Here's another radical thought: Protected bike lanes on every main road

[cannon_fodder]

Sorry for the language, but too on point to ignore...





If you haven't spent hours here:

www.theoatmeal.com

You should,

[Hoss]

Sorry for the language, but too on point to ignore...





If you haven't spent hours here:

www.theoatmeal.com

You should,

That might be the funniest thing I've seen all year!

[Townsend]

Sorry for the language, but too on point to ignore...

If you haven't spent hours here:[/url]

www.theoatmeal.com

You should,

Attempting to memorize

[PonderInc]

The funny thing about Tulsa is that our "radical thoughts" are actually completely mundane, ordinary thoughts that have already been implemented in cities around the country and throughout the world.  I guess we're just slow.

For those of you concerned about snow, well, bike lanes work in Chicago, Minneapolis, Milwaukee, NYC, Boston... Gosh, you're right.  There's NO WAY Tulsa could handle that! 

Just like we have street sweepers and snowplows for sidewalks downtown, other cities have street sweepers and snowplows that run down the bike lanes every now and then.  If it's not a protected bike lane (with a physical barrier between the cycle lane and the cars) a simple street sweeper does the trick.

Related to the finances.  Yes, protected bike lanes cost money, but not compared to a simple rehab of any city street.  Instead of millions, it's more like $30k per mile for the flex posts on both sides of the road (used instead of curbs to remind drivers where they belong), and if you factor in the milling and re-striping the entire road, protected bike lanes run about $120 k / mile.  If you add the bike lane at the same time you're rehabbing the streets, the cost is nominal.  Compare that to any road rehab or expansion project on the Improve Our Tulsa website. How much did they say it would cost to widen a couple miles of Mingo for cars?  $40 million? More? 

Yeah, we can't afford bike lanes.

Another fun fact: drivers only pay for about half of the cost to build and maintain roads (gas taxes, vehicle taxes, etc). This means that to fully pay for the roads for cars, we need 54% of road users to be cyclists...people who could pay for the roads without destroying them.  Essentially, for every driver, you need another non-driver to subsidize the cost of the streets. 

In Tulsa, where our streets are maintained and widened using sales taxes, I am quite certain that I have more than paid my share for that little sliver of asphalt that I need... which would last 20 times longer if people didn't crush it with SUVs every day.

Blah, blah, blah.  This is one of those threads where nobody's going to listen to the arguments of the other side.  We've all heard them before.

But just remember that Tulsa is falling behind every day.  Quality of life matters.  Just sayin'.

Here are a few photos, so cyclists can dream of other places to live...

[erfalf]

This picture just makes me think how nice it would be to walk the streets without the sun beating down on me because there are no trees. And to boot in this picture they not only have sidewalk trees, but trees in the middle of the street creating an entire shade canopy. How nice would that be?

[rebound]

I was just in DC for Spring Break with the family, and we stayed about three miles from the Capitol and all the museums and monuments.   We stayed in a VRBO listing that was in a really neat row-house neighborhood, and there were bike rental stations and bike lanes all the way to the Capital area.  Everyday we saw people renting those bikes and using them for the commute back and forth, and larger numbers riding their own bikes on the bike lanes.   We used the bike rental stations on two separate days, and with bike lanes on the vast majority of streets and the stations being fairly convenient (and with a nice iPhone app that tells you where they are, how many bikes are available, etc...) it was a great experience.  A lot better than using Uber, which we did some also.   I will say though, that it was during that week that I finally understood and appreciated the how much easier it is with dedicated bike lanes.  I personally bike a lot, and so am fairly comfortable on the same road with cars.  But the wife and kids are not.  On streets with dedicated lanes, it was great.  On the two or three times we had to ride on streets without dedicated lanes it was a much more stressful environment.   To me there is no argument, if we had dedicated lanes we would see a significant up-tick in bike usage by the general populace.  It's just a lot less stressful, and so more people would do it.

[cannon_fodder]

Minneapolis is a fine example. Bike lanes. Rail service. Express buses on the highways (the stop is ON the highway, you walk down stairs from the street overpasses and the bus pulls into a protected shoulder).

Bike lanes:


Look at these greedy cyclists. All using public infrastructure like they own it! That little girl pays NO taxes!


Stupid commuters, not clogging streets and parking lots.


Bike lanes to the inside of cars can be safer, but have to be adjusted at intersections well before the intersection!





and compared to some places in Europe, Minneapolis is well behind the times.

[PonderInc]

If you're building something you want people to use, it needs to offer comfort and a sense of security. Thus, protected bike lanes and tree lined streets matter if you want people to do anything but drive. (Urban design matters, too, but that's another topic...)

Here's a great quote from Jeff Speck, author of "Walkable Cities"

"...the automobile that was once an instrument of freedom has become a gas-belching, time-wasting and life-threatening prosthetic device that...most Americans, in fact, need, just to live."

This is true only because, for years, we've been building cities and  streets for cars instead of people. But just because we've been wrong for years doesn't mean we can't change course.

[Townsend]

I'm all about this but I'd fear the trump supporting redneck in the old white ford pickup with the baseball bat who blames bike riders for his inability to get somewhere faster.

[Conan71]

I'm all about this but I'd fear the trump supporting redneck in the old white ford pickup with the baseball bat who blames bike riders for his inability to get somewhere faster.

You just described several hill-jacks who live in the area NW of Sand Springs.  A couple of years ago, they were throwing tacks in the road on Wednesday night when the big social ride is that goes out by Pogue Airport.  One of my friends got knocked over by a redneck in a white Ford a couple of years ago.  Knowing him though, it's entirely possible he may have worked especially hard to piss off the driver. 

MC and I have since quit doing that ride, it's just a matter of time before someone gets killed up there and no one saw anything.

[davideinstein]

PonderInc - Spot on.

[Red Arrow]

I'm all about this but I'd fear the trump supporting redneck in the old white ford pickup with the baseball bat who blames bike riders for his inability to get somewhere faster.

Some of them have money.  It might be a new Ford pickup.

[PonderInc]

If you want to experience a protected bike lane, go check out 11th street between Delaware and Peoria.  This is part of the TyPros Street Cred event, and they have created a demo project using construction cones to block off the outer lanes. It will be in place until late Saturday (4/30), I think.  It's amazing to get to bike on an arterial street and not feel your life is in danger.  I found myself noticing buildings I'd never seen before... because I was on a bike I was going slowly, and it was safe enough to look around.

The last time I tried to bike a few blocks on 11th, I was terrified.  Cars whipped past me going at least 45, and they didn't give me any room.  Today, the entire length of the route felt great...except by QT, where cars were flying in and out and had crushed all the cones.  (This is the only area where cones had been completely flattened.)  Good thing QT is by the hospital...

[erfalf]

QUESTION:

Are bike lanes really necessary on smaller capacity streets. I ask because the traffic on these streets is often so low that I see cyclists mixing in with auto traffic and it doesn't seem to cause a problem. The street below isn't a main street but it is a neighborhood street that is used quit a bit that would seem logical for bike users as it heads directly to the center of the city. Would a protected lane be necessary. Or on the street below that. It looks the same, however this street connects eventually to the east side of town and it also goes by two schools (the high school and a middle school). The traffic speed is dramatically higher. Riding a bike on this street would not be something I would care to do that often. What do the road diet guides suggest for these types of streets?

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Bartlesville,+OK/@36.7436439,-95.9790267,3a,75y,19.95h,92.22t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sUOXT2gL6q5KQ_CFQLe4BNQ!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo2.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DUOXT2gL6q5KQ_CFQLe4BNQ%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dsearch.TACTILE.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D392%26h%3D106%26yaw%3D191.10358%26pitch%3D0!7i13312!8i6656!4m2!3m1!1s0x87b7124f36c7bdf1:0xdef002e0d528a136!6m1!1e1

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Bartlesville,+OK/@36.7390697,-95.9751383,3a,75y,4.98h,90.35t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1scFHH6TYBNWGDsHwBs2UgYw!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo1.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DcFHH6TYBNWGDsHwBs2UgYw%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dsearch.TACTILE.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D392%26h%3D106%26yaw%3D355.9743%26pitch%3D0!7i13312!8i6656!4m2!3m1!1s0x87b7124f36c7bdf1:0xdef002e0d528a136!6m1!1e1

[PonderInc]

Here's the question: what type of infrastructure would allow you to feel safe cycling with your 8-year-old?  

Your examples look like perfect places for bike lanes because they connect neighborhoods, schools and downtown.

If traffic is moving fairly slowly (like 25 MPH), a painted bike lane might be all it takes to make cyclists feel safe (you can always paint an extra "buffer" line to give some extra elbow room between bikes and cars).

If cars are moving faster than that, cyclists would appreciate a "buffered" or "protected" bike lane (aka "cycle track").  The cheapest way to do this is with the flexible posts that create a visual, vertical separation in addition to the painted stripes.  Of course, a distracted driver could still plow through it, but it would decrease the chances of that.  Also, a series of "wheel stops" (like what you see in parking lots where they want to limit how far a car can pull forward in a parking space) is anther fairly affordable way to create physical separation between bikes and cars.

Either way, a "road diet" could be achieved by narrowing the auto lanes to no more than 11' b/c people instinctively slow down on narrower lanes.  Also, filling in with street trees between the sidewalk and the street is important.  Looks like there are lots of street trees, but also lots of places where they are missing.  Be sure to plant species that will grow large enough to create a "canopy" over the street.  This helps define the street, provides shade to everyone, and creates a sense of enclosure that will slow drivers. (People drive faster when they perceive a wide open horizon...this says "highway" to drivers).

For specifics, check out the NACTO guide.  http://nacto.org/publication/urban-bikeway-design-guide/

For many years, cities have been referring to the AASHTO "Green Book" for design guidelines.  This is sad because city streets are not the same as highways.    NACTO takes a different approach, understanding that urban streets and highways are two different things.  Make sure Bartlesville is using NACTO, not AASHTO guidelines for designing city streets for people.