in front of her at the red light. This is a significant safety issue, far exceeding any risk to pedestrians and vehicle posed by a sidewalk located five feet from the roadway.

3. For anyone approaching the park from the east side of Riverside but south of 21st Street, they will have to either backtrack to 21st for the light, jaywalk across Riverside, or blaze their own trail on the east side, sidewalk or no sidewalk. The last option is almost certainly the one that will be most commonly used by those pedestrians and will be supplemented by those coming from farther north who don't want to cross the street. A level concrete sidewalk would be much safer for such pedestrians than a dirt trail. The NIMBY instinct is completely useless in this case.

Point one is fair.  There are a few feet from the proposed sidewalk to the street.  And as Conan mentioned, there are a couple of spots on the West side where the trail is close to the road as well.  It might be fine, but it seems a bit tight to me, especially when sandwiched between the road and brick barrier wall.   But I'm not sure how it is "safer than any alternative"?  A safer alternative would be to take a few feet from the homeowners and land owners a put some more distance between the road and the sidewalk.  (Not saying that would be easier, or even feasible, but it would be a safer alternative.)

Also,  with regard to the other posts about the tight sidewalks down South,  the other thread on walkability kind of makes my point.  Those sidewalks are so unfriendly toward pedestrians that not a lot of people use them.  So, while there may not be many accidents, they are still not a good situation.

Not sure I get points two and three.

On point two:  I have not seen a detail drawing, but I assume that the proposed sidewalk would run along the East side to 21st, where it would run into the existing sidewalk on the SE corner of 21st and Boulder in front of First Fidelity.  If so, and someone is coming from the SW corner of the park, they have to cross 21st at that intersection.  From there, yes, they have to cross the "exit street" of Riverside (but not Riverside proper) to get onto the bike/pedestrian path.   So yeah it's more of a hassle, I agree (and longer, per my first post), but not unduly more dangerous.   But what about the option of going West East and crossing at the existing MV trail?  There are already sidewalks there, and while both options still require crossing 21st once you are on the trail, safety is not an issue anymore and it's basically a straight shot to the park, and the same distance (or close) as going down along Riverside.

Not sure I understand point three at all.  If a person is South of 21st and East of Riverside, just use Boston to get to 26th and hit the trail and go into the park from there.    (And if they want to improve that access a little, just open up the end of 22nd, 23rd, or 24th to the MV trail.  Easy and cheap...)

Look at it again on a map.  It's either come down the East side of Riverside from 21st to park from the West, or use the MV trail and come in from the East.  Distance-wise it's a wash, and one of those already exists.

[cynical]

I didn't do a good job of explaining Point 2. It is much more closely connected to the third point than was apparent. The issue is all about incentives and disincentives. Point 2 addressed the issue that arises when someone coming from any of the side streets from 22nd Street (South of Harwelden) to 26th Street (North of the park) wants to walk to the park. Rather than walking directly to the park, they will have to double back north to 21st Street, cross Riverside, walk south to the park on the west side, then cross Riverside again, hopefully using one of the land bridges depicted in the plans or they can double back east to the MV trail. Either would likely double or triple the distance they need to walk from a common point at the 2300 Riverside complex or one of the complexes nearby, a significant disincentive to pedestrian traffic. Tulsa needs to make pedestrian activities more convenient, not less convenient.

This ties into Point 3. Pedestrians already have the choice of walking on the east side of Riverside, sidewalk or no sidewalk. They might go to the trouble and risk of crossing Riverside at the light at 21st St. or they might jaywalk across Riverside as some already do. More likely, they will walk on the grass on the east side as the shortest distance to the park. Pedestrians almost always take the shortest route. They jaywalk when it is convenient, they walk across people's yards when it is convenient, they walk in the street when it is convenient, they are encouraged by convenient sidewalks, they are discouraged by fences and locked gates, but the lack of a sidewalk isn't much of a deterrent. I can show you any number of crowd-sourced dirt trails that spontaneously arose where substantially less convenient sidewalk alternatives exist. This will almost certainly happen on the east side of Riverside.

Incidentally, the option of taking additional property to move the sidewalk farther from Riverside imposes an additional financial burden on the city and an infringement on private property rights, either or both of which would be a more legitimate excuse to not put it in than the excuse put forward by the Mayor. The planned sidewalk would have fit within the city's already-existing right of way, avoiding land acquisition costs on top of the construction costs.

I think you greatly overestimate the danger posed to pedestrians using the planned sidewalk, somewhat overestimate the danger of crossing 21st St. near Boulder, and greatly underestimate the danger of crossing Riverside. And everyone going from the Veteran's Park area has to cross 21st St. anyway.

Point one is fair.  There are a few feet from the proposed sidewalk to the street.  And as Conan mentioned, there are a couple of spots on the West side where the trail is close to the road as well.  It might be fine, but it seems a bit tight to me, especially when sandwiched between the road and brick barrier wall.   But I'm not sure how it is "safer than any alternative"?  A safer alternative would be to take a few feet from the homeowners and land owners a put some more distance between the road and the sidewalk.  (Not saying that would be easier, or even feasible, but it would be a safer alternative.)

Also,  with regard to the other posts about the tight sidewalks down South,  the other thread on walkability kind of makes my point.  Those sidewalks are so unfriendly toward pedestrians that not a lot of people use them.  So, while there may not be many accidents, they are still not a good situation.

Not sure I get points two and three.

On point two:  I have not seen a detail drawing, but I assume that the proposed sidewalk would run along the East side to 21st, where it would run into the existing sidewalk on the SE corner of 21st and Boulder in front of First Fidelity.  If so, and someone is coming from the SW corner of the park, they have to cross 21st at that intersection.  From there, yes, they have to cross the "exit street" of Riverside (but not Riverside proper) to get onto the bike/pedestrian path.   So yeah it's more of a hassle, I agree (and longer, per my first post), but not unduly more dangerous.   But what about the option of going West East and crossing at the existing MV trail?  There are already sidewalks there, and while both options still require crossing 21st once you are on the trail, safety is not an issue anymore and it's basically a straight shot to the park, and the same distance (or close) as going down along Riverside.

Not sure I understand point three at all.  If a person is South of 21st and East of Riverside, just use Boston to get to 26th and hit the trail and go into the park from there.    (And if they want to improve that access a little, just open up the end of 22nd, 23rd, or 24th to the MV trail.  Easy and cheap...)

Look at it again on a map.  It's either come down the East side of Riverside from 21st to park from the West, or use the MV trail and come in from the East.  Distance-wise it's a wash, and one of those already exists.

[rebound]

I didn't do a good job of explaining Point 2. It is much more closely connected to the third point than was apparent. The issue is all about incentives and disincentives. Point 2 addressed the issue that arises when someone coming from any of the side streets from 22nd Street (South of Harwelden) to 26th Street (North of the park) wants to walk to the park. Rather than walking directly to the park, they will have to double back north to 21st Street, cross Riverside, walk south to the park on the west side, then cross Riverside again, hopefully using one of the land bridges depicted in the plans or they can double back east to the MV trail. Either would likely double or triple the distance they need to walk from a common point at the 2300 Riverside complex or one of the complexes nearby, a significant disincentive to pedestrian traffic. Tulsa needs to make pedestrian activities more convenient, not less convenient.

This ties into Point 3. Pedestrians already have the choice of walking on the east side of Riverside, sidewalk or no sidewalk. They might go to the trouble and risk of crossing Riverside at the light at 21st St. or they might jaywalk across Riverside as some already do. More likely, they will walk on the grass on the east side as the shortest distance to the park. Pedestrians almost always take the shortest route. They jaywalk when it is convenient, they walk across people's yards when it is convenient, they walk in the street when it is convenient, they are encouraged by convenient sidewalks, they are discouraged by fences and locked gates, but the lack of a sidewalk isn't much of a deterrent. I can show you any number of crowd-sourced dirt trails that spontaneously arose where substantially less convenient sidewalk alternatives exist. This will almost certainly happen on the east side of Riverside.

Incidentally, the option of taking additional property to move the sidewalk farther from Riverside imposes an additional financial burden on the city and an infringement on private property rights, either or both of which would be a more legitimate excuse to not put it in than the excuse put forward by the Mayor. The planned sidewalk would have fit within the city's already-existing right of way, avoiding land acquisition costs on top of the construction costs.

I think you greatly overestimate the danger posed to pedestrians using the planned sidewalk, somewhat overestimate the danger of crossing 21st St. near Boulder, and greatly underestimate the danger of crossing Riverside. And everyone going from the Veteran's Park area has to cross 21st St. anyway.

Good points, and well made.   I like the "people are going to walk there anyway" angle.    Also, I agree that my example of widening the walking corridor is infeasible.  I was just throwing it out there for argument's sake.  I'm still not completely sold that the sidewalk is required, but I'll go with the position that it would be a net positive.  Now having said that, what do you (or anybody) think is the chance it will get put back in?

[cynical]

Good points, and well made.   I like the "people are going to walk there anyway" angle.    Also, I agree that my example of widening the walking corridor is infeasible.  I was just throwing it out there for argument's sake.  I'm still not completely sold that the sidewalk is required, but I'll go with the position that it would be a net positive.  Now having said that, what do you (or anybody) think is the chance it will get put back in?

What it would take for Dewey to change his mind? Stranger things have happened. For example, OU just announced the resignation of Justin Skolarik, David Boren's hand-picked director of the Pride, the OU marching band. Boren had his heels pretty solidly dug in until the band members called him out in full-page ads in the Oklahoman, the Tulsa World, and the Dallas Morning News. He rescinded the program's prohibition against criticism via social media, met with the student leaders, met with the rank and file band members, and the next thing you know, Skolarik resigned effective immediately. Boren can take all kinds of heat, but he got out-hustled by the students and alumni. The embarrassment to the university was more than he could take. It seems that most people are laughing at Dewey's stated reason for the decision. Does he care that he has become a caricature of himself, a laughing stock? Time will tell. I am not optimistic. We have a strong mayor form of government that puts a good many levers of power into Dewey's hands. Every now and then someone he knows wakes him up and he pulls on a lever. It is usually the "stop" lever.

The difference between Boren and Bartlett is that when Boren makes a mistake, he is smart enough to turn it to his advantage. A generation or more of OU band boosters will forget that Boren hired Skolarik, remembering only that he eventually responded to their concerns in a way that empowered and validated them. Bartlett is just Dewey.

Unfortunately, this issue is symptomatic of a broader problem in city government in which the administration is better at applying the brakes than the accelerator.

[Conan71]

One minor detail about crossing Riverside at 21st: Don’t forget there is a pedestrian path on the south side of that bridge, so one would not have to set foot on Riverside Drive.

That said, I still say we need the sidewalk on the east side and it’s no less safe than the trail on the west.