(PROJECT) A Gathering Place For Tulsa

[sgrizzle]

Editorials in Tulsa World and Tulsa Voice both support the sidewalk. The opposition had this to say:

Riverside District residents and your MRNA Board of Directors continued to express several concerns in regards to the sidewalk itself. One of those was the damage to property values and quality of life to the residents that border Riverside. For instance, the iron fence, wall and sidewalk would have come within 8 ft of the kitchen window of one of those homes. All others would suffer significant financial harm considering the amount of land that would be taken away. Another issue is redundancy. A Gathering Place includes ample parking within the park and will be fully handicap accessible from the Midland Valley Trail or River Parks in eight different locations.



Another issue is the problem of event parking on the neighborhood streets that, we feel, the sidewalk would foster. And finally the issue of public safety. Considering the speed of traffic on Riverside and that the fence and masonry wall gives pedestrians nowhere to run when a car does come up over the curb, someone was going to get killed. Additionally there are six residential streets to cross from Harwelden to The Gathering Place entrance, adding to the danger.



During the course of what turned out to be our last meeting, Mr. Zachary said that he wouldn't pull the sidewalk from the project and that, the Mayor was the only one who could make that decision, We asked for a meeting with the Mayor. That meeting occurred on March 20, 2014.



The Mayor, his press director, Mr. Zachary, Buck Davies, Ron Barnes and, I were present. Paul Zachary presented the Engineering case and Maple Ridge reps presented ours. The Mayor asked some questions of each of us, said he would likely make additional inquiries and then, let us know of his decision.



Nothing much more occurred until July 22, 2014 when City of Tulsa engineering called a public meeting at the Garden Center. It was a pretty good turnout, maybe 200 people, channels 6 & 2 news and, Blake Ewing, GT Bynum, Jeff Stava. As I walked in the room, Jeff Stava saw me and said, 'the sidewalk has been dropped'.



Support from the entire neighborhood is needed at Monday's public forum. We really need Maple Ridge residents to come out in force. All sides will be heard and we will be allowed to present our case. Please turn out and participate in the Forum.

[TheArtist]

"Iron fence and sidewalk would come within 8 feet of a kitchen window"... Sounds nice.  When I was in London my apartment kitchen window faced the sidewalk, which was about 2 or 3 feet away.  Beautiful neighborhood. I looked out the window each misty morning and across the street there were rows of stately old mansions/apartments and homes with huge old trees lining the sidewalks.  One of the local tube stations was less than a block away so there was a steady stream of people all dressed up and quickly heading to work each morning along both sides of the street, parents and their young kids in school uniforms, etc.  I would look out the window as I was fixing my breakfast and watch the sun begin to change the white stone buildings colors from blues to golds and enjoyed seeing the world come alive outside. It made me want to get out there myself. Right around the corner near the station was a little market that usually had different food and flower vendors, sometimes a musician.  There was a little cafe that had great patisseries also just around the corner in case I did not want to fix my own breakfast.

"Iron fence and sidewalk within 8 feet of a kitchen window". Sounds like a long way off, but is still kind of nice. Far better than what I have here in Tulsa with no sidewalk.  Are they suggesting this is a negative?  I don't understand.

[davideinstein]

Why would you not lower the speed limit on Riverside in this area to begin with?

[Townsend]

"Iron fence and sidewalk within 8 feet of a kitchen window". Sounds like a long way off, but is still kind of nice. Far better than what I have here in Tulsa with no sidewalk.  Are they suggesting this is a negative?  I don't understand.

"murica"?

[PonderInc]

Former mayors Terry Young, Robert Lafortune, Susan Savage and Kathy Taylor have come out in support of the sidewalk.  It's insane to me that they have to take a stance on the desirability of a sidewalk, but I'm glad they did.

(Terry Young makes a weird comparison to the Maple Ridge opposition to the original planned route of the IDL which would have decimated huge swaths of several historic neighborhoods and turned Riverside Drive into an expressway.  But hey, he likes the sidewalk.)

Here's the link to the TW story:
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/local/four-former-mayors-support-riverside-drive-sidewalk/article_c4433b9c-49ae-598c-a4a5-15f3ac2c696c.html

Of course, there should be a sidewalk along this section of Riverside Drive.  However, the Q&A section of the article mentions a different issue which hasn't attracted much notice: the street "improvements" will include 12' wide inner lanes and 14' wide outer lanes along this section of Riverside Dr. (along with straightening the curve that currently exists near the Pedestrian Bridge).  So, Riverside Drive will be designed for Interstate highway speeds, though the posted speed will be 35.  Guess which factor influences speed more?  Unfortunately, it's lane width.  That's something the Maple Ridge neighbors should be concerned about.

[Red Arrow]

"Iron fence and sidewalk within 8 feet of a kitchen window". Sounds like a long way off, but is still kind of nice. Far better than what I have here in Tulsa with no sidewalk.  Are they suggesting this is a negative?  I don't understand.

You are forgetting that not everyone likes to be packed-in as close as you do.  So yes, "Iron fence and sidewalk within 8 feet of a kitchen window" is probably a negative in their eyes.

[swake]

You are forgetting that not everyone likes to be packed-in as close as you do.  So yes, "Iron fence and sidewalk within 8 feet of a kitchen window" is probably a negative in their eyes.

Then don't buy a house that sits directly on Riverside Drive.

Pretty sure the river was there first.

[Red Arrow]

Then don't buy a house that sits directly on Riverside Drive.

I didn't say they made a good decision on location.

Pretty sure the river was there first.

What does the river being there first have to do with it?

[Ed W]

Perhaps when ee get water in the river it will be moved.

Ed W

[TheArtist]

You are forgetting that not everyone likes to be packed-in as close as you do.  So yes, "Iron fence and sidewalk within 8 feet of a kitchen window" is probably a negative in their eyes.

Yes, probably true, but.... sometimes it is just a perception problem, shift your perception a bit and your thoughts and feelings can change.  Also, I don't know if we should make a decision in this instance based on this or that persons "likes" when so many others via the Comprehensive Plan Process etc. made the original decision to have the sidewalk there. For every person who does not like it, I could find another who will (thus it will not hurt the property values if that is a concern) It's always a balance but if one person doesn't like something because it will be too close to his window, do we then throw out this or that part of the Comprehensive Plan?  Might as well not have a new plan at all because everything will have voices against it.  It is plenty fair to weigh the pros- and cons that are brought up, but I hope we don't have to do it for every change on the table.

Btw, this morning on the way out of town drove down the other side of Maple Ridge, the one that abuts Peoria.  Saw plenty of sidewalks right next to the street and don't remember hearing about pedestrians being run over by texting drivers etc. on their way to Brookside or Cherry Street. 

[Red Arrow]

Yes, probably true, but.... sometimes it is just a perception problem, shift your perception a bit and your thoughts and feelings can change.  Also, I don't know if we should make a decision in this instance based on this or that persons "likes" when so many others via the Comprehensive Plan Process etc. made the original decision to have the sidewalk there. For every person who does not like it, I could find another who will (thus it will not hurt the property values if that is a concern) It's always a balance but if one person doesn't like something because it will be too close to his window, do we then throw out this or that part of the Comprehensive Plan?  Might as well not have a new plan at all because everything will have voices against it.  It is plenty fair to weigh the pros- and cons that are brought up, but I hope we don't have to do it for every change on the table.

Btw, this morning on the way out of town drove down the other side of Maple Ridge, the one that abuts Peoria.  Saw plenty of sidewalks right next to the street and don't remember hearing about pedestrians being run over by texting drivers etc. on their way to Brookside or Cherry Street. 

I think Tulsa (I live in Bixby so I can't really say "we".) should build the sidewalk. I hate to agree with Swake but buying a house directly on Riverside Drive was probably not good choice although if someone has been there 50 years their expectations were probably different when they bought a house.

[Red Arrow]

Perhaps when ee get water in the river it will be moved.

Ed W

It?  The river?  The house?  The road?  The sidewalk? Combination?

[LandArchPoke]

Former mayors Terry Young, Robert Lafortune, Susan Savage and Kathy Taylor have come out in support of the sidewalk.  It's insane to me that they have to take a stance on the desirability of a sidewalk, but I'm glad they did.

(Terry Young makes a weird comparison to the Maple Ridge opposition to the original planned route of the IDL which would have decimated huge swaths of several historic neighborhoods and turned Riverside Drive into an expressway.  But hey, he likes the sidewalk.)

Here's the link to the TW story:
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/local/four-former-mayors-support-riverside-drive-sidewalk/article_c4433b9c-49ae-598c-a4a5-15f3ac2c696c.html

Of course, there should be a sidewalk along this section of Riverside Drive.  However, the Q&A section of the article mentions a different issue which hasn't attracted much notice: the street "improvements" will include 12' wide inner lanes and 14' wide outer lanes along this section of Riverside Dr. (along with straightening the curve that currently exists near the Pedestrian Bridge).  So, Riverside Drive will be designed for Interstate highway speeds, though the posted speed will be 35.  Guess which factor influences speed more?  Unfortunately, it's lane width.  That's something the Maple Ridge neighbors should be concerned about.

I found what Terry Young said very strange as well. If Maple Ridge hadn't fought the Riverside Expressway we wouldn't even be able to build the Gathering Place as there would be a freeway on that site.

Strangely the Mayor is actually making a very valid point about safety along this stretch of Riverside (even-though he's not meaning to). What is being lost in this debate is how we are designing streets period in this city. 14 foot lanes are the same width as the Broken Arrow Expressway and 169, and we expect people will drive 35 MPH just because there are flashing lights saying Pedestrians are present? That's a joke.

We are wasting a huge amount of money, when we could improve Riverside Drive but lane widths should be 11 feet MAXIMUM. In fact, 10 foot lanes are more than acceptable for streets with speed limits of 35 MPH or under.

If we are in fact generally concerned about pedestrian safety, then we need to redesign the planned improvements to encourage lower speeds and talk about what kind of barriers we could install with that cost savings of a smaller street. What would stop someone from say leaving Riverside Drive and barreling through people along the trail on the west side of the street? That's just as much of a possibility as someone doing it on the proposed sidewalk, especially if we go through with constructing a street designed for people to drive 60+ MPH.

[Conan71]

Drive any stretch of main arterials in Tulsa and most have sidewalks either right up against the curb or no more than a two or three foot grass buffer zone.   Even current construction like the recently completed stretch of Yale from 21st to 31st has sidewalks up to the curb and the posted speed limit is 40.  The safety angle is a complete fabrication.

[LandArchPoke]

Drive any stretch of main arterials in Tulsa and most have sidewalks either right up against the curb or no more than a two or three foot grass buffer zone.   Even current construction like the recently completed stretch of Yale from 21st to 31st has sidewalks up to the curb and the posted speed limit is 40.  The safety angle is a complete fabrication.

I don't disagree that it's a complete fabrication.

My point is we don't actually care about pedestrian safety, if we did we wouldn't be building 14 foot lanes on city streets. There's a reason why no one walks in this town, because the vast majority of the sidewalks even in our "Complete Streets" feel dangerous and are not properly designed. How many people do you think will actually walk along that stretch of Yale between 21st and 31st?

We are failing at every standard for complete streets, it's a joke that anyone would actually think that just because we are building sidewalks in new street projects that we are actually doing any good.

Few easy ways to solve this entire drama:

1. Instate neighborhood parking permits, fine and tow people who park in the areas they shouldn't. Every major city does this. Give residents temporary parking passes for guests to put in their windshield.

2. Redesign Riverside Drive to have 10 foot lanes. This would add an extra 6 feet between pedestrians and cars (if you count just the extra room from the 2 northbound lanes). You could potentially add over 12 feet between the road and the sidewalk if you pushed the road as far west as proposed, and built the sidewalk as far east as proposed with 10 foot lanes. How much safer would that make the sidewalk? Yet no one has even mentioned this.

3. Use the money saved from narrower street widths to plant trees and install barriers to prevent any cars from leaving Riverside accidentally. This would actually create an enjoyable and pleasant walking experience for pedestrians.

The sidewalk proposed right now is a failure in regards to proper complete streets standards. While better than 99% of sidewalks in this city, why are we still settling for "OK"? Especially leading from Downtown to a $300 million public park?