(PROJECT) A Gathering Place For Tulsa

[PonderInc]

LandArchPoke is absolutely right about the lane width, and I'm amazed that nobody's talking about it.  As a friend of mine said yesterday: "If the mayor is so worried about people driving so fast that you can't walk on the sidewalk, why don't they FIX THE DESIGN OF THE STREET?" 

14' wide lanes are insane.  Drivers respond instinctively to lane width. A big, straight, wide road with no pedestrian activity tells your brain "this is an interstate highway" and your foot and the gas pedal respond accordingly. 

The neighbors should be up in arms about the proposed "highway modifications" for Riverside Drive.  14'-wide lanes will increase driver speed, which will increase the chances of being rear-ended or T-boned when entering/exiting neighborhood streets.  14'-wide lanes will also increase the severity of those accidents.

Totally agree with LandArchPoke that narrower lanes would not only slow drivers down, they would allow much better buffer zones between cars and pedestrians on the sidewalk.  They would also allow enough room for street trees to thrive and provide shade to the pedestrians on the sidewalk.

All of these things encourage walking AND safety.  Pleasant, attractive, wide sidewalks encourage a practical alternative to driving.  Narrow lanes lower vehicular speeds.  Larger buffer zones between sidewalks and streets add to pedestrian comfort; they also allow for healthy street trees, which not only subconsciously cause drivers to slow down, they make walking in Oklahoma summers bearable.

I hate that this is even a discussion. It's such a no-brainer.  And it's sad that Tulsa is so far behind the curve...and so timid and afraid of every good thing that comes our way. 

[rebound]

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?

Were you at the meeting last night?  those are basically, point for point, what others said.

And I agree.  After listening for two hours (and per my earlier posts on this subject, being ambivalent about the sidewalk in general) it is apparent that "the sidewalk" is a proxy fight for general pedestrian access and reduction of the car-centric mentality overall.  All the other issues are either minor and could be overcome, or the personal pity party of a few homeowners.  (while I don't discount their irritation the "I don't want anybody parking on my street" argument just doesn't weigh heavily in the decision.  Unless of course you are Dewey's friend...)

I'll give Dewey credit for at least mentioning an option (used in Portland when they visited) to reduce the four lanes to two with striping and use the added lanes for turning.  I doubt we'll see that, but at least he said it out loud.

I thin(k) there is a dive bar town hall next week on sidewalks.  I'm planning on attending.

[Conan71]

LandArchPoke is absolutely right about the lane width, and I'm amazed that nobody's talking about it.  As a friend of mine said yesterday: "If the mayor is so worried about people driving so fast that you can't walk on the sidewalk, why don't they FIX THE DESIGN OF THE STREET?" 

14' wide lanes are insane.  Drivers respond instinctively to lane width. A big, straight, wide road with no pedestrian activity tells your brain "this is an interstate highway" and your foot and the gas pedal respond accordingly. 

The neighbors should be up in arms about the proposed "highway modifications" for Riverside Drive.  14'-wide lanes will increase driver speed, which will increase the chances of being rear-ended or T-boned when entering/exiting neighborhood streets.  14'-wide lanes will also increase the severity of those accidents.

Totally agree with LandArchPoke that narrower lanes would not only slow drivers down, they would allow much better buffer zones between cars and pedestrians on the sidewalk.  They would also allow enough room for street trees to thrive and provide shade to the pedestrians on the sidewalk.

All of these things encourage walking AND safety.  Pleasant, attractive, wide sidewalks encourage a practical alternative to driving.  Narrow lanes lower vehicular speeds.  Larger buffer zones between sidewalks and streets add to pedestrian comfort; they also allow for healthy street trees, which not only subconsciously cause drivers to slow down, they make walking in Oklahoma summers bearable.

I hate that this is even a discussion. It's such a no-brainer.  And it's sad that Tulsa is so far behind the curve...and so timid and afraid of every good thing that comes our way. 

You did a great job on the news last night.  Very well-said and presented!

[LandArchPoke]

Were you at the meeting last night?  those are basically, point for point, what others said.

And I agree.  After listening for two hours (and per my earlier posts on this subject, being ambivalent about the sidewalk in general) it is apparent that "the sidewalk" is a proxy fight for general pedestrian access and reduction of the car-centric mentality overall.  All the other issues are either minor and could be overcome, or the personal pity party of a few homeowners.  (while I don't discount their irritation the "I don't want anybody parking on my street" argument just doesn't weigh heavily in the decision.  Unless of course you are Dewey's friend...)

I'll give Dewey credit for at least mentioning an option (used in Portland when they visited) to reduce the four lanes to two with striping and use the added lanes for turning.  I doubt we'll see that, but at least he said it out loud.

I thin(k) there is a dive bar town hall next week on sidewalks.  I'm planning on attending.

I wasn't at the meeting last night, unfortunately got caught at work. I'm planning on going to the dive bar town hall however.

I was basing that no one was really talking about it based off what's been published in the Tulsa World and the letter from Smart Growth Tulsa. I haven't seen anything said about lane widths and how we could improve pedestrian safety. It kind of seems like two kids fighting with one saying "I demand a sidewalk" and the other saying "Nah uh, I said no sidewalk". There doesn't seem to be much willingness from either side to sit down and figure out how to compromise and get this built to ensure safety and designed in a manner respectful to the neighborhood.

Here are two great articles, one about the safety issues of wider lanes and the other about road diets:

http://www.citylab.com/design/2014/10/why-12-foot-traffic-lanes-are-disastrous-for-safety-and-must-be-replaced-now/381117/

http://www.citylab.com/design/2014/09/so-what-exactly-is-a-road-diet/379975/

[davideinstein]

The Boston guy and marathon runner were the most important speakers at the meeting. If people who care about this city were paying attention they would build the sidewalk.

W either keep the millennials, or we lose them, you decide.

[patric]

14' wide lanes are insane.  Drivers respond instinctively to lane width. A big, straight, wide road with no pedestrian activity tells your brain "this is an interstate highway" and your foot and the gas pedal respond accordingly. 

The neighbors should be up in arms about the proposed "highway modifications" for Riverside Drive.  14'-wide lanes will increase driver speed, which will increase the chances of being rear-ended or T-boned when entering/exiting neighborhood streets.  14'-wide lanes will also increase the severity of those accidents.

I must admit those details got past me as well.  Maybe its the Riverside Expressway plan with lipstick?
Its agreed, though, wider lanes (and for that matter, bright continuous lighting) invite higher speeds.

...but with all the signals green, who wants to go back to the drawing board?   Im betting not the contractors.

[DTowner]

Lots of good points made to which I have nothing to add.  I do wonder, however, what those who are funding the $350 million park to which the discussed sidewalk will go have to say about the matter.  They would seem to have a pretty strong interest in the outcome of this debate.

[Bamboo World]

Pleasant, attractive, wide sidewalks encourage a practical alternative to driving.  Narrow lanes lower vehicular speeds.  Larger buffer zones between sidewalks and streets add to pedestrian comfort; they also allow for healthy street trees, which not only subconsciously cause drivers to slow down, they make walking in Oklahoma summers bearable.

So, I'm guessing that the video of Barbo [sic] Cox in high heels traipsing through mud and tree roots didn't convince you of the dangers of walking along Riverside???

http://youtu.be/5gzKqnRrIJw

[Conan71]

So, I'm guessing that the video of Barbo Cox in high heels traipsing through mud and tree roots didn't convince you of the dangers of walking along Riverside???

http://youtu.be/5gzKqnRrIJw

Okay, I could see where the sidewalk intersects with side streets that being an issue.  We still have the same design issue with miles of our sidewalks all over town along main arterials.  Just interesting the only place this presents a safety concern is where it backs up to about eight properties in Maple Ridge.

[Ben]

Okay, I could see where the sidewalk intersects with side streets that being an issue.  We still have the same design issue with miles of our sidewalks all over town along main arterials.  Just interesting the only place this presents a safety concern is where it backs up to about eight properties in Maple Ridge.

That seemed an odd argument to me also. Sidewalks intersect side streets...that is sort how it works. So what makes these particular side street intersections more dangerous then any other around the city?

Overall I am on the build the sidewalk side. I agree with those above who said the bigger issue is the design of the street. I was not at the meeting, but from that article's I read it sounded like the mayor said that we should wait and see how fast people drive on Riverside. That seems really backwards to me. Why not decide how fast you want people to drive then build the road appropriately?

[Conan71]

That seemed an odd argument to me also. Sidewalks intersect side streets...that is sort how it works. So what makes these particular side street intersections more dangerous then any other around the city?

Overall I am on the build the sidewalk side. I agree with those above who said the bigger issue is the design of the street. I was not at the meeting, but from that article's I read it sounded like the mayor said that we should wait and see how fast people drive on Riverside. That seems really backwards to me. Why not decide how fast you want people to drive then build the road appropriately?

Yeah, how about let's not design the damn road to interstate spec, and let's patrol the speeds. 

It truly amazes me Tulsa has made it as far as it has in +/-120 years with the thought process of our local government.  Their stupidity is enough to make you want to climb a clock tower with an AK. 

[sgrizzle]

Lots of good points made to which I have nothing to add.  I do wonder, however, what those who are funding the $350 million park to which the discussed sidewalk will go have to say about the matter.  They would seem to have a pretty strong interest in the outcome of this debate.

If you did a Venn diagram of Maple Ridge Homeowners and people connected to park donors, there is an overlap. (Not Kaiser, he lives like 3 miles from the park, but other donor entities.)

[carltonplace]

This part is insane. It proves that this has nothing to do with pedestrian safety since the mayor's alternate plan puts pedestrians right into the middle of the street.

The sidewalk was initially planned to start at 21st and Boulder's Veteran's Park and connect to Gathering Place. Pedestrians will have to use a crosswalk to detour to the west side of Riverside Drive then cross back over into the park at a land bridge.

[guido911]

I drove by there today. Hard to envision how a sidewalk would look there. I am also not sure I want any more stops/slow downs on Riverside.

[heironymouspasparagus]

I drove by there today. Hard to envision how a sidewalk would look there. I am also not sure I want any more stops/slow downs on Riverside.

Riverside used to be the best road in town - it was its own tourist attraction!  It has nearly been ruined.  Certainly badly compromised.