Wide Streets Downtown

[Hoss]

In general I have no problem sharing the road with bicyclists.  However, I draw the line to them wearing santa suits while huffing it down highway 51.

I'm trying to think of some way to add what else he has on his bike without offending the board....I know some of you know what I'm talking about here.

[Ed W]

Those who are 'interested but concerned' would be more likely to bike if there were better infrastructure.

http://www.portlandonline.com/transportation/index.cfm?a=158497&c=44671

I can't count the times I've heard. "I'd ride my bike more if..."  But it seldom happens.  It's too hot, too far, too difficult, too sweaty, too many cars, too cold, too windy, too many dogs, etc.  Infrastructure doesn't lure people out of their cars.  That's been well established by public policy over the last 30 years.  We've spent ever increasing amounts of money on bike/ped projects (like an order of magnitude increase) but the number of bicyclists has remained relatively flat.  Industry figures place that number at roughly 60 million, but they include anyone who's ridden a bicycle even once during the year.  Realistic figures of regular cyclists - those riding more than once a week - are about 10% of that.  So "build it and they will come" is a myth.  It's a popular myth, and it's used to some effect by advocacy groups including the League of American Bicyclists.    

Now, I don't mind spending public money to build a nice park with a bike path, but unless it actually connects to destinations people wish to reach, it shouldn't be built with transportation money.  The cliche is a pretty trail that leave the parking lot, winds around a lovely lake, and returns to the parking lot.  That's not a transportation project, yet transportation money is spent too often on such ideas.

Here are two illustrations of how cycling can work, both of them from Orlando:

http://commuteorlando.com/wordpress/2010/05/25/my-first-commute-if-darlyn-can-do-it-i-can-too/#more-7862

http://commuteorlando.com/wordpress/2010/05/24/my-first-commute/

The curriculum underway there is called Savvy Cycling, and if it's do-able, I may try to get certified to teach it.

[custosnox]

I'm trying to think of some way to add what else he has on his bike without offending the board....I know some of you know what I'm talking about here.

I'm assuming your not speaking of the "will something or another naked for a $1 or some nonsense like that" signs, but to his.... Latex, air filled... passenger.

[Hoss]

I'm assuming your not speaking of the "will something or another naked for a $1 or some nonsense like that" signs, but to his.... Latex, air filled... passenger.

winner, winner...chicken dinner.

[Ed W]

I'm assuming your not speaking of the "will something or another naked for a $1 or some nonsense like that" signs, but to his.... Latex, air filled... passenger.

What?  Is Paul dragging around that 6 foot tall inflatable penis again?  I thought some cop deflated it with her pocketknife, and later a judge had to tell her the proper use of the First Amendment.  Paul got his penis back.

[Conan71]

I'm trying to think of some way to add what else he has on his bike without offending the board....I know some of you know what I'm talking about here.

[Conan71]

I can't count the times I've heard. "I'd ride my bike more if..."  But it seldom happens.  It's too hot, too far, too difficult, too sweaty, too many cars, too cold, too windy, too many dogs, etc.  Infrastructure doesn't lure people out of their cars.  That's been well established by public policy over the last 30 years.  We've spent ever increasing amounts of money on bike/ped projects (like an order of magnitude increase) but the number of bicyclists has remained relatively flat.  Industry figures place that number at roughly 60 million, but they include anyone who's ridden a bicycle even once during the year.  Realistic figures of regular cyclists - those riding more than once a week - are about 10% of that.  So "build it and they will come" is a myth.  It's a popular myth, and it's used to some effect by advocacy groups including the League of American Bicyclists.    

Now, I don't mind spending public money to build a nice park with a bike path, but unless it actually connects to destinations people wish to reach, it shouldn't be built with transportation money.  The cliche is a pretty trail that leave the parking lot, winds around a lovely lake, and returns to the parking lot.  That's not a transportation project, yet transportation money is spent too often on such ideas.

Here are two illustrations of how cycling can work, both of them from Orlando:

http://commuteorlando.com/wordpress/2010/05/25/my-first-commute-if-darlyn-can-do-it-i-can-too/#more-7862

http://commuteorlando.com/wordpress/2010/05/24/my-first-commute/

The curriculum underway there is called Savvy Cycling, and if it's do-able, I may try to get certified to teach it.

+1

Now, off to ride my bike...

[nathanm]

I can't count the times I've heard. "I'd ride my bike more if..."  

I'd ride my bike more if Tulsa was flat as a pancake and had no wind.  

(actually, Orlando itself is pretty flat, and doesn't tend to have a 30 mile an hour "breeze")

[OpenYourEyesTulsa]

I agree with widening the sidewalks and adding bicycle lanes downtown and throughout Tulsa but I would like them to keep the one way steets downtown.  It makes it so much easier to get around.

Maybe as they develop the Brady and Greenwood districts they can focus on wider sidewalks.

[TheTed]

I can't count the times I've heard. "I'd ride my bike more if..."  But it seldom happens.  It's too hot, too far, too difficult, too sweaty, too many cars, too cold, too windy, too many dogs, etc.  Infrastructure doesn't lure people out of their cars.  That's been well established by public policy over the last 30 years.  We've spent ever increasing amounts of money on bike/ped projects (like an order of magnitude increase) but the number of bicyclists has remained relatively flat.  Industry figures place that number at roughly 60 million, but they include anyone who's ridden a bicycle even once during the year.  Realistic figures of regular cyclists - those riding more than once a week - are about 10% of that.  So "build it and they will come" is a myth.  It's a popular myth, and it's used to some effect by advocacy groups including the League of American Bicyclists.    

Now, I don't mind spending public money to build a nice park with a bike path, but unless it actually connects to destinations people wish to reach, it shouldn't be built with transportation money.  The cliche is a pretty trail that leave the parking lot, winds around a lovely lake, and returns to the parking lot.  That's not a transportation project, yet transportation money is spent too often on such ideas.

Here are two illustrations of how cycling can work, both of them from Orlando:

http://commuteorlando.com/wordpress/2010/05/25/my-first-commute-if-darlyn-can-do-it-i-can-too/#more-7862

http://commuteorlando.com/wordpress/2010/05/24/my-first-commute/

The curriculum underway there is called Savvy Cycling, and if it's do-able, I may try to get certified to teach it.

Both those blogs reference riding in bike lanes.

What has Tulsa done? The river trails are great. Most of the other trails don't really go anywhere desirable. You might as well be saying "well, we built a sidewalk at 71st and Memorial and nobody's walking. So nobody's ever gonna walk." Most of Tulsa is the cycling equivalent of walking at 71st and Memorial.

If I want to ride from downtown to 31st and Harvard, it takes quite a bit of effort in just figuring out a route and following. It takes ~15 turns to get there from here by bike sticking to the side streets. This is a fairly direct route, almost the same distance as it would be by car.

If I drive to 31st and Harvard, three turns.

INCOG claims to support bike boulevards, but where are they? They don't go nearly enough places that normal cycling Tulsans live, work or shop. Even the ones that are there are terrible. Constant stop signs at intersections with other side streets. There's not much to creating a "bike boulevard" other than figuring out a good route and putting signs up. You'd think a major part would be giving the bike boulevard the right of way over all the other side streets. We don't expect cars on through streets to stop at every side street.

I refuse to believe that making Tulsa bike-friendly would have no effect on the number of people who bike around town. It seems to work in other places. NYC has dramatically increased its infrastructure with bike lanes, paths on all the bridges, and their numbers have jumped.

Here we plan for cars and only for cars. Even our most cycling/pedestrian-friendly parts of town are fairly unfriendly.

[Conan71]

Both those blogs reference riding in bike lanes.

What has Tulsa done? The river trails are great. Most of the other trails don't really go anywhere desirable. You might as well be saying "well, we built a sidewalk at 71st and Memorial and nobody's walking. So nobody's ever gonna walk." Most of Tulsa is the cycling equivalent of walking at 71st and Memorial.

If I want to ride from downtown to 31st and Harvard, it takes quite a bit of effort in just figuring out a route and following. It takes ~15 turns to get there from here by bike sticking to the side streets. This is a fairly direct route, almost the same distance as it would be by car.

If I drive to 31st and Harvard, three turns.

INCOG claims to support bike boulevards, but where are they? They don't go nearly enough places that normal cycling Tulsans live, work or shop. Even the ones that are there are terrible. Constant stop signs at intersections with other side streets. There's not much to creating a "bike boulevard" other than figuring out a good route and putting signs up. You'd think a major part would be giving the bike boulevard the right of way over all the other side streets. We don't expect cars on through streets to stop at every side street.

I refuse to believe that making Tulsa bike-friendly would have no effect on the number of people who bike around town. It seems to work in other places. NYC has dramatically increased its infrastructure with bike lanes, paths on all the bridges, and their numbers have jumped.

Here we plan for cars and only for cars. Even our most cycling/pedestrian-friendly parts of town are fairly unfriendly.

Ted, I've ridden multiple times from my house at 27th & Yale to Downtown via 36th St. from Hudson (the traffic circle by Waite Phillips) to Madison (just west of Peoria) then follow the signs and stay on the "bike route" to about 26th, then you can hop on the old rail bed to 18th and you can either stay on the trail through Maple Park to Centennial Park or ride up Boston.

Depending on where in downtown you are wanting to go from, you can make it simpler by getting on the RP trail at SW Blvd and crossing at the ped bridge and exiting the parking lot at 31st and going a few blocks to the east to get back on the bike route which will go south to 36th, turn left on 36th and take it all the way to Harvard.  I would recommend you either turn left on Gary Pl or go across Harvard and take Jamestown to arrive back at 31st. 

You can also ride out 3rd, 6th, or 11th St. to Harvard and turn right, or make some cuts through the neighborhoods starting at Lewis.  It's not really all that bad, then again I'm used to riding in traffic and along side highways as an endurance rider so it doesn't rattle me.  I generally prefer 36th as the pavement is very good from west of Harvard and there are fewer cars.

I also recommend you pull up the bike map from INCOG's web site, there's more miles of "bike routes" than most people would believe around here.

[SXSW]

It would be nice to see actual bike lanes installed on the shoulder on 36th from Riverside to Hudson, and also along Utica (though that could be tricky where it becomes 4 lanes at Terwilliger northward).  Bike lanes along 6th from TU to downtown would be good to connect with the paths on the TU campus, the existing bike lanes on Delaware (which could be extended south to 15th), the future lanes on Utica, through the Pearl and connecting to the existing trail at Centennial Park (or continued on 6th through downtown to Houston, and then south to the river trails.

Once I-44 is complete there will be a trail similar to the one along the Creek Turnpike on the north side of the highway behind the retaining walls.  Part of it is already in place from Yale east to near Fulton.  I believe the plan is to extend it west all the way to the river, where it would connect with the river trails.  Where it currently ends is very near where Hudson ends at 41st, which could make for a connection to the bike blvd. along 36th.

[Conan71]

It would be nice to see actual bike lanes installed on the shoulder on 36th from Riverside to Hudson, and also along Utica (though that could be tricky where it becomes 4 lanes at Terwilliger northward).  Bike lanes along 6th from TU to downtown would be good to connect with the paths on the TU campus, the existing bike lanes on Delaware (which could be extended south to 15th), the future lanes on Utica, through the Pearl and connecting to the existing trail at Centennial Park (or continued on 6th through downtown to Houston, and then south to the river trails.

Once I-44 is complete there will be a trail similar to the one along the Creek Turnpike on the north side of the highway behind the retaining walls.  Part of it is already in place from Yale east to near Fulton.  I believe the plan is to extend it west all the way to the river, where it would connect with the river trails.  Where it currently ends is very near where Hudson ends at 41st, which could make for a connection to the bike blvd. along 36th.

It's wide enough from approximately Florence or so to Peoria to paint the lines on as it is now.  You'd need to chew up some curbing east back to Hudson to accomplish that.  That's a lot of private property and I don't thinkt the Brooksiders or Highland Park residents would much like giving up their front yards.