Where exactly are they coming to along
That's not really a SPUI, though. It functions much like one, but it's not one. And of course that has the safety issues of left entrance/exit ramps, which I would imagine are more severe than any inconvenience bicyclists or pedestrians may encounter from a traditional SPUI.
How is it not a SPUI? It's a single point intersection typically found in urban areas. That said, the left exit/entrance issue is minor at best compared to the problems a diamond SPUI causes for anybody who isn't driving. Being a merely privileged group that has no intrinsic right to operate in the first place, motorists are the last people we should be worried about inconveniencing compared the nonmotorized modes that do have a right to be there.
Sure, let's put traffic merging into the freeway into the left lane of a 70-mph freeway and expect it to not cause any safety issues. Safety trumps convenience, no matter which mode you're using. If you can find a study showing a SPUI is more dangerous to a pedestrian than a left entrance is to a motorist, I'll gladly concede the point.
It's 65 through there, and left exits are frequent in Tulsa (and not uncommon in most cities). At least in the existing configurations in Tulsa, it's not a problem to get in or out on the infield SPUIs. That said, the speed limit could be reduced or the left lane and right lane turned into a weave lane with zero impedance and an increase in safety. 244 on the eastside is is quite overbuilt.
An outfield SPUI increases the pedestrian conflict point count from 1 to 4. The increased intersection length is automatically problematic for bicycles without timing the yellow light for how long it takes to cross the intersection at 15-25 km/h.
But since when have pedestrian facility advocates ever had to prove that improving ped access actually makes sense?
Why is it always an uphill battle to get basic infrastructure but luxury options are awarded accommodation, even when superfluous and expensive like the Mustang extension of the Bailey Turnpike? Just like with the motorist infrastructure, there's a network effect and induced demand. If you build it, they will come.
? to come WHERE
? The fence on the right, or the lovely evergreens on the left? https://email@example.com,-97.3709351,3a,75y,180.37h,81.82t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sS_QY4giwDB5vJhMCQ8Apnw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Seriously, we're talking about a stretch of road where one half is owned by the federal government and designed with the express purpose of keeping people OUT
. A lot of the land in this area is also owned by the federal government, specifically to keep development away from the base. This is not an effective place for pedestrian improvements because pedestrians are not supposed to be in the area in the first place!
Mustang is on the other side of the metro—please research the area in question to make sure your opinions on the subject are valid!
With the exception of corridors dedicated to moving a specific mode a long distance quickly with minimal conflict (cycleways, freeways), if there's a reason to drive there, there's going to be a reason to walk or bike there, and the reason's going to be identical.