How do we go about getting bike lanes for 15th St?

[PonderInc]

Glad to hear that TU students and younger Tulsans are thinking of solutions and better ideas for Tulsa.

In Portland, OR, bicycle commuting has doubled since 2001.  Portland far surpases any other city I can think of as far as being bicycle-friendly and providing bicycle ammenities.  Just the other day, there was a story on NPR about the kinds of things they're doing to increase bicycle safety...stuff no other city in America is doing.  (They want to be more like Amsterdam for cyclists.) Portland NPR story

And here's a link to Portland's Bicycle Master Plan

As far as Tulsa is concerned, I strongly encourage you to get involved in PLANiTULSA, the citywide effort to update the comprehensive plan.  http://www.planitulsa.org  There will be several opportunities for the community to come and put their thoughts, ideas and dreams on maps of Tulsa...including bike lanes, walkable streets, transit routes, traffic calming tools, etc...in addition to identifying different types of development: village, main street, urban, etc.  (The first community workshops will be Sept 22 and 23rd...with several more in the months following.)

Sometimes I worry that Tulsa's own bicycle advocates are working against their best interests...because I often hear these gonzo cyclists saying they don't want bike lanes, they just want to "take a lane" in traffic and be treated as a vehicle.  This is fine for them...and I think it works on some streets.  I personally, would prefer a well designed bike lane or trail, as an alternative to attempting to ride down Harvard, where cars frequently drive 45 MPH.  (I'm more of a 15 MPH rider.)  Many people would be comfortable riding (and letting their kids ride) in a dedicated bike lane...Which would increase the number of cyclists out on the streets.  

I agree that Tulsa bike lanes suck.  They are just gutters for sand and debris.  But that doesn't mean that other cities aren't working to implement better cycling solutions...or that we shouldn't try them ourselves.

Also, as for a good east/west corridor, I think that 3rd street from TU to downtown is ripe for bicycling opportunities.  Nice and wide, and little traffic.  6th street would connect TU to downtown via the Pearl District, which is another intriguing thought....

And most importantly, we need safe over/under passes so bikes can cross the expressways throughout the city.  The highways are like the Berlin wall when you're on two wheels (or on foot).  And Tulsa businesses need to offer locker rooms and bike storage so people can commute to work and have a place to shower (or at least change) when they get there.

[SXSW]

quote:And Tulsa businesses need to offer locker rooms and bike storage so people can commute to work and have a place to shower (or at least change) when they get there.

That is a big one right there.  Tulsa (or Portland, Denver, etc.) can have all the bike lanes and trails in the world but without a locker room or shower not too many people will bike to work.  I know a guy that bikes to his health club downtown in Denver and takes a shower there so maybe the new YMCA will help spur more biking to work out/shower before work.  Should the city offer incentives for businesses to provide this??  I think so, especially downtown businesses.

[TURobY]

quote:Originally posted by SXSW

...but without a locker room or shower not too many people will bike to work.

Very true. I lucked out, because my company is moving to Mapco Plaza, where they are supposed to have a shower facility. I can just roll out of bed and bike to work, and shower and prepare for my day there. One more month before the move! I can hardly wait...

[OurTulsa]

I dream of the day we have one of these: http://www.chicagobikestation.com/index.htm

...at least a mini one down in the Williams Green.

[brhino42]

I like to start by asking "What's the problem?"  Who here has ridden 15th St?  I ride it almost daily.  It's 4 lanes.  And the further east you go, the less traffic.  The only part of it that's even remotely congested is Cherry Street, where the speeds are residential and there's parking on either side--just stay out of the door zone and you're fine.

So is there a problem?  Nope.  Bike lanes complicate the traffic situation.  They don't increase safety.  In fact, they decrease safety at intersections.  I'd much rather have one of two lanes to myself than an exaggerated gutter stripe.  There's plenty of room to change lanes and go around a bicyclist on 15th.

Check out Tom Revay's Bike Lane Contrarian site for some eye-opening info:  http://tomrevay.tripod.com/projects/MassBike/BikeLanes/

[brhino42]

TU's bike lanes are an aesthetically pleasing embarrassment.  The existing on-street bike route at 3rd St. has plenty of space, a lane to the cyclist going each direction.  The rest of Tulsa's on-street bike route system was supposed to be integrated with traffic, not segregated in this illogical fashion.

Delaware was always ugly, but not to cyclists--having a lane to yourself makes for pretty easy riding.  Now they've narrowed the whole thing to two lanes and complicated the situation.  In fact, cars have to break a state law to pass a cyclist in the bike lane (must give at least 3' when overtaking).  The city didn't even follow the recommended guidelines for width or for discontinuing the stripe 100' on either side of an intersection to avoid conflicts with turning traffic.

So here's the question:  do we follow California and REQUIRE motorists merge into the bike lane before turning or do we follow Oregon and REQUIRE that motorists stay completely out of the bike lane (impossible) until they turn?

Four observations:  1) the Oregon system has been dubbed "the suicide slot" for a reason; 2) Oklahomans will rightfully wonder what the use of a bike lane is when cars follow the California system; 3)right now, cyclists enjoy the full benefit of equal protection under the law--do you really want a system that relegates cyclists to the worst part of the roadway and penalizes them for leaving it?; and 4) do you think motorists will understand when cyclists choose not to ride in the bike lane or on non-lined streets?

Let's get educated before we start writing up proposals.

[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:

[Ed W]

Here's a thought - why don't we get a group of people together on Saturday and ride along 15th Street?

[deinstein]

It's hard for Tulsa to market itself or even compete with cities that perfect when it comes to planning.

And I ride 15th all of the time...and I likely drive 15th more than anyone here due to my job.

Traffic would go smoother along Cherry Street with a turning lane, so I don't see how that would complicate traffic.

My question is if it's considered a proper buffer like curb parking is?

Would Cherry Street be better off with no curb parking, two biking lanes and a turning lane? I'm thinking it would be.

[Double A]

quote:Originally posted by deinstein

It's hard for Tulsa to market itself or even compete with cities that perfect when it comes to planning.

And I ride 15th all of the time...and I likely drive 15th more than anyone here due to my job.

Traffic would go smoother along Cherry Street with a turning lane, so I don't see how that would complicate traffic.

My question is if it's considered a proper buffer like curb parking is?

Would Cherry Street be better off with no curb parking, two biking lanes and a turning lane? I'm thinking it would be.

Losing on street parking would mean more parking lots. No thanks.

[tulsa1603]

quote:Originally posted by Double A

quote:Originally posted by deinstein

It's hard for Tulsa to market itself or even compete with cities that perfect when it comes to planning.

And I ride 15th all of the time...and I likely drive 15th more than anyone here due to my job.

Traffic would go smoother along Cherry Street with a turning lane, so I don't see how that would complicate traffic.

My question is if it's considered a proper buffer like curb parking is?

Would Cherry Street be better off with no curb parking, two biking lanes and a turning lane? I'm thinking it would be.

Losing on street parking would mean more parking lots. No thanks.

Or worse, declining businesses.  There is a positive psychological effect when people can see parking in front of a business - it is about accessibility.  Also, it gives the impression that there are people in those businesses.  When I drive down 15th between Harvard and Lewis, I don't get that impression.  I get the impression of empty and/or abandoned buildings (of course, half probably are).

[brhino42]

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:

[Kenosha]

I totally disagree with brhino.

Just sayin'

[akupetsky]

quote:Originally posted by tulsa1603

quote:Originally posted by Double A

quote:Originally posted by deinstein

It's hard for Tulsa to market itself or even compete with cities that perfect when it comes to planning.

And I ride 15th all of the time...and I likely drive 15th more than anyone here due to my job.

Traffic would go smoother along Cherry Street with a turning lane, so I don't see how that would complicate traffic.

My question is if it's considered a proper buffer like curb parking is?

Would Cherry Street be better off with no curb parking, two biking lanes and a turning lane? I'm thinking it would be.

Losing on street parking would mean more parking lots. No thanks.

Or worse, declining businesses.  There is a positive psychological effect when people can see parking in front of a business - it is about accessibility.  Also, it gives the impression that there are people in those businesses.  When I drive down 15th between Harvard and Lewis, I don't get that impression.  I get the impression of empty and/or abandoned buildings (of course, half probably are).

We can't get rid of on-street parking.  Although making room for cyclists on Cherry Street would add to the accessibility and business, I'm not sure that you have to do reconstruction to accomplish it.  Why not extend the Riverside-Maple Ridge-Maple Park-Peoria bike path along the BA by carving room out of the unnecessarily-wide service road?  That would leave cyclists only one street away from Cherry Street.

[SXSW]

quote:Originally posted by akupetsky

quote:Originally posted by tulsa1603

quote:Originally posted by Double A

quote:Originally posted by deinstein

It's hard for Tulsa to market itself or even compete with cities that perfect when it comes to planning.

And I ride 15th all of the time...and I likely drive 15th more than anyone here due to my job.

Traffic would go smoother along Cherry Street with a turning lane, so I don't see how that would complicate traffic.

My question is if it's considered a proper buffer like curb parking is?

Would Cherry Street be better off with no curb parking, two biking lanes and a turning lane? I'm thinking it would be.

Losing on street parking would mean more parking lots. No thanks.

Or worse, declining businesses.  There is a positive psychological effect when people can see parking in front of a business - it is about accessibility.  Also, it gives the impression that there are people in those businesses.  When I drive down 15th between Harvard and Lewis, I don't get that impression.  I get the impression of empty and/or abandoned buildings (of course, half probably are).

We can't get rid of on-street parking.  Although making room for cyclists on Cherry Street would add to the accessibility and business, I'm not sure that you have to do reconstruction to accomplish it.  Why not extend the Riverside-Maple Ridge-Maple Park-Peoria bike path along the BA by carving room out of the unnecessarily-wide service road?  That would leave cyclists only one street away from Cherry Street.

I like this idea.  Extending that trail under Cincinnati and through Maple Park and then across 15th and up to 14th (BA Service Rd.) would provide great access to Cherry Street without actually being on 15th and dealing with the traffic and parked cars.  A dedicated bike lane on 14th could go all the way to Lewis.  Connecting to that trail provides the easiest dedicated bike access to the river.